Let's move backward to move forward

On the heels of this fascinating discussion prompted by Ray Hilborn's controversial op-ed in the NY Times last month*, I see that a New Zealand fishing executive decided to unload his thoughts on fishing and environmentalism on the world. I don't think I could add much to the extensive debate over at SeaMonster, so I'll stick to analyzing the Kiwi's remarks.

First, I'll just say right off that I think that picking the best country in terms of fisheries management is like picking the least painful way to get your finger chopped off. There's really no ideal option. New Zealand's management has some good points but also continues to fish for orange roughy, a fish that can live for well over 100 years and, as you might expect, grows pretty slowly. Bonus: it's caught by bottom trawling. Orange roughy is one of New Zealand's most profitable fisheries, although the fishery has experienced some tough times as managers realized (stop me if you've heard this story before) they didn't understand the fish well and had set catches too high. New Zealand also continues to fish for toothfish in the Ross Sea, although that area has far more value to the world as an unparalleled natural laboratory to study a (relatively) untouched ecosystem.

So in many ways I'm not surprised to hear a NZ fish executive passing off terrible, retro ideas as fresh and insightful. What is really LOL-worthy is his assertion that:

"We need a new balanced approach to environmentalism, one that recognises sustainable extraction, and one that recognises a higher ranking of mankind, that should rightfully be placed well above the birds and the bees and the flowers and the trees."

This is revolutionary, and so perceptive, because if there's one thing that is clear from humankind's history of trying to manage nature, it's that it can be done, and that we're smart enough to do it. It's not as if our plans to redirect rivers or harvest large numbers of wild species ever go awry, and all we have to do to continue this happy state of affairs is claim our rightful place in nature, i.e., in charge of it. That's why we have so many environmental challenges! We have just never acted arrogantly enough with respect to the environment.

Humans keep trying to figure out ways to rise above the vicissitudes of nature. In that sense our big brains and dextrous limbs are a curse, because most creatures don't have the capacity to avoid the consequences of their actions like we do. Strip out all the fish near the coast? Invent gear that can fish in deeper waters! Humans have made great scientific strides in the last few centuries, but if you think that we know so much about how nature works that we should be confident in our ability to "manage" it, I'd like to treat you to a dinner of fresh Newfoundland cod.

*The discussion was on SeaMonster, an awesome new blog you should totally read.

Korean fishing vessel sinks in Southern Ocean

ASOC was saddened to hear that a Korean fishing vessel sunk this week in the Southern Ocean, leaving an estimated 22 people dead. Some survivors were rescued, but the others had entered the water without survival gear or immersion suits, meaning there was likely only a short rescue window of ten minutes. It's quite unclear what happened, but it must have been very serious. The weather and water were calm, but the ship apparently didn't even have time to send out a distress call (or don survival gear) before the sinking, indicating an urgent situation. Fortunately, ships were nearby and able to join the search and pull some of the crew out of the water.

This incident is apparently the latest in a string of fishing vessel accidents (not to mention problems with tourist vessels, such as the problems recently experienced by the Clelia II), and the New Zealanders are not happy. The area where this ship sank is the New Zealand search and rescue area, and it sounds like officials there are starting to question why they have to deal with so many problems. They are right to do so - the crews on these vessels deserve to be protected, particularly when in the treacherous Southern Ocean. It shouldn't be New Zealand's responsibility, but that of the ship owners. Ensuring that safety rules are followed protects people and the environment. But maybe some ship owners don't have a problem risking other people's lives.

Krill NY Times article

The New York Times has picked up the story about the decision to certify Antarctic krill as sustainable over the objections of ASOC. The story contributes to the growing sense that the Marine Stewardship Council is not as sustainable as it would like to appear. The basic objection many of us have to even considering certifying fisheries for species low on the food chain is that it is risky and has a higher potential to wreak havoc on an ecosystem in case of environmental fluctuations or mistakes in scientific predictions. For many species like krill, the harvest doesn't even feed humans, but feeds farmed fish or is turned into fish oil for nutritional supplements, raising the question of whether it is ethical to put an ecosystem at risk to provide the well-off with salmon or nutraceuticals. Of course, MSC will say these issues are beyond its reach - for its process to be fair, it must certify fisheries that meet its standards without regard to more subjective or philosophical issues such as these. All its independent assessors can do is look at the science (which as you might expect is never 100%) and make a determination.

