A Systematic Approach to Assure Seafood Sustainability by Certifying Management Systems Instead of Individual Fisheries

A Science & Sustainability Forum Initiative

Rationalizing Sustainability

An international network of professional fishery scientists and fishery management organizations and agencies which meets to promote effective management of fisheries and provide factual guidance based on the best scientific and unbiased information available.

Science & Sustainability Forum

FAO, World Bank, World Fish Center, NOAA, DFO, Iceland, Norway, New Zealand, Russia, ICES, NAFO, CCAMLR, Southern Indian Ocean, New England Council, UMASSD, UWA, Rutgers, UFL, Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco Brazil, ISSF, WWF, Audubon Nature Institute NOLA, AIFRB

Science & Sustainability Forum

Science & Sustainability Forum 2013

Sponsors Thank You!

Science & Sustainability Forum 2012

Sponsors, Thank You!

Meeting Objectives1. Review scientific information on

sustainability, status and trends in fisheries

2. Enhance public awareness on the sustainable management of fisheries & seafood production

3. Introduce new assessments and tools to validate the sustainability of fisheries and seafood

Sustainability StandardsSustainability is the objective of fisheries management systems.

Well-developed management systems have effectively avoided overfishing and rebuilt many depleted stocks (with some exceptions).Certifying the sustainability of well-developed management systems is relatively easy.

Biomass Trends

Mis-Matched StandardsAchieving sustainability requires collaboration, cooperation and ‘buy-in’ from stakeholders.Small-scale and coastal fisheries have extensive collaboration for confronting challenges and promoting solutions.However, many sustainability standards (National Standard 1 guidelines, eco-labeling criteria) are not suited for small-scale, coastal fisheries.Mismatched standards jeopardize all aspects of sustainability.

Mis-Matched StandardsAchieving sustainability requires collaboration, cooperation and ‘buy-in’ from stakeholders.Small-scale and coastal fisheries have extensive collaboration for confronting challenges and promoting solutions.However, many sustainability standards (National Standard 1 guidelines, eco-labeling criteria) are not suited for small-scale, coastal fisheries.Mismatched standards jeopardize all aspects of sustainability.

Making Sense of SustainabilityFocus on Management Systems“We should not be fixed on stock status, but the fishery management system as stocks fluctuate over time. It should not be a problem if you overfish in one year If you are part of a management framework plan you are sustainable,”

Kevin Sullivan, New Zealand Ministry of Primary Industries.

Science & Sustainability Forum 2012

SSM

Focus on Management Systems

FAO Briefing Note 2013“In fisheries, sustainability is best defined by the management system, not a quick snapshot of the stock status (overfished) or fishing level (overfishing) at any point in time, but rather the capacity of the system to respond to changes in stock levels or impacts via management measures.

(T. Lassen, Ocean Trust; R. Shotton, SIODFA, Greece; J. Csirke, Peru; G. Valdimarsson, Iceland in consultation with scientists and representatives from NOAA; DFO Canada; MPI New Zealand; AIFRB/UMASSD; ASMI; Louisiana DWF)

Science & Sustainability Forum 2013Findings: Focus on Management Systems• Sustainability, often gauged on a fishery-by-fishery basis, is

actually the result of a well-designed and implemented management system.

• Effective management systems will include adequate responsive action to end overfishing and avoid irreversible harm.

• The performance of management systems is more meaningful than the status of any single stock.

• Fishery products from well-managed systems should be considered to be sustainably harvested.

NOAA Gulf Management Assessment

In 2012, two parallel projects were initiated with the cooperation and support of NOAA’s Domestic Fisheries Division and the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission to explore mechanisms to assess fishery management systems against accepted standards for sustainability.

NOAA Gulf Management AssessmentBenchmark:

The 2010 FAO “Evaluation Framework to Assess the Conformity of Public and Private Ecolabelling Schemes with the FAO Guidelines for the Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Marine Capture Fisheries”

Methodology:

Adapted FAO’s Draft Evaluation Framework to focus on the management system as a whole rather than that of an individual fishery.

Objective:

Evaluate the management and stock assessment process, identify gaps between federal/state systems and FAO criteria, and develop recommendations for consideration by NOAA/State managers.

