MSC's at it again!

Recently ASOC got some bad news - the Independent Adjudicator overseeing our objections to the Marine Stewardship Council's proposed certification of the Ross Sea toothfish fishery gave the company that assessed the fishery (Moody Marine) and recommended certification another chance to explain themselves. Even worse, although he had previously asked Moody to provide some detailed explanations behind some of their scoring guideposts - which he felt had vague language - and they provided only a dismissive, inadequate response, he accepted their argument. He also seemingly accepted the clear disdain for the process and the authority of the Independent Adjudicator that oozed from Moody's condescending reply. There is no final decision, which means the IA might still find that Moody erred in claiming that there was plenty of information about toothfish reproductive habits. Sample information that everyone admits is still unknown about toothfish: frequency of spawning, location of spawning, location of larvae after hatching. Can you really manage a fish population sustainably if you don't know all that much about their reproduction?

Closer to home, another third-party certifier for MSC is also making questionable decisions. Although the longline bigeye, yellowfin, and swordfish fisheries in the Southeast US catch significant amounts of bycatch, MRAG has agreed to assess the fishery for certification, which means that the fishery has been secretly pre-assessed and determined to be a viable candidate. It's difficult to see how this fishery can meet MSC's requirement that "[f]ishing operations should be managed to maintain the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem on which the fishery depends." Let's look at some statistics. From 2001-2008, the Florida East Coast (FEC) part of the fishery harmed or killed 632 leatherback turtles and 506 loggerheads. Both are endangered. And that's just the Florida part. The U.S. government considers the fishery a Category 1 fishery that poses a significant threat to marine mammal populations. Oh, and the fishery takes sharks and a bunch of endangered bluefin tuna, three quarters of which is just thrown out. Check out the Sea Turtle Restoration Project's list of the staggering bycatch impact of these fisheries. 50% of the fisheries' catch is bycatch.

This is a new low for MSC. With the fishery assessments ASOC was involved in, there was a lot of uncertainty about the potential effects of the fisheries. Uncertainty is a solid reason to deny certification since MSC purports to want fisheries that are sustainable indefinitely. If you don't have good information, theoretically you can't make that claim (but plenty of fisheries do). However, in this case there is no uncertainty, just a lot of at-risk species dead for no good reason. What more would the fishery have to do to get rejected by the certifier? Use baby pandas as bait and hooks made from the bones of puppies and kittens? Although I suppose since there are plenty of puppies and kittens around that would be considered a sustainable practice until there's proof that the fish-hook making industry is detrimental to cat and dog populations.

The fishery clients for these fisheries may be able to argue that their bycatch is only a small part of the problem, that they're working on it, etc. This points to the overall problem with MSC's standards - if you can make a not-entirely-crazy argument, you're golden. There's no room for common sense, such as not certifying species like toothfish because it's well-known that they're vulnerable to overfishing, or not certifying fisheries that waste half of their catch and regularly kill endangered species.

Meanwhile, I'll be waiting for the announcement that the baby-panda-bait fishery for bluefin tuna is undergoing assessment for MSC certification.

Illegal fishing operators at it again

Researchers with the Australian Antarctic Division (AAD) recently set out to explore an "unexplored" region of the Southern Ocean, only to find deep, straight gouges in the ocean floor. The gouges are the likely result of illegal toothfish fishing in the area. The Commission on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) is the body that manages this region, and although in recent years it seemed to have had success in cracking down on the IUU free-for-all for toothfish that started in the 1990s, it clearly has not eliminated the problem. I hope the perpetrators of this fishing, which is described as very extensive by AAD researchers, are discovered. CCAMLR simply can't manage legal fisheries appropriately if there's such extensive IUU fishing going on.

Shame on the fishing operators who stole these fish and tore up the seafloor so they could sell a vulnerable species to the well-to-do.

Pirates Are Attacking Toothfish

Illegal Antarctic toothfish catches have risen from 3% of the total catch to 17% since 2003 according to the World Wildlife Federation (WWF) and TRAFFIC. Toothfish, more euphemistically known as Chilean Sea Bass, gained popularity with diners and chefs in the 1990s because of their moist flesh. Populations of this species, which is slow to reach sexual maturity, quickly declined. Although the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) regulates toothfish catches, such regulations cannot be effective in preserving numbers if illegal fishing runs rampant.

WWF and TRAFFIC recently presented a report to CCAMLR urging member states to increase trade sanctions against countries that fail to adquately police their countries' ships when they engage in illegal fishing. Although patrolling can discourage illegal fishers, they often just move to less-monitored areas. The report also advocates greater monitoring of legal ships and catches and urges CCAMLR to incorporate additional information into its estimates of IUU fishing, which the report asserts are lower than the actual percentage. Inaccurately low estimates of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing cause a number of problems. CCAMLR catch limits, which incorporate IUU estimates, may be higher than the population can actually support. Other measures designed to prevent bycatch or incidental mortality of other species and environmental damage will be less effective because IUU fishing vessels are unlikely to use them. CCAMLR should seriously consider the report's recommendations and take action to prevent illegally obtained toothfish from reaching the market. Without more consistent enforcement, this valuable fish could be driven to the brink of extinction.

For more information, check out ASOC's paper on the need for trade measures to promote compliance in enforcing existing fishing regulations in CCAMLR.