Sea turtle bycatch mitigation techniques: J dehooker demonstration
Author: svanouse
Improving Vessel Transparency to Combat IUU Fishing
A recent initiative of the European Union is raising the bar for increased transparency in global fisheries and strengthening the fight against illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing activities.
The European Commission recently launched a new website on EU Fishing Authorizations. In addition to important details like vessel name, IMO number, and fishing type, users can search for data on fishing authorizations that have been granted during the last 10 years — for EU vessels fishing outside EU waters and for non-EU vessels fishing in EU waters.
Flag States and Fishing Vessel Oversight
There is no more fundamental tenet of international fisheries governance than a flag state’s responsibility for its vessels when they are operating on the high seas or in another nation’s waters.
When a vessel is registered or licensed in a country, that nation becomes its “flag state”; the vessel is now under the jurisdiction of that state and must comply with its rules and regulations. A flag state must have control over its vessels and ensure fishing activities are lawful. And fisheries management rules — whether set by the flag state, a regional fisheries management organization (RFMO), or a coastal state — must be enforced by the flag state for its vessels, regardless of where a violation occurs.
Flag state control is carried out in several ways: issuing a fishing license to vessels; creating a national list of authorized vessels; and adopting regulations to govern them. These mechanisms are established by the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA) and Law of the Sea Convention, and they set the standard for how flag states must operate if they are to allow their vessels to fish outside of national waters — helping to ensure vessel activities are lawful and well-regulated across the globe.
Lack of Transparency Makes Room for IUU Fishing
Given today’s expectations regarding openness and transparency, it may seem that public availability of vessel data and fisheries agreement information — like what the new EU website offers — would be commonplace. You may be surprised to learn that the public or interested stakeholders, even including RFMOs, cannot always access up-to-date information regarding where vessels are authorized to fish, what rules govern those authorizations, and for how long these authorizations last.
Coastal states grant access to foreign-flagged vessels to fish in their waters through bilateral access or chartering agreements, for example. But there is often little clarity regarding what vessels are licensed or granted the ability to operate in such coastal states’ waters and under what rules.
Confidentiality concerns and a lack of legislative rules or infrastructure have perpetuated this lack of transparency. Not all flag states make their records of authorized vessels public, nor do they reveal important details of the fishing authorizations and agreements under which vessels operate. Similarly, not all coastal states make public their records of vessels to which they have granted fishing access.
Transparency in vessel data at the RFMO level is lacking, too. RFMO authorized vessel lists, for example, are typically mere recitations of what flag state RFMO members provide for their vessels, with little or no verification. These lists also fail to disclose whether a vessel is additionally authorized to operate in the waters of a coastal state RFMO member. And the lists can even include vessels with lapsed fishing authorizations since there is no mechanism to delist such vessels.
It’s true that tools like Global Fishing Watch are now providing public information of vessel tracks on a fishing trip — revealing what waters the vessel moved through and where fishing and transshipment activity likely took place. But without public, verified data on where the vessel is legally authorized to fish in the first place, such data has limited applications for the fight against IUU fishing activity.
Follow the Transparency Lead
ISSF applauds initiatives like the new EU website because it is a resource that can help in the collective fight against IUU fishing activities. Tools like the EU site help close the information gap for a major fishing fleet — publishing where those many vessels are authorized to fish across the world’s fisheries. We urge RFMOs and flag and coastal states to follow the EU’s lead by creating similar public databases for the benefit of all fisheries stakeholders.
We invite you to learn more about RFMO authorized vessel lists by reviewing the ISSF technical report Tuna RFMO Authorised Vessel Lists: A Comparative Analysis to Identify Best Practices, which includes recommendations for flag and coastal states on the important matters reviewed above.
ISSF Updates “Snapshot of the Large-Scale Tropical Tuna Purse Seine Fishing Fleets”
The International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF) has updated its Snapshot of Large-Scale Tuna Purse Seine Fishing Fleets report for June 2023. The report shows that approximately 652 vessels defined as large-scale purse-seine (LSPS) vessels are fishing for tropical tuna species, up 2% from last year, with a combined fishing capacity of over 841,000 m3 (cubic meters), a 1% increase from last year.
Purse seine fishing vessels catch about 66% of the 5.1 million tonnes of tunas caught annually worldwide. ISSF analyzes and aggregates information from the five tuna regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) and other sources to create this annual report, which focuses on large-scale purse seiners (LSPS) that target tropical tuna species: skipjack, yellowfin, and bigeye.
