FFA FISHERIES TRADE NEWS

Volume 3: Issue 5 & 6 May & June 2010

By Elizabeth Havice, Amanda Hamilton and Liam Campling[1]

Contents

Fisheries Subsidies

WTO discussions on new fisheries subsidies proposal by Brazil, China, India and Mexico

Fisheries Trade and Development

FFA’s Polynesian members establish ‘Te Vaka Moana’ group

Further Blow to American Samoa Canning Industry – Starkist to Lay Off Workers

Fisheries Trade-related Regulation

Labour standards, US free trade agreements and the fishing sector

Fisheries Management and Development

Fisheries eco-labels are assessed against each other

Tuna Markets

Update on Spanish tuna industry

Developments in seafood trade and retail in France

Fisheries Subsidies

WTO discussions on new fisheries subsidies proposal by Brazil, China, India and Mexico[2]

The May 2010 cluster of fisheries subsidies negotiations at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) was an interesting platform for discussions on a new text-based proposal co-sponsored by Brazil, China, India and Mexico (WTO Document TN/RL/GEN/163).[3] The focus is on special and differential treatment (S&DT) and applicable fisheries management-related conditionalities in any future disciplines on fisheries subsidies.  Given the focus of the proposal, the proponents undertook to present a legal draft that contained proposed revisions of existing Articles III, IV and V of the Chair’s November 2007 Text.[4]  The highlights of the new proposal include:

1) On the issue of S&DT for small-scale and artisanal fisheries, the proponents brought forward, for the first time in the fisheries discussions, a definition based on socio-economic criteria.[5] Specifically, the proposed text calls for exempting subsidies given by all developing country Members to those fishing activities where the benefits are conferred upon `low income, resource-poor or livelihood fishing activities, provided that these activities are performed by fishworkers on an individual or family basis or employed by associations or micro-enterprises or individual boat owners’.[6]  These exemptions are based on indicative management conditionality, allowing for the use of indigenous fisheries management institutions and measures.

2) On the issue of S&DT for larger-scale fisheries, criteria such as ‘boat size’ and the ‘area of capture’ have been replaced with provisions structured on the Members’ rights to fish under international law. More specifically, the proposal calls for exempting vessel construction and operating cost subsidies to exploit stocks where the subsidising developing Member has the exclusive rights to exploit the natural resources in its Territorial Sea or EEZ; and where the subsidising developing country member has fishing quotas or any other fishing rights established by a regional fisheries management organisation (RFMO) or applicable international instruments for identified target stocks. These proposed exemptions are conditioned fully on binding fisheries management-related requirements.

3) The paper also contains modifications to access-fee related exemptions in the Chair’s text. It proposes an exclusion of bilateral fishing access agreements between developed-developing countries from the scope of the exemptions, to be replaced by an exemption on access fees from rights acquired by ‘developing country Members only’ (i.e. South-South fishing access agreements).

4) Most Members consider the introduction of the concept of fishery ‘adverse effects’ with respect to identifiable wild marine fish stocks an important contribution by the paper. Specifically, the proposal states that fishery adverse effects would be deemed to exist if the subsidising Member's fishing capacity for the stocks in question has increased above the level necessary to harvest a sustainable allowable catch and it has resulted in more than moderate exploitation, so that there remains no potential for further non-subsidised expansion of production. For the purposes of the proposed WTO agreement, ‘fishing capacity’ is defined as the total capacity authorised by the Member for the fishing of identifiable wild marine fish stocks or group of stocks. In addition, ‘sustainable allowable catch’ has been defined as total allowable catch below levels which are capable of producing a long term maximum sustainable yield, based on the best scientific evidence available.  It is to be noted, however, that the earlier reference to migratory and straddling stocks contained in Article IV of the Chair’s November 2007 text has been removed from the new proposal.

5) The new proposals clarify and streamline existing Article V provisions in the Chair’s November 2007 text, which dealt with fisheries management conditionalities. Most importantly, it removes the binding obligation placed on Members to notify details concerning the nature and functioning of Members’ fisheries management systems to the relevant body of the FAO and the peer review exercise to be subsequently conducted by the FAO. Traditionally, most developing countries have been of the view that a WTO agreement should not mandate an obligatory peer review and notification of fisheries management systems to an external organisation, in this case the FAO.

