Stars, stripes, and scales

In an age and state where the word “patriotism” has been misinterpreted, manipulated, maligned, and mangled beyond recognition, it is often difficult to discern not only what it means to be patriotic, but what it means to be an American.  In my experience, it is only on a rare day that it becomes unnecessary to differentiate between vying definitions – nationalistic pride, support of entrenched policies, endorsement of governmental shift, facebook-friendship of standing politicians, etc. – before I can state without equivocation that I am proud to be an American.

Today is one of those days.

Early this morning, Tom Strickland, the assistant secretary for fish, wildlife and parks at the US Department of the Interior, finally stood up against those who would doom the beleaguered Northern bluefin tuna to death by sushi knife.  Citing the management failures of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and underscoring the unquestionable peril in which this noble fish finds itself, Strickland announced that the Obama administration will indeed be supporting Monaco’s proposal to list the Northern bluefin tuna under CITES Appendix 1.

A bloody shame

This is a game-changer.  The world’s largest economy has finally weighed in on one of the most pressing issues facing the ocean conservation movement – the simple fact that commercially exploited fish have thus far been utterly ignored by the institutionalized international processes designed to offer respite to endangered species.  The Northern bluefin tuna, decimated by the rapacity of the global sushi industry and of bluefin traders like the Mitsubishi corporation, has hitherto been largely ignored by the world’s protectionary bodies in favor of ICCAT, a malfunctioning, incoherent (mis)management system that has brought the bluefin to the brink of the abyss… but perhaps this is finally at an end.

The United States government’s role in this ecological chess match is unique.  Even though US economy does not have a significant share of the world’s bluefin production, it does constitute a sizable share of overall consumption.  Certainly it is not on a scale to match Japan (the world’s foremost consumer of bluefin, devouring approximately 80% of all bluefin tuna yanked from our ailing oceans) but the US sushi industry has exploded in recent years, bringing with it a skyrocketing demand for bluefin tuna.  Many of the world’s most well-known sushi icons are based in the United States, and there is no shortage of American consumers willing to shell out fat stacks of greenbacks for the ephemeral bliss of a two-bite communion with Our Lady of O-toro.  As such, the US is more than just a global economic engine in this scenario.  The conviction of the Obama administration to stand behind Monaco’s proposal is a food policy statement – an admission that as we as a global community grow, we need to begin to make difficult choices, and that desire and wealth can no longer stand alone as the market mechanisms that drive our luxury food supply.  We must begin to temper them with an awareness of the impacts our choices have on our environment.

Not on his watch

Certainly this is not the end of the struggle.  Whether or not the bluefin will receive the support and protection it requires will be decided by a conference of all CITES parties in Doha, Qatar, later this month – and it will likely be a bloody affair.  Japan vehemently opposes the proposal and is expected to break out every weapon in its considerable arsenal in defense of its hard-line position.  China, too, has announced its opposition to the listing.  Support for the proposal within the European Union is tenuous at best and could still sour.  Many other countries, such as Australia (which has a bluefin industry of its own, albeit a different stock and species), New Zealand, and Brazil remain on the fence.  There is still a great deal of work to do.

So while the champagne moment is yet to come, I would suggest making some room in the fridge to chill a bottle or two.  The support of the Obama administration was an absolute necessity if the bluefin is to survive the CITES gauntlet, and with it secured, there may just be some hope for the world’s most expensive fish – and, symbolically, for the oceans themselves – after all.

All tangled up

There is no doubt that Japanese illegal whaling is a problem.  How and why it is a problem varies depending on your perspective, but the simple fact that something is rotten in the Southern Ocean is beyond debate.  Whales are having their brains blown apart because of political pigheadedness, anti-whaling activists are causing tremendous economic harm to the whaling fleet, the government in Tokyo is losing face, Japanese taxpayers are wasting their hard-earned money, and sailors and whalers alike are being put in mortal danger by the high-pressure water hoses, butyric acid (which, incidentally, is not strong enough to “burn” anything), long-range acoustic weapons, and other offensive contraptions regularly used in these whale wars (wait — can I say that?  Did I violate something?)

Anyhow, it is in everyone’s interest that action is taken to remedy this situation and restore some semblance of order to those frigid, choppy seas.  In fact, Kevin Rudd – Prime Minister of Australia, the country in whose waters (as much as Antarctic waters belong to anyone) most of the mayhem occurs – has recently served the Japanese with an ultimatum: cease all whaling in the Southern Ocean by November of 2010, or face a lawsuit at the International Court of Justice.  New Zealand, too, has vowed to support Australia’s challenge.

Whale, schmale... I want a new Lexus

The International Whaling Commission (IWC), a multilateral organization tasked with “managing” whale stocks, has proven to be relatively ineffectual.  This is largely due to a voting structure that is quite conducive to electoral fraud.  Rich countries are able to bribe tiny nations that have no interest in whaling one way or the other, and since population has no bearing in the IWC – Brazil, for example, has the same weight as Barbados – large, wealthy nations with a vested interest in the outcome of the vote can easily sway things their way with some well-placed deposits.

