SFP Fisheries Forum D Matt Elliot 3c58a56c
Global fisheries landings 90
Catch (Millions of Tonnes)
80 70 60 50 Catch
40 30
China Corrected
20
No anchove:a
10 -‐ 1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
Source: FAO Fishstat; SAUP data used to correct China data and to remove Chilean and Peruvian anchove:a 1
Global landings rela8ve to fishing effort
Global Catch (Millions of Tonnes)
100
4
90
3.5
80 3 70 Global Catch -‐ No Anchove:a 60
50 1988
Effort Kilowa>*Days(x109)
110
2.5
Global Fishing Effort
1993
1998
2003
Source: Catch data from Sea Around Us database; Effort data from AnKcamara, J.A., Watson, R., Gelchu, A., Pauly, D., Global fishing effort (1950-‐2010): Trends; gaps; and implicaKons, Fisheries Research (2010),doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2010.10.016
2 2008
2
Global fishing effort
Source: Swartz W, Sala E, Tracey S, Watson R, Pauly D (2010), The SpaKal Expansion and Ecological Footprint of Fisheries (1950-‐Present). PLoS ONE 5(12): e15413. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0015143
3
Since the 1950s: a southward expansion
1950s
1960s
1970s
1980s
1990s
2000s
Newly exploited area (103 km2) for each laKtude class averaged over each decade
Source: Swartz W, et al., 2010. The SpaKal Expansion and Ecological Footprint of Fisheries (1950-‐Present). PLoS ONE 5(12): e15413. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0015143
4
And an open water expansion
Source: FAO FISHSTAT and SOFIA 20081 1. SOFIA report does not idenKfy what species have been assigned to “epipelagic: other species” or “deep-‐water species” categories
5
And an expansion deeper into the water column
Pelagics (EEZ) Bo>om Marine Fishes (EEZ) Pelagics (High Seas)
▪ “Fishing fleets are working
deeper and deeper [in the North AtlanKc].”
▪ “Bathymetric expansion is happening and EU countries are the biggest deep-‐sea fishers.”
▪ “You would be surprised by the deepwater fishing happening in Asia.”
Bo>om Marine Fishes (High Seas)
Source: Morato, T., et al., 2006. Fishing down the deep. Fish and Fisheries 7(1): 24-‐34. *High Seas defined as areas outside EEZs
6
Huge shiR in the distribu8on of landings
Catch trends by income of fishing country 40
Landings (MMT)
35
Lower middle income
30 25
Upper income
20
Upper middle income
15 10 5 0 1975
Lower income 1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Source: FAO FISHSTAT; SAUP; World Bank 7
Marine fisheries landings of the top 8 lower-‐middle income countries 30
Catch (Millions of Tonnes)
25 Ecuador 20 15 10 5
Morocco VietNam Thailand Philippines India Indonesia China
0 Year Source: FAO, Sea Around Us Project, and World Bank country classificaKons 8
Interpreta8ons regarding the extent of overexploita8on vary greatly Under or fully exploited Crashed and overexploited
Global trends in fishery exploita8on FAO assessment 1974
1985
10 % 90 %
18 %
1995
27 % 82 %
2004
25 % 73 %
75 %
1995
2004
UBC assessment 1974
19 %
81 %
1985
35 %
65 %
50 %
50 %
28% 72%
Source: FAO SOFIA 2008; FAO SOFIA 2010; Pauly et al., 2008; www.seaaroundus.org 9
Most assessed stocks appear to be healthy or in the process of rebuilding…
High fishing mortality
Low fishing mortality
Low biomass
High biomass 10
Even within developed countries, rebuilding has progressed unevenly Europe
USA
Pacific Canada
Sources: Costello, C., Gaines, S. 2011, EvaluaKng Fisheries Sustainability.
