Antarctic Ocean Alliance: coalition to protect fertile seas of the South Pole

It was many decades ago that several leading nations essentially carved up the continent of Antarctica, and so you had nations like the U.S. Russia, Great Britain, and others exploring and studying this hostile, austere, but starkly beautiful landscape. In 1959, the Antarctic Treaty was put into place which effectively demilitarized Antarctica, recognizing its primary value as a scientific laboratory. And in 1991 (made fully effective in 1998), the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty banned all mining and designated Antarctica as a "natural reserve devoted to peace and science."

So much for the protection of the continent. But what about the seas that surround it?

The oceans that surround Antarctica are extremely rich in marine life including krill which is one of the fundamental building blocks of a marine ecosystem. And it has been a source of major commercial fishing for several nations including Russia, Norway, Korea, New Zealand, the UK, and Spain. The Ross Sea, which hugs the Antarctica coast almost equi-distant between South America and Australia, is a particularly fertile ground for commercial fishing. However, as the rest of the world's seas are showing evidence of overfishing, it's only a matter of time for Antarctica to potentially suffer the same fate.

To address the future of the seas of Antarctica, several leading conservation organizations have banded together to promote the Antarctic Ocean Alliance. The Alliance's mission is to establish marine protected areas (MPAs) and no-take reserves around the icy continent, thereby providing the same measure of protection for the oceans as is afforded the land.

The organizations include the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC), Oceana, Greenpeace, Mission Blue, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), The Last Ocean, Oceans 5, Forest & Bird, and several others. Famed oceanographer Dr. Sylvia Earle, head of Mission Blue, has been an avid spokesperson for the coalition and its goals (see video below) and through her public promoting and that of the other organizations, it is hoped that there will be a sufficient groundswell of support to help motivate the policymakers.
“As the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) has set a time frame for a representative system of marine protected areas by 2012, there is an unprecedented window of opportunity to establish this network in the oceans around Antarctica as a legacy for future generations,” said the Antarctic Ocean Alliance in a public statement.

Developing Antarctic MPAs would be an ambitious project and the cumulative end result would be the establishment of the largest collection of MPAs on the planet.

Steve Campbell of the Alliance said, "The biggest marine reserve in the world at the moment is about 600,000 sqkm but we know that there are areas around Antarctica which could certainly add up to a lot more than that. We've identified about 19 regions around Antarctica where there could be a marine reserve or marine protected areas set up and this would establish a network of areas all the way around the continent of Antarctica and would be put in place for all time we hope."

The Antarctic Ocean Alliance has produced a brief video that clearly explains the situation and their goals. It shows how, due to commercial overfishing, the Antarctic's seas stand as an oasis surrounded by depleted waters. With the impact of climate change already threatening the continent's ice masses and surrounding ocean temperatures (which has worldwide implications as the world's polar regions act as generators of current, temperature and weather patterns across the globe), it would seem that protecting the marine life which call these chilly waters home would be a positive step. However, getting consensus from nations and being able to effectively enforce the security and integrity of the MPAs could be the greatest challenge.

"The problem at the moment is that as fisheries resources around the world come under more and more pressure, there are going to be more distant water-fishing nations who want to go to the oceans around Antarctica to extract protein," said Campbell. "And they are going to do it either legally or illegally."



Read about the Antarctic Ocean Alliance in Fish Info & Services.
Visit the Antarctic Ocean Alliance website.
Read about the history of Antarctica in Wikipedia.

Japan's Seafood Heritage: careful conservation diplomacy to challenge centuries-old practices

The nation of Japan's cultural heritage behind seafood and its reliance on this natural resource to feed its people runs very, very deep. Combine that with the nationalistic pride that exists amongst the government and industrial institutions, along with the attitudes of a large segment of the population who know what it's like to be an island nation that has had to fend for itself for centuries, and it makes it easier to understand their intransigence when outside nations, particularly from the west, demand they change their ways for the sake of conservation of particular marine species.

Western civilization actually has a somewhat limited seafood menu pallet compared to Japan. What you'll find on the menu in a seafood restaurant on San Francisco's Fishermen's Wharf pales in comparison to what you'll find in a Japanese fish market. Historically, for Japan, marine species = seafood = survival. So, when strident conservation groups come in wagging a finger and demanding a complete cessation without any quid pro quo, based on a perceived higher moral authority on conservation grounds, the recalcitrance or outright defiance by the Japanese people should not necessarily come as any surprise.

An article that ran this past Friday in the Guardian, illustrated the industrial effectiveness of the harbor city of Kesennuma, Japan. In Kesennuma, shark fishing is a major activity, along with fishing for swordfish and tuna. The article highlighted not only the active commercial fishing taking place in this port city but also the protective attitude of the people in keeping their activities off the radar of prying western eyes.

Two leading pro-shark blogs, SharkDivers' and Da Shark, picked up on the story and wrote insightful posts, both noting the importance of viewing the situation from the other person's perspective, in this case, the Japanese. This is the essence of diplomacy: you can only attain your goals if you can show the other side that it is also in their best interests. And when the emotional furor of a conservation issue finally elevates itself to the international arena, then the game subtly shifts from conservation of a species (which still remains an underlying cause) to economic and cultural sustainability. This occurs whether it's a small Pacific island community or an industrial nation like Japan.