Too bad the article didn't mention that there are other omissions in MSC methodology that make its claims of sustainability questionable. Such as its decision not to classify bottom trawling as a destructive fishing practice that disqualifies a fishery from certification eligibility. I suppose MSC would argue that bottom trawling, which is like forest clearcutting except much more destructive, isn't completely catastrophic in the sense that you can do it without ruining the ecosystem (although you can also ruin the ecosystem!). And that it's better for bottom trawlers to work towards MSC certification, which would mean that they are at least following some higher standards, than using whatever fishing procedures they want. But then what motivation is there for operators to use the best of best practices or develop alternatives to bottom trawling? MSC needs to realize that if it sticks to "good enough" and "trying hard" as standards they might help shape up a few bad actors but global fishing isn't going to become "sustainable." It's not going to encourage the rethinking of our approach to fisheries and fishing that will be necessary to ensure productive harvests for years to come. If certification is really all about preserving fish stocks and not about helping fishing operators make more money then MSC needs to listen to conservationists instead of dismissing us as a bunch of overly critical fish-huggers.

However, ASOC is pleased to see that Whole Foods has made the decision to pull krill oil from its shelves. Whole Foods is also working with the Blue Ocean Institute and the Monterey Bay Aquarium to label its seafood instead of just relying on MSC labels. Likewise, Wegmans stores have decided not to sell seafood from the Ross Sea, which is the most intact marine ecosystem on the planet. People might say that these decisions are not based on pure science - pure science says there are lots of krill, and only a small bit is being taken. But this approach is inadequate. Take the so-called "krill paradox" that when numbers of baleen whales (krill predators) decline, so do numbers of krill. Turns out that whale excrement has nutrients that encourage phytoplankton growth, which feeds krill, which could explain the connection. So if we humans don't even really understand basic predator-prey relationships like these, are we being smart to make decisions without allowing for the possibility that we could be really, really wrong? Good for these retailers for not caving into the narrower interpretations of sustainability.

Editorial laments MSC Certifications

An editorial by the vice-chair of a Scottish environmental non-profit laments the increasing number of fisheries that are certified by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) despite concerns about their sustainability. In particular, the bizarre insistence of the MSC that bottom trawling is not a destructive fishing practice is criticized:

The issue is of burning relevance to our local waters. In Scotland there has long been concern over bottom trawling for prawns - it decimates the bottom living ecosystem, destroying the early food of white fish, and rare sea pens and even endangered firework anemones. Research in the Clyde estuary in a 10 month period in 2007 also showed that the bycatch in turn is extremely destructive of juvenile fish. In total over 31 million dead juvenile fish were found in the bycatch with an average weight of 63 grams. Yet prawn trawling in NW Scotland has received MSC certification and the Clyde Fishermen’s Association is pressing for the MSC Blue Label for their mobile prawn trawlers. This is madness when the damage done by the trawling methods is well-documented. One of the reasons the Clyde is so depleted of white fish, and known as the Newfoundland of Scotland, is the destructive mobile trawling methods.

The author also makes the excellent point that certification is increasingly driven by profit. Certifiers are eager to get more business. Supermarkets want to sell certified seafood. But if MSC is about protecting seafood and not applying a thin veneer of sustainability to fisheries that can make a case that they aren't actively destroying the species they target, then it's time MSC took notice of these kinds of criticisms and addressed them substantively - a defensive press release is not a substantive response, by the way.

Wasting your money, depleting the ocean

An MP in Britain has launched a campaign to bring attention to an under-scrutinized issue: the use of government money to purchase fish from depleted stocks to serve in public institutions like schools and hospitals. It's an interesting issue - there have been efforts in the U.S. to direct public money towards more healthy foods for school lunches instead of essentially subsidizing producers of less healthful foods by purchasing their surpluses. But few members of the public understand just how complicit many governments are in encouraging overfishing. Whether it's subsidies to fishers who aren't following sustainable practices, or allowing operators to have a say in management decisions (and even fisheries science isn't all that sound at times), governments aren't always the good guys.

