ICCAT PostScript: silky shark afforded greater protection but other species ignored

Follow up to yesterday's post, "Sharks of the Atlantic: new report cites dismal international conservation efforts" . . .

The results of the ICCAT's 22nd Regular Meeting of the Commission in Instanbul, Turkey produced a mixed bag of results, leaning towards more disappointment than satisfaction. ICCAT agreed to establish greater protection for the silky shark - one of the most sought after sharks in the Atlantic shark fishing industry - but protections for the porbeagle, blue, and shortfin mako sharks were passed over, along with other important shark conservation measures that were recommended by Oceana and other conservation groups.

Maintaining a diplomatic stiff upper lip, an Oceana press release stated, “'It is a great day for silky sharks,' said Elizabeth Griffin Wilson, senior manager of marine wildlife at Oceana. 'ICCAT should be commended for its continued effort to protect the oceans top predators. Today’s decision to protect silky sharks is a strong step forward in protecting one of the most commonly found species in the international shark fin trade.'

Oceana did voice concern that ICCAT failed to reach consensus on several important shark measures, including those to protect vulnerable porbeagle sharks, establish science-based precautionary catch limits for blue and shortfin mako sharks and improve the current finning measure by requiring that sharks be landed with their fins wholly or partially attached in a natural manner."

Also in attendance at the ICCAT meeting were representatives of the Pew Environment Group. "Protecting one shark species a year and adopting no other measures for their conservation will not be enough to ensure the survival of these animals across the Atlantic Ocean," said Max Bello, senior advisor on global shark conservation for Pew.

Progress with international organizations can be painfully slow and patience is one of the founding principals of diplomacy. However, incremental steps at this stage may not be enough to preserve endangered shark species like the porbeagle which, it has been reported by scientists, would need a minimum of several decades and possibly more than 100 years to fully recover.

Read Oceana's press release on the results of the ICCAT meeting.
Read comments from the Pew Environment Group in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Sharks of the Atlantic: new report cites dismal international conservation efforts

Over the past several years, we have been seeing progress made in conserving sharks through the establishment of shark sanctuaries or protected zones that have included entire island nations. The latest measure has been taken by the U.S. state of Florida which initiated a prohibition on the catching of tiger sharks and three species of hammerhead sharks inside Florida state waters. Additionally, we have seen legislation aimed at shark fin bans which, at best, puts pressure on the shark finning industry and, at the very least, forces them to fold up their tents and move elsewhere.

As positive as these steps are, they are regional efforts, globally-speaking, and many sharks species, particularly those considered the most endangered, are known to travel great distances whether traveling along migratory routes or randomly covering a lot of ocean territory and, in so doing, they move in and out of protected areas frequently.

Since these sharks will move in open international waters, it therefore becomes the responsibility of multinational fishery management organizations to ensure that sharks are being properly managed and, in many cases, prohibited from commercial shark fishing.

This could not be any more truer than in the Atlantic Ocean. A just-released report from Oceana cites as much as 75% of the migratory sharks in the Atlantic are classified as threatened by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) but less than 1 percent are protected by the organization that is most responsible for protecting these sharks.

The ICCAT, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, is that responsible organization. According to Oceana, "The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the primary international maritime treaty, establishes that fishing nations must cooperate to ensure the conservation of highly migratory species both within and beyond their exclusive economic zones, through appropriate international organizations."

"Because highly migratory species require international cooperation for effective management, Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) have been established to manage fisheries for these species with the goal of long-term sustainability. In the Atlantic Ocean and adjacent seas, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) is the most relevant and appropriate international organization to manage highly migratory species, including sharks."

