No-take marine areas help fishers (and fish) far more than we thought



A juvenile Plectropomus leopardus from the Whitsundays.
David Williamson/James Cook University

Dustin Marshall, Monash University and Liz Morris, Monash University

One hectare of ocean in which fishing is not allowed (a marine protected area) produces at least five times the amount of fish as an equivalent unprotected hectare, according to new research published today.

This outsized effect means marine protected areas, or MPAs, are more valuable than we previously thought for conservation and increasing fishing catches in nearby areas.

Previous research has found the number of offspring from a fish increases exponentially as they grow larger, a disparity that had not been taken into account in earlier modelling of fish populations. By revising this basic assumption, the true value of MPAs is clearer.




Read more:
Protecting not-so-wild places helps biodiversity


Marine Protected Areas

Marine protected areas are ocean areas where human activity is restricted and at their best are “no take” zones, where removing animals and plants is banned. Fish populations within these areas can grow with limited human interference and potentially “spill-over” to replenish fished populations outside.

Obviously MPAs are designed to protect ecological communities, but scientists have long hoped they can play another role: contributing to the replenishment and maintenance of species that are targeted by fisheries.

Wild fisheries globally are under intense pressure and the size fish catches have levelled off or declined despite an ever-increasing fishing effort.

Yet fishers remain sceptical that any spillover will offset the loss of fishing grounds, and the role of MPAs in fisheries remains contentious. A key issue is the number of offspring that fish inside MPAs produce. If their fecundity is similar to that of fish outside the MPA, then obviously there will be no benefit and only costs to fishers.




Read more:
More fish, more fishing: why strategic marine park placement is a win-win


Big fish have far more babies

Traditional models assume that fish reproductive output is proportional to mass, that is, doubling the mass of a fish doubles its reproductive output. Thus, the size of fish within a population is assumed to be less important than the total biomass when calculating population growth.

But a paper recently published in Science demonstrated this assumption is incorrect for 95% of fish species: larger fish actually have disproportionately higher reproductive outputs. That means doubling a fish’s mass more than doubles its reproductive output.

When we feed this newly revised assumption into models of fish reproduction, predictions about the value of MPAs change dramatically.


Author provided

Fish are, on average, 25% longer inside protected areas than outside. This doesn’t sound like much, but it translates into a big difference in reproductive output – an MPA fish produces almost 3 times more offspring on average. This, coupled with higher fish populations because of the no-take rule means MPAs produce between 5 and 200 times (depending on the species) more offspring per unit area than unprotected areas.

Put another way, one hectare of MPA is worth at least 5 hectares of unprotected area in terms of the number of offspring produced.

We have to remember though, just because MPAs produce disproportionately more offspring it doesn’t necessarily mean they enhance fisheries yields.

For protected areas to increase catch sizes, offspring need to move to fished areas. To calculate fisheries yields, we need to model – among other things – larval dispersal between protected and unprotected areas. This information is only available for a few species.

We explored the consequences of disproportionate reproduction for fisheries yields with and without MPAs for one iconic fish, the coral trout on the Great Barrier Reef. This is one of the few species for which we had data for most of the key parameters, including decent estimates of larval dispersal and how connected different populations are.

No-take protected areas increased the amount of common coral trout caught in nearby areas by 12%.
Paul Asman and Jill Lenoble/Flickr, CC BY

We found MPAs do in fact enhance yields to fisheries when disproportionate reproduction is included in relatively realistic models of fish populations. For the coral trout, we saw a roughly 12% increase in tonnes of caught fish.

There are two lessons here. First, a fivefold increase in the production of eggs inside MPAs results in only modest increases in yield. This is because limited dispersal and higher death rates in the protected areas dampen the benefits.




Read more:
Caught on camera: Ancient Greenland sharks


However the exciting second lesson is these results suggest MPAs are not in conflict with the interests of fishers, as is often argued.

While MPAs restrict access to an entire population of fish, fishers still benefit from from their disproportionate affect on fish numbers. MPAs are a rare win-win strategy.

It’s unclear whether our results will hold for all species. What’s more, these effects rely on strict no-take rules being well-enforced, otherwise the essential differences in the sizes of fish will never be established.

