Despite Southern Bluefin Tuna (Thunnus maccoyii) being endangered,

the Australian Government continues its weak policy of appeasing the Japanese – the main poachers and customers of Bluefin Tuna.

.

<<The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora is abbreviated ‘CITES’.

The Australian federal Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Government is a signatory to CITES and since and CITES international trade regulations have been enforceable under Australian law since 27 October 1976. Every signatory to CITES is required to designate a management authority. In Australia this is effectively the Threatened Species Scientific Committee.

On 7 September 2005, Australia’s Threatened Species Scientific Committee concluded that the Southern Bluefin Tuna (SBT)… “continues to be overfished despite the international management arrangements which have been formally in place since 1994.”

“The parental biomass is currently in the order of 3 to 14% of that in 1960 (its unfished size). In addition, BRS has classified SBT as being ‘overfished’ every year since the first BRS fishery status reports were first produced in 1992.

“Stock assessment models have shown a significant historic decline in the biomass of SBT. The mature population of SBT has declined significantly over its last three generations (since the 1980s) and is currently at a very low level.

Therefore, the species is eligible for listing as endangered under Criterion 1.”

The Threatened Species Scientific Committee recommended this to the Australian Government.

Australia’s then Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator the Hon Ian Campbell decided against listing the species under the EPBC Act…“as it may weaken Australia’s ability to influence both the management of the global fishing effort and the global conservation of the species.”>>

[Read More:  ^http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/southern-bluefin-tuna.html]

.

CITES COP15 draft resolution March 2010 on Bluefin Tuna (Thunnus thynnus)

.

* Fishing capacity is at least double that needed to catch the current legal quota and that recent estimated catches have been four times greater than the maximum catch recommended by scientists to prevent the collapse of the population.

* A 78.4% cut would be needed in the fishing effort by the fleet targeting East Atlantic and Mediterranean Atlantic Bluefin Tuna

* East Atlantic and Mediterranean stock status, fell by 80% in the southern Iberian
Peninsula between 2000 and 2006

* The loss of groups of older fish in the shoals present in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean fishery and the drastic fall in the reproductive biomass, which is currently only 36% of the level that existed at the beginning of the 1970s, are clear symptoms that this population is in imminent danger of collapse.

.

CITES has recommended to:

a)  Establish a science-based recovery plan for the East Atlantic and Mediterranean stock
… and to ban industrial fishing – particularly purse seining- during the entire spawning season (May, June and July)

b)  Establish immediately an interim suspension of the East Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna fishery

c)  Permit resumption of fishing activities only according to the strict science-based ICCAT population-recovery plan

d)  Set up protection zones for spawning grounds in the Mediterranean, including the waters within the Balearic Sea, Central Mediterranean, and Levant Sea, during the spawning season.

.

The Japanese, consumers of 80% of the world’s Bluefin, have rejected the ban and the recommendations, while Australia has not accepted the ban.  Australia’s federal minister for the environment etc, Peter Garrett, has refused to join the United States and the European Union in seeking a trade ban.>>

.

March 2010:  Peter Garrett rejects bluefin trade ban

.

<<Australia has refused to join the United States and the European Union in seeking a trade ban on imperilled northern bluefin tuna, sparking an outcry from conservation groups.

The fish’s plight is seen as a key example of poor global fisheries management, and its fate a potential precedent for Australian tuna fisheries.

The decision by the Environment Protection Minister, Peter Garrett, to go for trade controls instead of the ban has angered the groups, but Australian tuna fishers said it was a sensible outcome.

Listed as critically endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the northern, or Atlantic, bluefin has lost 72 per cent to 82 per cent of its original stock under pressure from illegal or unregulated fishing for the sashimi trade.

”What’s driving it over the edge is that about 90 per cent of the catch is unregulated export to Japan,” said Glenn Sant, the global marine program manager for TRAFFIC, the wildlife trade network.

Mr Sant said a study he took part in for the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation showed that northern bluefin met the criteria for an appendix one listing under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.