New Zealand
Atlan8c Canada
11
But only a handful of countries have stock assessments to draw from Not overfished Rebuilding Not yet rebuilding High exploitaKon
=Ecosystem Models =Stock Assessments =Research Surveys
Source: Worm et al., 2009 12
Industrializing and developing countries self-‐report moderate to poor management effec8veness
41 Worst
100 Best
Source: Mora, Camillo, et al., Management EffecKveness of the World’s Marine Fisheries. PLOS Biol 7(6) 13
These regions are cri8cal for biodiversity: Southeast Asia, East Africa, the Caribbean
14
They’re also among the most cri8cal for food security: Southeast Asia and West Africa
15
An analysis of unassessed fish stocks found that 75% were depleted or low abundance compared to 45% of assessed stocks Unassessed stocks
Assessed stocks
(4.1M tonnes)
(11.7M tonnes)
Healthy 4
22%
Depleted 1
28%
Fair abundance
Healthy 9%
Depleted 30%
16%
23% 27% Fair abundance 3
Low abundance 2
45% Low abundance
Source: Costello, C., Gaines, S. 2011, EvaluaKng Fisheries Sustainability; CEA analysis 1 B/B MSY1.2
16
Fundamentally, assessed fish stocks are managed far be>er than non-‐ assessed stocks High
= Unassessed = Assessed
Fishing Pressure
Low Low
Biomass
High
17
Non-‐target-‐species, including birds, fish, turtles, and cetaceans, have experienced steep popula8on declines1
1 % Decline measured from prisKne condiKons
before human impact
Source: Jackson, J., 2008. Ecological exKncKon and evoluKon in the brave new ocean. PNAS, 105: 11458-‐11465 18
Shark popula8ons con8nue to decline globally – catastrophically in the Mediterranean Central Pacific
PopulaKon n Decline (%)
PopulaKon n Decline (%)
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Thresher Silky Oceanic Mako whiteKp
Blue
Eastern Atlan8c
Mako
Large coastal species
Hammer-‐ head
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Northwest Atlan8c
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Gulf of Mexico
Silky
Oceanic whiteKp
Mako
Dusky
Mediterranean Nearly all shark species in the Mediterranean have declined by over 97% in a span of 20 years Thresher Por-‐ Hammer-‐ Devil Blue beagle head fish
Source: Ferres, F., et al. ,2010. Pa:erns and ecosystem consequences of shark declines in the ocean. Ecology Le:ers, 13 (8): 1055-‐1071 19
Bycatch and harves8ng are primary threats for the most IUCN red listed marine species 300
Number of species
250 200
Sea Birds Sea Turtles
150
Sharks Cetaceans
100 50 0
Bycatch
Harvest
Habitat
NonnaKve Disturbance Species
PolluKon
Climate
Total number of species of cetaceans, sharks, sea turtles, and seabirds in the IUCN red list database (h:p://www.iucnredlist.org/) affected by threat categories Source: Finkelstein M, et al. (2008) EvaluaKng the PotenKal EffecKveness of Compensatory MiKgaKon Strategies for Marine Bycatch. PLoS ONE 3(6): e2480. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002480
20
At current expansion rates, it would take more than 35 years for MPAs to cover 10% of the world’s oceans
Source -‐ Wood, L., L. Fish, J. Laughren and D. Pauly. 2008. Assessing progress towards global marine protecKon targets: shorualls in informaKon and acKon. Oryx 42(3): 340-‐351.
21
To summarize: the state of global fisheries varies substan8ally by region (developed, middle income/high seas, developing)
41 Worst
100 Best
Source: Mora, Camillo, et al., Management EffecKveness of the World’s Marine Fisheries. PLOS Biol 7(6) 22
What can we do about it?