Since the IWC can’t manage to do its job, it has created a “support group” tasked with finding a way to tame this bugbear.  Unfortunately, this support group’s plan – known as the Maquieira Plan after Christian Maquieira, the Chairman of the IWC and the mastermind behind this proposal – is just about the worst possible way to deal with this issue.

How do we solve the problems created by the Japanese scientific whaling program?  Maquieira’s answer is simple: we legalize whaling.

I’ll say that again.  Japan is illegally killing whales, so we solve that problem by… making it legal to kill whales.

Open season

Basically, the Plan proposes that the scientific whaling proviso – by which Japan lamely justifies its whaling enterprise – be stripped from the management regulations set by the IWC, but in exchange, the global moratorium on commercial whaling will be lifted, and those countries that currently hunt whales (Japan, Norway, and Iceland – the three problem-child states that have brazenly defied the rest of the universe for the last twenty-eight years and have continued to kill whales regardless of international law and public opinion) will be awarded kill quotas for at least the next ten years.

The quotas themselves have not yet been set, but they will include minke, humpback, and endangered fin whales — just like the ones that are currently being hunted.  So basically, Chairman Maquieira’s eponymous plan is palm-meets-forehead moronic because it does absolutely nothing.  It is also palm-meets-forehead brilliant, however, as it makes the reprehensible actions of the Japanese fleet legal, and thus no further “illegal activity” will be taking place in the Southern Ocean.  Problem solved!

Telling it like it isn't

Maquieria’s Plan is not about saving whales.  It’s about helping governments save face, and giving the policymakers in Tokyo a way out of this mess at the expense of the planet.  Sure, there’s still blood in the water… and we’ll still have warehouses full of unwanted whale meat… and Japanese tax dollars will continue to fund an anachronistic, backwards industry… but hey, at least the politicians get to retain their pride, right?

Thankfully, no one has been fooled by this laughable piece of idiocy.  Canberra roundly rejected the Plan and reiterated Rudd’s ultimatum.  Moreover, environmental groups like Greenpeace have pulled no punches in calling it out as the absolute waste of paper that it is.

Whaling in the Southern Ocean is illegal for a reason — it is an unsustainable and environmentally devastating enterprise.  Solving the problem of illegal whaling by legalizing it is like trying to reduce the rate of gun-related homicide by stabbing everyone to death.

We will end illegal whaling.  We will do it, though, by saving whales – not by saving politicians.

Are we still talking about this?

I’ve spent a good deal of sweat and ink venting about the ignominious state of the bluefin tuna.  Overfishing and piracy has led to crashing populations across the globe.  Abysmal mismanagement by the relevant regional fishery management organizations (RFMOs) such as the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) has allowed stocks to dwindle to tiny fractions of what they once were.  If current trends continue, we will be bidding a final farewell to the noble bluefin in the very near future.

Still, it takes long hours spent in darkness to appreciate the light of dawn.  Thanks to an unforeseen twist of fate — including an ironic change of heart by France’s President Sarkozy, who, a few months ago, would have seen the fish hunted to oblivion  — I’m thrilled to finally be able to report a positive turn of events chez bluefin.

Circle of power.. kind of

On February 10, the European Parliament confirmed its support for stricter protection of the Northern bluefin tuna.  In a plenary session, the parliamentary members signaled their support for a ban on the trade of the critically endangered fish, as well as for financial compensation for those European fishermen affected by the decision.

Now, the important thing to remember here is that the European Parliament does not in fact have the power to make this kind of decision.  According to the mind-numbing morass of legislation that makes up the Gordian bureaucracy of the European Union, this resolution by the Parliament is in fact a recommendation to the Council of the European Union, a separate legislative body representing the same countries that will vote to either reject the proposal or to formalize the EU’s support of the ban.

And it doesn’t end there.

Doha: the bluefin's last stand?

Europe can’t do this by itself.  The plan is to award the Northern bluefin this protection under the Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES), an international body tasked with restricting the trade of key species in order to protect endangered populations.  The next CITES meeting will take place in mid-March in Doha, Qatar, and is expected to be well attended.

Protections under CITES are awarded via a majority vote of participating nations.  The EU votes as a bloc at CITES, but there are many other countries as well that also all receive a vote.  One of these countries is Japan.

Frozen assets

Japan is expected to vehemently oppose any proposal that would restrict its ability to source the exorbitantly valuable Northern bluefin tuna from the withered stocks of the North Atlantic and Mediterranean.  No doubt Tokyo’s resolute determination is far more galvanized than the shaky compromise arising amidst grumbles and groans in Brussels.  In fact, even if this clumsy amalgamation of European agendas — including those of Greece, Spain, and Malta, which are very unhappy with the idea of protecting the bluefin tuna — avoids strangling itself with red tape long enough for the EU to vote to protect this imperiled animal, we will still have our work cut out for us.  Japan is an influential power at CITES, and will likely pull out all the stops in order to ward off what would be both an powerful symbolic precedent (the first time a commercially important pelagic fish has been awarded CITES protection) and a significant blow to the global bluefin industry (an enterprise controlled largely by the Japanese zaibatsu Mitsubishi.)

Thus do we look to Obama.

What are you waiting for?