Report Key Findings
The number of LSPS vessels — defined as having 335 m3 fish hold volume or greater — targeting tropical tuna fluctuates from year to year due to several factors, such as some vessels that are no longer active due to being sunk or scrapped or new vessels being constructed. In addition, the report aims to estimate active capacity, omitting vessels that were not listed on the RFMO Vessel Records when the “snapshot” was taken.
This year’s report shows that 10 LSPS vessels built after 2012, five of which were built in 2022, were added to the tropical tuna RFMO authorized vessel lists since July 2022. Ten other large-scale purse seiners were constructed prior to 2012 and not listed in the RFMO records in 2022. These changes are likely attributed to the vessels being inactive for some time while ownership changed, RFMO authorization was renewed, or repairs were made. Other changes, like vessel flag changes, can have an impact on whether the vessels continue to meet the “targeting topical tuna” (rather than other species like bluefin) criteria followed by the ISSF report authors, Ana Justel and Dr. Lorena Recio.
These additional vessels did not significantly increase LSPS capacity, however, which grew from 834,000 m3 in 2022 to 841,000 m3 in 2023. Importantly, the majority of LSPS vessels (492) are registered on the ISSF ProActive Vessel Register (PVR), and PVR-registered LSPS vessels represent 75% in number and 82% in fish hold volume (FHV), a measure of vessel capacity, of the global LSPS fleet. The PVR, which is independently audited, is one of four ISSF public vessel lists that foster transparency in tuna fisheries. Fishing vessels can be registered on the PVR to show how they are following best practices that support sustainable tuna fisheries.
The “snapshot” report summarizes all changes that have taken place annually since 2014 and shares additional findings and observations, including:
- The total number of all purse-seine vessels worldwide increased from 1,808 in 2022’s report to 1,837 today.
- About 14% of large-scale vessels are authorized to fish in more than one tuna RFMO, which should be considered in efforts to manage fishing capacity at a global level.
- Among the tuna RFMOs, the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) still has the highest number of LSPS registrations (326).
Report Recommendations
Having an accurate estimate of active vessels is critical for managing tuna fishing capacity regionally as well as globally. The figures shared in the ISSF report may underestimate the total fleet, because many small-scale purse seiners or purse seiners operating in only one exclusive economic zone (EEZ) are not required to be listed on RFMOs’ records of authorized fishing vessels. The report recommends that RFMOs consider extending their authorized vessel records to include information about the RFMO area in which each individual vessel is active each year — a best practice that better facilitates the monitoring of active fishing capacity by region.
A comparison with last year’s LSPS fleet estimates shows that there were again numerous changes in RFMO authorized vessel records. Several vessels that appeared on the records in 2022 can no longer be found. Other vessels that were not on the records are now listed, and some vessels are now considered to target tropical tuna.
The quality of data in RFMO records has improved in recent years, but substantial gaps remain. “We recommend that RFMO members exercise greater quality control of the data they submit to the [tuna] RFMOs for the vessel records and that [tuna} RFMOs adopt vessel registry requirements that include quality control mechanisms,” states the report.
View the updated report here. View a related infographic here.
Better Designed, Better Managed FADs
Though fishing with fish aggregating devices (FADs, or more generally, floating objects) has been in practice for hundreds of years, the number of FADs being used by tuna purse seine vessels has increased steadily in the last two decades. In 2021, the last year for which we have complete data, FAD sets accounted for 37% of the more than 4.5 million tonnes of tropical tunas (bigeye, skipjack and yellowfin tuna) caught globally. For skipjack tuna, FAD sets accounted for 47% of the 2.7 million tonnes caught. Clearly, fishing on FADs is a crucial means of providing an important food source for the world.
Indeed, fishing on FADs is efficient and widely used. But the use of FADs also comes with downsides that are of concern and must be addressed. Here I share some of the work that we at ISSF have been doing together with our research, NGO, and industry partners to ensure that these fisheries are sustainable for the long term.
FADs and Bycatch
One of the main concerns about FADs has long been that sets on floating objects have higher rates of bycatch of non-tuna species than sets on free-swimming schools. Many claims related to this have been campaigns that are not rooted in science. One of our earliest areas of work on FADs, therefore, was analyzing independent observer data to accurately document bycatch in purse seine fisheries. It turned out that bycatch rates on FAD sets (2.24%) are indeed higher than in free school sets (0.43%), but much of it is of species that are utilized such as mahi-mahi and the minor tuna species. Also, this rate is small compared to the bycatch of other tuna fishing gears, such as longlines and gillnets.
What really matters in addressing the bycatch in FAD fisheries is not so much identifying a particular number, but rather identifying and addressing those bycaught species that are of conservation concern. For example, because of their low reproductive rates and other life history characteristics, silky sharks — which are often caught in FAD sets (they are caught on free school sets, too, but less often) — are a vulnerable species.