The appendix one listing, supported by the Obama administration and the EU, would prohibit international trade. It is strongly opposed by Japan and would need a two-thirds majority to be approved.

At the CITES meeting starting today in Qatar, Australia will argue for a lesser appendix two listing that provides instead for more tightly managed trade of the fish.

The Australian Marine Conservation Society said the fears of the domestic bluefin industry should not be allowed to dominate government decision-making.>>

[Source:  ‘Garrett rejects bluefin trade ban’, 20100313, by Andrew Darby, Fairfax Media, Hobart, ^http://www.smh.com.au/environment/garrett-rejects-bluefin-trade-ban-20100312-q465.html]

.

CITES failed Bluefin Tuna in 2010

.

<<The triennial meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is still underway in Doha, Qatar, this week, but so far news coming out of the conference is a mixed bag. Some trees have been protected, tigers gained a few friends, and a rare salamander got some attention, but all hopes to save the critically endangered bluefin tuna were sunk in a secret ballot that put commerce ahead of science and conservation.

Populations of Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) have dropped 97 % since 1960, but the tasty fish remains in high demand in Japan, where sushi bars are willing to pay up to $100,000 or more per fish.

A possible CITES ban on bluefin tuna—supported by the U.S. and 27 European Union nations)—has been in the works for months. Japan, meanwhile, had already announced that it would not comply with such a ban if it were enacted.  Unfortunately, the ban failed, and fishing will continue. CITES’s own press release, titled “Governments not ready for trade ban on bluefin tuna,” is surprisingly candid about how this happened:

Japan, Canada and several members States of the Arab league opposed the proposal arguing that regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) as ICCAT [the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas] were best placed to tackle the decline of bluefin tuna stocks.

They added that an Appendix I listing [which would ban trade in the species] would not stop the fishing of the species. After a passionate but relatively short debate, the representative of Libya requested to close the deliberations and go for a vote. Iceland called for a secret ballot. The amendment introduced by the European Union and Monaco’s proposal were defeated (20 votes in favor, 68 against, 30 abstentions) in the middle of much confusion about the voting procedures and mixed feelings of satisfaction and frustration from participants.”

Obviously, pro-tuna groups were not happy about this series of events. “It is scandalous that governments did not even get the chance to engage in meaningful debate about the international trade ban proposal for Atlantic bluefin tuna,” said Sergi Tudela, head of fisheries for the WWF Mediterranean Programme Office, in a prepared statement.

Oceana, a conservation group devoted to the health of the oceans, called this “a clear win by short-term economic interest over the long-term health of the ocean and the rebuilding of Atlantic bluefin tuna populations.” And Greenpeace International oceans campaigner Oliver Knowles stated, “The abject failure of governments here at CITES to protect Atlantic bluefin tuna spells disaster for its future and sets the species on a pathway to extinction.”

We’ll be covering more CITES decisions—both good and bad—all week.>>

.

[Source:  ‘Sushi-cide: Secret ballot kills hopes for bluefin tuna protections’, by John R. Platt, 20100323, ^http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/extinction-countdown/2010/03/23/sushi-cide-secret-ballot-kills-hopes-for-bluefin-tuna-protections/]

.

Call to Boycott Japanese Cuisine

.

Japanese cuisine includes sashimi, which typically is Bluefin Tuna. Bluefin is the raw fish used in Japanese ‘maguro’, and ‘o-toro’ dishes and in many sushi combinations.

The Australian Government may pasty to the Japanese, but that doesn’t stop ethically driven citizens boycotting Japanese restaurants and sushi shops, which sell raw fish which is typically the critically endangered Bluefin Tuna.

It’s time to send a blunt message to the Japanese that their fettish for Bluefin is backward!  Some are labelling the plight of  ‘BLUEFIN SUSHICIDE‘.

.

Japanese eating the Endangered into Extinction

.