If we are to protect this fish, the United States must step up and stand with Europe.  Washington has been deafeningly silent on this issue — before the last ICCAT meeting in Recife, Brazil, Jane Lubchenco stated  that the US would turn to more drastic measures, such as CITES, should ICCAT fail again.  ICCAT failed again.  The US did nothing.

Now is the time to change that.  The European Union’s support for this trade ban is tenuous at best and could fall apart at any moment due to short-sited interests within Mediterranean member countries.  Still, the EU’s parliamentary vote was unexpectedly positive and offers us an unprecedented chance to strike a powerful blow for the sake of a future buoyed by healthy, productive oceans.

It’s not every day that we can stand up, raise our voices, and save an endangered species.  Today we can.  President Obama — this is our chance.  Do the right thing.

The rainy saison

Last week, the world’s fish geek community converged on a frigid, misty Paris to form the 2010 Seafood Summit, an annual event organized by the Seafood Choices Alliance and designed to facilitate discussion about the current state of the seafood industry and the future of our planet’s fish.  Over 600 representatives of industry, academia, the environmental movement, government agencies, and intergovernmental bodies came together to exchange ideas, intelligence, and insults while firmly ensconced in a Parisian conference hotel.

A wide swath of topics was covered by a diverse medley of panels and presentations over the three days of the summit.  Fisheries were analyzed, certification schemes were compared and contrasted, and environmentalists sparred with industry hardliners. Through it all, gossip ricocheted down the corridors of the conference center, partnerships were forged in the fires of crisis, and luminaries rained wisdom down on a parched audience.

Fortunately for seekers like myself, the conference was blessed by the attendance of the most illustrious group of aquatic icons since the cast reunion of Finding Nemo.

Pauly pulls no punches, people

Dr. Daniel Pauly, preeminent fisheries scientist at the University of British Columbia, opened the event with a keynote speech that magnificently wove candor, charisma, and the statistical equivalent of howitzer fire together to illustrate the grave state of our oceans.  He pulled no punches.  Notable quotes from the address include: “Ladies and gentlemen, there is no such thing as a sustainable trawler,” “[Carnivorous] aquaculture is robbing Pedro to pay Paul,” and my personal favorite, “You are all too fat!  You don’t need to eat so much protein!”

The peaceful yin to Pauly’s blood-and-thunder yang came at the end of the summit in a gentle, supportive, and passionate closing speech by Julie Packard, the executive director of the Monterey Bay Aquarium and a chairman of the ocean-worshipping Packard Foundation.  Packard’s words helped to sooth nerves rubbed raw by the energy and fervor that had electrified the Summit.  Eco-freaks, ocean plunderers, and everyone in between sat in silence during the address, thankful for the clarity and the solace in Packard’s words.

Clover combats culinary catastrophe

Charles Clover, author of The End of the Line and one of the planet’s most valiant defenders of the bluefin tuna, brought his mission to the Summit as he engaged in any number of discussions with key figures from the industry, academia, and the environmental movement.  His unique ability to meld the twin facets of his personality — “dashing eco-warrior” and “stodgy old tory” — into a surprisingly charming duality worked wonders as he promoted his newest venture, the environmentally-oriented restaurant review website fish2fork.

There were a number of themes that influenced the general direction of discussion.  Target’s decision to eliminate farmed salmon was a major focus of discussion, as was the progress being made in France towards the inclusion of Northern bluefin tuna under CITES Appendix 1.  The was a great deal of interest in the emergence of new and lesser-known fisheries, such as salmon runs in the Russian Far East, and there were some powerful discussions comparing and contrasting various sustainable seafood “approval” schemes and certification systems — this proliferation of rankings, stickers, and seals is clearly one of the most important issues facing the industry today.

While some of the same old baggage was trucked in yet again — I found myself in yet another hard-headed shouting match with a salmon farmer, for example — there was actually a great deal of progress visible at this year’s summit.  People were actually discussing real issues.  An entire day was devoted to tuna, and while some of the weaker industry-WWF collaborations (such as the Marine Stewardship Council and the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation) did receive an inordinate share of unjustified back-slapping, there was some positive, reality-oriented talk as well.  No one stood up to defend ICCAT during the discussion on bluefin stock management, for example.  One can only hope that those days are over.

A light in the darkness

As we move forward into 2010, I am optimistic and full of hope.  There was a genuine, palpable desire for change rippling through the attending body at the Summit.  Our patience for the plausible (and implausible) denial of the changes our planet and our oceans are undergoing seems to be at its end.  I sincerely believe that if we work together and challenge old, broken paradigms without fear, we will be able to capitalize on this desire for change, and rebuild the seafood industry into something that works.

Target achieved

The conventional salmon farming industry has never had it so tough.

In an unprecedented policy shift, the Target Corporation – one of the largest retailers in the United States and a direct competitor with Walmart – has just today announced the elimination of all farmed salmon products from its stores.  Fresh, frozen, shelf-stable, and smoked items will from here on out exclusively be made with wild Alaskan salmon — no exceptions.  Even its sushi department, which is notoriously the most stubborn part of this industry when it comes to change (thus the existence of this website), is in the process of phasing out the last bits of its farmed salmon.