We have therefore identified ways in which silky shark bycatch can be mitigated, and many fleets have adopted these practices voluntarily. Fishers can take steps before and after the tuna catch to reduce unintentional catches of silky sharks by up to 62%. Specific shark bycatch-mitigation techniques are outlined in ISSF scientific reports and skippers guidebooks. In addition, regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) in the Pacific and Indian Oceans have adopted best practice guidelines for reducing bycatch of, as well as the safe release of, sharks and rays.
Of similar concern is the entanglement of silky sharks and other wildlife like sea turtles in netting used as hanging structures in traditional FADs — a phenomenon known as “ghost fishing,” first identified by ISSF-supported marine scientists in 2013. To avoid shark, turtle, or other animal entanglement in netting from FADs, fishers should use only non-entangling FAD designs. The ISSF Non-Entangling & Biodegradable FADs Guide illustrates how to build FADs without netting.
Thanks in part to ISSF advocacy efforts and those of partner organizations, tuna RFMOs now require FADs to be either completely non-entangling or of low risk of entanglement. This issue was identified and addressed in the span of three to six years, an encouraging sign of progress and political will.
FADs and Juvenile Tunas
A large proportion of the yellowfin and bigeye tuna caught on FADs is immature. Many people assume catching immature fish or “juveniles” results in overfishing, but this is not necessarily the case. A fish stock can be overfished by catching too many juveniles, by catching too many adults, or by catching too many of both. In terms of overfishing, what matters is how fishing affects the reproductive potential of the stock. Catching adults affects today’s reproductive potential, while catching juveniles affects it sometime into the future.
A different impact from catching juvenile yellowfin and bigeye tunas is that the maximum catches that can be sustained — the so-called Maximum Sustainable Yield, or MSY — is lower than if fishing is selectively shifted towards larger individuals. This is not a biological impact in the sense of overfishing. It is an issue for fishery managers to address in terms of allocation between fishing gears — for example, purse seine versus longline. RFMOs must define management objectives and adopt harvest strategies that will achieve those objectives.
FADs and Habitat Impacts
Many of the FADs that are deployed each year are lost or abandoned and some end up in vulnerable habitats such as coral reefs. In addition, when FADs are made with plastic materials such as old netting, these losses add to marine debris as FAD decay. One study reports that in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, the world’s largest tuna fishing grounds, more than 90% of FADs are never retrieved after deployment.
ISSF scientists have conducted at-sea research, as well as consultations with fishers through workshops, to identify ways in which these impacts can be mitigated. A major part of this work is focused on how to transition to FADs made mostly or completely of biodegradable materials. Biodegradable FAD trials are being conducted in all oceans. And, with the newest innovation of the jelly-FAD — comprised of materials that provide the structure a density like seawater, allowing for a neutral drift in the water column like a jellyfish — we are confident that a viable FAD that is fully biodegradable (except for the buoy and flotation) will be identified soon.
Another aspect of mitigating these impacts is preventing the loss or abandonment of FADs and incentivizing their recovery. While some RFMOs are encouraging or adopting FAD recovery targets, these targets are likely insufficient. One of the problems is that there are no clear rules of FAD ownership and responsibilities, with weak controls regarding accountability. As a result, FADs deployed by a given vessel may be appropriated by other vessels that encounter them. RFMOs must address this issue by adopting clear rules of ownership and responsibilities. Limiting the number of FADs in each ocean region is complementary tool for RFMOs in this effort. ISSF recently convened an experts’ workshop to consider how different principles of economic theory could be used to make FAD limits more effective. We published a report that lists recommendations on actions that can be taken to incentivize fewer FAD deployments and higher rates of FAD recovery.
FAD Management and Compliance
ISSF has identified six elements that are of utmost importance for FAD management:
- Comply with flag state and RFMO reporting requirements by set type
- Voluntarily report additional FAD buoy data for use by RFMO science bodies
- Support science-based FAD limits
- Use non-entangling FADs to reduce ghost fishing
- Mitigate other environmental impacts due to FAD loss, including using biodegradable FADs and FAD recovery policies
- Implement further mitigation efforts for silky sharks
ISSF also adopted a conservation measure on FAD management, ISSF Conservation Measure 3.7 Transactions with Vessels or Companies with Vessel-Based FAD Management Policies for ISSF participating companies. The measure requires seafood companies to conduct transactions only with those purse seine vessels whose owners develop and make public FAD management policies that explain how their vessels are addressing the six elements above. The aim is that this increased transparency into vessel practices will spur RFMOs to continue improving FAD management.