When I speak to U.S. audiences on shark conservation, I find that for the most part, the people I am speaking to have not had any shark products, except maybe for an occasional shark steak. They see the pictures of shark finning and are appalled, particularly when the fishermen dump the shark carcass overboard in favor of retaining only the fins. The audience's dander is now definitely up.

Then I ask them, "Have you ever toured a cattle processing plant? Or how about a poultry farm?" If they did, it wouldn't surprise me that it produces a few new vegetarians. Then, to put the cultural aspect in some sort of perspective, I ask them what their reaction would be if Mrs. Paul's brand of fish sticks were to change from cod to haddock. Typically, the reaction is one of "no big deal." Now, let's say instead, turkey is officially banned; no more big basted bird on the traditional Thanksgiving Day table. Their cultural heritage is now being infringed upon, and that's when they begin to get an idea as to the challenge before us.

Non-combative international diplomacy will continue to emphasize that conservation is in the best interests of Japan and all other Asian countries where seafood consumption has been a long-established foundation of their diets. Both sustainability of the species and their industrial economy will depend on long-term planning, initiated by some pressing and game-changing short term measures. Investing in improved, ecologically-sound aquaculture techniques could be the quid pro quo that could reinvent their commercial fishing industry before it collapses from a loss of species - a disastrous result which neither benefits mankind or the planet.

Read about Kesennuma in the Guardian.co.uk.
Read SharkDivers' post on the subject.
Read Da Shark's post on the subject.

Weak Hook Controversy: can NOAA recommendation save bluefin tuna in the Gulf?

Following the Deepwater Horizon/BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, there was understandable concern for a variety of species that inhabit the area, particularly those whose numbers were fragile and in decline to begin with. The Atlantic bluefin tuna was one such example, not only because its number worldwide are perilously low but because it is the Gulf of Mexico where the Western Atlantic bluefins go to spawn from March to June.

Pelagic longlining (PLL), one of commercial fishing's most indiscriminate methods, also occurs in the Gulf and with some scientists saying that as much as 20% of juvenile Atlantic bluefin tuna population was killed by the oil spill, many organizations are seeking to have the spawning grounds placed off limits to all PLL fishing during the spawning season. Their position is that, with a perilous population already weakened by the direct effects of the oil spill, to allow longlining to take place would spell disaster.

Equally as tragic is the fact that the focus of the longliners in the Gulf is not bluefin tuna. They are after the smaller yellowfin tuna, swordfish, and other species - making the bluefin merely accidental bycatch. Is it possible for the large and powerful bluefin tuna to be released if caught? Apparently not. There is a high mortality rate because the elevated levels of stress when caught, combined with the animals high metabolism and the warm waters of the Gulf, often prove fatal before any chance of release could take place.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has, to date, recommended that PLL boats use what are called "weak hooks." These are large hooks that are constructed with a smaller diameter wire so that a large and powerful fish like a bluefin tuna will have a fighting chance because the hook will bend, allowing the fish to release itself.

According to the results of field tests with participating longliners from 2008 to 2010, the NOAA Fisheries Service "found a statistically significant reduction in the catch of bluefin tuna of 56%, but no statistically significant difference in the catch of yellowfin tuna, swordfish, dolphin fish, or escolar on weak hooks compared to traditional hooks."

NOAA is considering making the use of weak hooks mandatory for the Gulf PPL fleet, but this has not necessarily won favor with many conservation groups concerned about the overall declining population of bluefin tuna and who have been demanding greater action on the part of ICCAT, the international body that basically regulates the tuna industry but which has continued to set annual catch levels that far exceeds levels recommended by even their own scientific panels.

Additionally, while some Atlantic Bluefin tuna would be spared by the use of weak hooks, there are countless other animals, from sharks to turtles to other unwanted bycatch, that would be needlessly killed just by virtue of the very nature of the longline technique itself.

As the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) describes it, "The pelagic longline fishery has a long history of deadly interactions with imperiled species. The weak-hook proposal acts as a stopgap measure to allow longline fishing to continue in spite of strict limits on bluefin tuna catch. Closing western Atlantic bluefin tuna breeding grounds during spawning season will not only afford bluefin tuna a greater chance to recover, but will also build a healthy ecosystem by protecting other bycatch species such as sharks, sea turtles and billfish."

CBD is currently waging a campaign through their own efforts and that of a email letter drive to Division Chief Margo Schulze-Haugen of NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service to have NOAA consider the closure. If you would like to add your voice, click here.

Read NOAA's bulletin on weak hooks.

Sharks in the Arabian Gulf: new research to determine population before it's too late

Declining shark populations have been reported in many parts of the world - some reductions reaching as much as 80 to 90 percent compared to just a few decades ago. But there are still some important bodies of water where the status of the shark populations is unclear. One of those bodies is the Arabian Gulf (or Persian Gulf, depending on who you talk to).

But that is about to change.