While this act is truly staggering in its magnitude and its implications for the seafood retail industry, of equal importance are the reasons behind Target’s decision.  The company does not mince words when it comes to why they have made this transition — Target’s communications department clearly states that the company is not interested in supporting an industry that has done such harm to our marine ecosystems.  Their press release spells it out quite simply:  “Target is taking this important step to ensure that its salmon offerings are sourced in a sustainable way that helps to preserve abundance, species health and doesn’t harm local habitats… Many salmon farms impact the environment in numerous ways – pollution, chemicals, parasites and non-native farmed fish that escape from salmon farms all affect the natural habitat and the native salmon in the surrounding areas.”

Preach on!

Wild salmon for the people

This move will undoubtedly shake the salmon farming industry to its very core.  Target, after all, is not exactly a high-end gourmet market – rather, it’s a price leader that specializes in providing quality products for low prices.  How, then, does a market that worships price-driven competition manage to eschew an item that embodies the very concept of bargain seafood?

With help from Greenpeace and the Monterey Bay Aquarium, Target has opened the door to a new era of seafood – one that dares to question tired old paradigms that cannot withstand this kind of innovation.  Retailers which have parroted the weary excuse of farmed salmon filling an otherwise unattainable price point will now be exposed as complacent rather than pragmatic.  If a low-cost hypermarket like Target, which needs to sell salmon for $6.99 a pound, can manage to transition entirely to wild, sustainable product, how can the Whole Foods clones of the world defend their reliance on environmentally dubious farmed products that sell for over twice the price?

Off to the races

To make matters even more difficult for the industry, a new threat has arisen in the form of legitimate and economically viable closed-containment salmon.  Earlier this month, the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch program took another swipe at the open-net nightmares that festoon the Canadian and Chilean coasts by giving the “Best Choice” green light to a new closed-containment salmon farm in Washington State.  This operation, lovingly termed “Sweet Spring” by its proprietor Per Heggelund, raises coho (silver) salmon in a sealed recirculating system located many miles inland, far from the fragile habitats of the Pacific Northwest’s wild salmon populations.  The feed component of this operation is still not perfect as it does exceed an even fish-in-to-fish-out ratio, but compared to the parasite-riddled, antibiotic-laden concentration camps that provide much of the world’s farmed salmon, Heggelund’s facility is a beacon of progress.

The horror... the horror

Conventional farmed salmon is caught between a rock and a hard place, and it is not a moment too soon.  Salmon farms have been the source of countless problems over the past decade – diseases in Chilean farms rip through penned animals like hot knives through butter; parasite swarms in Canadian farms threaten the very survival of co-habiting wild salmon runs, not to mention the essence of Pacific Northwest cultural integrity.

Salmon are the backbone of who we are here on the west coast.  It is the wild salmon runs that bring nutrients from the sea to the land, that fertilize the river banks and feed the yawning bears.  If we allow this, our greatest legacy, to perish at the hands of a small group of cash-blinded eco-criminals, it is doubtful that we will ever find another source of such selfless bounty.

We need courage, innovation, and foresight if we are to create a wise and responsible seafood industry that can steward our oceans in the coming decades, and it’s companies like Target and entrepreneurs like Per Heggelund that are leading the charge.  Remember this day — this was the day that we took our salmon back.

Quite possibly, nature's perfect fish

I love sardines.  They’re not only beautiful fish, with their gleaming scales, streamlined bodies, and astounding synchronized swimming skills, but they seem to be engineered to be dependable, nutritious food.  These little animals grow quickly, die young, breed in tremendous numbers, and contain lots of protein, omega-3s, vitamin D, and other beneficial nutrients.

Unfortunately, sardines have a scandalous reputation.  Most Americans view them as cheap, lowbrow fare that is best consumed down by the train tracks, generally accompanied by fortified wines, tall tales, harmonica music, and lots of scratching.

As such, it can be surprising to learn that the sardine has a long-standing seat in the sushi pantheon.   While we generally encounter sardines only after they have been quartered, drenched in oil or mustard sauce, and encapsulated in tin, the true potential of this diminutive fish far outstrips such an ignominious fate.

Who'd have thunk it?

Sardines and similar fish have been used in sushi for over a century, and some of the most “traditional” edomae sushi dishes involve these tiny animals.  That being said, only in the last five or so years have US sushi restaurants began to rediscover this minute delicacy.  Matters are complicated by the fact that tremendous amounts of our domestic sardines are purchased by foreign fish farms, which whisk the away to be ground up into fish meal for bluefin tuna and other penned carnivores before our local chefs even have a chance to purchase them.

Luckily, things are changing.  A loose affiliation of chefs, restaurateurs, and other stakeholders calling themselves “the Sardinistas” continues to pressure the seafood industry for access to these delicious little treasures – and it looks like the barriers may be breaking down.

No, really, that sardine was this big!

The sardine revolution got a major boost this week when none other than the fabulous Oprah Winfrey declared them one of her top 25 superfoods.  Winfrey’s website discusses the merits of sardine consumption and urges consumers to rediscover this forgotten treasure.