There Are Benefits, Too
As mentioned at the opening of this article, the use of FADs is responsible for an important portion of the world’s tuna catch. Without FADs, the level of tuna catch would be significantly reduced, even for those species like skipjack tuna, the stocks of which are at healthy levels of abundance worldwide. Global food security would surely suffer as a result.
And a wholesale shift to an alternative, FAD-free method — which would be necessary to meet global demand for a protein-rich food source like tuna — is not without concern. Because no fishing method is without environmental impact, a decrease in fishing on FADs and the corresponding increase in fishing via other methods would only serve to increase the impact of the non-FAD method. For example, as FAD fishing effort shifts to free school sets, pressure on adult stocks of yellowfin tuna increases — a problem for a species that is currently overfished or close to being overfished in some oceans.
Finally, FADs also present a unique opportunity to improve our understanding of the pelagic ecosystem. All FADs are equipped with GPS tracking systems. Many FADs have sophisticated echosounders that measure the biomass of tunas aggregated underneath. As this information is increasingly made available voluntarily by many fleets to marine scientists, we are learning more about tuna behavior and improving tuna stock assessments. For example, the ISSF conservation measure on FAD management includes reporting FAD data for use by RFMO science bodies. It is important that these data contributions to RFMOs become the norm to make such analyses routine.
More Work Remains
RFMOs have made progress on FAD management over the last 10+ years. Twelve years ago, for example, the only controls in place were time/area prohibitions on FAD use in some oceans. Today, all RFMOs have some management system in place for tropical tuna fisheries that includes several essential elements of FAD management like data reporting on FAD fishing and activities; seasonal closures; active FAD limits; 100% observer coverage; and the safe release of sharks and rays. And as discussed, the way RFMOs worked to adopt non-entangling FAD requirements in response to “ghost fishing” reveals that fisheries managers can be moved when research findings and political will converge.
We look forward to RFMOs persisting in this vein: they must progress FAD management measures while also ensuring that current FAD requirements are being followed. All RFMOs have a compliance process, and this process must address FAD management requirements.
We still have work to do toward improving the use of FADs while ensuring that there are plenty of fish in the sea. But we’ve made substantial progress to date. ISSF and likeminded organizations will continue to work toward achievable, science-based solutions for reducing the impact of FAD fishing on global tuna fisheries and the broader marine ecosystem.
Is Catching Immature Fish Truly Unsustainable?
There is a widespread perception that catching immature, smaller fish is a very bad thing. Several consumer and retailer guides assign a negative score to those fisheries that catch a non-trivial amount of these fish — five percent, for example. The expectation that protecting immature fish will automatically result in increased sustainability is well entrenched in fisheries science and management as well. But this perception may not always be well founded.
Protecting immature fish is one of the many tools available in fisheries management. Like closed areas, fishing effort limits, and TACs (total allowable catch), size limits are one of many tools in the fishery management toolbox. The concept is anthropocentrically appealing — “do not eat ‘baby’ fish” — and very easy to communicate. Let every fish spawn at least once, the thinking goes, and the population’s continuity will be guaranteed forever, no matter what.
But in fisheries management, like so many things in life, there is not one silver-bullet solution to all issues.
Stock Assessment Is a Factor
We agree that, under some circumstances, protecting immature fish can make a lot of sense as a primary management tool.
For example, if all we knew about the biology of a species was the age (size) at maturity, then letting the fish reproduce before becoming available to the fishery would guard against all the other things we didn’t know. But this is not the case for fish stocks that are regularly assessed and managed. We know a lot more about them, not only in terms of biological characteristics, but also whether the overall rate of exploitation is too high.
The fact is that a fish stock can become overfished by taking too many immature fish, by taking too many adults, or by taking too many of both. To put it another way, it is bad to catch too many of tomorrow’s spawners, but it is also bad to take too many of today’s spawners.
In addition, bigger, older fish usually produce much more offspring than first-time spawners. A big cod, for example, of 1 m in length produces about 80 times more eggs than a 35 cm female – although both are considered mature — just because of the much bigger body and thus bigger gonads.
Selective Fishing and the Impact on Stock Health
The same goes for tunas. There is also evidence that the survival rate of eggs spawned from older fish is higher than that from younger ones: Fish might learn how to optimize the chances of their offspring. This would increase the contribution of big fish to the overall number of recruits even more.
A good fishery management has to ensure the catch of the stock by allowing enough recruits to enter the spawning component of the population, including by ensuring that enough big spawners escape. The stock assessment models take into account all of the catches — immature and adult fish — and are used to define how much is enough. If the abundance of spawners is at a level that can produce Maximum Sustainable Yield, then the stock will safely avoid reaching a level that could endanger its continuity. In other words, it might be totally all right to “eat babies” if at the same time we can ensure a few big fish survive.