Marine biologist Rima Jabado, from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) University, has begun a study to determine the health and extant of shark populations in the Gulf. As part of her doctoral thesis, she has been interviewing Arab fishermen (over 125 to date) and their anecdotal information combined with in-the-field study will hopefully paint an accurate picture of what shark species are living in the Gulf and what their true numbers are.

Jabado was pleased to find that the fishermen were sympathetic to the need for shark conservation to maintain a healthy marine ecosystem, thereby helping to provide sustainable levels of commercial fisheries. But, as noted in the Gulf News, she also heard their frustration in how to deal with sharks when caught.

"The majority of the fishermen would want to protect sharks and believe in the protection of fish for a sustainable fishery," said Rima. "But if sharks are caught in a fisherman's net, should they be thrown back? Perhaps they should be brought in? [This subject] causes them to debate. Some complain that sharks just make holes in their nets."

In many publications, including this blog, the impact of declining shark populations on marine ecosystems has often been presented as a looming threat. But scientists and commercial fisherman are beginning to see real, tangible evidence.

For its predominantly international audience, the Gulf News cited several examples ranging from Australian reports of octopus - no longer being preyed upon by sharks - exploding in number and devouring the lobster population; to increased numbers of cownose rays along the U.S. Atlantic coast decimating vast beds of bay scallops (sharks, particularly hammerheads, feed on cownose rays).

Hopefully, Jabado's research will provide UAE government officials with hard evidence from which responsible shark conservation policies and fishing regulations can be derived. While the Arab fisherman expressed an interest in shark conservation to insure the future of their fisheries, the catch numbers have not been so flattering. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization, UAE's catch alone of sharks averaged between 1,300 and 1,950 tons annually from 1985 to 2000. While that number remained fairly stable through that period, rather than increasing, it certainly is sufficient to cause harm to shark populations in a relatively closed body of water like the Arabian Gulf.

"The state of sharks in the Arabian Gulf is a blank," said Jabado. "Attention should be given to sharks — they're the apex predator and their demise could lead to the collapse of the marine ecosystem."

Let us hope that the Arab nations that border the Gulf will prove to be more long-term in their thinking when it comes to establishing policy that will preserve both sharks and their commercial fishing interests.

Read entire article in the Gulf News.

Failing Fishery Management: report and video illustrate excesses by EU and Japan

The logic is so simple: if you harvest from a finite resource without giving back then you will deplete it.

But combating that is the economic principal that requires the use of available resources to meet market demand and sustain business growth.

These are the concepts that fishery management has been wrestling with for decades - and it is becoming more and more apparent that economic interests win in the short term and the environment loses in the long term.

I have sited in past postings the European Union's inability to effectively manage its industrial fishing. It has failed to the extant that it moves from one species to another, harvesting until there effectively is no more in their territorial waters. And so they export their trade to other countries, fishing in the territorial waters of developing countries who are lured by the economic gains of providing fishing rights and/or fishing crews to prop up struggling economies - ultimately sacrificing their natural resources for short term gain.

A report recently published by the New Economics Foundation declares that the EU has now basically consumed all of its own fish and must look elsewhere to meet demand. The report says the EU has reached a "fish dependence day" and is now having to live off the rest of the world when it comes to seafood.

The report, Fish Dependence: The Increasing Reliance of the EU on Fish From Elsewhere, states, "In a context of finite resources and growing populations, the current EU model is unsustainable. The EU's increasing fish dependence has implications for the fish stocks in other countries, which are also overfished, and for the communities that depend upon them."

It makes me recall the science fiction film, Independence Day, which portrays an attack on the earth by malevolent aliens that travel the galaxies, plundering all the natural resources of a victim planet before moving on to the next one. We don't need fictional aliens to see that that is exactly what is happening right now in our oceans.

Click here to download a copy of the report.

Also making the rounds of various online forums right now is a startling video from Alex Hofford, showing industrial shark fishing at its most graphic. In the Japanese city of Kesen-numa City, blue sharks and salmon sharks are piled high like cord wood, awaiting processing which includes the removal of their fins and, in the case of the salmon sharks, their hearts. In watching the video I was struck by the methodical way in which the workers went about their business - with gentle musak playing in the background and visitors walking above.

Here are hundreds and hundreds of sharks - animals that, because of their low reproductive rates, can in no way withstand such massive harvesting - all being dispatched like cattle in a slaughterhouse. And to the Japanese, that is exactly what it is. This is something that many western pro-shark advocates fail to appreciate: to the Asian markets, seafood is food, no different than beef or poultry. The butchering of sharks to them is no different than the butchering of cattle or chickens.

But there is one crucial difference: cattle and poultry are breed and raised for consumption; the majority of seafood is not.

The Asian markets may not have developed sizable cattle and poultry operations, and they may never will. But if any society - Asian, European or otherwise - is going to respond to a growing market demand for seafood, then they must make a concerted commitment and effort in developing effective and environmentally-safe aquaculture while also radically changing open-water commercial fishing as we know it today. Unless capable of being successfully grown in an aquaculture environment, some commercial species will need to be severely restricted, if not off limits all together.

The EU report states, "There is only so much fishing that our oceans can sustain. So for fisheries policies to be sustainable, they need to acknowledge and respect the ecological limits of the marine ecosystems on which they depend."