Unfortunately, ICCAT's scorecard has not been a particularly winning one. Heavily influenced by commercial fishing interests, the organization has set catch limits for tuna that are consistently way below levels recommended by their own scientific advisers, and only a few species of sharks have been afforded any degree of protection.
The ICCAT has been holding its 22nd Regular Meeting of the Commission this past week in Istanbul, Turkey and Oceana is there to present the 48 member nations with the facts and to make recommendations as to actions ICCAT should be taking regarding Atlantic Ocean sharks.
Just how many sharks are being taken? Well, trying to answer that question is also part of the problem because as many as half of ICCAT's member nations did not report any shark catches in 2009 - there's no data. Based on what figures are available, combined with scientific and anecdotal observations, the current state of affairs is not good. But until there is reliable data from all member nations, the full extant of the problem can not be appreciated - which is just fine with the commercial fishing industry representatives whispering in the ears of ICCAT delegates.
In its 10-page report, Vulnerable Sharks in the Atlantic Ocean: The Need for International Management, Oceana puts forth the following recommendations to the ICCAT:

1. Prohibit retention of endangered or particularly vulnerable shark species, especially porbeagle and silky sharks.
2. Establish science-based precautionary catch limits for blue and shortfin mako sharks.
3. Require reporting of catch data as a prerequisite for landing a particular shark species.
4. Improve the ICCAT finning measure by requiring that sharks be landed with their fins wholly or partially attached in a natural manner.

I have reported on the ICCAT's dismal record in the past regarding tuna catch limits and so if the organization's history is any indication, Oceana has probably had it's hands full this past week. But it's a fight worth taking on so, as the meeting in Turkey comes to a close this weekend, let's hope that some decisive progress has been made.

Perhaps someday, with regional protections in place, a growing public awareness and clamor as to the problem, and catch levels reaching limits that are economically unsupportable, the ICCAT will live up to its environmental responsibilities. The sharks are betting their lives on it.

Download Oceana's report: Vulnerable Sharks in the Atlantic Ocean.
Read about the status of Atlantic sharks at Ocean's website.

Tuna in the Eastern Pacific: can scientists and fishermen at sea improve sustainability?

Tuna. Many of us grew up with our mother's weekly tuna casserole or that fragrant tuna fish sandwich that we could never trade for extra Oreos in the school cafeteria. For decades it truly was, to borrow a brand name, the "Chicken of the Sea."

But the once vast populations of tuna are now a shadow of their former selves, and the fate of this powerful pelagic predator is unclear at best.

However, scientists are trying to improve the methods by which tuna are hunted and caught - not to increase the commercial tuna fishing fleet's take, but to bring it to levels that will allow for long-term sustainability of the tuna.

The International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF) - a collaboration between scientists, the fishing industry, and the World Wildlife Fund - is working with a leading tuna industry association, the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, to come up with techniques that will both help preserve tuna stocks at acceptable levels and reduce the enormous amount of bycatch that the tuna boats generate through the use of seine nets.

Departing from Ecuador, members of ISSF will spend two months aboard a tuna seine net vessel in the eastern Pacific to observe and study, ultimately with the idea of making recommendations on improved techniques that will enable tuna boats to harvest at levels that will allow for their economic survival while better managing the take of tuna and unintended bycatch.

"The problem and its scope have been identified," said Susan Jackson, President of ISSF. "Now it's time to get on the water and make significant improvements alongside industry that help them to remain viable without jeopardizing the world's tuna resources and the ocean's complex marine ecosystem." "In reality all fisheries have trade-offs and a certain level of environmental impact. Some have advocated for abandoning these fisheries, a move that industry has warned us would cut the world's tuna supply in half, lead to thousands of job losses and additional financial strain on developing economies. Rather than walking away and giving up, we must help a willing industry improve its practices."

If I may interject some personal commentary, based on what I have heard and read from a variety of knowledgeable sources regarding the present condition of the tuna populations, "walking away" may be our best option at this point. A moratorium on tuna would not be giving up, it would be a rational step in allowing the tuna stocks to recover (there are many scientists who fear that the tuna have been so heavily impacted by commercial fishing that a moratorium may be too little, too late).

Would a moratorium produce economic hardship for the tuna fishing fleet? To a noticeable extant, yes. Some fishermen could be re-trained to work in tuna aquafarming; others perhaps could shift to other more sustainable species. And others would have to leave the industry all together. One way or the other, it would not be easy. However, having listened to all the arguments coming from past international meetings, like those of the ICCAT (International Commission on the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna), it is my opinion that the tuna stocks are reaching - or in some areas of the world, have reached - perilous levels of depletion. And at these low levels there is no degree of fishing activity that would not push the tuna further towards extinction.