Brazil, China, India and Mexico’s proposal (GEN/163) received substantial comment. The ‘Friends of Fish’ group of countries were of the opinion that GEN/163 represented a significant backward step in Members’ efforts to find an outcome on fisheries subsidies that would be sufficiently ambitious to effectively address overcapacity and over-fishing. In their opinion, the proposal provides very generous S&DT to all developing countries, by offering an ‘almost complete exemption’ from the proposed prohibition. Along with several other Members, PICs cautioned the extension of unconditional subsidies to all ranges and types of small scale fisheries (i.e. fisheries beyond ‘for subsistence only’).  Several Members pointed out that the since the term ‘small-scale’ has no clear technical definition, it could potentially cover technically and commercially advanced fishing effort. Small-scale activities in some developing countries can be highly competitive with industrial scale fishing, domestically and in seeking export markets.

The terms ‘low income’ and ‘resource poor’, the two main socio-economic criterion used to define small-scale in Gen/163, can have a wide potential reach, therefore having the effect of potentially weakening disciplines on advanced small-scale fisheries. PICs indicated a preference for the inclusion of criterion that relate to the technical fishing capacity of the boat, including but not exclusively fishing gear capacity and engine horsepower. This was under the premise that for countries that do not have perfect fisheries management measures in place, it is often difficult to control the activities of subsidised foreign small-scale boats contributing to resource depletion in their EEZs, including through resort to IUU activities.  

 GEN/163 also generated other deeper discussions on a number of issues of relevance to the ongoing fisheries subsidies negotiations. For instance, most Members agree that the paper calls into question a very real and significant issue in the framework of S&DT – the issue of ‘S&DT beyond the EEZ’. Several Members, especially Friends of Fish, are of the opinion that if EEZ limits are removed, it must be replaced by more stringent sustainability criterion. To that effect, GEN/163 makes an important contribution towards an ‘RFMO plus’ approach by making sure that S&DT beyond an EEZ is extended only where Members enjoy fishing rights created by RFMOs or other binding international instruments. Given the recent developments under the PNA 31A decision regarding the closure of high seas pockets, it is believed that PICs would generally be in support of an ‘RFMO plus’ approach and opposed to national EEZ limits placed on the scope of S&DT flexibilities granted to developing country Members.  Friends of Fish also stressed that they could not accept an outcome in the fisheries subsidies negotiations which includes allowing subsidies for high seas fishing. It was strongly emphasised by Australia that allowing for high seas fishing subsidies is contrary to both smaller developing countries’ interests and detrimental to the sustainability of fish resources generally.

The proposed revisions to access-fees related provisions are known to have significant adverse implications for PICs who have interests in maintaining the development revenue obtained from fishing access agreements signed with developed countries. In addition, while PICs (along with other developing country Members) commended the proponents in their efforts to simplify the fisheries management related obligations in Article V; they continued to indicate a preference for a three-tier approach to management conditionality. Such an approach calls for  indicative fisheries management-related conditions for subsistence fishing activities, a set of binding conditions for small-scale and commercial artisanal activities, and a stricter set of conditionalities for industrial fishing activities. Friends of Fish were in fact of the view that the text in GEN/163 provided no real alternative approach to simplifying the provisions in the Chair’s text on fisheries management conditions.

 Overall, the discussions on the proposal (GEN/163) were extremely useful in generating a debate on the key issues plaguing the WTO fisheries subsidies negotiations.

Fisheries Trade and Development

FFA’s Polynesian members establish ‘Te Vaka Moana’ group

FFA’s Polynesian member countries have been working more closely over the past two years in a collective effort to enhance sustainability and derive greater economic benefits from the South Pacific tuna longline fishery.

Cooperation between these Polynesian countries has recently been formalised through the establishment of the Te Vaka Moana Arrangement (TVMA).  The Cook Islands, New Zealand, Niue, Samoa, Tokelau and Tonga signed onto the arrangement in January 2010 and the Cook Islands is currently serving as Chair. [7] 

The TVM group intends to continue to improve cooperation in the areas of science, fisheries management and development, industry cooperation and monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS).   Formal establishment of the sub-regional group also serves to strengthen the promotion of Polynesian interests at the regional level (FFA & WCPFC).   