When heavy hitters like Winfrey weigh in on seafood issues, they can be serious game-changers.  Sometimes it can be severely damaging (Paul Prudhome probably did more to wreck the heavily over-exploited Gulf of Mexico redfish stocks than any other single factor), but in this case, it’s very much a positive influence.  Increasing consumer interest in sardines will shift out seafood demand to away from our traditional prey species, such as tuna, down the trophic scale to a level that is better able to withstand fishing pressure.  Additionally, it will send market signals to the sardine industry, which may start to think twice before selling their entire catch to bluefin farms for a few handfuls of copper coins.

The first thing we do, let's eat all the fishies

So, a few questions for my readership: What do you think about this?  What are your impressions of the lowly sardine?  Would you be willing to wipe the slate clean and give this little fish the opportunity to prove itself to you?

We have strong, sustainable sardine fisheries right here in North America, but sardine fishermen sell off the lion’s share of the catch as feed for aquaculture operations.  If we the consumers begin to pay more than the tuna ranchers for sardines (and even with this overbidding, we’re still talking about incredibly inexpensive seafood here), it will become more economical for our seafood markets to start stocking them.  We will start to see domestic sardines glistening on the ice in our fishmonger’s wetcase — whole, fresh, and glorious, just as nature intended. ¡Viva la sardinista!

What problem?

It is a frightening concept to mess with success.  The old adage, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” is alive and well in our modern economy, and the seafood industry is no exception.  Many seafood purveyors, when confronted with pressure to change their ways, can be resistant – especially if they see success and growth in their businesses.  Why change, if the status quo seems just fine?

The fact is, however, that all is not well.  There are a plethora of rocks and growlers lurking in the murky waters of the seafood industry: overfishing, habitat destruction, IUU fleets, and more.  Still, it’s not common that a business owner is able to see all of these obstacles clearly… especially if ones perspective is obscured by the constant back-and-forth of a ringing cash drawer.

Chef Hajime Sato, however, is different.

A tiny revolution

Mashiko restaurant has been operating in Seattle for fifteen years, and it is by no means an unsuccessful operation.  Chef Sato has a line out the door nearly every night, and unless you arrive just as the restaurant opens, it’s almost certain that you’ll be waiting for a table.  By all standards and appearances, this is a prospering business.  And frankly, Chef Sato had all this to lose when, in August of 2009, he took his entire business model and turned it upside-down.

Mashiko is the first sushi restaurant in the world that has transitioned from a conventional operation to a sustainable one.  With only minimal help from myself and the other players in the movement, Sato turned his restaurant into a sustainable operation.  He bid good riddance to his bluefin, hamachi, eel, monkfish, and other unsustainable items.  These days, he directs his efforts towards innovation, education, and the identification of local and sustainable options.

New moves

Moreover, Chef Sato is the first traditionally-trained Japanese sushi chef to embrace the sustainable sushi movement.  In his words, however, he is simply returning to the basic principles that gave rise to sushi over a hundred years ago: utilization of local and seasonal products, reverence for life, and interpretation of the bounty of the oceans in a respectful and reverent manner.

In the last few months, Mashiko has achieved a much greater degree of exposure than ever before.  Interviews with Chef Sato have run on any number of popular food blogs; he received a glowing review of his operation from the Seattle Times and has appeared on the Food Network’s Extreme Cuisine with Jeff Corwin, where he discussed innovation in sushi, local seafood sourcing, and the amazing bounty of Puget Sound.

Through his bravery in challenging the conventional model, his determination to hold ethics and ocean conservation over the maximization of profit, and his contribution to the nascent sustainable sushi movement as well as the overall awareness of the consumer public in the Pacific Northwest, Chef Hajime Sato has brought a new spark to the sustainable sushi movement.

Good to have you on board, buddy.

Days gone by

It’s been quite a year.

As the last few heartbeats of the year 2009 fade away, it is natural to take stock of how far we have come.  It’s important to recognize our victories, as well as to isolate and examine our shortcomings.  After all, there’s certainly no need to make the same mistakes again in 2010.

I’m also happy to say that it was Sustainable Sushi‘s first birthday at some point in the last few weeks.  Over this past year, this website has afforded me with the opportunity not only to explore many  fascinating issues, but to discuss them with people commenting from all across the globe.  It has been a wonderful experience, and I thank you all so very much for helping to make it happen.

So, 2009: a tumultuous year by any standard.  The oceans have had a tough time of it, but in other ways, we’ve achieved more than we could have possibly hoped for.

There have been times over the past twelve months when things have seemed bleak.  It is beyond debate that the oceans took some major blows this year, and some of the ominous clouds on the horizon have grown even darker:

• 

  Banzai

  The efforts of Prince Albert II of Monaco, the first head of state to stand up for the bluefin tuna, were undermined by France’s President Sarkozy, EU Commissioner Joe Borg, and the governments of several other Mediterranean countries.

• A swarm of gargantuan jellyfish attacked Japan, causing tremendous damage to the fishing fleet.

• A disease outbreak in Chile’s salmon farms led first to an egregious abuse of antibiotics, and then to the catastrophic collapse of what was formerly the largest segment of the world’s salmon farming industry.