We think that the value of MPAs as a fisheries management tool has been systematically underestimated. Including disproportionate reproduction in our assessments of MPAs should correct this view and partly resolve the debate about their value. Well-designed networks of MPAs could increase much-needed yields from wild-caught fish.The Conversation

Dustin Marshall, Professor, Marine Evolutionary Ecology, Monash University and Liz Morris, Administration Manager, Monash University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Advertisements

More fish, more fishing: why strategic marine park placement is a win-win



File 20190325 36267 6gisnm.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Marine parks are good for fish – especially if they’re in the right areas.
Epstock/Shutterstock

Kerstin Jantke, University of Hamburg; Alienor Chauvenet, Griffith University; Hugh Possingham, The University of Queensland; James Allan, The University of Queensland; James Watson, The University of Queensland, and Kendall Jones, The University of Queensland

Australia has some of the most spectacular marine ecosystems on the planet – including, of course, the world-famous Great Barrier Reef. Many of these places are safe in protected areas, and support a myriad of leisure activities such as recreational fishing, diving and surfing. No wonder eight in ten Aussies live near the beach.

Yet threats to marine ecosystems are becoming more intense and widespread the world over. New maps show that only 13% of the oceans are still truly wild. Industrial fishing now covers an area four times that of agriculture, including the farthest reaches of international waters. Marine protected areas that restrict harmful activities are some of the last places where marine species can escape. They also support healthy fisheries and increase the ability of coral reefs to resist bleaching.




Read more:
Most recreational fishers in Australia support marine sanctuaries


One hundred and ninety-six nations, including Australia, agreed to international conservation targets under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. One target calls for nations to protect at least 10% of the world’s oceans. An important but often overlooked aspect of this target is the requirement to protect a portion of each of Earth’s unique marine ecosystems.

How are we tracking?

The world is on course to achieve the 10% target by 2020, with more than 7.5% of the ocean already protected. However, our research shows that many marine protected areas are located poorly, leaving many ecosystems underprotected or not protected at all.

What’s more, this inefficient placement of marine parks has an unnecessary impact on fishers. While marine reserves typically improve fisheries’ profitability in the long run, they need to be placed in the most effective locations.

We found that since 1982, the year nations first agreed on international conservation targets, an area of the ocean almost three times the size of Australia has been designated as protected areas in national waters. This is an impressive 20-fold increase on the amount of protection that was in place beforehand.

But when we looked at specific marine ecosystems, we found that half of them fall short of the target level of protection, and that ten ecosystems are entirely unprotected. For example, the Guinea Current off the tropical West African coast has no marine protected areas, and thus nowhere for its wildlife to exist free from human pressure. Other unprotected ecosystems include the Malvinas Current off the southeast coast of South America, Southeast Madagascar, and the North Pacific Transitional off Canada’s west coast.

Marine park coverage of global ecosystems. Light grey: more than 10% protection; dark grey: less than 10% protection; red: zero protection.
Author provided

Australia performs comparatively well, with more than 3 million square km of marine reserves covering 41% of its national waters. Australia’s Coral Sea Marine Park is one of the largest marine protected areas in the world, at 1 million km². However, a recent study by our research group found that several unique ecosystems in Australia’s northern and eastern waters are lacking protection.

Furthermore, the federal government’s plan to halve the area of strict “no-take” protection inside marine parks does not bode well for the future.

How much better can we do?

To assess the scope for improvement to the world’s marine parks, we predicted how the protected area network could have been expanded from 1982.

With a bit more strategic planning since 1982, the world would only need to conserve 10% of national waters to protect all marine ecosystems at the 10% level. If we had planned strategically from as recently as 2011, we would only need to conserve 13% of national waters. If we plan strategically from now on, we will need to protect more than 16% of national waters.

If nations had planned strategically since 1982, the world’s marine protected area network could be a third smaller than today, cost half as much, and still meet the international target of protecting 10% of every ecosystem. In other words, we could have much more comprehensive and less costly marine protection today if planning had been more strategic over the past few decades.

The lack of strategic planning in previous marine park expansions is a lost opportunity for conservation. We could have met international conservation targets long ago, with far lower costs to people – measured in terms of a short-term loss of fishing catch inside new protected areas.

This is not to discount the progress made in marine conservation over the past three decades. The massive increase of marine protected areas, from a few sites in 1982, to more than 3 million km² today, is one of Australia’s greatest conservation success stories. However, it is important to recognise where we could have done better, so we can improve in the future.

Australia’s marine park network.
Author provided

This is also not to discount protected areas. They are important but can be placed better. Furthermore, long-term increases in fish populations often outweigh the short-term cost to fisheries of no-take protected areas.

Two steps to get back on track

In 2020, nations will negotiate new conservation targets for 2020-30 at a UN summit in China. Targets are expected to increase above the current 10% of every nation’s marine area.