The logic is simple. But the motivation to act in the face of a bleak future is apparently difficult.

Read more about the EU fisheries report in the Guardian.
See the shark fishery video at Alex Hofford Photography.

Bottom Trawling: ROV used to study effects in California's soft sediment

Clear-cutting the Amazon that denudes acres of vital rain forest; strip mining that gouges deep into the hillside with discarded rubble filling valleys and streams - these are some of the industrial harvesting techniques that have a dubious if not villainous reputation with many conservationists and environmental scientists. In the oceans, bottom trawling has a similar reputation.

The technique of bottom trawling involves large nets that scrape along the ocean floor, catching bottom-dwelling fish and other animals like shrimp. The drawbacks to this technique are two-fold: there can be a tremendous amount of unwanted animals caught, known as bycatch, and the scouring motion can be very destructive to the ocean bottom, much like clear cutting and strip mining, leaving behind crumbled reef structures that took decades to build - a marine ecosystem totally disrupted, its recovery in question.

But a more prudent use of bottom trawling in soft, sandy bottom areas may be proved viable. At least that is the hope of fishermen along the Central California coast who are watching the ongoing efforts of researchers from the California State University Monterey Bay in conjunction with the Nature Conservancy. They are conducting a three-year study to determine the long-term effect of bottom trawling on the soft sediment that makes up 70 percent of the Continental shelf along California.

In an area of 3.8 million acres that is currently listed as an "essential fish habitat" through an arrangement with the Nature Conservancy and the Pacific Fishery Management Council, tests are being conducted where a portion of the sea floor is bottom trawled and then 2 weeks later an ROV does a fly-over to survey conditions, followed by a 6-month and one-year checkup. The use of the ROV provides a better picture of how the ocean floor is recovering and to document what interactions are taking place, compared to other sampling techniques.

“An ROV allows us to have our eyes underwater, looking at everything that’s going on.” said CSUMB professor James Lindholm said.

This research is confined to soft-sediment environments and Lindholm makes no projections as to what the final analysis and results, which are years away, will show. “There’s just a handful of people doing trawl-related research worldwide and outside of really charismatic habitats, we don’t know very much,” said Lindholm. “If there’s one thing we’ve learned, it’s to not make any judgment based on what we see live when we’re flying over the bottom.”

But local fishermen are hoping that the research could help fisheries regulators develop management techniques that would allow limited bottom trawling in very specific areas. “Fishermen have always said that grounds that are trawled are better fishing than non-trawled grounds — a lot of the organic nutrients get stirred up and reintroduced to the ecosystem,” said one local fisherman.

Bottom trawling will remain controversial as it has proven itself to be very destructive in many of the ocean environments where it has been used. Even with this ongoing California research, there is still the issue of bycatch - ranging from unwanted bottom creatures to open water animals like turtles and sharks. If the California studies show a sustainable level of recovery in soft sediment areas, there are still other serious ecological issues that must be addressed before regulators should endorse bottom trawling in any form.

Read more about this research in the High Country News.

UN Proposes End To Fishing Subsidies: restructuring could avoid collapse of fish stocks

Throughout many fisheries worldwide, overfishing has greatly reduced fish stocks and the response of some governments has been the subsidization of fleet expansion - more vessels, more nets and related equipment - so as to maintain or increase catch levels of a dwindling resource. Unfortunately, while this logic may make some sort of economic sense, it also most certainly hastens the inevitable collapse of the species and the industry itself - a sort of Band-Aid solution for a festering, terminal wound.

In a recent report put out by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), a drastic reduction in commercial fishing subsidies is being proposed as a way to save both the fishing industry and fish populations. The report recognizes that approximately 20 percent of the world population depends on seafood as a primary food source and that there are over 170 million people involved in commercial fishing and processing. But the report also recognized that by 2003 , 27 percent of the world's marine fisheries had collapsed. And without a major restructuring of how this marine resource is utilized, that number was bound to increase.

According to UNEP, $27 billion (USD) is being spent each year as subsidies - $8 billion of which is earmarked for managing marine protected areas, but the rest is being spent on propping up fishing fleets to maintain or expand fishing capacity when that capacity already exceeds what is sustainable. UNEP proposes a systematic restructuring in subsidies, focusing more on buying up excess vessels and retraining fishermen, thereby reducing commercial fishing to a level that would be more in line with enabling fish populations to provide their "maximum sustainable yield."

Would this allow commercial fisheries to meet increasing demand from an ever-growing human population? Probably not, but it would forestall the total elimination of one fishery after another, while alternatives are developed such as aquaculture. Others have indicated that taking any food from the sea will lead to its eventual elimination, that "sustainable fishing" is a myth. Whether that is true or not, it must be recognized that a demand for seafood will always exists and so steps must be taken to best preserve what is most certainly not an endless resource.

Some have also suggested that the economic rationale that supports farm subsidies - where, instead of expansion, productive farmland sits idle for the purpose of maintaining stable prices - may need to be re-examined in the face of the moral dilemma of developing nations in need of food staples for an undernourished populace.