Importantly, targeting only the biggest fish can also have adverse effects on the stock. Such selective fishing favors smaller, earlier maturing fish within a population. After a number of generations, this can lead to a younger age at first maturity, as demonstrated e.g. in Barents Sea cod. The concept is known as “fisheries induced evolution” (Law & Grey 1989, Diekmann & Heino 2007, Jørgensen et al 2007).
Because the number of spawners can remain constant while their contribution of recruits is reduced, earlier maturation masks the effect of overfishing on those stocks. At the same time, earlier maturation makes the stocks more vulnerable to environmental fluctuations because there is no buffer of experienced, highly productive females. This effect might not be reversible in the short term, even if the fishing pressure is reduced.
Different Types of Overfishing
We would also like to explore another issue of concern to fisheries management that is often confused with that of immature fish — specifically, the catch of individuals of a species when they are very small compared to the sizes that they could attain.
For every fish population, there is a particular size where the difference between growth in biomass and losses from natural predation reaches a maximum point. Theoretically, the highest yields would occur when all the fish are caught at this optimum size. If they are caught when they are smaller, yields will be sub-optimal — this is known in fisheries science as growth overfishing.
Unfortunately, the terms “growth overfishing” and “abundance overfishing” share one big word in common — overfishing — which may be one of the causes of confusion. But they are not the same thing. Growth overfishing does not automatically result in overfishing of the stock’s spawning biomass; it relates more to economics and allocation than it does to biological sustainability.
Growth overfishing occurs with many yellowfin and bigeye tuna fisheries, especially with purse seining on floating objects and in pole-and-line fisheries. Reducing the catches of small yellowfin and bigeye in these fisheries, while increasing the catches in other fisheries that are more selective towards larger individuals (e.g. longlining), would result in higher long-term potential yields. When discussing this as part of a management strategy, it would be much more appropriate to use a term such as “undesirably small” tunas instead of “immature” or “juvenile” tunas so as to not confuse the two issues.
In short, for managed stocks, it is not very useful to focus on avoiding the catch of immature individuals as the only thing that matters. It is much more useful to clearly articulate management objectives, including allocation between fisheries; to define limit and target reference points; and to use robust harvest control rules to drive sustainability.
Dr. Christopher Zimmermann is Director of the Thünen Institute of Baltic Sea Fisheries in Rostock, Germany. Dr. Kristina Barz is a fisheries scientist at the Institute. Dr. Restrepo is Vice President of Science at ISSF.
Additional reading and viewing
More Protection for the Big Ones, on phys.org
The One That Got Away (Size Matters), by Minute Earth
References
Law, R. & Grey, D.R. 1989. Evolution of yields from populations with age-specific cropping. Evol Ecol. 3: 343-359
Diekmann, U. & Heino, M. 2007. Probabilistic maturation reaction norms: their history, strengths, and limitations. Review. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 335: 253-269
Jørgensen, C. et al. 2007. Managing evolving fish stocks. Science 318: 1247-1248
Some Hits, Some Misses for Indian Ocean Tuna Resources at IOTC Annual Meeting
The recent Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) meeting marked a return to a collaborative spirit amongst members of the Regional Fisheries Management Organization (RFMO). ISSF welcomes this renewed cooperation and consultation between members because it is essential for the effective functioning of tuna RFMOs. It must now remain the norm for IOTC.
However, the Commission once again did not address some priority topics. Specifically, IOTC failed to halt the decline of overfished yellowfin tuna, further strengthen fish aggregating device (FAD) management, and adopt stronger conservation measures for skipjack tuna and sharks. We applaud progress in other important areas, nonetheless. The IOTC adopted electronic monitoring standards, updated its compliance processes, agreed on bigeye catch limits, and modernized seabird and cetacean measures — all of which are critical for the sustainable management of Indian Ocean tuna fisheries and ecosystems.
Here is a review of the IOTC meeting outcomes against ISSF priorities as outlined in our 2023 position statement.
Electronic Monitoring and Reporting & Observer Coverage
ISSF is especially pleased to see progress on electronic monitoring (EM) at this year’s IOTC meeting. We applaud IOTC as the first RFMO to adopt EM Program and Data Standards, which are based on the recommendations of the Scientific Committee and EM Working Group.
The Commission did not also increase its observer coverage requirements as we had urged, unfortunately. But EM standards can help achieve the higher coverage levels that are critical to effective fisheries management; compliance monitoring; and independent verification of catch, effort, and non-target species interactions.
Compliance Processes
Ahead of the annual meeting, ISSF called on the IOTC Compliance Committee to address member states’ non-compliance and to require the submission of action plans to address identified non-compliance. ISSF is therefore pleased that IOTC adopted amendments to improve its compliance processes.
