INSIGHTS | PERSPECTIVES 504 1 MAY 2015 • VOL 348 ISSUE 6234 sciencemag.org SCIENCE ments 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 prac- tice 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 through- out the world and require integrative conser- vation 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 wild- life 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 combi- nation of strategies will provide a better per- spective for airspace conservation. ■ REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. G. R. Martin, Ibis 153, 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); see www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/wildlife/ resources/media/bash90-11.pdf. 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, Renew. 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 air- craft over the world (International Bird Strike Committee IBSC25/WP-SA3, Amsterdam, 2000). 9. J. M. Creamean et al., 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). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors thank PICT1156/2010, PIP 0095, CONICET, and Swansea University for funding; reviewers for comments; and F. Ballejo for help with the figure. 10.1126/science.aaa6743 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. Wilson 10 Require improvements as conditions for market access SUSTAINABILITY D emand 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 sustain- able sources by 2015 ( 1, 2). Cred- ible arbiters of certifications, such as the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), require detailed environmental and trace- ability standards. Although these standards have been met in many commercial fisheries throughout the developed world ( 3), devel- oping country fisheries (DCFs) represent only 7% of ~220 total MSC-certified fisheries ( 4, 5). With the United Nations Food and Ag- riculture Organization reporting that developing countries account for ~50% of seafood entering in- ternational trade, this presents a fundamental challenge for mar- keters of sustainable seafood (see the photo). Progress toward sustainabil- ity means overcoming difficul- ties 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 proj- ects (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 so- cial improvement. ACCESS, THEN IMPROVEMENTS. FIPs are varied in their scale and scope, developed and funded by nongovernmental organiza- tions (NGOs) and the private sector. At their core, they are partnerships with the supply chain seeking to source seafood for devel- oped 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-assessment stages of formal certification, an opportu- nity 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 de- PHOTO: SIMON R. BUSH/WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY POLICY The municipal port in Bitung, North Sulawesi. Indonesia.