You can read more about UNEP's commercial fishing subsidy proposals - part of an overall strategy for a "Greener Economy" - by clicking here (PDF download) or reading UNEP's latest press release.

Information source: SeaWeb.org.

Ocean Acidification: SeaWeb brings bring scientists and commercial fisheries to the table

With many environmental issues, real quantifiable progress is often attained when scientists and commercial interests can sit down and objectively discuss the situation. SeaWeb.org, through its Seafood Choices Alliance, realizes this and has been taking steps to get what can seem like disparate interests to sit down at the same table to discuss the reality of ocean acidification.

Ocean acidification is when the oceans become more acidic from the absorption of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. This increase in the water's acidity levels impacts a variety of corals, shellfish, and other animals that rely on the use of calcium in building shells or other supporting structures - a process that is severely weakened by the more acidic water.

SeaWeb has conducted two workshop meetings - one in Portland, Oregon and another recently held in St. Petersburg, Florida - between scientists and commercial fishing leaders to discuss what the latest data says about the current and future status of ocean acidification, and what it means not only for the marine species but for the commercial fishermen and aquaculture companies.

"It is good for various and even opposing stakeholders of a public resource to sit down and talk. At least we can understand the investment each of us has in our finite fisheries and oceans," said Bobby Aylesworth, chairman of the Board of the Southeastern Fisheries Association, about the workshops. "Hopefully we find some common ground to grow from."

According to SeaWeb, one of the ways that scientists hope to collaborate with the seafood industry is through the sharing of data. Ocean acidification is not something that anyone can hide from, so by sharing data drawn from water quality tests taken at hatcheries and nurseries, combined with ongoing scientific studies by local scientists; all interested parties can have a better idea as to what changes are taking place within their own particular region of commercial concern.

There is already documented evidence of the impact of ocean acidification on sealife, so it behooves commercial industry to work with scientists - rather than to oppose or worse yet, buy-off scientists - to get an accurate picture of the issue. Nothing grabs the attention of policy and decision makers regarding an environmental threat than when a commercial enterprise is put at risk. When may be thought of as a bit esoteric suddenly becomes very real.

Read about SeaWeb in Action.

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?

Sweden's First Marine Park: protecting cold water environments

Marine parks serve a vital role in protecting regional marine ecosystems which then often serve to benefit the biodiversity of larger open ocean areas by providing a sheltered breeding ground and/or food source for many different species - in essence, a safe haven that serves an even larger community.

We often think of marine parks as being located in temperate to tropical waters. Indeed, recently designated parks have been in such places as governing agencies realize the importance of these fragile ecosystems (Read prior post). But the purpose and value of marine parks is not limited to just such regions. Kathleen Kobbe of The International Office recently brought to my attention the Kosterhavet National Marine Park in Sweden. This park, designated in September, 2009, is Sweden's first national marine park and is home to thousands of marine species, from sponges and coral to sea birds and harbor seals that use the park as a breeding ground.

The blog Explore West Sweden interviewed the park's head biologist, Martin Larsvik. "In the Kosterhavet Marine National Park there are about 6000 marine species. More than 200 of those have not been found elsewhere in Sweden, but can be found further west in the Atlantic Ocean. There are, for instance, large brown macroalgae (kelp), sponge animals, polychaete worms, crabs, starfish, sea cucumbers and fish. The most spectacular species is the eye coral (Lophelia pertusa), forming coral reefs at a depth of 85 meters," Larsvik explained.

Commercial fishing is highly regulated in the park and this is an important feature of a cold water protected zone like at Kosterhavet (41 to 45 degrees Fahrenheit). Many of the major fish species sought by commercial fishermen are cold water species. So, while we are inclined to preserve and protect the more obvious beauty of tropical reefs and other warmer water environments, we must also keep an eye on protecting those chillier environments that can be threatened by large-scale industrial fishing.

Grattis, Sweden!

Understanding Seamounts: More study of an oceanic oasis is needed

Seamounts are fascinating oceanic structures - mountains really, rising up from the sea floor, pushed up by volcanic forces. While a seamount that reaches the surface, thereby producing some sort of island formation, is still technically a seamount, scientists generally describe seamounts as submerged, typically rising 1,000 meters above the seafloor, thousands of meters from the surface.

I was reviewing several scientific papers about seamounts and how these unique structures carry significant ecological, commercial and conservation implications.

Ecological
Each seamount serves as an oceanic oasis, often harboring tremendous biodiversity including localized animals and pelagic species. Tuna, billfish, sharks, and other pelagic fish have been known to frequent seamounts. Studies are ongoing to determine whether such species are attracted due to food sources or whether the seamounts act as breeding grounds - or both. Studies have shown that pelagic biodiversity appears to be higher at locations further away from coastal habitats.

The somewhat isolated nature of seamounts makes them of special interest regarding genetic diversity and evolution. While challenging to study, one report called for more scientific research so as to better understand the interconnectivity within and between these unique ecosystems, particularly in the face of negative impacts from commercial fishing and mining.

"In fact, the large variety of interconnected mechanisms that promote or impede the genetic connectivity of seamount communities via dispersal (and the long-term maintenance of species or the subsequent divergence of populations leading to speciation) are key unknowns to understanding the fundamental evolutionary processes that structure both the diversity and biogeography of deep-sea fauna" from Seamounts: Deep-ocean laboratories of faunal connectivity, evolution, and endemism/Oceanography.