The updates include a more structured procedure for compliance assessment and follow-up through the IOTC Compliance Committee; establishing compliance status categories and a framework for possible responses to non-compliance; and grading non-compliances by level of significance. These new processes are consistent with the best practices in the Toolkit to Evaluate and Improve RFMO Compliance Process, developed through an initiative of the Pew Charitable Trusts and ISSF.
Tuna Stock Conservation
ISSF is pleased that the Commission adopted a catch limit for bigeye tuna by IOTC parties — one that is aligned with the limits set by its Management Procedure.
But we are dismayed that IOTC once again did not adopt critically needed improvements to measures for yellowfin tuna, which is overfished and subject to overfishing, and to reduce catches of skipjack in line with limits set by a harvest control rule (HCR).
Total tropical tuna catch in the Indian Ocean has increased 26-30% since 2014-2015, despite a yellowfin rebuilding plan and a skipjack annual quota — a situation that exposes the ineffectiveness of current measures. ISSF and its stakeholders therefore urged managers to reduce yellowfin catches by at least 22 percent, relative to the 2020 level, following the latest IOTC Scientific Committee (SC) management advice and to ensure that skipjack catches do not exceed the limit set in the related HCR. Yet no action was taken.
IOTC cannot continue this stasis. It must develop effective and science-based management measures for these Indian Ocean tuna stocks.
FAD Management
Alongside our stakeholders, ISSF issued a robust call for action on improved FAD management in Indian Ocean fisheries. We urged the Commission to require its scientists to provide advice on FAD management options, including the efficacy of FAD closures, and expected reductions of juvenile and total catch of tropical tunas. The Commission did task the Scientific Committee as such, and ISSF looks forward to their advice and to working with all IOTC parties to ensure this guidance is considered in future management actions.
IOTC also expanded FAD data reporting requirements. We are pleased that the Commission will now allow reported FAD position data for scientific use, rather than compliance use only.
Unfortunately, other upgrades to IOTC’s FAD management resolution were not adopted, such as clearer rules for FAD activation and the deactivation of FAD buoys. And, moreover, objections to the current FAD management resolution will delay the adoption of FAD marking requirements and the much-needed transition to biodegradable FADs.
Bycatch Mitigation and Shark Protections
Needed improvements for the protection of non-target species like sharks, seabirds, sea turtles, and cetaceans in Indian Ocean tuna fisheries had mixed results at this year’s meeting. The good news is that IOTC adopted greater protections for cetaceans and amended its outdated seabird conservation resolution to include best-practice mitigation techniques. ISSF also requested that IOTC require that shark fins be naturally attached for all landings and to adopt measures to limit fishing mortality on sharks based on SC recommendations. These appeals went unanswered, unfortunately.
The lack of action for yellowfin and skipjack tuna, sharks, increased observer coverage, and improvements in FAD management are discouraging outcomes of this year’s IOTC meeting. But ISSF congratulates IOTC on important progress made otherwise for the management of Indian Ocean tuna fisheries. Moreover, the return of positive engagement and collaboration amongst IOTC parties is encouraging. We hope this spirit will result in a renewed focus among parties to work together toward the long-term sustainable use of Indian Ocean tuna fisheries.
Marine Scientist Dr. Andrew Rosenberg and Environmental Conservation Expert Ben Gilmer Join ISSF Board of Directors
The International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF) is pleased to announce the appointment of new members Ben Gilmer and Dr. Andrew Rosenberg to its Board of Directors.
“We are thrilled to welcome Ben and Andy to the ISSF Board. Their extensive knowledge and experience in fisheries and environmental conservation make them valuable additions,” said ISSF President Susan Jackson. “We are confident that their insights will help us continue to develop and adopt sustainable practices and policies that will benefit tuna fisheries, the world’s oceans, and the people who depend on them.”
Join us in welcoming environmental conservation expert Ben Gilmer and marine scientist Dr. Andrew Rosenberg to the ISSF Board of Directors. Share on XThe ISSF Board of Directors is a diverse group of leaders from non-governmental organizations, marine science, government agencies, and the seafood industry, representing several countries. The Board members work towards advancing the mission of the Foundation, including the development and adoption of ISSF conservation measures to which ISSF participating companies commit to conform.