TMV’s future activities include the further development of management frameworks for the Polynesian longline fisheries; the development of a subsidiary arrangement under the Niue Treaty (an agreement between all FFA members on MCS); progression of a Polynesian Fisheries Development Package; and the development of strategic partnerships with other non-Polynesian neighbouring countries with common interests in the South Pacific tuna longline fishery. 

Further Blow to American Samoa Canning Industry – Starkist to Lay Off Workers

The American Samoa tuna canning industry is suffering yet another major blow. Starkist (owned by South Korea’s Dowgwon Corporation) has announced that it will eliminate a further 600 – 800 positions from its Pago Pago-based operation over the next six months, reducing total employment to less than 1,200 positions.[8]

In a press release from Starkist’s CEO, Mr. Don Binotto, ‘increased global competitive pressures’ are cited for the workforce reductions.  As a result of a federally mandated increase in American Samoa’s minimum wage rate, Starkist (as well as Chicken of the Sea’s Samoa Packing) has been unable to remain competitive against Asian and Latin-American based competitors with much lower wage rates. Rising utility and shipping costs, along with a decrease in preferential access to major markets has also exacerbated the lack of competitiveness.  [9] 

At its peak in 2008, Starkist employed over 3,000 workers in American Samoa.   Mr. Binotto warns that without support from the American Samoa Government or federal-level policy changes, American Samoa will remain globally uncompetitive and Starkist will have to continue to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of its Pago Pago-based operations. 

This follows the closure of Thai Union’s Chicken of the Sea (Samoa Packing) processing facility in September last year and the subsequent loss of over 2,000 jobs. 

In an effort to preserve some canning-sector jobs, the American Samoa Government has been looking into the option of purchasing Samoa Packing’s remaining assets and appointing a third-party to manage and operate a smaller processing facility.  Several companies with tuna processing interests are said to be interested in such an arrangement, including Tri Marine International.[10]   

The American Samoa Government has commenced looking into alternative employment opportunities for former cannery workers in other countries (e.g. Guam, Australia, New Zealand) and intends to establish an office to oversee employment services.[11] 

Fisheries-Trade Related Regulation

Labour standards, US free trade agreements and the fishing sector

Beginning in July 2009, the Obama administration announced a series of measures designed to guarantee that United States trading partners respect trade agreement rules. The announcement highlighted that the enforcement of trade rules, including on health and safety standards (sanitary and phytosanitary, SPS, measures), technical barriers to trade (TBT), and labour standards, are an integral part of the US strategy to make trade economically beneficial and fair. The administration has committed to holding trading partners to their commitments on workers’ rights, requiring that trading partners enforce domestic labour laws and strive for labour standards that adhere to international norms.

In the past, the US has addressed issues around trading partners’ labour laws only on a complaint-driven basis, but the new administration’s policy enables the US to immediately identify and investigate labour violations. When violations are identified, the US government states that it will work with foreign governments to restore workers rights quickly, first helping to encourage compliance, and if violations continue, exercise legal options so as not to unfairly disadvantage American workers.[12] The new policies come amid growing calls from trade unions and some lawmakers for the Obama administration to protect US workers from foreign competition.

The new commitment to enforcing labor standards may have some impact on seafood trade. In September 2009, the US Department of Labour’s Bureau of International Labour Affairs (ILAB) released its annual report on child and/or forced labour, which spotlighted worldwide seafood industry labour abuses.[13] Child and forced labour were reported in shrimp production in Thailand and tilapia grown and processed in Ghana. Shrimp from Bangladesh and Cambodia were found to be produced with child labour, and shrimp from Burma was found to be made with forced labour. Likewise, lobster producers in Honduras were found to be using child labour, as were shellfish producers in Nicaragua and Nile perch producers in Tanzania.[14]