 

Little Penguins (Eudyptula minor)

commonly called ‘fairy penguins‘ due to their small fairy-like size

Arrive ashore after feeding on ‘pelagic’ fish in Bass Strait in southern Australia

 

‘Little Penguins‘, marine birds native to Australia and New Zealand, every day consume about their body weight (~1.2kg).  Their prime food sources are small marine pelagic fish (76%) and squid (24%).    [Source:  ^http://www.graniteisland.com.au/pdf/parks_pdfs_little_penguins.pdf]

Given that the Australian breeding population across coastal southern Australia is estimated to be up to 500,000 individuals (Ross et al.1995), the Australian Little Penguin’s annual dependency on marine pelagic fish would amass over 450,000 kgs.  (Calculation:  500,000 penguins  *  1.2kg each * 76% = 456,000 kg of pelagic fish).

Their numbers are healthy but how vulnerable are they to pelagic overfishing?

.

Australia’s industrial exploitation of Nature

.

“Australia has the worst mammal extinction rate in the world.  The destruction and fragmentation of habitat, particularly as a result of clearance of vegetation for agriculture, and the impact of feral animals and invasive weeds has had a substantial impact on our biodiversity. 

Altogether, 18 mammal species have become extinct since the arrival of European settlers a little more than 200 years ago. Twenty percent of our remaining mammal species are threatened with extinction.”

[Australian Wildlife Conservancy,^http://www.australianwildlife.org/wildlife-and-ecosystems/australias-biodiversity-crisis.aspx]

.

Australia’s states of Tasmania and Queensland, with their renowned parochial politics, hold Australia’s unenviable reputation for the worst industrial exploitation of Nature and  ecological destruction.

In Queensland the extent of recent land clearing is more than 425 000 hectares per year.  Between September 2001 and August 2003, approximately 1 051 000 hectares of
woody vegetation was cleared (Government of Queensland, 2005). If Queensland were a country, it would rank 9th worst in the world in terms of land clearing.  [^CSIRO]

In Tasmania, less than 20% of the original rainforest is left, and the ancient Styx Valley is being clearfelled and incinerated by Forestry Tasmania for loss-making woodchips at the rate of 300 to 600 hectares a year.  [^The Wilderness Society]   Many wild river valleys have been flooded by damned hydro, and vast landscapes scarred by mining and the groundwater toxins and tannins they leave behind. Industrial scale ecological destruction on an industrial scale still continues with parochial government’s short term profit myopia.

Tasmanian politics has a prejudiced record of giving industrialists free reign to plunder the environment, branded ‘primary industry‘:

.

Tasmania’s ‘Primary Industry’ legacy

.

• Since 1803 when the whaling ship Albion took three whales at Great Oyster Bay, colonists started a whaling and fur seal industry based on the Derwent River as well as on Bruny Island and up the east coast of Tasmania to Spring Bay (Triabunna) and Bicheno
• Convict slave labour from 1803 on the Derwent River was put to work deforesting the surrounding countryside
• Convict ‘Piners’ from 1819 who ransacked the extremely rare (endemic) Huon Pine from forests near Macquarie Harbour
• Since 1895, damming of rivers for hydro power and the flooding of many rivers and notably Lake Pedder in 1972 under the Great Lake Scheme, when the Hydro-Electric Commission became an industrial power unto its own from 1929 through to 1998
• Mining since 1820 for coal, tin, copper, gold, lead, zinc, silver and nickel – leaving scarred moonscapes around Mount Lyell, Zeehan, Savage River, Mount Bischoff, along the Ringarooma Valley, Fingal Valley, Beaconsfield and elsewhere.
• Since 1916, the construction of industrial and polluting smelters such as Amalgamated Zinc Company, then in 1921 the Nyrstar Hobart Smelter on the Derwent River, and since 1955 the Bell Bay aluminium smelter on the Tamar River
• The industrial deforestation of Tasmanian forests since convict times, accelerating with the advent of steam and rail from the 1850s.  By 1996, 43% of Tasmania’s original wet
  Eucalyptus forest had been logged and still 64.5% remain open for logging including Eucalyptus regnans —the world’s tallest hardwood trees, many of which are over 400 years old. [Rainforest Action Network, p.8]
• The recent establishment of industrial pulp and timber producer Ta Ann south of Hobart and the current proposed Gunns’ pulp mill which collectively threaten to woodchip most of Tasmania’s remaining unprotected native forests.  The approval process has been plagued by political abuse of due process and special deals for Gunns, lacking independent scrutiny or community support.