• The ICCAT meeting in Recife, Brazil, failed inexcusably in its charge, setting bluefin tuna quotas far exceeding any scientific ally defensible numbers and underscoring yet again the need for CITES Appendix I protection for this animal.

• 

  We will rue the day

  The Copenhagen climate change conference missed the mark and fell short of setting any global reasonable emissions goals, paving the way for the increased acidification of the world’s oceans.

• December’s WCPFC meeting in Tahiti should have resulted in protectionary measures to forestall these practices, but thanks to pressure to the contrary from Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea, the talks collapsed.

At the same time, we’ve seen some incredible successes this year.  All across the planet, people stood up for the oceans, bringing their passion for a better planet with them as they cooked, shopped, wrote, worked and marched:

• TIME Magazine ran a front-page article on the disappearing bluefin tuna, waking millions of people across the globe to the plight of the world’s largest bony fish.

• 

  Sound the alarm

  Greenpeace conducted a series of campaigns across the Pacific Ocean, drawing attention to the ecological carnage wrought by many skipjack tuna seiners.

• Japanese pole-caught skipjack tuna attained Marine Stewardship Council certification, becoming the first Japanese fishery to do so.

• The World Wildlife Fund and other participating stakeholders completed and ratified a global standard for tilapia farming.  Regardless of whether or not one supports the standard itself, the groundbreaking idea of using an open-stakeholder system to develop guidelines for sustainable aquaculture is something to be commended.

• 

  Unwanted attention

  The End of the Line, a documentary on overfishing and the state of the world’s oceans, was released.  This led to increased pressure on Nobu restaurant to discontinue the sale of endangered Northern bluefin.  This momentum manifest in celebrity petitions, dozens of articles in trade and mainstream press, and a Greenpeace campaign.

• Many major seafood retailers in the United States discontinued problematic seafood items in an effort to become more sustainable in their practices.  As an example, Wegmans, Target, and Whole Foods all stopped selling orange roughy due to the irresponsible catch methods used in the fishery.

• Mashiko restaurant in Seattle, WA, converted to a fully sustainable menu, becoming the first conventional sushi bar in the world to make such a transition.

• 

  It's finally over

  The Cove, a shocking documentary about the Taiji dolphin slaughter, was released worldwide.  Broome, Australia, discontinued its sister-city relationship with Taiji over the fiasco.  Taiji has temporarily halted its dolphin drive, but other communities in Japan continue to hunt dolphins.  The Cove has even been nominated for an Academy Award for “Best Documentary.”

• 2009 marked the first year in a world beyond the grindadrap: the annual Faeroese pilot whale drive that had caused much consternation among environmentalists.  In response to warnings by their chief medical advisors, the Faeroese practice of slaughtering pilot whales and distributing the meat throughout the community was halted permanently in November of 2008.

The majority of these positive changes are part of a greater pattern: an accelerating increase in our overall awareness of the problems faced by our oceans.  Movies, magazine articles, and activist campaigns have brought the health of our fisheries to the headlines and to the tips of our tongues.  The amount of conversations we are having at coffee shops, in grocery stores, and around backyard barbecues about seafood sustainability and environmentally responsible fish consumption has never been higher – and rising faster than ever before.

Stand and fight

Yes, it’s true that the bluefin tuna is in dire straits.  It is true that eel poaching continues unabated, that bottom trawlers still prowl the seas, and that we are on pace to empty the oceans of all seafood in less than forty years.  Still, as menacing as these threats are, they are not the most important issues at hand.

The single most powerful and meaningful thing that happened to our oceans this year is that we truly began to wake up to the truth of what we are doing to our planet.  We are more aware.  We are more alert.  And we are much more energized and focused.

Hundreds of new ocean activists are standing up every day to make a difference.  Maybe they write a check, or they buy a different kind of fish, or they have a conversation with a chef or grocer.  Maybe they simply have coffee with a good friend and spread the word.  It doesn’t matter – it all helps.  Every day we come closer to achieving critical mass, a fully realized awareness that will mobilize our true potential to save our oceans.

A brave new world

So let’s make 2010 the year that we redouble our efforts.  It is time to capitalize on our momentum and push even harder, accomplish even more for the sake of planet and our future.  There is still a tremendous amount of work to do, but make no mistake: we are stronger than the forces that would hold us back.  And on those particularly gloomy days, when bad news comes crashing down and the future looks insurmountably bleak, just remember: you are not alone.  We’re all in this together – you, me, and the millions of other people that are out there fighting every single day, working to make this world a better place for all of us.

Take heart — we are winning.

Setting the stage for sustainable aquaculture

There is no debate about the part that aquaculture will play in tomorrow’s seafood industry.  It will be huge.  The titular role.  The eponymous lead.  The center-stage dynamo that gets the snazzy technicolor jacket and all the catchy solos.  Lo, for we have seen the future of seafood, and like it or not, that future is farming.

Just in the last decade or so, we’ve watched the percentage of the overall seafood supply that is sourced from aquaculture operations grow from 25% to 50%.  No doubt we will soon see a world where most of the fish we consume are raised in farms.  With this in mind, it’s no wonder that the seafood world is all agog over a long-awaited development in the aquaculture industry that finally came to pass a few days ago.