It's about time the public realized that their governments are hastening the abuse of public resources.

Bluewashing and ecofraud

A blog post over at New Scientist last week highlighted the confusing, possibly inaccurate advice consumers are receiving on "sustainable" seafood, urging conscientous seafood buyers to beware of "bluewashing." Bluewashing is the equivalent of greenwashing, wherein companies or labelling programs aim to convince consumers that they are buying an environmentally friendly product, even when they're not. Say there's package of single-use cleaning cloths made with a small portion of recycled materials. Is that really environmentally friendly? Single-use items pretty much violate the whole spirit of sustainability. Remember, it's reuse, reduce, THEN recycle. But at the same time, it's unreasonable to expect consumers to be able to research on their own every facet of an item's manufacture. That's why labelling must be accurate and based on high standards.

Bluewashing similarly takes advantage of the complexity of fisheries science and management to confuse consumers - perhaps a fishing operator is abiding by quotas set by a governmental ministry, which has decreed those limits sustainable, but the stock has shrunk below levels predicted by models. Is that fishery really being sustainably managed? That's exactly what some conservationists are asking about the MSC certification of the British Columbia sockeye salmon fishery. The fishery had to be closed last year when only one million fish returned to the river instead of the expected 10 million. MSC counters that the closure of the fishery indicates that it is being appropriately managed, and that new information on the stock will be considered (MSC fisheries are periodically re-evaluated). Again, does that really represent adherence to the precautionary principle MSC professes to use? If not, MSC certification is then mostly helping certain portions of the fishing industry provide the appearance of good environmental stewardship and charge higher prices.

I find this attitude troubling. If the main goal is, as MSC says, "fish for today, fish for tomorrow," why does it seem that the process seems to be primarily concerned with making sure that fishing operators who can prove they're doing a few things right get to make more money? Consider the proposed certification of a portion of the krill fishery in the Southern Ocean. Most krill is not used for human consumption, but for feeding farmed fish or processing into nutritional supplements. Even if the harvesting of krill is sustainable (and that's highly debatable), these uses don't exactly conform with sustainability principles. Salmon aquaculture needs several pounds of feed to produce a single pound of salmon (which often retails for around $8 - $10 per pound), and produces pollution. Krill oil capsules may offer protection against heart disease. Antarctic krill capsules are $20 for 30 at one online retailer. So we're not feeding the poor here. MSC's standards should reflect a much broader view of sustainability than their current certifications suggest, both because it's the right thing to do for the world's fish stocks and because it's unfair to consumers who believe they are paying for adherence to strict sustainability standards.

Sylvia Earle on Colbert

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Sylvia Earle
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Michael Moore

It's been a bonanza for ocean conservationists on fake news shows recently - first Jon Stewart mocks Sean Hannity's ignorance of how ecosystems work, and now Stephen Colbert talks to Her Deepness about overfishing and ocean health.

Although her clip puts me in mind of something I've always wanted to see: accurate pricing of goods that are only cheap when you ignore the environmental harm they cause. Wouldn't it be nice to have two prices for a pound of fish - the actual price the consumer pays, and then the cost per pound when pollution from fishing vessels, bycatch and habitat damage are included? Not to mention government subsidies, or, if catch limits are above those recommended by scientists, how much the economy will lose if the fishery collapses. It won't change behavior overnight, but I'm convinced people will never understand the need to conserve unless they understand the value of what they lose when a product, service, or food source is obtained or made in an environmentally damaging way.

We need to stop thinking about environmental protection as a luxury good, only to be obtained when convenient. Environmental damage and overfishing involve real costs, both in the short-term and the long-term. We can no longer let those who incur these costs avoid paying for them. If you go to a gym, you're expected to pay for the privilege of using the equipment, which you don't own. Why shouldn't fishing operators pay for the damage they may cause to the ocean environment, which they don't own? Allowing anyone, whether a fishing vessel or a manufacturer, to get off without paying for damage to common resources is to legalize stealing from the public. It also disincentivizes the development of more environmentally-friendly production methods.