Map of 19th Century whaling bases on Tasmania’s coastline

Spring Bay was part of that exploitative legacy

.

So what has this disgraceful legacy got to do with Little Penguins arriving ashore after feeding on pelagic fish in Bass Strait?

.

.

Greedy ‘Seafish Tasmania’ wants Bass Strait ecology

.

Tasmanian-based industrial fishing corporation, SeaFish Tasmania, is set to double its annual fishing catch of pelagic marine fish in Bass Strait from August 2012 from 5,000 tonnes to 10,600 tonnes.  The problem is that such a massive quota risks jeopardising the sustainability of the fish populations and the dependent marine species that depend upon them.

Pelagic marine fish live near the surface of the water and range in size from small coastal forage fish like small herrings and sardines to large apex predator oceanic fishes like Southern Bluefin Tuna and oceanic sharks.  Also feeding on pelagic fish are Little Penguins and Australia Fur Seals.   Pelagic fish habitat stretches from inshore waters to offshore over the Australian Continental Shelf and variable continental slope waters at depths from the surface down to about 500 metres.

Pelagic Pacific Jack Mackerel swim in schools near the sea surface

.

Since 2000 Seafish Tasmania, based on Tasmania’s east coast at Spring Bay (Triabunna), has been the dominant Tasmanian fishing corporation targeting the Small Pelagics Fishery in southern Australian waters.

To date, Seafish Tasmania has relied upon its own purse seine trawler, the 800 tonne ‘Ellidi’ as well as two smaller contract vessels, to trawl for pelagic fish on the Continental Shelf off Tasmania.  At its Triabunna factory, Seafish Tasmania converts its pelagic fish catches into a range of frozen seafood products for human consumption.both for domestic and export markets.

Seafish Tasmania also produces frozen Redbait specifically for the commercial Long-Line Fishing industry in Indonesia, the Pacific and Indian oceans.

Long Line Fishing is indiscriminate

.

But Long line Fishing is cruel and indiscriminate.  It is criticized worldwide for the merciless death of species such as sharks, turtles and seabirds, all caught unwanted as by-catch.

Trapped Humpback whale

Caught in a Long Line Fishing net off Tonga in the Pacific in 2009

 

Seafish Tasmania targets the following pelagic marine fish species in Australia’s southern Small Pelagic Fishery – Eastern sub-area for its chosen seafood markets:

• Jack Mackerel
• Blue Mackerel
• Redbait

.

However, this Small Pelagic Fishery (including eastern Bass Strait) provides a marine habitat to many diverse species of pelagic fish, which raises the question of the impact of non-targeted fish being caught as unwanted ‘bycatch‘?

Bass Strait lies between the Victorian coastline and the island of Tasmania, and the targeted Small Pelagics Fishery stretches eastward into the Tasman Sea.  Its pelagic marine fish typically comprise Pilchards, Barracuda, Common Jack Mackerel (Trachurus declivis), Blue Mackerel (Scomber australasicus),  Redbait (Emmelichthys nitidus), and Yellowtail Scad (Trachurus novaezelandiae).  These attracts larger predators such as shark species preferring shallower depths such as Mako Sharks (Isurus oxyrinchus), Blue Sharks (Prionace glauca) and the Great White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) which is listed by CITES as a protected species and similarly classified by the IUCN has having a ‘Vulnerable‘ status’.

But back in 1995, the marine health of Bass Strait was put into question when a 20-nautical-mile slick of dead pilchards was discovered off Devonport. The slick was thought to be caused by a mysterious deadly virus or toxin.

Tens of millions of pilchards were found floating dead in waters from Western Australia to Victoria.  A merchant seaman had said that his cargo ship had sailed through 20 nautical miles of dead pilchards in Bass Strait.  Mr Hamish Macadie, first mate on the Searoad Mersey, said he saw the fish about six nautical miles from the Devonport coast..