The ISSF's initial cruise will be followed by additional expeditions in both the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, and what improvements are ascertained will be incorporated into teaching workshops for other fishermen. According to Dr. Victor Restrepo, Chair of the ISSF Scientific Advisory Committee, "This cruise will help our team of scientists and collaborators improve the educational workshops already being conducted with fishing crews around the world. As scientists identify new solutions, we will incorporate the findings into workshops so that skippers and vessel captains can provide real-time feedback. If something isn't realistic or fishers have an idea on how to improve it, we'll have the ability to take the idea back onto the water."

I wish the ISSF much success in their undertaking, I truly do. But I have my doubts about sustainable tuna fishing and, indeed, any commercial venture that harvests fish in the wild. Nature never intended for tuna and other sealife to be harvested at the levels we do now to feed an expanding world population. True sustainable seafood will be that which is grown and harvested by man - just like the chicken, the tuna's commercial namesake.

Read about the ISSF's expeditions in the Canadian Business Network.

ICCAT & Tuna: "extraordinary" meeting - depends on who you ask

One final report on ICCAT (International Convention for Conservation of Atlantic Tuna) and the conclusions from its recent annual meeting: the future of bluefin tuna in 2011. As reported earlier, bluefin tuna - particularly Atlantic and Mediterranean tuna - are on perilously shaky ground. ICCAT currently limits its members to a catch quota of 13,500 tons of tuna. This past weekend in Paris, ICCAT set a new level for next year: 12,900 tons - a reduction of only 600 tons or 4 percent.

In ICCAT's press release, the meeting was described as "extraordinary."

Here is how the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) summed it up:

"At its annual meeting last year, ICCAT decided to set catch levels so that bluefin tuna would have at least a 60% chance of recovering by 2022. In October, ICCAT's scientific advisory committee reported that this goal could be met by keeping annual catch limits at the current level of 13,500 tons. Improving the chances of recovery, they added, would require cutting catch levels to below 6000 tons. On Saturday, ICCAT member countries agreed (pdf) to a 12,900-ton ceiling for eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna."

Here is how Oceana, who was in attendance to promote a range of tuna, billfish, turtle, and shark conservation measures, described the meeting's conclusions:

"While ICCAT reduced the allowed catch for eastern Atlantic bluefin tuna to 12,900 tonnes, this four percent reduction is almost laughable. Furthermore, ICCAT failed completely to take action to establish spawning ground sanctuaries, a basic and much-needed management measure. Oceana supports a closure of the bluefin tuna fishery until a system is in place that follows scientific advice on catch levels, ensures stock recovery, stops illegal fishing, and protects spawning areas in the Gulf of Mexico and Mediterranean Sea.

'This trivial quota reduction for the eastern bluefin tuna stock is a political decision, not a science-based one,' said Maria Jose Cornax, fisheries campaigns manager for Oceana. 'Without an industrial fishing closure, it actually encourages illegal fishing and fails to ensure stock recovery. This political outcome is not good for the fish or the fisherman, and will certainly result in further stock depletion.'”

Analogous to ICCAT and the economic interests it protects, is the energy/fossil fuel industry. Oil companies could break the back of our fossil fuel addiction in relatively short order with a major commitment and shift to alternative energy sources. They could dominate that new market as surely as they dominate oil and the environment would probably be the better for it in the end. But their focus is primarily on sustaining current business models with just enough token support in alternative energy so as to appear as if they are forward-thinking. They know what the future holds in store but choose not to fully address it.

ICCAT is following the same path, sustaining a dying fishing industry at the expense of dwindling marine species. Conservation groups, to their credit, will continue to pressure ICCAT to reconsider its fundamental strategy of minimal change for the sake of short-term financial goals. But what will it take? An empty sea?

Read the ICCAT press release.
Read the AAAS Science article on the ICCAT meeting.
Read Oceana's article on the ICCAT meeting.

ICCAT & Sharks: a mixed bag of results from meeting

International organizations that actually have the power to regulate commercial activities for the benefit of ecological or conservation interests generally do so in incremental steps. The political and economic implications of their actions on behalf of the environment or endangered species can often dull the force of progressive policy proposals, and this can be a source of great frustrations to many conservationists. It's a tough and often frustrating arena to work in and if you don't have the stomach or the patience for it, it's best to steer clear and focus on regional or national initiatives - you'll probably lead a more stress-free life.