23
Three cross-‐cujng approaches to help fix global fisheries
Policy advocacy
Intergovernmental engagements
Market transforma8on
24
Three cross-‐cujng approaches to help fix global fisheries Define and support best prac8ces
Procurement of cerKfied seafood or environmentally preferable seafood
Use purchasing power to promote change
Fishery improvement projects; cerKfied seafood
Market Transforma8on Raise visibility of seafood issues with consumers
Joint markeKng efforts, seafood counter materials, branding
Support the Policy support (e.g. CFP policies needed to reform) lock in long term supply
25
Priority markets for the sustainable seafood movement Loca8on
Consump8on
Stage of CSR in marketplace
Market type
Northern Europe
6M tonnes (5%)
Strong CSR and highest levels of seafood engagement
Core market
US/Canada
8.2M tonnes (7%)
Strong CSR and growing seafood engagement Core market
Australia/NZ
0.6M tonnes (0.6%)
Strong CSR and high levels of seafood engagement
Core market
Japan
7M tonnes (6%)
Strong CSR, but limited salience of seafood
Expansion market
Southern Europe
5M tonnes (4%)
Some CSR development, but limited seafood Expansion market CSR
China
34M tonnes (29%)
Minimal CSR penetraKon
Poten,al expansion market
Mexico
1.3M tonnes (1%)
Minimal CSR penetraKon, but select companies progressing
Poten,al expansion market
Brazil
1.3M tonnes (1%)
Minimal CSR penetraKon, but retail engagement on other commodiKes
Poten,al expansion market
South Africa
0.4M tonnes (0.3%)
AcKve adopKon of some CSR acKviKes/ standards
Poten,al expansion market
Korea, Taiwan, 3.8M tonnes (3%) RelaKvely advanced CSR, but limited seafood Poten,al * FAO apparent consumpKon data. Includes aquaculture Singapore salience to date expansion market
Purchasing power: core and current expansion markets represent over half of global seafood imports by value; suggested new markets cover 85% ▪ Core: Northern Europe, US, Canada, Australia/NZ ▪ Current Expansion: Spain, Italy, Japan, Sweden, S. Africa ▪ European Expansion Markets: Austria, Switzerland, Denmark, Norway, Ireland, Russia, Portugal, Poland, Belgium, Greece, Finland ▪ Asia Expansion: China, South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore ▪ Americas Expansion: Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Peru, ArgenKna Importance by Seafood Consump8on
Importance by Import Volume Core Current expansion Europe Expansion Asia Expansion S. America Expansion No.
Importance by Import Value
Core
Core
Current expansion
Asia Expansion
Current expansion Europe Expansion Asia Expansion
S. America Expansion
S. America Expansion
Europe Expansion
27
Landed weight of fish in the MSC program has grown rapidly; now covers more than 10% of wild fish landings (cer8fied or in assessment) 10
Wild landings (Millions of Tonnes)
9
20% CAGR
8
4
7 2
6 3
5 4
CerKfied Fish 3
3 2 1
Under Assessment
5
5
2010
2011
4 2
0 2008
2009
28
FIPs have been growing in popularity worldwide, and show great promise for driving improvement in fisheries Northern Europe 3
Canada 1 19
Mexico 5
Russia 9
United States
Central America/ 3 Caribbean
14
India 2
South America
65
7 Southeast Asia
2 East Africa
Total number of FIPs iden8fied in survey (with market partners)
Source: CEA survey of NRDC, EDF, SFP, WWF, GMRI in 2010 29
~20% of global landings are now involved in an SFP or WWF FIP Millions of tonnes 19% 82 23% 80 78 76 11.30 74 15.33 72 70 68 66 65.24 64 62 4 2 0
Non-‐ FIPs
FIPs
2.59
0.00 0.14
0.39
Small White Salmon Flauish Shrimp pelagics fish Prawn
0.00 0.90
Tuna tuna-‐ like
0.12
0.09
0.00
Moll Snapper Crab Squid -‐usks Grouper Lobster Octopus
30
Percent consumed in core markets (By weight)
The market transforma8on model has been demonstrated in whitefish, flarish, and salmon
80% 70%