We urge governments to rigorously assess their progress towards conservation targets so far. When the targets increase, we suggest they take a tactical approach from the outset. This will deliver better outcomes for nature conservation, and have less short-term impact on the fishing industry.




Read more:
More than 1,200 scientists urge rethink on Australia’s marine park plans


Strategic planning is only one prerequisite for marine protected areas to effectively protect unique and threatened species, habitats and ecosystems. Governments also need to ensure protected areas are well funded and properly managed.

These steps will give protected areas the best shot at halting the threats driving species to extinction and ecosystems to collapse. It also means these incredible places will remain available for us and future generations to enjoy.The Conversation

Kerstin Jantke, Postdoctoral Researcher on conservation biology, University of Hamburg; Alienor Chauvenet, Lecturer, Griffith University; Hugh Possingham, Professor, The University of Queensland; James Allan, Postdoctoral research fellow, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland; James Watson, Professor, The University of Queensland, and Kendall Jones, PhD candidate, Geography, Planning and Environmental Management, The University of Queensland

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Most recreational fishers in Australia support marine sanctuaries


File 20190305 48444 nubyxx.png?ixlib=rb 1.1
Recreational fishers adjacent to an established marine park in NSW.
Author provided

Matt Navarro, University of Western Australia; Marit E. Kragt, and Tim Langlois, University of Western Australia

More than 70% of recreational fishers support no-take marine sanctuaries according to our research, published recently in Marine Policy.

This study contradicts the popular perception that fishers are against establishing no-take marine reserves to protect marine life. In fact, the vast majority of fishers we surveyed agreed that no-take sanctuaries improve marine environmental values, and do not impair their fishing.




Read more:
More than 1,200 scientists urge rethink on Australia’s marine park plans


No-take marine sanctuaries, which ban taking or disturbing any marine life, are widely recognised as vital for conservation. However, recent media coverage and policy decisions in Australia suggest recreational fishers are opposed to no-take sanctuary zones created within marine parks.

This perceived opposition has been reinforced by recreational fishing interest groups who aim to represent fishers’ opinions in policy decisions. However, it was unclear whether the opinions expressed by these groups matches those of fishers on-the-ground in established marine parks.

To answer this, we visited ten state-managed marine parks across Western Australia, South Australia, Queensland and New South Wales. We spoke to 778 fishers at boat ramps that were launching or retrieving their boats to investigate their attitudes towards no-take sanctuary zones.

Our findings debunk the myth that recreational fishers oppose marine sanctuaries. We found 72% of active recreational fishers in established marine parks (more than 10 years old) support their no-take marine sanctuaries. Only 9% were opposed, and the remainder were neutral.

We also found that support rapidly increases (and opposition rapidly decreases) after no-take marine sanctuaries are established, suggesting that once fishers have a chance to experience sanctuaries, they come to support them.

Recreational fishers support for marine sanctuaries increases with marine park age.

Fishers in established marine parks were also overwhelmingly positive towards marine sanctuaries. Most thought no-take marine sanctuaries benefited the marine environment (78%) and have no negative impacts on their fishing (73%).

We argue that recreational fishers, much like other Australians, support no-take marine sanctuaries because of the perceived environmental benefits they provide. This is perhaps not surprising, considering that appreciating nature is one of the primary reasons many people go fishing in the first place.

Exploring marine life within an established marine park.
Tim Langlois

In the past opposition from recreational fishing groups has been cited in the decision to scrap proposed no-take sanctuaries around Sydney, to open up established no-take sanctuaries to fishing and to reduce sanctuaries within the Australia Marine Parks (formerly the Commonwealth Marine Reserve network).

Our findings suggest that these policy decisions do not reflect the beliefs of the wider recreational fishing community, but instead represent the loud voices of a minority.

We suggest that recreational fishing groups and policy makers should survey grass roots recreational fishing communities (and other people who use marine parks) to gauge the true level of support for no-take marine sanctuaries, before any decisions are made.




Read more:
The backflip over Sydney’s marine park is a defiance of science


Despite what headlines may say, no-take marine sanctuaries are unlikely to face long lasting opposition from recreational fishers. Instead, our research suggests no-take marine sanctuaries provide a win-win: protecting marine life whilst fostering long term support within the recreational fishing community.The Conversation

Matt Navarro, Post-doctoral Fellow, University of Western Australia; Marit E. Kragt, Senior Lecture in Agricultural and Resource Economics, and Tim Langlois, Research Fellow, University of Western Australia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Warming oceans are changing Australia’s fishing industry



File 20180710 122253 9yj55v.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Ocean fish are changing where they live due to climate change.
Annie spratt/Unsplash, CC BY-SA

Alistair Hobday, CSIRO; Beth Fulton, CSIRO, and Gretta Pecl, University of Tasmania

A new United Nations report on fisheries and climate change shows that Australian marine systems are undergoing rapid environmental change, with some of the largest climate-driven changes in the Southern Hemisphere.