Minimum Substantive Requirements and Criteria for

Ecolabelling• Management systems• Stocks under consideration• Ecosystem considerations

GUIDELINES FOR THE ECOLABELLINGOF FISH AND FISHERY PRODUCTS FROM MARINE CAPTURE FISHERIES

Discussion

Our approach to assessing fishery management systems is unique in that it:

(1) provides a systems-based approach to sustainability versus an individual fishery “finished-product” inspection, and

(2) establishes a methodology that can be applied at multiple levels of the fishery management system from the system as a whole to a regional or fishery management plan level.

HACCP Analogy

HACCP - a science-based and systematic process that identifies specific hazards and control points in seafood production to ensure the safety of food. It is a tool:

• to assess the entire food production process and establish measures that focus on prevention rather than relying mainly on end-product evaluation

• promote efficiency in the establishment and audit of safe food production processes, and

• provide flexibility for product control and has been successful in meeting the objectives of ensuring safe seafood acceptable to food control agencies

 

Flexibility of System Based Approach

The FAO Guidelines and our approach accommodate differences that exist between fishery management systems both among regions and jurisdictional scope.

FAO criteria do recognize that MSY proxies are used and acceptable (SPR, CPUE, Trend Analysis, etc).

Historical success of management is also recognized.

There are also fisheries where stock assessments cannot be determined or where MSY is equal to infinity (e.g., state-managed menhaden, Caribbean red hind and other tropical coral reef species).

Flexibility in FAO Guidelines §32

Section 32 of the FAO Guidelines, which addresses Methodological Aspects and notes that: “there are many ways in which state and trends in stocks may be evaluated, that fall short of the highly quantitative and data-demanding approaches to stock assessment that are often used for large scale fisheries in developed countries. Use of less elaborate methods for stock assessment should not preclude fisheries from possible certification for ecolabelling.”  

Flexibility FAO Guidelines §32

This section further recognizes that: “there is a variety of management measures commonly used in small scale or low value fisheries that nonetheless can achieve quite adequate levels of protection for stocks in the face of uncertainty about the state of the resource. A past record of good management performance could be considered as supporting evidence of the adequacy of the management measures and the management system.”

Benefits System Assessment

Management systems in conformance with sustainability guidelines more likely to enhance the productivity of its fisheries and maintain sustainable fisheries.

Assessing management systems can address a broader range of fisheries as many fisheries cannot afford or justify ecolabelling program costs or requirements.

Offers cost effective means of assessing sustainability by reducing duplication linked to third party assessments and by incorporating FAO criteria into existing management and assessment processes.

Synchronize regional efforts or normalize variability in management processes.

Uses

Used by states to conduct a self-assessment of its fishery management system in support of a national labeling program, or by third parties in assessing the conformity of a management system with the FAO Guidelines.

Validate/support national state sponsored assessments on fisheries under their respective jurisdiction. Many nations are exploring nationwide labeling programs and view ecolabelling as a state responsibility.

US Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee recommended to NOAA that a US seafood certification framework be established for federally and state managed species.

Conclusions

The assessment tool we present provides a viable means for evaluating fishery management systems to biological components of sustainability put forth by the FAO.

To our knowledge it is the only comprehensive assessment process based on the FAO Evaluation Framework for evaluating the performance of Coastal State management systems while tracking evidence which upholds that performance.

Conclusions

Potential to offer greater recognition and acceptance of State’s sustainability assessments by the public and the marketplace

Support competent management and science authorities

Represents significant step towards validating and improving fishery management systems by providing a process to systematically document, communicate, and guide the sustainability of fisheries.

Recommendations

FAO provides an international forum for development of guidelines governing the management of fisheries.

FAO led the development of standards for Flag State performance to address high seas (IUU) fishing and Ecolabelling of Marine Capture Fisheries.

No similar recognized mechanism to evaluate the performance of fishery management systems.

Recommend FAO work with member states to develop guidelines to evaluate the sustainability of respective fishery management systems through appropriate FAO processes (i.e., Expert and Technical Consultation).

Thank You!Ocean Trust 11921 Freedom Drive, Suite 550 Reston, VA 20190-5635 Tel (703) 450-9852 Fax (703) 450-9853 Email tjlassen@oceantrust.org www.oceantrust.org

Thor Lassen, President