The US has free trade agreements with Honduras and Nicaragua, offers trade preferences to Ghana and Tanzania under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), and has been in negotiations for a free trade agreement with Thailand since 2004. The labour report follows on the heels of a 2008 report by US labour unions that detailed wide ranging labour abuses in Thai and Bangladeshi shrimp processing plants.[15] Following the 2008 report, the US National Fisheries Institute indicated its willingness to engage its members across the seafood distribution chain to address unfair labour practices.[16] The Thai Shrimp Association refuted allegations of unfair labour practices.[17]

In the meantime, ‘rights’ continue to be a sticking point in bilateral trade agreements with the US. For example, the US Department of Labour is considering formal consultations with Guatemala in response to complaints by US and Guatemalan labour unions about the country’s record on labour rights.[18] In December 2009, Vietnamese Deputy Prime Minister Pham Gia Khiem reportedly requested that the US leave democratic and human rights issues out of its trade acts.[19]

Fisheries Management and Development

Fisheries eco-labels are assessed against each other

Though marine ecolabel use is expanding and appears to be here to stay, assessments of eco-labels reveal there is controversy over what makes a successful labeling scheme. A WWF commissioned report compared and ranked seven fishery certification programmes that use eco-labels on seafood products against a set of criteria that focused on effectiveness in addressing the health of ocean fisheries. Criteria were based on the FAO’s 2005 guidelines for best practices in ecolabeling, standards developed by the International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labeling Alliance (ISEAL) and elements from WWF’s framework for ecosystems-based management of marine fisheries.[20]

The MSC, the dominant global ecolabel with sales of over USD1 billion, over 50 certified fisheries and more than 100 fisheries in some stage of certification,[21] came out on top of the assessment, scoring over 95 percent compliance to the assessment’s criteria requirement. The assessment found that all other assessed programmes – Naturland, Friend of the Sea, Krav, AIDCP, Mel-Japan and Southern Rocklobster – did not evaluate fisheries to the extent required (by WWF criteria) to support sustainable fishing and healthy oceans. Many were found to have shortcomings in transparency and information provision.[22] Friend of the Sea issued a response stating that the report was not credible since WWF is the founder, sponsor and main supporter of MSC and noting that on other impartial assessments of seafood ecolabels have found only negligible differences in performance between MSC and Friend of the Sea.[23]

A second set of reports assessed the effects of fisheries eco-labels in the market place. Their findings reveal that though label campaigns may increase awareness about sustainability problems in fisheries, ecolabel campaigns confuse consumers.[24] One of these studies found that ecolabel programmes do not adequately trace products throughout the production chain, and that they have not demonstrably improved fish conservation status.[25] 

Further criticism has emerged: fisheries scientist Daniel Pauly recently took aim at the globally dominant MSC certification scheme. He argued at the 2010 Seafood Summit that MSC has very little to do with conservation and is instead an initiative that the seafood industry needs to make its products more palatable to consumers.[26] A representative from the Global Aquaculture Alliance, which offers an ecolabel for farmed fish, suggested at the World Aquaculture Society conference that, so far, ecolabels are not consumer issues, but that currently retailers are choosing ecolabels out of a sense of corporate social responsibility and to differentiate themselves.[27] Similar criticisms have cautioned the seafood industry to focus its attention not on sustaining the ‘movement’, but on sustaining the resources.[28]

Ecolabel schemes continue to promote their progress. The MSC released a report of the benefits that have emerged in the 10 years since the certification scheme went into effect in which fishers note that MSC certification has promoted quotas and business transactions based on science and the precautionary approach. It also maintains that the ecolabel has generated economic benefits including market access, price stability and, in some cases, premiums of up to 25 percent.[29] MSC reports that it is expanding its eco-label to small-scale and ‘developing’ fisheries through its ‘Fisheries Assessment Methodology’ which allows for assessment of data limited fisheries. The methodology starts with qualitative assessment in which certifiers gather expert opinion, including local ecological knowledge, and can be followed with a semi-quantitative assessment based on the productivity of the species concerned and its susceptibility to fishing gear.[30]