Assessing the poten8al for market engagement by commodity group Scale 5M Tonnes
Whitefish
60% 50% 40%
Mollusks
Shrimp 30%
Tuna Crabs
20%
Flarish Salmon
Snapper/ 10% Grouper 0%
Squid
Small Pelagics
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Percent landed by countries with strong governance (By weight) Source: FAO FISHSTAT, trade flow data, and CEA analysis See appendix for details on methodology
31
Ques8ons? Ma:hew Ellio: ma:[email protected]
Catch (Millions of Tonnes)
80 70 60 50 Catch
40 30
China Corrected
20
No anchove:a
10 -‐ 1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
Source: FAO Fishstat; SAUP data used to correct China data and to remove Chilean and Peruvian anchove:a 1
Global landings rela8ve to fishing effort
Global Catch (Millions of Tonnes)
100
4
90
3.5
80 3 70 Global Catch -‐ No Anchove:a 60
50 1988
Effort Kilowa>*Days(x109)
110
2.5
Global Fishing Effort
1993
1998
2003
Source: Catch data from Sea Around Us database; Effort data from AnKcamara, J.A., Watson, R., Gelchu, A., Pauly, D., Global fishing effort (1950-‐2010): Trends; gaps; and implicaKons, Fisheries Research (2010),doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2010.10.016
2 2008
2
Global fishing effort
Source: Swartz W, Sala E, Tracey S, Watson R, Pauly D (2010), The SpaKal Expansion and Ecological Footprint of Fisheries (1950-‐Present). PLoS ONE 5(12): e15413. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0015143
3
Since the 1950s: a southward expansion
1950s
1960s
1970s
1980s
1990s
2000s
Newly exploited area (103 km2) for each laKtude class averaged over each decade
Source: Swartz W, et al., 2010. The SpaKal Expansion and Ecological Footprint of Fisheries (1950-‐Present). PLoS ONE 5(12): e15413. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0015143
4
And an open water expansion
Source: FAO FISHSTAT and SOFIA 20081 1. SOFIA report does not idenKfy what species have been assigned to “epipelagic: other species” or “deep-‐water species” categories
5
And an expansion deeper into the water column
Pelagics (EEZ) Bo>om Marine Fishes (EEZ) Pelagics (High Seas)
▪ “Fishing fleets are working
deeper and deeper [in the North AtlanKc].”
▪ “Bathymetric expansion is happening and EU countries are the biggest deep-‐sea fishers.”
▪ “You would be surprised by the deepwater fishing happening in Asia.”
Bo>om Marine Fishes (High Seas)
Source: Morato, T., et al., 2006. Fishing down the deep. Fish and Fisheries 7(1): 24-‐34. *High Seas defined as areas outside EEZs
6
Huge shiR in the distribu8on of landings
Catch trends by income of fishing country 40
Landings (MMT)
35
Lower middle income
30 25
Upper income
20
Upper middle income
15 10 5 0 1975
Lower income 1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Source: FAO FISHSTAT; SAUP; World Bank 7
Marine fisheries landings of the top 8 lower-‐middle income countries 30
Catch (Millions of Tonnes)
25 Ecuador 20 15 10 5
Morocco VietNam Thailand Philippines India Indonesia China
0 Year Source: FAO, Sea Around Us Project, and World Bank country classificaKons 8
Interpreta8ons regarding the extent of overexploita8on vary greatly Under or fully exploited Crashed and overexploited
Global trends in fishery exploita8on FAO assessment 1974
1985
10 % 90 %
18 %
1995
27 % 82 %
2004
25 % 73 %
75 %
1995
2004
UBC assessment 1974
19 %
81 %
1985
35 %
65 %
50 %
50 %
28% 72%
Source: FAO SOFIA 2008; FAO SOFIA 2010; Pauly et al., 2008; www.seaaroundus.org 9
Most assessed stocks appear to be healthy or in the process of rebuilding…
High fishing mortality
Low fishing mortality
Low biomass
High biomass 10
Even within developed countries, rebuilding has progressed unevenly Europe
USA
Pacific Canada
Sources: Costello, C., Gaines, S. 2011, EvaluaKng Fisheries Sustainability.