“They were floating on the water and were really thick in some areas. We sailed through about 20 miles of dead pilcards“, Mr Macadie said.

[Source: ‘Mystery Pilchard Deaths Cause Bass Strait `slick”, by Caroline Milburn, The Age, 19950509, ^http://www.toxin.com.au/toxin-articles/1995/5/9/mystery-pilchard-deaths-cause-bass-strait-slick/]

.

Australia’s coastal small pelagic fishes, which are often surface-schooling, includes several families which are often each represented by several species (see Allen 1997, Randall et al. 1997, Gomon et al. 2008), including the Clupeidae (sardines, herrings and sprats), Engraulidae (anchovies), Carangidae (scads, jack mackerel), Scombridae (short mackerels), Atherinidae (hardyheads, silversides), Arripidae (Australian herring) and Emelichthidae (redbait).  [‘Pelagic Fishes and Sharks‘ by Hobday, Griffiths,Ward 2009 : 4]. Other fish species of Bass Strait include Majo Sharks, Gummy Sharks, Threshers, Yellowtail Kingfish and Snapper.

The Small Pelagic Fishery of the Eastern sub-area…’is just the beginning’

But Seafish Australia’s utilisation of a factory trawler won’t be limited to just 10,600 tonnes of pelagic fish p.a.

It has in its sights the entire Small Pelagic Fishery across to Perth.

This will deplete the fish stocks of the protected Great White Shark, so lookout surfers at Ceduna!!

[Source: ^http://www.afma.gov.au/managing-our-fisheries/fisheries-a-to-z-index/small-pelagic-fishery/maps/]

.

Commonwealth Marine Reserves – Flinders and Freycinet Sanctuary Zones

.

The Small Pelagic Fishery set by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority ignores the marine ecologiccal values of the two delineated Sanctuary Zones of Australia’s  South-east Commonwealth Marine Reserve Network.  This includes the Flinders Commonwealth Marine Reserve and the Freycinet Commonwealth Marine Reserve (See green-shaded areas below).

Yet the Australian Fisheries Management Authority’s (AFMA) map invades two IUCN Sanctuary Zones

i.e.  the top two green shaded areas ‘Flinders’ and ‘Freycinet’

.

This South-east Commonwealth Marine Reserve Network has been designed to contribute to the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas (NRSMPA).  The aim of NRSMPA continues to be to protect and conserve important habitats which represent all of Australia’s major ecological regions and the communities of marine plants and animals they contain.

Both the Flinders and Freycinet Commonwealth Marine Reserves were nationally proclaimed in 2007

March 2012:  Tasmania’s parochialism again?

.

In Tasmania, when it comes to industrial exploitation, the old parochial adage still prevails – ‘it’s not what you know, but who you know‘.

Director of Seafish Tasmania, Gerry Geen, is:

“Advisor to Australia and international governments on fisheries management and fisheries economics.”

[Source: Seafish Tasmania website, ^http://www.seafish.com.au/_content/board.htm]

.

The fishing quota limits (Total Allowable Catch) for this Small Pelagic Fishery are periodically assessed and determined by the committee of Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA), which takes advice specifically from the South East Management Advisory Committee (MAC).    The  fishing quota for this Small Pelagic Fishery for 2012-13 was agreed at a recent teleconference by the South East MAC on 26 March 2012, based upon the advise from the Small Pelagic Fishery (SPF) Resource Assessment Group (RAG).

Of note, two out of the ten members of the SPF RAG have pecuniary interests specifically in this Small Pelagic Fishery.  Denis Brown has commercial fishing permits including in SPF zones A, B, C, and D and controls a Pelagic Fish Processors plant at Eden on the New South Wales south coast.   While director of Seafish Tasmania, Gerry Geen, holds a Zone A purse-seine SPF Permit, four Tasmanian purse-seine Jack Mackerel Permits, a Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Trawl Boat SFR permits.

The reported minutes of the South East MAC on 26 March 2012 teleconference included Total Allocable Catch Declarations as follows:

.