The International Commission on Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT) is a worldwide group of some 48 parties (including the European Union) which meets annually to consider commercial quotas and conservation regulations for tuna, billfish, and sharks. This year, ICCAT entertained six different proposals regarding the taking of several species of shark. The end result was a mixed bag of significant progress, a few exemptions or loopholes retained, and some proposals going nowhere. Many of the proposals revolved around oceanic whitetip, porpeagle, hammerhead, mako, and thresher sharks - all listed as either globally endangered or vulnerable to extinction by the IUCN (International Unions for Conservation of Nature).

The Good News:

• The ICCAT agreed to prohibit retention of oceanic whitetip sharks (a fancy way of saying catching oceanic whitetips is no longer allowed by ICCAT-participating countries).
• The exploitation (taking of) hammerhead sharks was restricted. There is an exemption though, which is listed in The Bad News below.
• ICCAT agreed to establish a process for penalizing countries who do not accurately report shark catches. Unreported shark catches is considered a major international problem by many conservation groups.
• A reduction of fishing pressure on shortfin makos, with prohibition penalties for parties that do not accurately report catches, was agreed to. But there's a caveat (see below).

The Bad News:

• A proposal to prohibit retention of porbeagle sharks failed because of a lack of consensus from the EU, primarily due to resistance from Canada.
• Exemption to the hammerhead shark restriction: developing coastal states can catch hammerheads for food but must ensure that they do not enter the international trade.
• Due to objections from Japan, Korea, and China, the restrictions on shortfin mako sharks will not begin until 2013.
• For the second year in a row, a proposal to ban removal of shark fins at sea was tabled, with Japan opposing the ban. Many countries have or are in the process of initiating this ban within their territorial waters. But in international waters, it's shark finning as usual.

Pro-shark organizations, like Shark Advocates International (SAI), that patiently work with the ICCAT, are pleased with the good news but stand firm that more needs to be done. According to Sonja Fordham, president of SAI, "ICCAT has taken significant steps toward safeguarding sharks this week, but much more must be done to effectively conserve this highly vulnerable species. We urge ICCAT Parties to promptly implement the shark measures agreed this week and to build upon this progress by proposing complementary international safeguards for other oceans and additional shark protections at next year's ICCAT meeting."

ICCAT is one of a few worldwide bodies where international conservation policies and regulations can get hammered out. But in the world of international diplomacy, it can get ugly, with economic, political, and ecological interest groups maneuvering to exert influence. Think of it as diplomatic kickboxing - but it's the sharks that are taking all the blows.

Read PR Newswire press release.

Atlantic Shark Conservation: Oceana appeals to ICCAT for leadership

As reported earlier today, the ICCAT (International Convention for Conservation of Atlantic Tuna) is meeting this week in Paris as a part of the organization's annual review of bluefin tuna catch limits. But ICCAT's charter is not limited to the management of only tuna fisheries. It also considers the management of "tuna-like" fisheries, which is a catch-all phrase that can include other pelagic migratory predators including swordfish, sailfish, and sharks.

While outcomes from past ICCAT meetings have served more to support the commercial fishing industry than the support of ocean species conservation, recognized conservation groups, like Oceana, continue to bring information to the attention of the ICCAT regarding the rapidly declining numbers of apex ocean predators. This year, Oceana is focusing on sharks and the need for the ICCAT to seriously consider addressing the number of sharks being taken - whether legally or otherwise - and the potential for further abuse through under-reporting.

Oceana has released a new report that estimates that as many as 1.3 million sharks were taken in the Atlantic in 2008. Averaging the weight of the various 21 species listed in the report as being caught within ICCAT-monitored waters, that number equates to 65,000 tons of shark. To put that into perspective, the ICCAT currently limits tuna harvests to under 14,000 tons of tuna - and that is a figure that many scientists believe will doom the Atlantic bluefin tuna to extinction. Just what can we expect with 65,000 tons of shark disappearing each year?

On top of that, Oceana believes 1.3 million sharks could be a gross underestimation due to under-reporting. According to Oceana, based on scientific estimates from Hong Kong shark fin trade data, the true number could be three times higher - although, you can expect that figure to be dismissed by fishing industry advocates as speculative and unreliable.