Overfishing isn't just a problem for fish. It's theft of a resource that, as Sylvia says, keeps us all alive.

Aquacalypse Now

Here's hoping Daniel Pauly's excellent article "Aquacalypse Now" in The New Republic this week gets a lot of attention. It focuses on what Dr. Pauly calls the "fishing-industrial complex" of lobbyists, commercial fishing interests, and willing government officials who have contributed to declines in fish stocks worldwide. The influence of these fishing interests is often far out of proportion to their economic influence, yet they get huge subsidies. Even if you don't care about fish populations, and don't believe that they are in trouble, you might be annoyed to learn that your tax dollars are subsidizing large corporations. As with agricultural subsidies, fisheries subsidies not only prop up otherwise unprofitable businesses, they lead to unwise resource use.

Meanwhile, small scale fishermen in developing countries, who typically lack the ability to cause the kind of depletions larger commercial operation do, have seen their catches decline, Pauly reports. These are people who don't eat fish because they want to keep their skin wrinkle-free, but rather people who vitally need the protein fish can provide. It's morally wrong for big fishing nations to keep subsidizing big fleets that are probably quite literally snatching their catches from low-income people who don't have other options - for food or for work.

Pauly makes the excellent point that we just can't keep treating the oceans as a global commons. As every environmentalist knows, this inevitably leads to tragedy as fishermen maximize short-term gains without really being worried about the long term - they'll just move on to a species that isn't as heavily fished. But what happens when we run out of new stocks to exploit? Disaster. Which is why I agree with Pauly that it's primarily the job of government to rethink fisheries management. I personally try to avoid certain seafood, but it's unlikely that enough people will ever have the knowledge to really make a dent in the seafood market. But governments do have the ability to put a stop to some of the ridiculousness. Will the public listen, though, or be taken in by fishing lobby arguments that overreaching environmentalists are harming everyday folks?

You know the situation's dire when Jon Stewart has to explain to Sean Hannity why even a small fish is important, and thus how food chains work, on The Daily Show:

More Trouble for MSC

Just last week, the NY Times reported on the controversy over the Marine Stewardship Council's certification of New Zealand hoki fisheries. Now the MSC's in trouble again, this time with fisheries scientists Daniel Pauly and Jennifer Jacquet (whose Guilty Planet blog is linked from this one) because of its decision to consider certifying the Peruvian anchovy fishery. If you think that "consider" doesn't sound so terrible, think again. By the time a fishery enters the public certification process, it's already consulted with an independent certifier to figure out if it's likely to get approved. The assessment process is expensive, so it seems as though once a fishery is in the public assessment phase, it's getting confirmed. As ASOC staffers have been reading official analyses done by MSC certifiers on other fisheries, it seems that the certifier often finds ways to give fisheries passing scores, no matter what anyone (including the experienced scientists who review their reports) has to say.

Pauly and Jacquet object to the proposed certification of the fishery because much of the catch goes to feed farmed fish and land livestock - a process which is usually seen as fairly wasteful given that several pounds of fish are needed for each pound of livestock or farmed fish produced. And it's not as if anchovies are inedible otherwise. The domestication of ruminants was extremely useful for early agricultural humans - regardless of the pounds in-pounds out comparisons - because humans just can't digest pounds and pounds of grass, and ruminants can. So they convert, in a sense, inedible things into usable protein. Anchovies, on the other hand, are quite edible, and full of protein. As the authors point out, Peru has a serious problem with child malnutrition and it makes little sense to export a source of good protein when people are starving. Protein isn't just for building nice biceps, since protein-deficient children usually end up with low IQs in addition to physical ailments.

The problem with MSC, the authors point out, is perhaps not that anchovies are overfished (it appears that they aren't) or that fishing methods are harming the environment, but that the wasteful practice of feeding farmed fish (or livestock) with fishmeal is not taken into account. This is yet another problem with the MSC standards. It increasingly appears that these standards simply aren't tough enough to ensure that certified fisheries are held to the highest standards. It seems to me that any fishery that can make a somewhat plausible argument that it meets the standards gets to use the label. The certifiers are working on behalf of the fishers - not the ocean. Since MSC is supposedly about protecting marine species first and foremost, why does it seem that MSC ignores so many of these kind of issues? MSC certification cannot be considered credible if it is so easily obtained, with no thought given to the broader impacts of certification. More here.