Recommended Total Allowable Catches for Blue Mackerel, Redbait and Yellowtail Scad for 2012/13 in the Eastern Zone

~ by the Small Pelagic Fishery (SPF) Resource Assessment Group (RAG)

 

Total Allowable Catch Recommendation #1:

• “Blue Mackerel    2,600  (Tier 2)
• Redbait    6,900      (Tier 1)
• Australian Sardine    200  (Tier 2)”

.

Total Allowable Catch Recommendation #3:

• “Increase the Jack Mackerel (east) Recommended Biological Catches (RBC)  from 5,000 tonnes to 10,600 tonnes, subject to conditional support from the RAG’s conservation member and the RAG’s recreational member.”

.

[Source: ‘South East MAC Chair’s Summary from 26 March 2012 Teleconference – Small Pelagic Fishery Total Allowable Catch (TAC) Recommendations for 2012/13’, AFMA, ^http://www.afma.gov.au/managing-our-fisheries/consultation/management-advisory-committees/south-east-mac/south-east-mac-chairs-summary-from-26-march-2012-teleconference/]

.

Strangely enough, this teleconference dealt with the relevance of a ‘Factory Freezer Vessel‘ on the total allowable catch (TAC).

[Sources: ^http://www.theadvocate.com.au/news/local/news/general/company-partner-declared-conflict-in-catch-discussion/2586769.aspx, ^http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-01/fishing-authority-denies-conflict-of-interest/4046334]

.

June 2012:   Factory Freezer Vessel (FV Magiris) chartered by Seafish Tasmania

 

10,000 tonne Lithuanian-owned  Factory Fishing Vessel ‘FV Margiris’

Recently contracted by Seafish Tasmania to trawl the Small Pelagic Fishery off  Tasmania’s north east coast

Its draft of 5.5 metres is too deep for Spring Bay, so it must be operated out of Devonport

[Source: ^http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=1220863]

.

‘Super trawler operator Seafish Tasmania yesterday indicated it had begun the process of having the Lithuanian vessel Margiris registered as Australian.

Director Gerry Geen said the company aimed to start fishing in Australian waters (the Small Pelagic Fishery) by August 2012…

[Source:  ‘Trawler approval begins’, 20120627, The Mercury (Hobart), ^http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2012/06/27/340551_tasmania-news.html]

.

The company has been granted an 18,000 tonne annual quota.    Greens Leader Nick McKim told parliament the increase had been allowed because of the super trawler, Margiris.

“The Commonwealth quota for jack mackeral will be doubled” he said.  “Now this makes a mockery of claims that it is science underpinning these decisions because, of course, the doubling has only occurred because this super trawler has applied to come down and work in Australian Commonwealth waters.”

[Source: ^http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-21/greens-step-up-pressure-over-super-trawler/4084658?section=tas]

 

.

‘Supertrawler brings global problem to Australian waters’

[Source: ‘Supertrawler brings global problem to Australian waters‘, by Andrew Darby, Hobart correspondent for Fairfax Media, 20120611, ^http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/supertrawler-brings-global-problem-to-australian-waters-20120611-205b7.html]

.

Vast swathe … the Margiris supertrawler. Photo: Greenpeace

.

‘Say hello to our fishing future. It’s called Margiris. If ever Australians needed convincing that the global appetite for fish is our problem too, this supertrawler is it.   Twice the size of the previous largest vessel ever to fish our Commonwealth waters, it measures 142 metres in length and weighs 9,600 tonnes.  Its Dutch owners are changing its flag of registration from Lithuanian to Australian.

By August, it is scheduled to be roaming between the Tasman Sea and Western Australia in pursuit of 17,500 tonnes a year of small pelagic fish.

Tagged … Greenpeace activists write on the side of the Margiris in the Atlantic off Mauritania in 2011

(Photo by Greenpeace, March 2011)

.

But it’s not simply the size of FV Margiris that brings home the issue of rising industrial pressure on fish stocks. It’s the stark story of seafood market forces.  Last March, in the Atlantic off Mauritania, Greenpeace activists wrote “plunder” on the side of the Margiris. They are campaigning against European operators who are taking West Africa’s fish, leaving locals catchless.