Reports from around the world have found that many fish species are changing their distribution. This movement threatens to disrupt fishing as we know it.

While rapid change is predicted to continue, researchers and managers are working with fishers to ensure a sustainable industry.




Read more:
Climate-driven species on the move are changing (almost) everything


Lessons from across the world

Large climate-driven changes in species distribution and abundance are evident around the world. While some species will increase, global models project declining seafood stocks in tropical regions, where people can least afford alternative foods.

The global concern for seafood changes led the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) to commission a new report on the impacts of climate change on fisheries and aquaculture. More than 90 experts from some 20 countries contributed, including us.

The report describes many examples of climate-related change. For instance, the northern movement of European mackerel into Icelandic waters has led to conflict with more southerly fishing states, and apparently contributed to Iceland’s exit from negotiations over its prospective European Union membership.




Read more:
Loss of marine habitats is threatening the global fishing industry – new research


Changes in fish abundance and behaviour can lead to conflicts in harvesting, as occurred in the Maine lobster fishery. Indirect effects of climate change, such as disease outbreaks and algal blooms, have already temporarily closed fisheries in several countries, including the United States and Australia.

All these changes in turn impact the people who depend on fish for food and livelihoods.

Climate change and fisheries in Australia

The Australian chapter summarises the rapid ocean change in our region. Waters off southeastern and southwestern Australia are particular warming hotspots. Even our tropical oceans are warming almost twice as fast as the global average.




Read more:
Ecosystems across Australia are collapsing under climate change


More than 100 Australian marine species have already begun to shift their distributions southwards. Marine heatwaves and other extreme events have harmed Australia’s seagrass, kelp forests, mangroves and coral reefs. Australia’s marine ecosystems and commercial fisheries are clearly already being affected by climate change.

Summary of recent climate-related marine impacts in Australia. Warming on both coasts is also moving species southwards.
Author provided

In the Australian FAO chapter, we present information from climate sensitivity analysis and ecosystem models to help managers and fishers prepare for change.

We need to preparing climate-ready fisheries, to minimise negative impacts and to make the most of new opportunities that arise.

Experts from around Australia have rated the sensitivity of more than 100 fished species to climate change, based on their life-history traits. They found that 70% of assessed species have moderate to high sensitivity. As a group, invertebrates are the most sensitive, and pelagic fishes (that live in the open ocean sea) the least.

A range of ecosystem models have also been used to explore how future climate change will impact Australia’s fisheries over the next 40 years. While results varied around Australia, a common projection was that ecosystem production will become more variable.

As fish abundance and distribution changes, predation and competition within food webs will be affected. New food webs may form, changing ecosystems in unexpected ways. In some regions (such as southeastern Australia) the ecosystem may eventually shift into a new state that is quite different to today.

How can Australian fisheries respond?

Our ecosystem models indicate that sustainable fisheries are possible, if we’re prepared to make some changes. This finding builds on Australia’s strong record in fisheries management, supported by robust science, which positions it well to cope with the impacts of climate change. Fortunately, less than 15% of Australia’s assessed fisheries are overfished, with an improving trend.

We have identified several actions that can help fisheries adapt to climate change:

  • Management plans need to prioritise the most sensitive species and fisheries, and take the easiest actions first, such as changing the timing or location of operations to match changing conditions.



Read more:
For indigenous communities, fish mean much more than food


  • As ecosystem changes span state and national boundaries, greater coordination is needed across all Australian jurisdictions, and between all the users of the marine environment. For example, policy must be developed to deal with fixed fishing zones when species distribution changes.

  • Fisheries policy, management and assessment methods need to prepare for both long-term changes and extreme events. Australian fisheries have already shifted to more conservative targets which have provided for increased ecological resilience. Additional quota changes may be needed if stock productivity changes.

  • In areas where climate is changing rapidly, agile management responses will be required so that action can be taken quickly and adjusted when new information becomes available.

  • Ultimately, we may need to target new species. This means that Australians will have to adapt to buying (and cooking) new types of fish.




Read more:
Is fishing with electricity less destructive than digging up the seabed with beam trawlers?