New Zealand
Atlan8c Canada
11
But only a handful of countries have stock assessments to draw from Not overfished Rebuilding Not yet rebuilding High exploitaKon
=Ecosystem Models =Stock Assessments =Research Surveys
Source: Worm et al., 2009 12
Industrializing and developing countries self-‐report moderate to poor management effec8veness
41 Worst
100 Best
Source: Mora, Camillo, et al., Management EffecKveness of the World’s Marine Fisheries. PLOS Biol 7(6) 13
These regions are cri8cal for biodiversity: Southeast Asia, East Africa, the Caribbean
14
They’re also among the most cri8cal for food security: Southeast Asia and West Africa
15
An analysis of unassessed fish stocks found that 75% were depleted or low abundance compared to 45% of assessed stocks Unassessed stocks
Assessed stocks
(4.1M tonnes)
(11.7M tonnes)
Healthy 4
22%
Depleted 1
28%
Fair abundance
Healthy 9%
Depleted 30%
16%
23% 27% Fair abundance 3
Low abundance 2
45% Low abundance
Source: Costello, C., Gaines, S. 2011, EvaluaKng Fisheries Sustainability; CEA analysis 1 B/B MSY1.2
16
Fundamentally, assessed fish stocks are managed far be>er than non-‐ assessed stocks High
= Unassessed = Assessed
Fishing Pressure
Low Low
Biomass
High
17
Non-‐target-‐species, including birds, fish, turtles, and cetaceans, have experienced steep popula8on declines1
1 % Decline measured from prisKne condiKons
before human impact
Source: Jackson, J., 2008. Ecological exKncKon and evoluKon in the brave new ocean. PNAS, 105: 11458-‐11465 18
Shark popula8ons con8nue to decline globally – catastrophically in the Mediterranean Central Pacific
PopulaKon n Decline (%)
PopulaKon n Decline (%)
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Thresher Silky Oceanic Mako whiteKp
Blue
Eastern Atlan8c
Mako
Large coastal species
Hammer-‐ head
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Northwest Atlan8c
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Gulf of Mexico
Silky
Oceanic whiteKp
Mako
Dusky
Mediterranean Nearly all shark species in the Mediterranean have declined by over 97% in a span of 20 years Thresher Por-‐ Hammer-‐ Devil Blue beagle head fish
Source: Ferres, F., et al. ,2010. Pa:erns and ecosystem consequences of shark declines in the ocean. Ecology Le:ers, 13 (8): 1055-‐1071 19
Bycatch and harves8ng are primary threats for the most IUCN red listed marine species 300
Number of species
250 200
Sea Birds Sea Turtles
150
Sharks Cetaceans
100 50 0
Bycatch
Harvest
Habitat
NonnaKve Disturbance Species
PolluKon
Climate
Total number of species of cetaceans, sharks, sea turtles, and seabirds in the IUCN red list database (h:p://www.iucnredlist.org/) affected by threat categories Source: Finkelstein M, et al. (2008) EvaluaKng the PotenKal EffecKveness of Compensatory MiKgaKon Strategies for Marine Bycatch. PLoS ONE 3(6): e2480. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002480
20
At current expansion rates, it would take more than 35 years for MPAs to cover 10% of the world’s oceans
Source -‐ Wood, L., L. Fish, J. Laughren and D. Pauly. 2008. Assessing progress towards global marine protecKon targets: shorualls in informaKon and acKon. Oryx 42(3): 340-‐351.
21
To summarize: the state of global fisheries varies substan8ally by region (developed, middle income/high seas, developing)
41 Worst
100 Best
Source: Mora, Camillo, et al., Management EffecKveness of the World’s Marine Fisheries. PLOS Biol 7(6) 22
What can we do about it?