In Australia, the Margiris is set to catch the same sort of fish – jack mackerel, blue mackerel and redbait – and freeze them into blocks for export.

The destination of the catch?  “The large majority will go to West Africa for human consumption, as frozen whole fish,” said Seafish Tasmania director Gerry Geen.

Australian fishers have long sought to exploit the country’s so-called “small pelagics”, which are prey for bigger fish such as tuna and marlin. Seafish Tasmania is partnering with ship owners Parlevliet & Van der Plas to do this on a scale previously unseen.

Alarms have been raised in other global fisheries about these mainly Europe-based small-pelagic hunters.

.

According to The New York Times, stocks of Jack Mackerel have dropped from an estimated 30 million metric tons to less than a tenth of that amount in just two decades.

.

The minutes of an Australian Fisheries Management Authority advisory committee show serious debate about the introduction of the Margiris.  They reveal that Mr Geen, who was on the committee, gave “background” input.  But because of his conflict of interest, he did not contribute to a recommendation to double the Australian eastern jack mackerel catch to 10,000 tonnes.

This has given the single greatest fillip to the Margiris venture.  Mr Geen told the National Times the Margiris would take less than 5% of the total stock of small pelagics, as measured by surveys of egg production by the target species.

“I think people are worried about the size of the vessel, but that is really irrelevant,” he said. “It’s the size of the total allowable catch that counts.”

Other advisory committee members pointed to the ecological impact on existing fishers of taking so much of the small pelagics, even though these catches are outside state waters.

A coalition of global, national and state environment groups has written to Fisheries Minister Joe Ludwig, calling for the Margiris to be banned.

Right now it’s moored in the Netherlands, and Greenpeace is keeping an eye on its movements.  Watch this space.’

.

..didn’t have to wait long..

Greenpeace in The Netherlands:  ‘Stop Exporting Overcapacity’

.

On 28th June 2012, Greenpeace activists in the Netherlands attached themselves to the mooring ropes and chained the ship’s propellers of the super trawler FV Margiris, to delay its journey to Australia to serve Seafish Tasmania’s plans to overfish 18,000 toinnes of pelagic fish.

Greenpeace spokesman Nathanial Pelle said:

“Really this is to demonstrate that the European Commission, which has committed to reducing its capacity, shouldn’t be allowed to ship its oversized fleet off to other fisheries around the world and that goes for Australia as well.”

[Source: ‘Greenpeace protest delays super trawler’, 20120628, ABC, ^http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-28/greenpeace-protest-delays-super-trawler/4098672]

.

“The MAC noted some concerns raised in relation to the proposed TAC for jack mackerel (east) suggested that a super trawler might also have differential impacts on the stock and ecosystem.”

~ South East Management Advisory Committee (MAC) Chairman Steve McCormack noted.

.

Of Course the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) celebrated Seafish Australia’s strategy as “A Shot In The Arm For Tassie Economy” , given that the MUA is only narrowly self-interested in its members.  MUA Assistant National Secretary, Ian Bray, said the news of new jobs was welcome.

“This initiative is welcome news for Tasmania’s seafarers and maritime workers”, Mr Bray said. “This is just the kind of development the Tasmanian economy needs. We’re pleased that there will be new jobs for Tasmanians”, Mr Hill said.

[Source:  ‘ “A Shot In The Arm For Tassie Economy”, MUA Media Release, 20120605, The Maritime Union of Australia (MUA), ^http://mua.org.au/news/seafish-tasmania-announcement-a-shot-in-the-arm-fo/]

.

 

Footnote

 

Super Trawler: AFMA did not follow the law

[Source: ‘Super Trawler: AFMA did not follow the law’ , by Andrew Wilkie MP,

Independent Member for Denison MR, 20130115, Tasmanian Times,

^http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/super-trawler/]

The Commonwealth Ombudsman has written to me outlining his findings in response to my complaint that the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) erred when setting the quota relevant to the super trawler Margiris.