“Sharks are virtually unmanaged at the international level,” said Oceana's Elizabeth Griffin. "ICCAT has a responsibility to protect sharks. It is time to protect our ocean's top predators."

While ICCAT does have in place minor shark fin restrictions and a prohibition on bigeye thresher sharks, there are other crucial Atlantic shark species that are afforded no fishery management or protection at all. This includes several species that are currently listed on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List. Of particular concern are porbeagle, oceanic whitetip, scalloped hammerhead, and shortfin mako sharks.

According to an Oceana press release, the group's representatives will be calling on the ICCAT to implement the following initiatives:

• Prohibit the capture of endangered and vulnerable species, including hammerhead, oceanic whitetip, common thresher and porbeagle sharks;
• Establish science-based, precautionary catch limits for other commonly caught species in ICCAT fisheries, especially for at-risk shortfin mako sharks; and
• Improve the ICCAT shark finning ban by requiring sharks to be landed whole, with their fins still naturally attached

Considering the ICCAT's dismal track record, Oceana has its work cut out for itself. But they continue to go up against the pro-shark fishing interest groups in these international arenas, hoping that at some point forward-thinking policy makers will take decisive action in favor of sharks before it is too late.

As they push the agenda forward, we, as individuals, can support them and make responsible pro-conservation choices regarding shark, tuna, and billfish products. After all, the fishing industry is, in large part, simply responding to market demand.

Read the Oceana press release.

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna: species' future once again debated by controversial ICCAT

Starting this Wednesday in Paris, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT) will hold its annual meeting to review catch quotas for the coming year. The 48 member governments of ICCAT constitute one of the few international fishery management organizations that can address the issue of rapidly declining stocks of bluefin tuna, billfish, and even sharks. But to date it has a dismal track record in the eyes of many scientific and conservation organizations.

At last year's meeting, the ICCAT ignored the recommendations of even their own scientific advisers and set catch levels at 13,5000 tons - well above the recommendations ranging from 6,000 tons to an all out ban. It became clear that ICCAT's mission was not the conservation of an aquatic species but that of propping up a dwindling industry in the short term.

So, once again, they meet to discuss the future of Atlantic commercial fishing in a time of worldwide economic pressures, a huge demand for bluefin tuna in Japan with astronomical prices to match, and political pressures to keep supporting a commercial fishing industry with the status quo - rather than transition it to a more sustainable future.

Gloomy outlook, but there is some interesting political jockeying going on.

According to the New York Times, "The European Union’s fisheries commissioner, Maria Damanaki, with backing from Sweden, Germany and Britain, has called for an Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean quota of 'less than 6,000 tons.' The union’s 27 members are supposed to reach a consensus and vote as a bloc."

Ready to challenge that proposal may be France, Italy, and Spain. France has come under fire, in particular, for an apparent reversal in their support of an outright ban proposed just 3 months ago at a UN meeting on endangered species. "In addition to the apparent about-face by President Nicolas Sarkozy’s government, the hosts may find the situation delicate for another reason: the French Agriculture Ministry was singled out in the [International Consortium of Investigative Journalists] report as having allegedly connived for many years to help French fishermen understate their catch," reported the New York Times. ‘‘'France is becoming the Darth Vader of the bluefin fishery,' Rémi Parmentier, an adviser to the Pew Environment Group, said in a recent interview. 'France appears to be doing its best to sink proposals to reduce the catch.'"

Following the Gulf oil spill and concerns of potential impacts on Gulf of Mexico bluefin tuna breeding grounds, the position of the United States is a mixed bag. Jane Lubchenco, head of NOAA, said that Washington would support the scientific recommendations - which lean towards radically reduced catch levels. But northeast politicians, who represent major industrial Atlantic fishing fleets, are riding the wave of unemployment concerns and resisting efforts to have the bluefin tuna listed as an endangered species under U.S. law. Again, short-term gain that serves only as a precursor to a total industry collapse.

The interesting wild card in all of this has been indications from Japan that they might consider stricter fishery management. At the recent Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) meeting, Japan stymied all efforts to protect tuna under CITES rules, declaring ICCAT to be the more appropriate forum. Now the pressure is on Japan to put their money where their mouth is. Being consumers of more than three quarters of the catch of Atlantic bluefin tuna, Japan could endorse significantly lower catch levels - or even a moratorium, as some Japanese officials have said they would be willing to support.