First to the finish line

The World Wildlife Fund, in conjunction with industry, government, and NGO representatives, has created a standard for tilapia farming through a multi-stakeholder process known as the Tilapia Aquaculture Dialogue (affectionately referred to as “the TAD“).  This is the first of many forthcoming standards stemming out of the larger Aquaculture Dialogue process, which focuses on species rather than on countries, regions, or technologies.  The TAD standard is the result of a exhaustive four-year process that has resulted in an ISEAL-compliant set of certification metrics by which the performance of tilapia farms can be measured.  Participating farms that meet the standard’s benchmarks are eligible to receive certification.

In the future, this standard (as well as all future Dialogue-driven standards) will be held by a body known as the Aquaculture Stewardship Council, or ASC (sound familiar?)  The ASC is slated to open its doors in 2011.  In the interim, the TAD standard will be temporarily held by GLOBALGAP, a veteran agriculture certification organization which ironically may soon find itself in an rivalrous relationship with the nascent ASC.

Um... no

I did not participate personally in the development of the TAD, but I have been fortunate enough to be involved in the Pangasius Aquaculture Dialogue (that’s right… the “PAD.”  There’s also the “BAD,” the “ShAD,” the “SCAD,” the “TrAD“, and the “SAD“.  Can you guess what they stand for?)  As I wrote in a recent post, I’ve learned a lot from my involvement in the project and I do think that it has the potential to lead to positive change.  That being said, I have to ask — are we chasing the right paradigm here?  Can certification really play the panacea to all our seafood woes?

What are your thoughts on this?  Is certification the way forward?  Will a “sustainable” certification be enough to both appease demand for eco-friendly seafood and to protect the natural world?

To catch an eel

We’ve seen what happens when unchecked aquaculture is unleashed upon the environment.  The 1980s and 1990s saw the destruction of countless square miles of mangroves by relentless shrimp farming operations.  The cost of conventional salmon farming on the ecosystems of British Columbia and Chile is too high to compute.  American and European eel populations have declined by 90% in the last 20 years due in part to the insatiable elver abduction scheme that fuels the unagi industry.

There are some that would say that certification falls short; that we need top-level policy that governs the way fish farms operate.  By way of example, the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) has drawn fire for dubious decision-making in regard to numerous fisheries.  New Zealand hoki is MSC-certified “sustainable”, yet it is considered an unacceptably destructive option by many environmental organizations and has even been boycotted by Waitrose, a major retail chain in the United Kingdom.  More recent MSC certification projects, such as Ross Sea toothfish and Pacific hake, have drawn fire as well.

The people's swamp

Still, fisheries are not the same as fish farms.  They are national resources, not industrial enterprises, and thus are managed (at least ostensibly) by a central governing body.  Fish farms are largely beholden to their shareholders and operate as designed by their architects.  They are not pulling from the same communal resources, per se, as a national fishing fleet… or are they?

When a salmon farm dumps pollutants and parasites into the nearby ocean, causing harmful algal blooms and sea lice infestations in wild fish, are they not drawing on a natural resource?  When a shrimp farmer turns a mangrove swamp into a pile of mulch, does he not deprive other stakeholders of ecosystem services?

So what’s the way forward?  Does it make sense to pursue a third-party certification system?

Notorious notary?

We’ve already taken a few stabs at this, but have come up short each time.  The classic example of certification causing unease is the Marine Stewardship Council — an organization which, although originally predicated on good intentions, now threatens to undermine the very credibility of seafood sustainability on a conceptual level by brandishing its rubber stamp of approval so liberally.  In the aquaculture arena, the current standards (primarily those developed by GLOBALGAP and the ACC/GAA) have been heavily targeted by scientific and environmental groups critical of their weak benchmarks, closed-door standard development process, and industry-dominated governance structures.  The Aquaculture Dialogues, ostensibly based on an open stakeholder process, were supposed to be a response to these shortcomings.  But is a better standard what we should be working towards?

Some would argue that rather than putting our resources into third-party standard development, we should be pressuring governments to institute domestic policies that will eliminate wasteful and polluting aquaculture practices and reward responsible and innovative producers.  But is this feasible?  Do the governments of major aquaculture centers in the developing world — Vietnam, Indonesia, and India come instantly to mine — have the capacity to develop and enforce these policies?

Signs of the times

Still, it’s not just about the effectiveness of the process.  Equally important is the perception of that effectiveness in the eyes of the consumer.  To put it another way — which course of action will best promote the growth of a sustainable economy by increasing the sales of environmentally responsible seafood?  When you go to your local grocery store to buy seafood, which gives you more confidence at the point of sale: a third-party “sustainable” certification stamp, or a “Product of Thailand” label coupled with the awareness that Thailand has instituted a sustainable aquaculture policy?  Which do you trust?  Which one makes you want to buy fish?

It’s a thorny issue, no doubt about it.  I’m eager to hear your thoughts on this.

Same old same old

Sometimes when I sit down to write one of these posts, I get a sort of melancholy déjà vu.  So many of the problems that plague our oceans stem from the same root causes; it’s almost like writing the same article over and over again.  Avarice, financial myopia, cultural misunderstandings, and apathetic complacency are frustratingly ubiquitous when we try to decipher and disassemble the tangled, parasitic relationship that we’ve developed with our oceans.