The ConversationResearchers from a range of organisations and agencies around Australia are now tackling these issues, in partnership with the fishing industry, to ensure that coastal towns with vibrant commercial fishing and aquaculture businesses continue to provide sustainable seafood.

Alistair Hobday, Senior Principal Research Scientist – Oceans and Atmosphere, CSIRO; Beth Fulton, CSIRO Research Group Leader Ecosystem Modelling and Risk Assessment, CSIRO, and Gretta Pecl, Professor, ARC Future Fellow & Editor in Chief (Reviews in Fish Biology & Fisheries), University of Tasmania

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

How blockchain is strengthening tuna traceability to combat illegal fishing



File 20180117 53314 1jh79k5.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
For the global tuna industry, which has historically struggled with illegal and environmentally dubious fishing practices, the use of blockchain could be a turning point.
WWF

Candice Visser, University of Wollongong and Quentin Hanich, University of Wollongong

In a significant development for global fisheries, blockchain technology is now being used to improve tuna traceability to help stop illegal and unsustainable fishing practices in the Pacific Islands tuna industry.

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in Australia, Fiji and New Zealand, in partnership with US-based tech innovator ConsenSys, tech implementer TraSeable and tuna fishing and processing company Sea Quest Fiji Ltd, has just launched a pilot project in the Pacific Islands tuna industry that will use blockchain technology to track the journey of tuna from “bait to plate”.

The aim is to help stop illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and human rights abuses in the tuna industry. These have included reports of corruption, illegal trafficking and human slavery on tuna fishing boats.

It is hoped the use of blockchain technology will strengthen transparency and enable full traceability, thereby countering significant threats to licensing revenue and crew working conditions and safety, and broader impacts on the environment.

Blockchain is evolving beyond Bitcoin

Blockchain technology is rapidly evolving beyond Bitcoin. Emerging applications are geared to improve business in many ways – including supply-chain transparency for all kinds of products.




Read more:
Demystifying the blockchain: a basic user guide


A blockchain is a digital ledger that is distributed, decentralised, verifiable and irreversible. It can be used to record transactions of almost anything of value.

Essentially, it is a shared (not copied) database that everyone in the network can see and update. This system provides multiple benefits for supply chains, including high levels of transparency. This is because everyone in the network can see and verify the ledger, and no individual can alter or delete the history of transactions.

For consumers, this means you will be able to scan a code on an item you want to buy and find out exactly where it has been before landing in your hands. It will be easy to answer those tricky questions about whether or not an item – such as a fish – is sustainable, ethical or legal.

As seen here, once the tuna is caught, a reusable tag is attached, from which information is then automatically uploaded to blockchain.
WWF

Using blockchain to trace tuna

The WWF pilot project will use a combination of radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags, quick response (QR) code tags and scanning devices to collect information about the journey of a tuna at various points along the supply chain. While this use of technology is not new for supply-chain tracking, the exciting part is that the collected information will then be recorded using blockchain technology.

Tracking will start as soon as the tuna is caught. Once a fish is landed, it will be attached with a reusable RFID tag on the vessel. Devices fitted on the vessel, at the dock and in the processing factory will then detect the tags and automatically upload information to the blockchain.




Read more:
Blockchain is useful for a lot more than just Bitcoin


Once the fish has been processed, the reusable RFID tag will be switched for a cheaper QR code tag, which will be attached to the product packaging. The unique QR code will be linked to the blockchain record associated with the particular fish and its original RFID tag. The QR code tag will be used to trace the rest of the journey of the fish to the consumer.

At the moment, linking tags is not difficult because the project is focusing on whole round exports – that is, the whole fresh fish minus head, gills and guts. It gets a little more complicated when the fish is cut up into loins, steaks, cubes and cans, but the project team is now able to link the QR code tags on the packages of the processed fish with the record of the original fish on the blockchain.

While it may be possible to use RFID tags throughout the whole process, the expense of these tags could prohibit smaller operators in the fishing industry from participating in the scheme if it expands. There is also potential to use near field communicator (NFC) devices to track the fish all the way to the consumer in the future.

Marine Stewardship Council-certified yellowfin tuna processed at SeaQuest processing plant at Walu Bay, Suva, Fiji, December 2017.
WWF

Bringing much-needed transparency to the industry

While this use of the blockchain is the first of its kind for the Pacific Islands region, it is not a world first. A company called Provenence and the International Pole and Line Association (IPLA) has already completed a successful pilot project tracing products from Indonesian tuna fisheries to consumers in the UK.