New Zealand hoki and the MSC

The New York Times has a great story out today describing the fight over the management of New Zealand's hoki stocks. The New Zealand government has been cutting the allowable catch of hoki by substantial amounts, which indicates that overfishing has harmed the stock, but hasn't formally admitted that there are problems. Complicating the issue is the Marine Stewardship Council's stamp of approval on New Zealand hoki, a fishery which uses bottom trawling, which makes it more popular with buyers. In a subtle way, the MSC label also makes it more difficult for environmentalists to raise objections, as its presence makes it seem as if those protesting are being too picky or hyperbolic. But there's nothing hyperbolic about opposing bottom trawling, a practice on which the UN considered imposing a worldwide moratorium. The moratorium failed because of political pressure - over a thousand scientists have signed a petition opposing bottom trawling as a fishing practice - not because there is any real debate over whether bottom trawling is ok for the environment. Imagine if logging were conducted by uprooting trees with a bulldozer while shooting all the local wildlife, churning up all the surrounding soil and destroying all other vegetation in the process. Would anyone tolerate that? Because that's what bottom trawling essentially does. It dredges up all the life on the ocean floor - sponges, corals, etc. - while catching huge numbers of fish, both the target species and non-target species. Most of the (dead) bycatch is discarded. The sediments stirred up by the nets dragged along the ocean floor can generate algal blooms. Some of the sediments contain pollutants which are then reintroduced into the water column. The hoki fishery kills seabirds and seals as well. Add to all this the fact that the high catch limits set by the New Zealand government seem to have caused drastic population declines and it's difficult to see what's sustainable about hoki.

ASOC is interested in the hoki fishery because of our concerns over Southern Ocean fisheries for krill and toothfish that the MSC is assessing for certification. The MSC standards, which allow clearly problematic fisheries to receive their blue seal of approval, are inadequate and should be revised to ensure that only truly sustainable, well-managed fisheries receive certification. Instead of looking for the blue MSC label, check out seafood guides from groups such as the Blue Ocean Institute, Food and Water Watch, and the Monterey Bay Aquarium. Some of these groups note MSC certifications, but in general they evaluate fisheries on other criteria as well, so their recommendations carry more weight. Some MSC-certified fisheries are well-managed, but their seal alone is not sufficient.

Can Overfishing be Reversed?

A widely-discussed study is claiming that depleted fish stocks can be replenished, giving many a reason to celebrate. The authors in the study caution, however, that most of the world's fisheries are not subject to the kinds of management and regulation that they found could help restore fisheries. Many of the measures that were found to work, such as catch limits, no-take reserves, and special fishing gear are often strongly opposed by fishing interests and thus difficult to put in place. Perhaps this evidence that such measures work will convince fishers that the long-term payoff for the temporary pain inflicted by stricter fishing regulations is worth it. Although, many continue to deny that overfishing is all that widespread or serious, so we'll have to see. Will scientific evidence, even when it can benefit the long-term viability of commercial fishing, continue to be ignored by governments and fisheries management bodies?

MSC Certification - is it reliable? Part I

Like many involved in marine issues, I worry about the serious problems facing the world's dwindling fish stocks. Eating orange roughy or bluefin tuna would be akin to eating panda for me. But there are many fish species for which the case isn't so clear cut. So I personally use and recommend to others seafood guides such as those from the Blue Ocean Institute and the Monterey Bay Aquarium. Both include information about the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), an organization that certifies fisheries as sustainable and well-managed. However, our organization and others have become increasingly concerned with gaps in the MSC's assessment methodology.

While the situation of many fisheries is so dire that many would say that some standards are better than none, the high public visibility of the MSC's label is worrying. Consumers may be misled by the label into purchasing fish that is not truly from a well-managed fishery. This might push a stock closer to collapse, increase environmental damage, or strain ecosystems. Not to mention it means that people may inadvertently support companies whose practices they strongly oppose.