Commercial
Because of increasing demand for seafood and with stocks declining in other open water or coastal areas, seamounts have become targets for industrial fishing, and subject to bottom trawling and longlining.

Reported in Seamount fisheries: Do they have a future?/Oceanography, "Today, seamount fish populations are in trouble following a 30-year history of overexploitation, depletion, and collapse, with untold consequences for global biodiversity and the complex, delicate, but poorly understood, open-ocean food webs. We estimate present global seamount catches to be about 3 million tonnes per annum and increasing – vastly in excess of estimated sustainable levels."

In addition, because of the geological/volcanic nature of seamounts, they have an untapped potential for metals and minerals in the eyes of commercial mining companies. While the technology to obtain these ocean resources is still quite formidable, as terrestrial resources decline, commercial mining interests will ultimately make the effort to expand beyond current levels of mining activity.

Conservation
With commercial interests having an impact and the potential for even greater exploitation lying ahead, the need for proper management of seamounts is critical. But much still needs to be learned regarding these unique ocean formations. Current mapping techniques have only scratched the surface as to location and true number of seamounts. And while there have been many studies made of individual locations, according to one report, there is a lack of study to better understand the links between these formations, how they interact with each other, and what would be the consequences on the total marine ecology from negative impacts on individual locations. Seamounts may be relatively isolated but they do not exist within a vacuum.

"Extractive processes such as fishing and mining are degrading seamount ecosystems considerably, raising serious concerns about the impacts of these practices on global ocean biodiversity and key fluxes. Despite the data collected to date, we remain ignorant of the quantitative details of many of these issues," reports Can we protect seamounts for research? A call for conservation./Oceanography.

More understanding of seamounts is needed - individually and holistically - so as to develop proper management policies. Across the ocean floor, seamounts may serve as vital connected waystations that feed, foster, and perpetuate the entire oceanic web of life.

Order special issue on Seamounts from Oceanography. Click here.

Australian Marine Reserves: government review approves the science that supports their parks

One of the bright spots in ocean conservation has been the worldwide adoption of marine reserve areas. From Hawaii to Australia to the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean, marine reserves or parks that prohibit or strictly limit recreational and commercial activities are being recognized as a positive step in preserving delicate marine ecosystems and allowing biodiversity to flourish. A lot more reserves are needed but what we have is a start.

But what defines a marine reserve? What is the method or methods by which the boundaries are determined? Well, this is where scientific research - past and ongoing studies - plays a crucial role. It requires research that examines a whole range of factors - biodiversity, population studies of specific species, water quality and movement patterns, topographical seabed mapping, and more. No one study can do it all, so research accumulates and from this wealth of knowledge, recommendations are made to determine the location and size of the protected area.

But not everyone agrees on the science. Lobbying forces that represent recreational or commercial fishing, and other business interests such as mining and mineral exploration, often question the validity and accuracy of the science. And so the battle rages for the attention and vote of the politicians and decision makers in charge.

Recently, Australia's Department of Environment, Climate Change, and Water commissioned an independent review of the scientific research used to determine its marine reserves, and the results heavily favored the available scientific research. Newly designated areas in New South Wales (NSW) had been heavily criticized, but it would appear by the review that the research that, both, had been done and was planned for the future was sufficient to support the marine reserves.

''The independent review panel found evidence of much ongoing or completed research and monitoring that has taken advantage of established marine parks within NSW,'' the authors of the review wrote, as reported by the Sydney Morning Herald.

''These are resulting in presentations at conferences and scientific papers published in the international literature, and the reputation of the work being done is, on the whole, excellent.''

The Sydney Morning Herald also quoted Dr. Klaus Koop, the department's conservation and science director, who felt that marine parks not being supported by science was an idea that has been debunked. However, he did make one interesting observation.

''One of the things that we haven't done well enough, perhaps, is communicating exactly what we've done and … what we've found,'' Dr Koop said.

I am a proponent of good media communications for scientific research and that often means a lot more than just published articles in academic journals. Researchers need the assistance of those with media expertise, like myself, in communicating their work to a broader audience - one that includes policy makers, commercial interests, and the general public. The more the information is disseminated in easy-to-understand results and implications, the more challenging it becomes for opposing forces to dismiss or question its legitimacy.

Read the Sydney Morning Herald article.

G-20 Summit: Mission Blue, TED, and Oceana take on overfishing

After the disastrous March CITES conference, where conservation groups made heartfelt arguments for protecting tuna, sharks, and other critically important marine species - only to have well-oiled political machines representing commercial interests successfully block all proposals for protection - another opportunity for sensible conservation is presenting itself in June.

The G-20 Summit will be held in Toronto, Canada and several major conservation and think tank groups are working together to make up for lost ground. The Mission Blue project, a arm of the Sylvia Earle Foundation and supported by TED (Technology, Entertainment, and Design) - an innovation think tank - will be focusing on the government subsidizing of commercial fisheries and how that has exacerbated overfishing. With government support, commercial fisheries have pushed themselves into overcapacity, propping up an industry that is no longer economically feasible by perpetuating overfishing in a vicious cycle.