Provenance is also working on using blockchain to track a range of other physical things – including cotton, fashion, coffee and organically farmed food products. However, the potential of blockchain goes further. For example, Kodak recently launched its own cryptocurrency to help photographers track and protect their digital intellectual property.




Read more:
KodakOne could be the start of a new kind of intellectual property


Blockchain technology is just starting to change the way business is done. If it delivers on its promise of supply-chain transparency, it will be a great tool to help ensure that industries – including the tuna industry – are doing the right thing.

The ConversationThis will give consumers more information on which to base their purchasing decisions. For the global tuna industry, which has historically struggled with illegal and environmentally dubious fishing practices, this could be a turning point as visionary fishing companies demonstrate true stewardship and begin to open up the industry to full transparency.

Candice Visser, PhD Candidate, University of Wollongong and Quentin Hanich, Associate Professor, University of Wollongong

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Sustainable shopping: how to buy tuna without biting a chunk out of the oceans



File 20171205 23047 f6viwh.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Canned tuna is an Australian pantry staple.
NOAA

Candice Visser, University of Wollongong and Quentin Hanich, University of Wollongong

Shopping can be confusing at the best of times, and trying to find environmentally friendly options makes it even more difficult. Welcome to our Sustainable Shopping series, in which we ask experts to provide easy eco-friendly guides to purchases big and small.


Tuna is the most popular canned fish eaten in Australia and one of the most popular fish produced worldwide. The total catch of tuna in 2013 was about 7.4 million tonnes.

Tuna is a massive industry and most of this catch ends up in cans. But while each can of tuna might look similar, the environmental impacts of different brands vary. So, with a sea of “eco-friendly” labels and choices, how do you know which is the most sustainable?


Read more: Australian endangered species – Southern Bluefin Tuna


Almost all Australian canned tuna is imported

Australia produces large amounts of high-end seafood such as rock lobster, abalone and fresh tuna, but most of this doesn’t end up in our supermarkets – it is exported to countries willing to pay more. Instead, roughly 70% of all seafood eaten in Australia is imported. Most of this includes lower-value products such as frozen fish, frozen prawns and canned tuna.

Cans of tuna line the supermarket shelves. Which one is the choice for the sustainable shopper?
www.shutterstock.com

Australia is a major market for canned tuna. Almost all of the canned tuna sold here comes from Thailand, which processes about half of the world’s tuna supply. It is now almost impossible to buy Australian-produced canned tuna since large-scale production in Australia ended in May 2010.

While it is not unusual for a developed country to import large amounts of seafood, Australia is failing to meet international standards for sustainable seafood trade. Australia has strict requirements for seafood exports, but seafood imports are largely unregulated. This means it can be difficult to know if the imported seafood you buy was caught sustainably or even legally.

Catching 7.4 million tonnes of tuna

High global demand drives unsustainable fishing practices. These practices include overfishing, issues related to bycatch (which is the accidental catch of other marine animals like dolphins, turtles and seabirds), and “illegal, unregulated and unreported” (IUU) fishing. Now, 77% of the world’s fisheries are fished at their limit or beyond.

Of the many different types of tuna species, skipjack tuna is the most sustainable option.
FAO

Unsustainable fishing practices have devastating effects on the health of the marine ecosystem and the livelihoods of fishers. With this in mind, it is more important than ever to know about the origin of your fish.

Some species of tuna are fished at sustainable rates, whereas others are overfished. The most common species that end up in cans are skipjack and yellowfin tuna. Both of these species have sustainable stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO). Skipjack also has sustainable stocks in the Indian Ocean. Higher-value species such as bigeye and bluefin varieties are usually reserved for sushi and sashimi markets. Southern bluefin tuna is overfished and is listed as critically endangered by the IUCN.


Read more: Australian endangered species: southern bluefin tuna


The type of catch matters

The most sustainable fishing methods for tuna are “pole-and-line” and “FAD-free purse seine”. However, each method has a catch.

Pole-and-line fishing is used to catch tuna species one fish at a time.
Paul Hilton/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

Pole-and-line fishing is the traditional method of using a pole, line and hook to catch fish. The rate of bycatch is small because fishers can catch and release non-tuna species. However, bait fish are used to attract the tuna, which can have a large impact if the bait fish is not caught in a sustainable way. Due to the labour-intensive nature of pole-and-line fishing and dependence on bait fish, this method makes up only a small proportion of the total tuna caught and is unable to supply tuna in large amounts.