As an example of the extent of the rise of MSC, the Danish Fishermen’s Association has indicated that it plans to have all eligible Danish fisheries MSC certified before the end of 2010. Denmark is the world’s fifth largest seafood exporter (by value).[31] However, some in the fishing industry point out the MSC ecolabel is not an indication of quality and that the ecolabel alone is not enough to ensure that there will be market demand for the products. Fishers have indicated that they prefer to be certified under the country’s Responsible Fishing Scheme (RFS), which gives fishermen training diplomas including fish handling, health and safety check.[32]

Outside of certification schemes, some quick-service restaurants recognised several years ago that their supply chains would be affected by seafood declines. They developed procurement policies that allowed them to maintain their business model and to plan for expansion. For example, McDonalds began its sustainable seafood programme a decade ago after realising that the supply of cod for fish sandwiches would not remain sustainable. The firm now substitutes different fish species, such as hoki and pollock, for cod, based on price, supply and demand. The company works with its suppliers and buys fish according to its own standards (which are based on MSC criteria). Quick service restaurants have so far not marketed their sustainability efforts to avoid confusing consumers and to avoid bringing undue attention to the sustainability characteristics of non-fish products.[33]

In summary, sustainability labels and criteria are here to stay and are likely to emerge further in various forms at international, national and firm levels. There will continue to be competition among certification approaches, and firms producing and procuring seafood will choose sustainability strategies based on supply and demand, consumer preferences and economic bottom lines.

Tuna Markets

Update on Spanish tuna industry

In Spain, the recession fueled a retail price war that was reported to drive holiday prices down 19 percent compared with 2008 holiday prices. Seafood, perceived as a premium item, has suffered. Spain’s per capita consumption fell by 1.3 kilos in 2009.[34] Expensive fish products were traded in for more affordable fish such as pangasius. Such trends are reported to have fueled a commercial war between firms supplying farmed and wild fish based not on quality, but on price.[35] Spanish consumer preference also seems to be shifting towards processed seafood and away from headed and gutted products traditionally popular in Spain. As a result, vertically integrated firm Iberconsa is processing more fish in factories in Argentina and Namibia, and sending squid and whitefish to China for reprocessing rather than shipping it straight to Spain for sale. Iberconsa sales directors suggest that growing Chinese processing firms present a good opportunity for investment.[36]

Spanish firms are also warming up to sustainability issues. Tuna firm Albacora plans to launch more Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certified products for international markets. The firm has MSC chain-of-custody certification for its three production plants, two of which are in Spain, and the third in Ecuador. The firm already supplies Campos branded canned tuna with the MSC label in northern Europe and plans to launch MSC-labeled frozen steaks. So far it does not supply MSC product to Spain, indicating low demand for ecolabeled product. All of the company’s MSC labeled products come from the certified albacore fisheries on the West Coast of the United States. Vertically integrated Albacora is the largest European tuna fishing company with a fleet of 27 vessels that catch 120,000 tonnes of fish annually.[37]

Calvo, the market leader in Spain for canned tuna products saw sales leap 9.9 percent to USD584.8 million after a cost-cutting restructuring begun in 2006. The increase occurred from its land based divisions (up 5.9 percent) and fleet operations (up 32.2 percent).[38] Calvo reports that it has not been impacted by the bailout of the bank that holds some of its shares.[39] Overseas, the firm has invested USD2 million in a new factory in El Salvador to increase its export capacity. The plant will process tuna into loins and cans to increase domestic supply and exports to the EU, Central America, Brazil and Taiwan. The investment will increase Calvo’s overall loin and canned production capacity in El Salvador to 35,000 tonnes. The firm has exported canned products from El Salvador to Europe since 2007, but upon opening the new plant, Calvo CEO Manuel Calvo expressed concern that EU GSP+ rules of origin were preventing the company from buying from tuna fleets that are not Spanish or Salvadorian and that this, coupled with decline in fisheries, caused production declines in 2009. To supply Central American markets, the company exports tuna steak in olive and vegetable oil, water packed tuna loins, tuna chunks in vegetable oil and in water, and value added products such as tuna with vegetables and tuna salad with mayonnaise. The Calvo Group’s operations in El Salvador are its largest worldwide; production estimates from El Salvador for 2009 were approximately 40,000 tonnes.[40] The firm also has a plant in Costa Rica, where the government is looking into accusations from Sardimar that Calvo is dumping cheap product on the market. Calvo denies the claim indicating that because it is vertically integrated and operatives without intermediaries that it is able to price its products competitively.[41] 