About Ben Gilmer
Ben Gilmer has over 20 years of experience in environmental conservation and food systems, specializing in fisheries, agriculture, climate, technology, and community development. Mr. Gilmer serves as Chair of the ISSF Environmental Stakeholder Committee (ESC), and in that role he is also appointed to the ISSF Board. He is the Associate Director of the Large-Scale Fisheries Program at The Nature Conservancy (TNC), where he promotes seafood sustainability policies, commitments, and tools to corporations, NGOs, and governments. He leads a team with projects spanning Asia-Pacific, Latin America, and Africa and provides oversight for fisheries electronic monitoring and reporting technologies and fishery improvement projects. Mr. Gilmer has a master’s degree from West Virginia University and a bachelor’s degree from Radford University.
About Dr. Andrew Rosenberg
Dr. Andrew Rosenberg has more than 35 years of experience in government service and academic and nonprofit leadership. He has authored many peer-reviewed studies and reports on fisheries and ocean management and the intersection between science and policy making. He is the President of MRAG Americas, Inc., a consulting company focused on sustainable fisheries and marine resource management, and the convening lead author of the oceans chapter of the Third U.S. National Climate Assessment. Dr. Rosenberg previously served on the ISSF ESC and ISSF Scientific Advisory Committee. He received his Ph.D. in biology from Dalhousie University and studied oceanography at Oregon State University and fisheries biology at the University of Massachusetts.
Other ISSF Board members are:
- Tony Lazazzara, Chair ISSF Board of Directors & Director of Global Fish Procurement at Thai Union Group
- Dr. Rohan Currey, Chief Science and Standards Officer, Marine Stewardship Council
- William Gibbons-Fly, Executive Director, American Tunaboat Association (ATA)
- Javier Garat, Secretary General, Cepesca
- Susan Jackson, President, ISSF
- Ichiro Nomura, Fisheries Policy Advisor, Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, Republic of Indonesia
- Dr. Victor Restrepo, Vice President, Science, ISSF
Learn more on the ISSF website: https://www.iss-foundation.org/about-issf/who-we-are/board-of-directors/
ISSF Participating Companies Commit to New Conservation Measure that Requires Verified Reporting of Progress toward Strategic Plan Five-Year Goal
The International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF) has adopted a new conservation measure requiring its participating seafood companies to transparently report against progress in meeting the 5-year goal of the organization’s new Strategic Plan. ISSF Conservation Measure 2.5 – Transparency in Reporting Progress Against ISSF Five-Year Goal supports the goal of ISSF’s 2023-2037 Strategic Plan, Continuously Improving Global Tuna Fishery Sustainability, which states:
By the end of 2027, all tuna fisheries from which ISSF participating companies source can meet and maintain the MSC certification standard or there is a clear roadmap and timeline in place to meet this standard that is underpinned by the best-available science.
Our brand-new conservation measure asks ISSF participating seafood companies to report their progress in meeting ISSF strategic plan goals for sustainable fisheries. Share on XConservation Measure 2.5 was adopted on April 19, 2023, and is the newest addition to the organization’s 33 independently audited measures. The first reporting deadline for the measure is March 2024.
“We are pleased that our Strategic Plan includes an explicit, time-bound goal for the first time in ISSF’s history.” said ISSF President Susan Jackson. “Our newest conservation measure takes that concept one step further by verifying company-by-company reporting of progress in meeting that goal.”
“ISSF participating companies walk the talk on transparency in their commitments, and this new measure that aligns company operations to our strategic target is no exception,” Jackson continued. “We look forward to sharing the results of the independent audit of company conformance with this measure in next year’s edition of our Annual Conservation Measures & Commitments Compliance Report — a consistent and accessible resource for stakeholders seeking greater transparency in global tuna fisheries.”
ISSF Conservation Measure 2.5 – Transparency in Reporting Progress Against ISSF Five-Year Goal
The new measure states, to support ISSF in tracking progress towards its Strategic Plan’s five-year goal, seafood processors, traders, importers, transporters, marketers, and other industry stakeholders will commit to publish by March 15, 2024 — and update annually thereafter:
A. The percentage of their tuna purchases sourced from each of these categories:
- Fisheries certified against the then-current MSC Standard and eligible to use the MSC label
- Comprehensive Fishery Improvement Projects (FIPs) that have made progress within the past 36 months or are in their initial year of listing
- Comprehensive FIPs that have not made progress in the prior 36 months but have been publicly listed for less than 5 years
- Fisheries that have entered full assessment for MSC certification but have not been in a publicly listed comprehensive FIP
- “None of the above”
B. A roadmap and timeline to increase the percentage of their purchases from fisheries certified against the then-current MSC Standard and eligible to use the MSC label
C. A roadmap and timeline to decrease the percentage of their purchases from Comprehensive FIPs that have been publicly listed for less than 5 years but have not achieved progress in more than 36 months
D. A roadmap and timeline to decrease the percentage of their purchase from the “none of the above” category
Disclosures made by ISSF participating companies under this conservation measure will satisfy the disclosures required for the exemption in paragraph 3 of ISSF CM 2.4.