For example, would you consider a fishery that has partially collapsed, and hasn't recovered even though commercial fishing hasn't taken place there for five years sustainable? Probably not. That's the case for the scallop fishery in New Zealand's Tasman Bay, which has passed the MSC's initial pre-assessment process and is now in full assessment and thus on the road to full certification. Greenpeace New Zealand, in a letter to the MSC, strongly criticized this development and the MSC methodology that allow the scallop and similar fisheries in NZ to be considered for certification at all. You can read their letter here. Although they are concerned with several New Zealand fisheries that are currently being assessed for MSC certification, their methodology is the same for all fisheries, including Antarctic toothfish and krill, which are also currently under assessment. Some key Greenpeace NZ criticisms of the MSC methodology are:

-"There is currently no initial step in the MSC assessment and certification process in
which consideration is given to whether there should be fishing of the species being
assessed in the given area, or indeed whether there should be fishing for any
species in the given area...Certification should not be considered for fisheries operating in areas that are under application or warrant marine protection such as marine reserve designation, or else the certification will have negative consequences for achieving that protection."

-"The definition of a destructive fishery is woefully inadequate. Only fishing with poisons or explosives is currently included in this definition. This should be extended to include driftnet fishing (which has an extremely high rate of bycatch of marine life including whales, dolphins, turtles and non-target fish species) and bottom trawling and dredging (which lay waste to seabed communities, including vulnerable and long-lived seamount ecosystems in the case of bottom trawling). These fishing methods do not meet sound sustainability criteria due to their impacts on marine life, ecosystems and habitats. "

-"There is no recognition given in the MSC Fisheries Assessment Methodology to the increasing environmental variability caused by CO2 emissions; ocean acidification and climate change. This should be included as an over-arching element of the certification requiring that management plans for the target species, retained and bycatch species and endangered, threatened and protected (ETP) species account for potential additional variability in populations due to acidification and climate change-related impacts.

This need for increased precaution is particularly relevant for fisheries conducted at environmental extremes or species range limits likely to be impacted by any shift in environmental conditions. This includes, for example, polar fisheries (where ocean acidification is felt first) and tropical fisheries (where sea temperature change is impacting ecosystems such as coral reefs and their associated communities). It is also particularly relevant for fisheries on species with calcium carbonate structures, such as shellfish, that may be impacted by ocean acidification."

Receiving MSC certification should be a reward for fisheries that have taken extraordinary measures to ensure that they are fishing sustainably on multiple levels. The primary concern should be the marine environment, not making sure that companies that jump through a few hoops get to tout themselves as environmentally-friendly. Particularly in the case of marine reserves and proposed marine reserves, the MSC should hold off on certifications for fisheries in areas under consideration for marine reserves - like Antarctica's Ross Sea. The establishment of fisheries (and concomitant commercial interests) in a region can only complicate the designation of reserves and protected areas. A recent news story reports that no-take zones (which reserves often are) have been proven to help depleted stocks recover. Thus if the MSC's interest truly lies with fish and not fishers, they should proceed with caution in certifying fisheries in areas actively being considered for marine reserves, or that have been identified as excellent candidates for designation.

In another post, I'll address Greenpeace's other concerns and some additional criticisms of the MSC from other NGOs.

Do you need to take omega-3 supplements?

I often come across press releases from nutrition companies touting the benefits of krill-derived omega-3 fish oil supplements. While this one references a reputable study done by the Harvard school of public health that determined that increased consumption of omega-3s could prevent tens of thousands of deaths every year, it also tries to steer you towards purchasing fish oil supplements. I suppose the Alternative Health Journal is slightly less self-interested than the krill oil supplement manufacturer, but I wanted to inject some reality into the discussion. Namely, that the American Heart Association recommends that healthy people get their omega-3s from food. Supplements are recommended for people who already have heart issues, such as coronary artery disease or high triglycerides. So every time you see something touting the benefits of fish oil supplements, remember, if you're currently healthy, you don't need these supplements to benefit from omega-3s. The AHA recommends consuming fatty fish at least twice a week.