Purse seine catches tuna by surrounding them with a net and hauling the catch up to the ship. When a FAD device is used, bycatch can also be caught.
FAO

Purse seine fisheries use a large net to surround a school of fish. In recent years purse seiners have increasingly used fish aggregating devices (FAD) to attract tuna and increase their efficiency. However, FADs also attract bycatch and juvenile tuna and are poorly regulated. Therefore, only purse seine fisheries that set on free-swimming schools of tuna are considered sustainable.

Quick guide to better tuna

Quick guide: The right can of tuna.
Author provided

What can you do?

1. Read the label

Examine the details on the back of the can for tuna species, fishing method and catch location. There are sustainable options for each of these categories.

The best approach is to opt for skipjack before yellowfin or other tuna varieties. Next, choose tuna caught using “pole-and-line” or “FAD-free purse seine” before “longline” or “purse seine”. Then, check for tuna caught in the Western Central Pacific Ocean – this may appear on the can as FAO Nr. 71. If the can doesn’t at least identify the species or fishing method, it’s probably not worth your time.

2. Consider eco-labels over unverified self-claims

Eco-labels and eco-claims often feature prominently on tuna cans. Eco-labels are market-based tools used to promote sustainable practices. Decoding them can seem challenging, but it doesn’t have to be.

Dolphin-safe labels only focus on the impacts of fishing on dolphins.
NOAA

First, it is important to recognise that a dolphin-safe label is not a sustainability label. It focuses only on the impacts of fishing on dolphins. Dolphin-safe doesn’t consider tuna catch levels or other socio-environmental impacts. Most importantly, it doesn’t require independent third-party verification.

In contrast, some newer eco-labels consider a wider set of impacts including target species stock levels, impact on other species and even the social impact on fishers – such as fair pay and work conditions.

So far, MSC is the only label to be recognised by the Global Sustainable Seafood Initiative (GSSI), but keep in mind this label is not without criticism.

Look for MSC certification that is sustainable and eco-friendly.
deckhand/flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

In recent months, the MSC-certified Pasifical brand has been criticised because its FAD-free purse seine sourced tuna are transported on vessels that can also catch FAD-caught purse seine tuna. Some commentators argue that this enables unsustainable FAD-caught fisheries to continue operating.

On the other hand, MSC has the strongest chain of custody. It can trace every can of tuna from the supermarket shelf all the way back to the fishery. It’s not clear whether the original criticism was driven by competition for supermarket shelf space, as some industry insiders have claimed.


Read more: Here’s why your sustainable tuna is also unsustainable


3. Download seafood guides

Various online guides are also available to help consumers choose sustainable seafood options. These guides rank and recommend seafood using a stoplight system. The recommendations are based on available scientific research or a defined set of criteria.

In Australia, Greenpeace publishes a Canned Tuna Guide that ranks available brands. Australia’s Sustainable Seafood Guide provides recommendations for seafood generally.

Guides are also produced by Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch for the US, Ocean Wise for Canada and WWF’s Fish Forward Project for South Africa and several countries in the EU and Asia.

4. Future technologies, supply chains and transparency

While the steps above assist with making sustainable seafood choices, it doesn’t help if the fish you’re buying has been mislabelled. There is still uncertainty related to transparency and traceability in the supply chain.

To help combat this problem, Coles has partnered with WWF to ensure the seafood it sells is sustainably sourced. Aldi has also introduced an initiative called “Trace Your Tuna” to link tuna to its catch location.

New applications that use tracking data are also developing. Apps are available that scan QR codes and barcodes to provide consumers with extra information about the origins of lots of different products including seafood. These include Oziris in Australia, ThisFish in Canada and the Seafood Traceability System offered by the Korean government.

Simultaneously, new initiatives such as Global Fishing Watch are providing open access to vessel movement data, providing tremendous opportunities for transparency and traceability.

The ConversationIn short, the easiest way to make a sustainable choice when buying canned tuna is to check the contents label and look for a credible eco-label. If you have a little more time, it might be worthwhile to check out seafood recommendation guides or to download a product tracking app on your smartphone.

Candice Visser, PhD Candidate, University of Wollongong and Quentin Hanich, Associate Professor, University of Wollongong

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Penguins under threat from drowning in fishing nets



File 20171130 12029 4drhxl.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Bycatch: penguins can easily drown in nets designed to ensnare fish.
NZ Ministry of Fisheries

Ursula Ellenberg, La Trobe University

Fishing nets pose a serious risk to the survival of penguin species, according to a new global review of the toll taken by “bycatch” from commercial fishing. Fourteen of the world’s 18 penguin species have been recorded as fishing bycatch.