Spanish seafood giant Pescanova has undertaken a 33 percent recapitalisation. Current shareholders signed for 30 percent of the USD148 million capital increase. The financial injection is designed to strengthen the firm in the face of potential acquisitions in Europe or the Americas, two regions that Pescanova has targeted as priorities for short and medium term growth.[42] In Namibia, 900 fishers and plant workers that supply and work at Pescanova defied a court order prohibiting them from picketing in front of the company’s factory in Luderitz. Workers demanded a 7.5 percent wage increase.[43] The two month strike, the culmination of two years of disputes between workers and the firm, ended in compromise in January 2009 when the Namibia Seamen and Allied Workers Union (Nasawu) and company management agreed to a 6.5 percent salary increase for the lowest paid workers and a 6 percent increase for middle and upper wage earners plus a one-time bonus payment of USD68 and a 10-day bonus for 2008/9 and 2009/10. Pescanova also agreed to provide workers with a housing subsidy, an allowance for those working in temperatures below zero, and an allowance per day for fishers working in foreign countries. The court order banning picketing in front of the factory was lifted and all charges on six workers arrested for picketing were dropped.[44]

Developments in seafood trade and retail in France

French retail giant Carrefour and seafood firms Findus France, Labeyrie and Connetable have launched the ‘Blue Days’ campaign, a nationwide in-store campaign highlighting environmentally preferable seafood. The firms’ sourcing strategies are based on Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) criteria and the campaign is designed to increase awareness of the MSC eco-label and to enhance the sustainability credentials of the participating seafood brands and retailer.[45]

French trading firm Aquabon has begun to experiment with importing bigeye and yellowfin tuna that is super frozen at -60? Celsius from its own plant in Sri Lanka and from Japanese, Korean, Taiwanese and Indonesian fishing vessels. Since the cold chain in Europe does not have the technology to transport fish at this temperature, Aquabon defrosts product to supply restaurants, and increasingly, supermarkets. Keeping the fish at -60? Celsius maintains all qualities of fresh fish, including the colour.[46] Dutch firm Culimer B.V. is also investing US$9 million in expanding its super frozen capacity in Vietnam and the Netherlands to decrease the carbon footprint of yellowfin and bigeye since frozen fish do not need to be air freighted for the fresh market. The firm also suggests that superfreezing tuna helps to stabilise price and, since super frozen fish maintain high quality, fishers can get more value for catching less.[47]

Fish traders and wholesalers complain that supermarkets that dominate the fish retail sector have complete control over pricing. They suggest that on account of retailer market power, consumer prices have remained stagnant or increased even when consumers have become more price conscious and seafood prices at the quayside have fallen.[48]

Coming in the next issue (July & August 2010, Vol. 3: Issue 7 & 8)

* Update on PNG’s Pacific Marine Industrial Zone

* Analysis of protectionist interests in EU over seafood imports

* Update on MW Brands sale

1 Prepared for the FFA Fisheries Development Division by Liam Campling, Consultant Fisheries Trade Analyst, FFA, Elizabeth Havice, Colorado College, and Amanda Hamilton, independent consultant. Desktop publishing by Antony Price. The authors would like to thank Hugh Walton for his input on an earlier draft of this briefing and Manleen Dugal for her valuable contribution. The contents of this briefing (including all analysis and opinions) are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions or thinking of the FFA Secretariat or its Members.

2 Story written by Manleen Dugal, Technical Advisor, Permanent Representation of the Pacific Islands Delegation to the WTO.

3 TN/RL/GEN/163, ‘Fisheries subsidies: special and differential treatment’, Communication from Brazil, China, India and Mexico, 11 February 2010. The text of the proposal is available here: http://ictsd.org/downloads/2010/05/tn-rl-gen-163.pdf

4 For a summary of the Roadmap see FFA Fisheries Trade News, January 2009, 2:1. Available at: http://www.ffa.int/trade_news The text of the Roadmap (WTO Document TN/RL/W/236) is available here: www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/rulesneg_e/rules_dec08_e.doc

5 It was inspired by the current Article 6.2 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, agricultural input subsidies generally available to low-income or resource-poor producers in developing country Members are exempt from domestic support (subsidy) reduction commitments that would otherwise be applicable to such measures.