According to a press release from Oceana, who is also working with Mission Blue in preparation for the conference:

“'We believe that the G-20 nations have a powerful opportunity this summer to halt the practice of fishing subsidies and put the world’s fisheries back on a path to recovery and towards an abundant future,' said Chris Anderson, TED curator. 'Nearly all of the world’s fisheries are in jeopardy from overfishing and could be beyond recovery within decades if current trends continue.'

Despite international consensus on the dire state of the oceans, many governments continue to provide major subsidies to their fishing sectors. These subsidies promote overfishing by pushing fleets to fish longer, harder and farther away than would otherwise be economically feasible. The fleets are overcapacity – as much as 2.5 times what is needed to fish at sustainable levels. Destructive fisheries subsidies are estimated to be at least $20 billion annually, an amount equal to approximately 25 percent of the value of the world catch.

'Governments are paying companies to overfish our oceans,' said Andrew Sharpless, chief executive officer of Oceana and Mission Blue participant. 'It’s taxpayer-financed ocean depletion and it’s crazy. Cutting government subsidies that produce overcapacity in the world’s fishing fleets is the silver bullet to restoring our world’s fisheries.'"

You can learn more about Mission Blue at their web site and Facebook page. TED is a fascinating organization with conferences and online videos that cover a plethora of subjects. And of course, Oceana is one of the leading ocean conservation organizations.

The G-20 Summit in late June - another opportunity to get policy makers attuned to the reality of many threats facing our oceans and the urgency needed to address them.

Read Mission Blue press release about Mission Blue/TED strategy.

Hawaii Shark Conservation: positive steps but more work lies ahead

On the shark conservation front, there are interesting news items out of Hawaii.

Some time ago, there was a growing movement afoot to eliminate all shark diving at the islands (see prior post). This all came about through one man's poorly thought-out attempt to establish a new operation in an area close to a large populace of recreational ocean users. Badly handled public relations triggered a firestorm of protest, based on emotional rationales, fear, and highly disputed assumptions. But the island of Maui was able to pass an ordinance banning any potential shark ecotourism operations and established operators in Oahu were similarly threatened. Hard work on the part of Oahu's operators, particularly Stefanie Brendl of Hawaii Shark Encounters, got legislators to see the weaknesses of opposition arguments and the potential for lost tourism revenue. So, for now, the furor seems to be subsiding in Oahu.

Almost simultaneously, some enlightened state legislators initiated legislation that would ban the sale, trade, and distribution of all shark fins. The proposed legislation, SB 2169, has gone through some ups and downs but just recently cleared Hawaii's House of Representatives. So that's one major hurdle that has been cleared. The next step in the state's bureaucracy is for the bill to go to conference to be reviewed by Senate representatives before reaching the Senate floor for a vote. This is all encouraging, but it's not a done deal yet.

While Asia receives the majority of the blame for the market demand in shark products, Hawaii is, quietly, one of the leading centers for trade and distribution of shark products. That means there will be forces at work to combat the bill, but its passage would certainly place Hawaii in the foreground of compassionate and sensible conservation, would protect a marine resource that contributes to a healthy ecosystem which impacts other recreational and commercial fishing activities, and would be in keeping with the islands' long cultural heritage of viewing sharks as a resource to be protected. Perhaps future legislation can address shark liver oil, cartilage, and other shark-related products as well.

Let's hope that responsible shark ecotourism and strong legislation to protect sharks commercially will be the order of the day in Hawaii. Sharks would certainly benefit from both.

My friends at the SharkDiver blog have posted the text of the bill, which is fortunately straight-forward and easy to read. Click here to read it.

Toxic Fish Investigative Report: making consumers aware of what is in their local markets

While many of us bemoan the recent failure of CITES to initiate trade controls on bluefin tuna due to the concerted efforts of commercial tuna fishing interests, one of the strategies that we can turn to is to chip away at market demand. And one of the best ways to do that is to focus on the self-interest of the user: their own personal health.

Fish like tuna, swordfish, halibut, and others have exceedingly high levels of mercury that accumulate in their muscle and cartilage tissues, often times at levels well over recommended safe levels set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Got Mercury.org, a part of the Turtle Island Restoration Network, has just issued an investigative report where they sampled fish from 13 markets in the San Francisco area, ranging from a local Safeway to more higher end stores like Trader Joe's and Whole Foods. The fish samples were analyzed by an outside, independent laboratory - and the results were not good.

Over 40% of the fish had high levels of mercury (one sample registered over twice the EPA limit). Some of the stores had signs warning of possible mercury contamination; many stores did not. Click here to read the entire report.

Organizations like Got Mercury.org and media like "The Cove" are using a strategy which takes the position that if you don't care about the fate of the animal, at least consider what you are doing to yourself and your children. Perhaps a sad commentary on the attitudes of some regarding conservation, but in my book, whatever gets the job done.

Congrats to Got Mercury.org for telling it like it is.

Read more about Got Mercury.org. Read the entire investigative report.