Or they can watch their market demand vaporize before their eyes in just a few short years with the loss of one of the ocean's great predator species. The battle of short-term versus long-term goals continues.

Read article in New York Times.

Bluefin Tuna: Mediterranean fishing closed early

Here's a post today from Mike at Beqa Adventure Divers regarding the Bluefin Tuna fisheries in the Mediterranean:

Med Tuna Fisheries closed!

Betcha you remember this!

Well, as I said, not all hope is lost! The much-reviled European Fisheries Commission has closed the Mediterranean Tuna fisheries one week early - much like they did last year! The situation of the Northern Bluefin continues to be dire and the Gulf oil spill has likely made things even worse (read this!) - still, this is good news as it clearly illustrates the desire to enforce sustainable fisheries. As is this - and I may add, very much contrary to these shenanigans!

The equally reviled ICCAT will meet in Paris this November, this after a host of preparatory meetings. This is the body that has the mandate, and contrary to CITES, the know how to regulate the Atlantic Tuna fisheries. Members here. The fisheries in the Mediterranean are regulated by the GFCM - members here.

Has anybody started talking to them - inclusive of talking to Japan? And even more importantly: is anybody stepping forward with ideas and funds aimed at mitigating the impact of possible quota reductions, especially when it comes to the poorer African and Caribbean countries - oh, and Greece? All whilst wielding the stick, as in leveraging development aid?

All kidding aside: has anybody learned the lessons of Doha and developed a realistic, and above all, unified strategy - or will the NGOs continue to be naive, badly prepared and fragmented, only to incur yet another inevitable defeat?

We shall see!

I have written several posts in the past regarding the decimated bluefin tuna population, the commercial fishery agencies that have dropped the ball time and time again, and the international organizations that have caved in to pressure from countries where the market demand is high. But more meetings are coming. The big question is will anything change? Will something be done before we say "Sorry, Charlie" for the very last time and watch an important pelagic species fade into extinction?

Bluefin Tuna Update: ICCAT perpetuates bad management

Several times I have posted updates on the fate of the Bluefin Tuna, particularly those populations that have been heavily fished in the Atlantic and Mediterranean seas. The two organizations that could have an impact internationally on how bluefin tuna fisheries are managed are CITES and ICCAT.

In early October, I reported that scientific groups, including ICCAT's own advisers had recommended a severe cutback in the catch quota as the population was on the brink of collapse, having shrunk by more than 85%.

"Many countries turn to the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT) for guidance regarding commercial limits but their quotas have often fallen short of levels recommended by many research groups, showing a bias towards the commercial tuna fishing industry. But that may be changing."

I was wrong.

According to a press release from Oceana, the ICCAT has just approved a catch limit of 13,500 tons for next year:

"'The risk of collapse has already been addressed in previous assessments, and there is scientific consensus about what's happening right now. [The proposed quota] is not sufficient to recover the stocks and it will lead to individual vessel quotas that are too low to economically sustain fishing activities. This will definitely encourage underreporting of catches and illegal fishing, said Xavier Pastor. He added: 'ICCAT has now definitely lost its credibility and its CITES' turn to avoid the collapse of this species.'"

This means we must turn our attention to the next major CITES meeting in March to see if it will list Bluefin Tuna as an Appendix I endangered species, as has already been proposed by at least one CITES member nation. This listing would mandate a complete cessation of commercial bluefin tuna fishing.

Also mentioned in the Oceana press release, ICCAT apparently took little if any action regarding limiting the take of certain shark species:

"'Sharks are being caught without any limit at all in the Atlantic, and there is little hope now for getting these fisheries regulated in the near future,' said Rebecca Greenberg, shark campaigner with Oceana. 'ICCAT scientists recommended that mortality for shortfin mako be reduced years ago, and the Commission still has not done anything to implement this. ICCAT is ignoring the advice of its own scientists, and dooming species to overfishing and imminent stock collapse.'"

Despite the scientific data, ICCAT appears to be an organization dedicated to preserving a floundering industry rather than a floundering marine species. It's sad that they can't seem to live up to their own namesake.

Read the Oceana press release.