Among the species under threat are Tasmania’s little penguins and New Zealand’s yellow-eyed penguins, as detailed in a review, published in the journal Endangered Species Research.

The review shows the level of bycatch is of greatest concern for three species: Humboldt and Magellanic penguins, both found in South America, and the endangered New Zealand yellow-eyed penguins.

On New Zealand’s South Island, yellow-eyed penguins are down to fewer than 250 nests. Previous population strongholds have declined by more than 75%. Conservative population models predict local extinction of yellow-eyed penguins by 2060, if not earlier.


Read more: Shrinking Antarctic glaciers could make Adélie penguins unlikely winners from climate change


Penguins are among the world’s most iconic and loved birds, despite the fact that many people never get to see one in the wild. Indeed, the opportunities to do so are diminishing, with ten of the 18 penguin species threatened with extinction. After albatrosses, penguins are the most threatened group of seabirds. And, like albatrosses, bycatch is thought to be a serious issue for some species.

On land, many penguins are now well protected, thanks to the efforts of conservation researchers, government agencies, community groups and tourism operators. Where many penguins were once vulnerable to attack from introduced predators, or to habitat loss from farming or development, today the biggest worry for many penguin chicks is how to get more food out of their parents.

Time to eat yet?

But below the waves it’s a different story. Over thousands of years, these keen-eyed seabirds have evolved to catch food in the depths, while avoiding natural predators such as seals and sharks. But they cannot see the superfine nylon fishing nets invented in the 1950s which fishers now set in penguin foraging areas.

Little penguins, whose scientific name Eudyptula minor literally means “good little diver”, typically forage in the upper 20 metres of the ocean, with each dive lasting about 90 seconds. The larger yellow-eyed penguin – Megadyptes antipodes, the “big diver of the south” – prefers to hunt on the seafloor some 80-90m down, holding their breath for 2-3 minutes before coming up for air. If they do not encounter a fishing net, that is.

Gillnets (also called set nets) in particular are very dangerous for penguins. These nets are set in a stationary position rather than being dragged through the water. They are designed to catch fish around their gills, but can just as easily snare a penguin around its neck.

If it gets tangled in a net, a penguin will panic and drown in minutes. In Tasmania, nets with more than 50 drowned little penguins have been found washed ashore. Other penguins are found on beaches with characteristic bruising from net entanglement around their necks.

Nets are deadly to little penguins.
Eric Woehler, Author provided

When a penguin is killed at sea, this has knock-on effects back at the nest. The chicks will die of hunger or fledge underweight, with little chance of surviving their first year at sea.

The breeding partner left behind will probably skip a breeding season; some penguins never find another partner after losing their mate. I have seen them calling plaintively from their nest, or even going down to the shore in the evening to look out to sea, before returning to their nest all alone.

Declining numbers

In New Zealand, the endangered yellow-eyed penguin is declining. Current population models predict their extinction on the New Zealand mainland by 2060, or potentially even earlier. Yellow-eyed penguins are facing many threats mostly because they are simply living too close to humans.

Whereas threats on land are reasonably well managed, threats at sea need urgent attention. Marine habitat degradation by industries that damage the seafloor will take decades to recover. Similarly, pressures from climate change will not have a quick enough fix to save yellow-eyed penguins from local extinction.

There is one thing, however, we can change immediately: the needless death of penguins in fishing nets. This will give already struggling penguin populations a bit of a breather and maybe even the resilience required to deal with the many threats they face in their daily fight for survival.


Read more: New behaviour leaves Antarctic penguins on the shelf


Judging by the number of penguins washed ashore with net injuries, many fishers simply discard penguins’ carcasses at sea rather than reporting bycatch or working towards solutions to mitigate it.

Do we really want penguins to drown for our treat of fish and chips? Less destructive fishing methods are available that do not cause penguin bycatch and the death of other protected species.

But these more selective fishing methods would require fishers to change gear, which costs money. Currently, there is very little legal or commercial incentive for fishers to do anything about penguin bycatch.

The ConversationBut there are a couple of things you can do. Please do not just buy any fish with your chips – ask which species it is and how it has been caught. You can use a sustainable seafood guide, such as New Zealand’s Best Fish Guide or Australia’s Sustainable Seafood Guide. That way you can help the penguins snag a safe fish supper of their own.

Ursula Ellenberg, Honorary Lecturer, La Trobe University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.