Of course, seafood consumption has its own problems. I suggest downloading the fish guide from either the Blue Ocean Institute or the Monterey Bay Aquarium. Don't, however, take your guidance from the National Fisheries Institute, which is trying to correct all the inaccuracies in the media about sustainable seafood. Their claim that it's not a bad thing for a fishery to be fully exploited would be hilarious if it weren't for the fact that the seafood industry has so much negative influence over fisheries management. They explain that "An under exploited or moderately exploited stock can be a wasteful use of resource, while overexploited or depleted stocks can cause concerns about the future." Yes, because as world population increases, there's nothing that should alarm anyone about the fact that most fish stocks, if not overfished, can't be fished any more without pushing them towards collapse. Nothing at all, given the increasing demand for fish, or the fact that many people around the world depend on fish to provide protein in their diets! The UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) defines fully exploited as "The fishery is operating at or close to an optimal yield level, with no expected room for further expansion." Note that this doesn't mean that fishery management won't increase catch limits, even if scientists determine that this would be risky. Different fisheries have different management, and often industry has a big say in how limits are determined.

Currently, ASOC is working to ensure proper stewardship of Antarctic fish and crustacean stocks. The idea that an underexploited resource is a wasted resource is incredibly dangerous for the Antarctic. Sometimes, it's not even really known what the optimal level of exploitation is, given the uncertainty about how much of a certain species might be needed to be available for other species in the ecosystem, or how climate change might change the situation. Some fish, such as Antarctic toothfish (also known as Chilean Sea Bass), might not be able to sustain more than very low levels of exploitation. Concern from environmentalists isn't part of an evil plot to distort the facts - check out this study published in the prestigious scientific journal Nature for information about the true state of fish stocks. It's not alarmism, it's just reality.

The EU Takes on Vidal Armadores

A while ago, I wrote about Greenpeace's efforts to pressure the Spanish government into ending its subsidies and other support for Vidal Armadores S. A., a Spanish fishing company blacklisted by CCAMLR for pirate fishing. It looks as though their efforts have paid off, as a recent story (use Google translator if you can't read Spanish) reports that the government plans to take legal action against the company. The European Union has also gotten involved, with Joe Borg, Commissioner of Fisheries and Maritime Affairs for the European Commission (executive branch of the EU) stating that he would take action against Spain if their authorities do not fulfill their EU obligations with respect to illegal fishing.

This is obviously good news, and I hope that it is just the start of the international community taking pirate fishing at least half as seriously as the recent Somali pirate attacks. Pirate fishing (or, somewhat less glamorously, Illegal, Unregulated, Unreported/IUU fishing) in the Southern Ocean and other areas flourishes because governments either look the other way or, in Spain's case, provide overt support to known violators. CCAMLR blacklists are exactly kept secret.

Given that fish stocks worldwide are severely depleted, it is appalling that we've heard more about Somali piracy from major media sources in the last month than we usually do about IUU fishing in a year. Somali piracy is a serious but relatively localized problem. Pirate fishing, on the other hand, has had a negative effect on global fish stocks, accelerates the collapse of the populations of high-value species, and deprives local fishers in developing countries of an important source income and nutrition. Furthermore, fish populations do not always recover after years of overfishing - inaction now only increases the likelihood that some species will be lost forever. So it is not an exaggeration to say that pirate fishing is a problem that affects everyone, everywhere.

For too long, the political will to take on these lawbreakers has been lacking. Few governments or regulatory bodies have taken truly bold action to preserve marine resources, whether by enacting appropriate regulations or enforcing existing ones. To be fair, it would be nearly impossible to patrol all the seas at all times for illegal fishers and illegal fishing practices, but in this and many other cases such effort is not necessary. Start by enforcing the law against blacklisted ships.

To make a dent in illegal fishing, the international community will have to undergo something of a revolution in values. Healthy marine ecosystems have a long-term value for humans that is far greater than the price that this year's toothfish catch will bring. When one considers that the health of a major resource is at stake, the lack of attention paid to illegal fishing is no less shocking than it would be if a government failed to arrest someone who was systematically burning down every house in a neighborhood. Those are your fish they're killing.

The EC Commissioner's announcement that he expects Spain to enforce the law or face legal action is promising, assuming he follows through. It's time to stop acting as if illegal fishing is a victimless or minor crime.