Tuna Populations: new ICCAT assessment and new Hawaiian venture

In September, I posted information on the status of the Bluefin Tuna and the efforts by Monaco to have this highly depleted fish listed by CITES as endangered, thereby initiating a commercial ban on the species. Unfortunately, the EU was not providing much support but Monaco was still moving ahead with the request.

Many countries turn to the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT) for guidance regarding commercial limits but their quotas have often fallen short of levels recommended by many research groups, showing a bias towards the commercial tuna fishing industry. But that may be changing.

An analysis by ICCAT's own advisers reports that stocks of Atlantic Bluefin Tuna are probably less than 15% of their original size.

According to an article in the online BBC News, "For a number of years, ICCAT has set quotas higher than scientists' recommendations. The pressure this puts on stocks has been compounded by illegal fishing for this valuable species, which according to some estimates adds 30% to the official quota. Atlantic bluefin tuna are mainly caught from countries around the Mediterranean Sea, but most of the meat is consumed in Asia, particularly Japan. Japan has previously argued that commercial fish species should be controlled by bodies like ICCAT rather than CITES. 'The right thing would be to impose a zero quota,' said Sue Lieberman, director of international policy for the Pew Environment Group."

Read the BBC news article.

And in a related development, Hawaii Oceanic Technology has received permission to establish the first Bigeye Tuna farm near the big island of Hawaii. The company intends to breed juvenile or tuna "fry" in a lab then transfer them to large pens three miles offshore.

By feeding the tuna only sustainable feeder fish species, resisting the use of antibiotics, and placing the tuna pens in water that is over a thousand feet deep, they hope to avoid some of the environmental concerns that have been raised by some ocean conservation groups about this operation and others worldwide.

It is important that 1.) we realize that traditional commercial tuna fishing is no longer a viable option as tuna populations are being drastically depleted worldwide, and 2.) raising tuna in an aquafarming operation is probably our best bet. But serious issues regarding ocean pollution and disease must be addressed if it is to have a viable future.

Read the MNN/AP article.

Bluefin Tuna: CITES endangered status could be its last hope

Some time ago, I posted information about actions taken by the ICCAT (International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna) regarding acceptable levels of commercially-caught Bluefin Tuna. The organization, which is supposed to be in charge of managing the fishery for much of the EU and the Mediteranean, settled on catch levels far above the recommendations of their scientific advisors. The Bluefin Tuna's future did not look good.

And apparently it hasn't gotten any better.

Monaco has proposed to CITES (International Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species) to list the bluefin tuna in their Appendix I of endangered species. In so doing, it would completely ban the international trade in Bluefin Tuna by CITES member nations. With commercial levels set above recommended levels of sustainability, combined with poor fishery management and illegal fishing, the Monaco proposal would seem to be a last and final step in trying to save the Bluefin Tuna.

Oceana's European office has sent a letter to several members of the European Commission's environmental and maritime branches to support the Monaco proposal. Hopefully, a CITES Appendix I listing will provide the Bluefin Tuna with the opportunity to replenish its numbers - if it's not too late.

ICCAT: Putting Atlantic bluefin tuna conservation in its grave

Just a few days ago, I posted some hopeful information regarding proposed limits or regulations on Atlantic bluefin tuna and several shark species (see posting). A meeting was being held in Morocco by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). It seems by the end of the meeting those hopes were dashed.

The ICCAT has chosen to ignore the advice from their own scientific advisors and agreed to reduce the annual catch from 27,500 tons to 22,000 tons for 2009. The scientific advisors presented data that showed that a catch of 15,000 tons was necessary if the species was to be preserved. Once again it seems short-term economic gain has won out over long-term conservation management. Considering that negative economic impacts on commercial fishing are not something that nature has ever given much of a damn about, there are those who believe that the ICCAT's action could seal the fate of Atlantic bluefin tuna.

Xavier Pastor, Executive Director for Oceana in Europe, declared: "ICCAT’s credibility has been destroyed by the negotiating countries who opposed responsible management measures for bluefin tuna. Instead of preserving the bluefin tuna stock from collapse, they gave in to the fishing industry’s short-term economic interests. With this decision, we can only wait for the disappearance of bluefin tuna."