6 WTO Document TN/RL/GEN/163

7 FFA (2010) Polynesian Fisheries Cooperation:  Te Vaka Moana Arrangement, Media Release, 9 May 2010.  Available at:  http://www.ffa.int

8 Starkist (2010) ‘Starkist to Make Additional Job Reductions in American Samoa’.  Media Release.  May 17, 2010.  Avaiable at:  http://www.starkist.com/Pdf/FINALMayAnnouncement.pdf

9 Starkist (2010)

10 Radio New Zealand (2010) ‘Tri Marine Chairman Talks About Operating Samoan Tuna Cannery’. 27 May 2010.  Atuna.  Available at: http://www.atuna.com

11 AFP (2010) ‘Starkist Announces 800 Job Cuts in American Samoa’.  17 May 2010.  Atuna.  Available at: http://www.atuna.com

12 ‘Ambassador Kirk announces new initiatives for trade enforcement’, United States Trade Representative, speech delivered on 16 July 2009, Pittsburg, PA, USA. Available at: http://www.ustr.gov

13 ‘The Department of Labor’s list of goods produced by child labor or forced labor: Report required by the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Acts of 2005 and 2008’, United States Department of Labor, Bureau of International Labor Affairs, Office of Child Labor, Forced Labor and Human Trafficking, 10 September 2009. Available at: http://www.dol.gov 

14 Ben DiPietro, ‘UPDATE: US report spotlights worldwide seafood labor abuses’, IntraFish Media, 11 September 2009. Available at: http://www.intrafish.no

15 Ben DiPietro, ‘Report says shrimp industry workers enslaved, abused’, IntraFish Media, 28 April 2008. Available at: http://www.intrafish.no

16 Ben DiPietro, ‘NFI seeks meeting with shrimp abuse report authors’, IntraFish Media, 16 May 2008. Available at: http://www.intrafish.no

17 ‘Thai shrimpers want “justice” from US following shrimp abuse report’, IntraFish Media, 9 May 2008. Available at: http://www.intrafish.no

18 ‘US weighs consultations with Guatemala on labour rights’, Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest, 13 (29), 5 August 2009. Available at: http://www.ictsd.org 

19 ‘Vietnam-No human rights issues in trade acts’, VNA, 2 December 2009. Available at: http://www.bilaterals.org

20 ‘Full Report: Assessment of on-pack, wild capture seafood sustainability certification programmes and seafood ecolables’, Independent Assessment by Accenture, December 2009. Available at: http://www.wwf.org

21 Drew Cherry, ‘MSC’s defining moments’, IntraFish Media, 17 July 2009. Available at: http://www.intrafish.no

22 Ben DiPietro, ‘MSC tops eco-label report’, IntraFish Media, 19 January 2010. Available at: http://www.intrafish.no

23 ‘Friend of the Sea fights back’, IntraFish Media, 21 January 2010. Available at: http://www.intrafish.no

24 ‘Consumer campaigns “don’t save fish”’, ABC Science, 18 November 2009. Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/ ; ‘Shoppers confused by fish labels-report’, Fishupdate.com, 22 December 2009. Available at: http://www.fishupdate.com; Jennifer Jacquet, John Hocevar, Sherman Lai, Particia Majluf, Nathan Pelletier, Tony Pitcher, Enric Sala, Rashid Sumaila and Daniel Pauly, ‘Conserving wild fish in a sea of market based efforts’, Oryx, The International Journal of Conservation, in press; ‘Review of fish sustainability information schemes – Final report’, MRAG, October 2009. Available at: http://www.mrag.co.uk

25 Jennifer Jacquet, John Hocevar, Sherman Lai, Particia Majluf, Nathan Pelletier, Tony Pitcher, Enric Sala, Rashid Sumaila and Daniel Pauly, ‘Conserving wild fish in a sea of market based efforts’, Oryx, The International Journal of Conservation, in press

