INSIGHTS | PERSPECTIVES
504 1 MAY 2015 • VOL 348 ISSUE 6234 sciencemag.org SCIENCE
airspace, could protect daily animal movements such as for foraging. However, many
air users cover large distances, taking them
beyond their reserves (14). This complicates
efforts to protect them and must be taken
into account when designing reserves.
Conservation measures must also consider
the sociocultural aspects of human-wildlife
conflict. For example, the spring bird hunt
in Malta has negative demographic effects
on bird species that are migrating to breed.
However, it is considered a traditional practice and in a recent referendum, the Maltese
population narrowly voted to continue with
the practice. This case shows how difficult it
is to translate some traditions into current
conservation practices. Similarly, military
practices may also have negative impacts
in areas sensitive for wildlife (e.g., flying
through rocky canyons where vultures and
many other species fly). These sociocultural
conflicts with flying species occur throughout the world and require integrative conservation approaches that go beyond reserves.
There are thus three main levels at which
to deal with airspace conflict: identification
of pristine airspaces with high aerial wildlife densities where valuable air reserves
can be created; identification of airspaces
where humans and wildlife are already in
severe conflict and where more dramatic
measures must be taken to reduce collisions;
and a suite of standard measures, such as
anti–bird collision light systems, that should
be implemented in places when bird strike
probabilities are appreciable. Such a combination of strategies will provide a better perspective for airspace conservation. ■
REFERENCES AND NOTES
1. G. R. Martin, Ibis153, 239 (2011).
2. R.A.Dolbeer,S.E.Wright,J.R.Weller, M.J.Begier,Wildlife
strikes to civil aircraft in the United States 1990–2013
(Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC, 2014);
3. E.Vas,A.Lescroël,O.Duriez, G.Boguszewski, D.Grémillet,
Biol. Lett. 11, 20140754 (2015).
4. T. H. Kunz et al., Integr. Comp. Biol. 48, 1 (2008).
5. K.Dai, A.Bergot, C.Liang,W.-N.Xiang, Z.Huang, Rene w.
Energy 75, 911 (2015).
6. S. Bauer, B. J. Hoye, Science 344, 1242552 (2014).
7. R.A.Dolbeer, J. Wildl. Manage. 70,1345(2006).
8. S. M. Satheesan, M. Satheesan, Serious vulture-hits to aircraft over the world (International Bird Strike Committee
IBSC25/WP-SA3, Amsterdam, 2000).
9. J.M.Creamean etal.,Science 339,1572(2013).
10. P. N. Polymenakou, Atmosphere ( Toronto) 3, 87 (2012).
11. K.Anderson, K.J.Gaston, Front.Ecol.Environ 11,138(2013).
12. B. Hayes et al., Eurodrones Inc. (Transnational Institute,
Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2014).
13. K. J. Gaston et al., Biol. Rev.88, 912 (2013).
14. S. A. Lambertucci et al ., Biol. Conserv. 170, 145 (2014).
15. R. H. Diehl, Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 377 (2013).
The authors thank PICT1156/2010, PIP 0095, CONICET, and
Swansea University for funding; reviewers for comments; and F.
Ballejo for help with the figure.
Secure sustainable seafood
from developing countries
By Gabriel S. Sampson,1
James N. Sanchirico, 1,2 Cathy A. Roheim,3
Simon R. Bush, 4 J. Edward Taylor, 1
Edward H. Allison,5 James L. Anderson,6
Natalie C. Ban,7 Rod Fujita,8
Stacy Jupiter,9 Jono R. Wilson10
Require improvements as conditions for market access
Demand for sustainably certified wild-caught fish and crustaceans is increasingly shaping global seafood markets. Retailers such as Walmart in the United States, Sainsbury’s in the United Kingdom, and Carrefour
in France, and processors such as Canadian-
based High Liner Foods, have promised to
source all fresh, frozen, farmed, and wild
seafood from sustainable sources by 2015 (1,
2). Credible arbiters of certifications, such as
the Marine Stewardship Council
(MSC), require detailed environ-
mental and traceability stan-
dards. Although these standards have been
met in many commercial fisheries
throughout the developed world
(3), developing country fisheries
(DCFs) represent only 7% of ~220
total MSC-certified fisheries (4,
5). With the United Nations Food
and Agriculture Organization
reporting that developing coun-
tries account for ~50% of seafood
entering international trade, this
presents a fundamental challenge
for marketers of sustainable sea-
food (see the photo).
Progress toward sustainability means overcoming difficulties DCFs face in complying with
MSC-like standards (6–8). With a
limited amount of certified wild-caught seafood available, some
firms include seafood sourced
from fishery improvement projects (FIPs) (9), in which fishers
are rewarded with market access
conditional on the fishery making progress toward sustainability. Rapid spread of FIPs, which
often operate without transparent and independent assessment,
raises questions about their effectiveness as a tool to foster environmental, economic, and social
ACCESS, THEN IMPROVEMENTS. FIPs are
varied in their scale and scope, developed
and funded by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and the private sector. At
their core, they are partnerships with the
supply chain seeking to source seafood for
developed country markets to supplement
the stock of MSC-certified products (6) (fig.
S1). Although FIPs are not formally part of
the MSC or any other certification process,
they provide fisheries, especially those
that might perform poorly during pre-as-sessment stages of formal certification, an
opportunity to be rewarded with access to
markets (and potentially higher ex-vessel
prices) (10). The costs of engaging a fishery
in a FIP or MSC process appear similar (11,
12) and depend on the size and complex-
ity of the fishery, but the distribution over
time can vary because of the larger upfront
costs associated with MSC certification.
According to the FishSource data library