It also seems like every time we start digging into ocean conservation issues anywhere on the planet, we find ourselves up against the same culprits: a small clique of nations that have taken to fishing in a serious way.  I suppose this is logical given the total consumption (as well as the per capita consumption) of seafood in these particular countries: they are the source of a tremendous share of the world’s seafood demand, and thus have a vested interest in access the supply freely and without interference from other parties.  Still, one would think that their respective decision makers would understand that in order to have fish tomorrow, we have to take proper care of the fish today…. right?

Anyhow, onto the matter at hand.

Perks of the job

Last week, the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC), a body which oversees the regulations governing tuna fishing throughout much of the world’s largest ocean, came together in Tahiti for its annual meeting.  Representatives from over a dozen countries flew to Papeete in order to discuss the worrying state of Pacific tunas, concentrating especially on skipjack and bigeye.

There was a great hope that much could be achieved at this meeting.  Scores of artisanal fishermen teamed up with local and international NGOs in any number of demonstrations to drive home the fact that these animals are in need of protection.  The Pacific is the last ocean with bigeye tuna populations anywhere near healthy levels, and it was made clear that unless stringent and effective quotas are implemented — in conjunction with new closures and off-limits areas — we may lose this stock as well.

Catch us if you can

As I discussed in a previous series of posts, a great deal of the Pacific bigeye stock is taken as bycatch by seiners that are seeking skipjack tuna.  In the Western and Central Pacific, these seiners tend to operate in what are known as “donut holes” or “high seas pockets”: areas of ocean that are surrounded by the territorial waters of various countries but are just beyond the 200-mile exclusive economic zone of any of them.  Seining was banned in two of the four major pockets in the Pacific Ocean during the WCPFC meeting in 2008, and most of the Pacific island nations were hoping to seal the deal and protect the remaining two this year.

Alas.  Enter the usual suspects.

There are three key states that have a long-standing track record of blocking this kind of progress in the Pacific: South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan.  These countries tend to work as a bloc to forestall regulatory measures that would preclude their fleets from plundering the Pacific at will.  Lamentably, this meeting proved to be no exception.

On my own

A group of small island states proposed a 50% reduction in the overall bigeye tuna quota.  South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan, joined by China and the Philippines, opposed the measure — even though their own scientists advised them to do otherwise.  In the face of this obstinacy, the proposal never had a chance.  It died horribly right there in the room and left the Pacific bigeye populations unprotected.

To add insult to injury, I should note that it was actually the Japanese that raised the issue about tuna welfare in the first place.  The Japanese delegation went on record early in the meeting stating that no other tuna species can be allowed to decline to the point of meeting the CITES Appendix I criteria, as the northern bluefin does (this was, by the way, the first time that the Japanese government has admitted that northern bluefin qualifies for CITES protection.)  Japan also expressed concern over the state of sharks, especially hammerheads, in the Pacific.  This is good news, right?  The largest per capita seafood consumer in the world standing up for the oceans?

Well, a couple of days later, they reversed their stance, blocked all precautionary proposals and quota reductions, and ensured that bigeye and yellowfin tuna continue on the fast track to endangered species land.  Thanks guys.

Yeah... like an impoverished puppy

To be fair, there’s really no room for any kind of flag-waving on my part.  The US delegation actually arrived at the meeting planning to oppose these precautionary measures as well.  In the end they were persuaded to abstain from the vote, but still, hardly a pride-inducing course of action.

The presence of a new and woefully inexperienced chairman did not help matters.  At one point, when one of the delegations raised concerns about the state of porbeagle sharks in the Pacific, the chairman was quoted as saying, “What?  What’s a pork barrel shark?”

Yeah.  I’m not kidding.

Catch of the day

In the end, it pretty much all fell apart.  Despite strong efforts from France, Australia, numerous Pacific island nations, Greenpeace, and several local environmental groups, the meeting ended not with a bang, but with a whimper.  Two enormous high seas pockets remain open to purse seiners that regularly take large quantities of juvenile bigeye.  Sharks and tuna are still without succor, their diminishing populations at the mercy of relentless longliners.

Still… there’s gotta be a silver lining here somewhere.  Hang on, I’ll find something…

Oh, yeah.  Here we go.

This miserable outcome has upset many of these Pacific island states to no end.  In fact, it may lead renegotiation of access agreements by these tiny countries: if the WCPFC can’t effectively protect these delicate fisheries, the Pacific island governments may just have to go it alone.  They’re even talking about withdrawing from the Commission if it can’t serve it’s purpose, and relying on bilateral negotiation in an attempt to keep these foreign fleets out of their waters.

Preach on

Wait a minute — that’s it?  That’s the silver lining?  We’re finding our solace in the breakdown of an attempted multinational management body in favor of a clutch of one-off two-party agreements of dubious strength and effectiveness?  In an emergency backpedaling in the face of failure?  In the inability of key stakeholder countries to see the writing on the wall and to take the simple, logical action necessary to protect their economy, environment, and children?

Wow.  Whatever’s happening in Copenhagen right now must be contagious.