23
Three cross-‐cujng approaches to help fix global fisheries
Policy advocacy
Intergovernmental engagements
Market transforma8on
24
Three cross-‐cujng approaches to help fix global fisheries Define and support best prac8ces
Procurement of cerKfied seafood or environmentally preferable seafood
Use purchasing power to promote change
Fishery improvement projects; cerKfied seafood
Market Transforma8on Raise visibility of seafood issues with consumers
Joint markeKng efforts, seafood counter materials, branding
Support the Policy support (e.g. CFP policies needed to reform) lock in long term supply
25
Priority markets for the sustainable seafood movement Loca8on
Consump8on
Stage of CSR in marketplace
Market type
Northern Europe
6M tonnes (5%)
Strong CSR and highest levels of seafood engagement
Core market
US/Canada
8.2M tonnes (7%)
Strong CSR and growing seafood engagement Core market
Australia/NZ
0.6M tonnes (0.6%)
Strong CSR and high levels of seafood engagement
Core market
Japan
7M tonnes (6%)
Strong CSR, but limited salience of seafood
Expansion market
Southern Europe
5M tonnes (4%)
Some CSR development, but limited seafood Expansion market CSR
China
34M tonnes (29%)
Minimal CSR penetraKon
Poten,al expansion market
Mexico
1.3M tonnes (1%)
Minimal CSR penetraKon, but select companies progressing
Poten,al expansion market
Brazil
1.3M tonnes (1%)
Minimal CSR penetraKon, but retail engagement on other commodiKes
Poten,al expansion market
South Africa
0.4M tonnes (0.3%)
AcKve adopKon of some CSR acKviKes/ standards
Poten,al expansion market
Korea, Taiwan, 3.8M tonnes (3%) RelaKvely advanced CSR, but limited seafood Poten,al * FAO apparent consumpKon data. Includes aquaculture Singapore salience to date expansion market
Purchasing power: core and current expansion markets represent over half of global seafood imports by value; suggested new markets cover 85% ▪ Core: Northern Europe, US, Canada, Australia/NZ ▪ Current Expansion: Spain, Italy, Japan, Sweden, S. Africa ▪ European Expansion Markets: Austria, Switzerland, Denmark, Norway, Ireland, Russia, Portugal, Poland, Belgium, Greece, Finland ▪ Asia Expansion: China, South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore ▪ Americas Expansion: Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Peru, ArgenKna Importance by Seafood Consump8on
Importance by Import Volume Core Current expansion Europe Expansion Asia Expansion S. America Expansion No.
Importance by Import Value
Core
Core
Current expansion
Asia Expansion
Current expansion Europe Expansion Asia Expansion
S. America Expansion
S. America Expansion
Europe Expansion
27
Landed weight of fish in the MSC program has grown rapidly; now covers more than 10% of wild fish landings (cer8fied or in assessment) 10
Wild landings (Millions of Tonnes)
9
20% CAGR
8
4
7 2
6 3
5 4
CerKfied Fish 3
3 2 1
Under Assessment
5
5
2010
2011
4 2
0 2008
2009
28
FIPs have been growing in popularity worldwide, and show great promise for driving improvement in fisheries Northern Europe 3
Canada 1 19
Mexico 5
Russia 9
United States
Central America/ 3 Caribbean
14
India 2
South America
65
7 Southeast Asia
2 East Africa
Total number of FIPs iden8fied in survey (with market partners)
Source: CEA survey of NRDC, EDF, SFP, WWF, GMRI in 2010 29
~20% of global landings are now involved in an SFP or WWF FIP Millions of tonnes 19% 82 23% 80 78 76 11.30 74 15.33 72 70 68 66 65.24 64 62 4 2 0
Non-‐ FIPs
FIPs
2.59
0.00 0.14
0.39
Small White Salmon Flauish Shrimp pelagics fish Prawn
0.00 0.90
Tuna tuna-‐ like
0.12
0.09
0.00
Moll Snapper Crab Squid -‐usks Grouper Lobster Octopus
30
Percent consumed in core markets (By weight)
The market transforma8on model has been demonstrated in whitefish, flarish, and salmon
80% 70%
Assessing the poten8al for market engagement by commodity group Scale 5M Tonnes
Whitefish
60% 50% 40%
Mollusks
Shrimp 30%
Tuna Crabs
20%
Flarish Salmon
Snapper/ 10% Grouper 0%
Squid
Small Pelagics
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Percent landed by countries with strong governance (By weight) Source: FAO FISHSTAT, trade flow data, and CEA analysis See appendix for details on methodology
31
Ques8ons? Ma:hew Ellio: ma:[email protected]