26 Tom Seaman, ‘Pauly: MSC has nothing to do with conservation’, IntraFish Media, 2 February 2010. Available at: http://www.intrafish.no

27 Ben DiPietro, ‘Eco-labels: corporate responsibility issue’, IntraFish Media, 2 March 2010. Available at: http://www.intrafish.no

28 John Fiorillo, ‘Beware the sustainability “movement”’, IntraFish Media, 2 December 2009. Available at: http://www.intrafish.no

29 ‘The MSC at 10’, IntraFish Media, 1 October 2009. Available at: http://www.intrafish.no

30 ‘MSC expands eco-labels to small-scale, “developing” fisheries’, IntraFish Media, 7 August 2009. Available at: http://www.intrafish.no

31 ‘Denmark goes all-in for fisheries ecolabel’, Fishupdate.com, 1 September 2009. Available at: http://www.fishupdate.com; ‘Denmark commits to MSC’, IntraFish Media, 1 September 2009. Available at: http://www.intrafish.no

32 Steve Robinson, ‘Fishers slam MSC quality’, IntraFish Media, 8 December 2009. Available at: http://www.intrafish.no

33 Christa Hoyland, ‘QSRs need to take lead on sustainable seafood messaging’, QSRweb.com, 9 December 2009. Available at: http://www.qsrweb.com; Personal communication, QSR Corporate social responsibility director, February 2006.  

34 Jason Holland, ‘Spanish recession fuels retail price war’, IntraFish Media, 25 November 2009. Available at: http://www.intrafish.no

35 Tom Seaman, ‘A sea change’, IntraFish Media, 13 October 2009. Available at: http://www.intrafish.no

36 Tom Seaman, ‘Spain wants more processed fish’, IntraFish Media, 12 October 2009. Available at: http://www.intrafish.no

37 Tom Seaman, ‘Albacora embraces MSC’, IntraFish Media, 12 October 2009. Available at: http://www.intrafish.no

38 Tom Seaman, ‘Restructuring sees Calvo sales leap to €415 million’, IntraFish Media, 2 June 2009. Available at: http://www.intrafish.no

39 ‘Spanish giant “not affected” by shareholder nationalization’, IntraFish Media, 3 April 2009. Available at: http://www.intrafish.no

40 Tom Seaman, ‘Calvo invests $2 million in El Salvador plant’, IntraFish Media, 21 October 2009. Available at: http://www.intrafish.no; ‘Calvo concerned over EU import regulations’, IntraFish Media, 23 October 2009. Available at: http://www.intrafish.no

41 ‘Costa Rican government investigates Calvo’, IntraFish Media, 11 September 2009. Available at: http://www.intrafish.no

42 ‘Top execs buy deeper into Pescanova’, IntraFish Media, 16 October 2009. Available at: http://www.intrafish.no

43 ‘Workers defy Pescanova’s efforts to stop wage protest’, IntraFish Media, 12 January 2009. Available at: http://www.intrafish.no

44 E. Fiske, ‘Two-month Pescanova strike ends in compromise’, FIS.com, 29 January 2009. Available at: http://www.fis.com

45 ‘Carrefour, Findus, Labeyrie launch French MSC push’, IntraFish Media, 26 January 2010. Available at: http://www.intrafish.no

46 Quentin Bates, ‘French trader experiments with superfrozen tuna imports’, IntraFish Media, 20 March 2009. Available at: http://www.intrafish.no

47 Tom Seaman, ‘Dutch firm’s $9 million super frozen expansion’, IntraFish Media, 9 February 2010. Available at: http://www.intrafish.no

48 Quentin Bates, ‘Supermarkets “not playing fair”’, IntraFish Media, 10 March 2009. Available at: http://www.intrafish.no During the recession, other fish traders in France have encountered financial difficulties as banks have been unwilling to lend. Financial problems are reported to be lending uncertainty to the entire business.  Quentin Bates, ‘Loss of credit insurance hits French fish trade’, IntraFish Media, 10 March 2009. Available at: http://www.intrafish.no