Also under consideration were regulations regarding the taking of several depleted species of sharks. The only regulation to pass was the releasing of bigeye thresher sharks. (Read Oceana press release.)

To modify Starkist's old advertising slogan, "Sorry Charlie", which promoted discriminating tuna quality; it seems the ICCAT wants to say "Sorry Charlie, nice knowing you."

Teeth & Tuna: ICCAT and EU consider tuna and shark limits

In past postings I have mentioned the International Commission for Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). It is the primary organization responsible for setting regulations regarding the taking of Bluefin Tuna in the Atlantic. That population is very close to reaching the classic "tipping point", where declining populations will suddenly plummet as the biological reproductive infrastructure collapses due to over-fishing. Already the population figures are showing staggering declines.

On a positive note, the ICCAT is meeting in Morocco and many of the participants, including representatives from the European Union and the United States, are feeling the heat from conservation organizations armed with not just "tree hugger" rhetoric but solid scientific data. There are several proposals on the table - from reduced catches to complete moratoriums, particularly in Atlanctic breeding grounds. (Read Oceana press release.)

Oceana also has announced that the European Union is seriously considering several regulations regarding the commercial taking of several pelagic shark species, all of which having been adversely impacted either as bycatch from longline fishing for tuna or by being specifically sought after. Included for discussion are thresher, hammerhead, mako, and blue sharks. (Read Oceana press release.)

“The EU plays an important role in shark fisheries in the Atlantic, and I’m glad to see them take this strong and positive stance to lead sustainable fishing for these species. If the rest of the ICCAT parties follow this lead, we will make a huge advancement in securing the future of these vulnerable animals,” declared Ricardo Aguilar, Director of Research for Oceana in Europe.

Since I have started this blog, I have watched Oceana.org grow as an international marine conservation organization with a particularly proactive stance: a growing force to be reckoned with. Let's wish them continued success.

Shark Conservation: Spain willing to consider tougher regulations

In a recent meeting, held in Madrid between Spain's Minister of Environment and Fisheries and the international environmental organization Oceana, some positive steps were made regarding commercial shark fishing. Here are some of the key points:

• Propose in ICCAT (the organization responsible for regulating tuna and shark fisheries in the Atlantic), via the European Commission, a prohibition on catches of all pelagic shark species, except the two species of highest commercial interest for the Spanish fleet: blue shark (Prionace glauca) and shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus).
• For these two species, the Minister showed her willingness to accept the establishment of Total Allowable Catches (TACs), if recommended by scientists.
• Lastly, Elena Espinosa also showed a willingness for the Ministry to implement a pilot project to study the viability of storing caught sharks with their fins attached in a natural way, without the fins first being separated from the body, on board Spanish longline vessels.

Now while there was some hemming on hawing on Spain's part later (requesting more data before moving forward on all points), it was encouraging. The "fins attached" approach taken by much of the new regulations being proposed recently puts pressure on shark fisheries to not try to circvumvent existing regulations regarding fins and carcasses and subtly promotes abandoning shark finning all together. (Read Oceana press release.)

Pelagic Billfish: swordsmen of the seas

While I often place a lot of attention on large pelagic sharks like great whites, there are some other amazing pelagic fish cruising the high seas. Ever seen a swordfish or sailfish up close and personal? These are spectacular, high speed predators that have been known to work in packs to round up schools of potential prey and can reach speeds of up to 68 miles (120km) per hour!

There are groups that organize photo expeditions to see these great beasts. One that is getting a lot of attention of late is Big Animals Photography Expeditions, run by photographer Amos Nauchom.

Unfortunately, billfish populations - particularly swordfish - have been badly decimated by years of commercial fishing. Only a few decades ago , whopping 1000-pounders were common. Today, the average catch is under 100 pounds each. This means sexually immature fish are being caught which adds to their decline by reducing potential breeding capability. The ICCAT (International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna), a consortium of 22 countries, has initiated regulations regarding commercial swordfish catches. But these animals are still very much at that tipping point of possible extinction.

Although I grew up on a weekly serving of swordfish at home, today I shy away from swordfish in restaurants and supermarkets. The Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch program recommends avoiding swordfish that was not caught under U.S. regulated methods. We are losing these animals to indiscriminate longline fishing throughout the world.