CCAMLR Protects Seabed

Last week's CCAMLR meeting produced an important result: the delegates voted to protect two 400 square kilometer areas of seabed by designating them vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs) in which certain damaging fishing methods are prohibited. Australia led the designation effort, and Australian delegation leader Dr. Tony Press likened the areas, home to vibrant cold-water coral communities, to the Great Barrier Reef. The Australian Antarctic Division (AAD), which Dr. Press directs, explored these regions earlier this year as part of the Collaborative East Antarctic Marine Census, itself part of the Census of Marine Life. The AAD-led expedition discovered new species and uncovered an amazing range of seabed life. Video of these unique communities can be viewed at the AAD website. Significantly, the protection agreement is structured so that other areas with similar ecological qualities can also be made off limits to fishing when identified.

Bottom fishing presents an enormous threat to these and other seabed communities. Fishing vessels drag huge nets across the ocean floor, which releases clouds of sediment large enough to be seen from space. Large metal plates and rubber wheels attached to these nets move along the bottom and crush nearly everything in their path. Seafloor animals simply cannot survive this kind of onslaught, particularly if areas are trawled repeatedly. The Marine Conservation Biology Institute estimates that bottom trawling kills twenty pounds of "bycatch "for every pound it harvests. Bycatch refers to animals killed or caught incidentally in the process of catching desired species. Because of the damage to marine life and the seafloor, ASOC recommends a comprehensive moratorium on high-seas bottom trawling. The CCAMLR measure is an important and promising step in the right direction, but only protects a fraction of the areas at risk from this unacceptably destructive fishing method.

Why is illegal fishing a big deal?

One of our organization's key issues is protecting Southern Ocean fisheries from illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing. It can be difficult to convince people that human access to an important source of food should be limited. Nevertheless, cracking down on IUU fishing isn't about stopping people from eating fish, but about cracking down on environmentally destructive criminal behavior, as recent stories have made clear.

As this story points out, some illegal fishermen engage in environmentally unsound practices, such as bottom trawling and driftnets, that can damage ecosystems and thus the long-term health of fisheries. Skirting regulations involving the size of mesh used for nets, for example, might result in catches of younger specimens, which makes it difficult for the population to continue to reproduce its numbers. While the IUU fishermen can move on to other areas in search of the best fish stocks, small fishermen do not have the technology or the resources to do the same.

When these fishermen don't follow the rules, their actions therefore can have huge impacts on people and ecosystems. In Africa illegal fishermen may have deprived governments there of close to $1 billion in licensing fees. One BBC reporter who visited Sierra Leone heard tales from local fishermen harassed and intimidated by foreign fishing boats who entered zones reserved for local use. These extremely poor Sierra Leonean fishermen also complain that they have difficulty catching their usual amounts of fish because of the huge numbers taken by foreign ships. Eventually, fisheries could be depleted irrevocably, robbing struggling countries of important natural resources and leaving them to deal with environmental damage.

Recently, the NGO Oceana reported on another dimension of the IUU fishing problem - the connection between some IUU fishing boats and drug smuggling. Oceana notes that a man recently arrested for cocaine smuggling owned boats that it had repeatedly accused of IUU fishing. Fish poachers are much more likely to be criminals than to be poor people simply trying to earn a living. Lax enforcement of existing fishing regulations only encourages criminal behavior - of many kinds - at sea.

Unreported catches can additionally complicate the problem of setting sustainable catch limits. Responsible fisheries management requires an accurate idea of the size and age composition of fish populations, which cannot be accomplished if no one knows how many fish are taken. As the Newfoundland cod fishery collapse demonstrates, sometimes even drastic actions by policymakers may come too late to allow fish stocks to recover from unsustainable harvest levels. Good fisheries management practices ensure healthy fish stocks and healthy oceans for years to come and prevent economic and environmental problems.

So what can the average person do to avoid seafood from illegal operations? A good start is the Blue Ocean Institute's Guide to Ocean Friendly Seafood, which can point you in the direction of well-managed, sustainable seafood. Oceana has great suggestions about how you can take action to change the policies that encourage or tolerate unsustainable fishing.