About ISSF Conservation Measures & Compliance Process
Since its inception in 2009, ISSF has adopted conservation measures and commitments to facilitate its mission with the intent that processors, traders, marketers and others involved in the seafood industry will follow them to facilitate real and continuous improvement across global tuna stocks. Each ISSF participating company commits to conforming to these conservation measures to improve the long-term health of tuna fisheries.
ISSF participating tuna companies, which represent the majority of the world’s canned tuna production and include well-known brand names, are audited yearly by MRAG Americas on their compliance with ISSF conservation measures.
The April 2023 ISSF Annual Conservation Measures & Commitments Compliance Report showed a conformance rate of 99.75 percent by 25 ISSF participating companies in 2022. In addition to a summary report, MRAG Americas issues individual seafood company reports that detail each organization’s compliance with ISSF’s conservation measures. ISSF publishes these individual company compliance reports on its website.
ISSF Calls on Indian Ocean Tuna Commission to Address Member Non-Compliance and Improve FAD Management and Tuna Conservation Measures for Yellowfin, Bigeye, and Skipjack
The International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF) has issued its position statement ahead of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) 27th Annual Meeting to be held May 8-12, 2023. The statement outlines key issues ISSF urges the Commission to act on, including adopting stronger conservation measures to protect yellowfin, skipjack, and bigeye tuna stocks, as well as shark, cetacean, and sea turtle populations, strengthening the management of fish aggregating devices (FADs), and addressing non-compliance by member states.
“The IOTC has a critical role to play in ensuring the long-term sustainability of Indian Ocean tuna stocks and marine ecosystems. Member governments of the IOTC must cooperate to adopt critical tuna and FAD management measures, as well as tackle member non-compliance, to protect these valuable marine resources for future generations,” said ISSF President Susan Jackson. “It is also time for the IOTC to take long overdue action to modernize its bycatch mitigation and shark management measures.”
Our position statement outlines ISSF's priorities for IOTC action at its upcoming May meeting. Share on XTuna Stock Conservation
ISSF calls on managers to reduce yellowfin tuna catches by at least 22 percent, relative to the 2020 level, following the latest IOTC Scientific Committee (SC) management advice. Additionally, ISSF urges the Commission to ensure that skipjack catches in 2023 do not exceed the limit set by the related harvest control rule (HCR) and that bigeye catches do not exceed the limit set by its Management Procedure.
Compliance Processes
ISSF is also calling for the IOTC Compliance Committee to address IOTC member states and parties’ non-compliance, specifically with mandatory fishery and fish aggregating device (FAD) data; catch and FAD limits; and the use of gillnets. The organization also urges IOTC to require the submission of action plans that address identified non-compliance. ISSF and Pew Charitable Trusts have recommendations to improve RFMO compliance processes, which can be found in these Workshop reports: 2020 report, 2021 report, 2022 report and a Toolkit to Evaluate and Improve RFMO Compliance Process.
FAD Management
ISSF asks the IOTC to build upon its existing Management of Drifting Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs) resolution by expanding measures that improve FAD management. This expansion includes requiring that IOTC SC provide advice on FAD management options — such as the efficacy of FAD closures and expected reductions of juvenile and total catch of tropical tunas in comparison to the contribution of those gears not part of the FAD fishery.
The ISSF position statement also calls for the reporting of complete FAD acoustic biomass records from echosounder buoys for scientific use, as well as clearer rules for FAD activation and deactivation of FAD buoys.
Bycatch Mitigation and Shark Protections
ISSF requests IOTC to require that shark fins be naturally attached for all landings. The IOTC must adopt measures to limit fishing mortality on sharks based on IOTC SC recommendations and amend outdated sea turtle and seabird conservation resolutions to include best-practice mitigation techniques.
Electronic Monitoring and Reporting & Observer Coverage
Finally, ISSF appeals to the IOTC to adopt electronic monitoring (EM) terms and definitions, EM Program Standards and EM Data Standards, based on the recommendations of the IOTC Scientific Committee. IOTC is behind its peers in observer coverage rates, currently requiring just 5% observer coverage regardless of gear type or area of operation. Comprehensive and higher levels of observer coverage are critical to effective fisheries management; compliance monitoring; and independent verification of catch, effort, and non-target species interactions.
Download the complete 2023 ISSF IOTC position statement here. The ISSF position statement is also available in French.
ISSF 2023-2027 Strategic Plan: Success In Research
In this video in our “2023-2027 Strategic Plan” series, ISSF President Susan Jackson highlights ISSF’s recent scientific contributions for sustainable tuna fishing.