Meddling With the Predator vs. Prey Relationship: man must pay up in sometimes surprising ways

When we selectively eliminate critical species from ecosystems, there is a price to be paid not only by the animal itself and the ecology. Man too must pony up - but our price may not be so obvious. It may be a price that is paid years down the road or is one we choose to ignore in the face of immediate personal or commercial gain.

This is what was once faced by cattlemen with regard to the hunting of wolves in the northern United States. Whatever was gained by cattle ranchers in eliminating a key predator, it ultimately came back to haunt them when the deer and varmint population exploded and competition between nature and the cattlemen for suitable grazing land necessitated bringing back the wolf population. But now the pendulum seems to be swinging back and the hunt for wolves is once again beginning in earnest - with no lessons apparently learned.

Many commercial fisheries stand on the brink of collapse, but sometimes the reason is not the obvious one: overfishing of a particular species. In some cases, it is rather the domino-like effect of our actions - as in the case of the hake fishery in Chile which has been severely impacted by the expansion of the Humboldt squid population, a voracious predator whose numbers have grown because of the commercial elimination of the squid's primary natural predators: sharks, tuna, and billfish.

This secondary effect is now being seen in other regions along the eastern Pacific coast: in the Sea of Cortez, where catches of grouper are in decline; and Northern California, where local fishermen are switching from catching rockfish to hauling up huge quantities of squid.

Here's a short video from my recent assignment in the Sea of Cortez.



The filming was for an important future program about which I have to be tight lipped for the time being. But the issue regarding Humboldt squid, which represents one of the multiple effects of disrupting once-balanced marine ecosystems, is an ongoing and growing one.

You fish. The fish are all gone. You move on. It's not that simple anymore.

CITES Meeting Coming: shark species to be proposed for protection

On several occasions over the past months, I have mentioned the upcoming convening of CITES (Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species) set for next March. These meetings are always important because CITES is one of the leading international bodies that can generate worldwide policy decisions regarding a wide range of flora and fauna species.

Several species of sharks are expected to be introduced for consideration under CITES system of Appendix classifications (Appendix I requires a complete ban in harvest & trade, while Appendix II does not ban but requires restrictions to "acceptable & sustainable" levels).

The Humane Society International circulated an email today as a reminder of the upcoming CITES meeting and the need to make sure that as much friendly pressure as possible must be exerted on those nations that are undecided on the issue of shark species.

One of the sharks up for consideration is the Spiny Dogfish - a smaller shark, one of the less remarkable or noteworthy sharks but critically important all the same. Populations of these sharks in the Northern Atlantic are in rapid decline with over 75% of mature breeding females having been lost. Surprisingly, the sharks are caught for fish and chips, not shark fins (although some are caught for that market), and are a substitute for declining stocks of cod or haddock. However, unlike cod or haddock, spiny dogfish are slow to reproduce - as is the case with all sharks - and so the impact of commercial fishing has been profound and rapid.

The European Union and Palau will be proposing Appendix II protections for the spiny dogfish. The Humane Society is providing an online form so that people may contact key U.S. officials as the U.S. has not made a firm commitment to the proposal and there are plenty of commercial fishing industry organizations and lobbies hard at work to prevent passage.

Whether it's the "celebrity" sharks like great whites, hammerheads or whale sharks or more obscure sharks like the spiny dogfish, all need protection. Click here and add your voice to insure that CITES will do its part to help save these important ocean animals.

Omega-3: beneficial fatty acid has an ecological downside

We have all heard of the benefits of seafood; in particular the omega-3 fatty acids that are found in oily fish like salmon, mackerel, and sardines. In fact, according to a recent article in TIME magazine, the market for omega-3 supplements has doubled since 2006, reaching $1 billion in sales.

One fish in particular, the menhaden, plays an important role in the production of omega-3. But its popularity has equated to overfishing and that has produced some definite negative consequences on water quality and other industrial fish populations.

Not a typical fish for the dinner table, the menhaden is a filter feeder and acquires its omega-3 potential by feeding on omega-3-rich algae. In addition to a general filtering of the water (up to 7 gallons per minute!), the menhaden helps to keep the level of algae in check. Algal blooms deplete oxygen, adding to the production of "dead zones" in the ocean. While the populations of menhaden being fished within its Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico range, have not necessarily reached a critical status, their reduced numbers have produced impacts that have been felt in other fisheries, like the Chesapeake Bay which wrestles with declining commercial fish populations due to dead zones.

But are there alternatives? One possible alternative being developed is the industrial production of the omega-3-rich algae on which menhaden feeds. Makes sense - just go to the source. As part of the emerging field of algae production (also an alternative to corn-based ethanol), it's been shown that omega-3 can be derived from algae in addition to flax seed and canola oils.

For fishermen who have been bringing in menhaden for years (it's also used for fishmeal for feeding poultry and farmed-raised salmon), a shift from commercial fishing boats to high-tech algae farms is not an easy or likely transition. This is part of the economic dilemma that we face when we consider what steps are necessary to protect species or the environment. As has been experienced in the automotive industry and other collapsed fisheries, important as these changes are, they are not without their major hurdles.
Click here to read the TIME magazine article by Tim Padgett.