The Ombudsman found that AFMA did not follow the law when the South East Management Advisory Committee finalised its recommendation for the quota relevant to the super trawler.

In particular the Ombudsman found that one of the members of that committee had a financial conflict of interest but was allowed to remain in, and contribute to, discussions about the quota.

As a direct result of the Ombudsman’s investigation AFMA has undertaken remedial and corrective steps to address the substantive issues arising from my complaint.

The Ombudsman has also forwarded material to the Federal Government’s review of fisheries legislation.

Seafish Tasmania has responded by attacking the Ombudsman which is clearly a case of attacking the messenger who found very serious problems with fisheries management in Australia.

Seafish claims the Ombudsman “had completed the investigation and found nothing to report’’. In fact the Ombudsman’s letter to me of 18 December 2012 outlining the results of the inquiry runs to four pages and includes the findings “processes relating to a scheduled meeting of the South East Management Advisory Committee  (SEMAC) on 26 March 2012 were not in accordance with legislative requirement’’ and that the “conflicted SPFRAG [Small Pelagic Fishery Resource Assessment Group] members did not seek approval to remain at, and participate in, group deliberations after declaring the conflict [of interest]’’.

In other words my complaint to the Ombudsman that AFMA did not follow proper process when it set the quota relevant to the Margiris has been upheld.
Seafish claims I didn’t release the letter because it didn’t suit my “agenda’’. In fact I decided not to release the letter during the Christmas/New Year holiday period because it was simply too important a document to bury during the holiday period and subsequent bushfire emergency. Moreover I did hand the letter to the Mercury newspaper this morning, well before Seafish issued its media release.

Seafish notes the Ombudsman’s report (which it claims to have not seen) offers no comment on Director Gerry Geen or Seafish itself. But in fact Mr Geen is well known as being the relevant member of SEMAC and SPFRAG.

Seafish claims my comments last year about the Ombudsman investigating “other matters’’ was some kind of beat up. But in fact it was the Ombudsman who

referred to other matters being under investigation and the Ombudsman’s letter to me does in fact address other issues, and in particular the conflict of interest and communications difficulties associated with the SPFRAG.

Seafish Tasmania claims there is now no question mark over the quota relevant to the Margiris. But in fact all the Ombudsman says is that “it does not necessarily follow that errors in the SEMAC process operate to invalidate the TAC [Total Allowable Catch]’’ and goes on to note the review of fisheries legislation which is still ongoing.

That there were at least very serious problems within AFMA is beyond question for all, it seems, other than Seafish Tasmania. The Federal Government has already identified the need for a roots and branch review of fisheries legislation and the Ombudsman’s letter to me lists 11 AFMA actions as a result of my complaint.

.

Prawns – an Australian favourite dish

[Source: http://rasamalaysia.com/butter-prawns/]

.

Back in 1987 at the formative age of 23, the author worked ten days as a deck hand aboard a prawn trawler off the coast of Townsville in northern Queensland.

Those ten days formed the basis of what would contribute invaluably toward ultimately obtaining a year’s inshore sea time to qualify as a licensed commercial coxswain.  But those ten days are also vividly recalled of the experience of the work of a prawn trawler. For those ten days aboard the comparatively small 9.8 metre diesel trawler ‘Charada‘, Frank the skipper, his first mate and I trolled the sea floor along the north Queensland coastline between Townsville and Cape Bowling Green.

My Record of Service log confirms this, as my memory of twenty four years ago is not that acute.  My log shows that I later went on to work as a deckhand aboard mainly commercial tourist vessels after that.  So my only commercial fishing experience was that short stint aboard the Charada.

A prawn trawler similar to the ‘Charada’

.

However, my memory remains vivid of the nightly three shifts we worked, commencing respectively at 9pm, midnight and 3am – hauling in the prawn catch after trawling the sea floor for three hours at a time.

But after tugging the net’s cod end knot, it was not just prawns that ended up on deck’s sorting tray.  Everything that lived along the sea floor was dragged into the net by the heavy chain that raked the sandy seabed.

Trawlers raking the sea bed

[Source: http://marksecology.blogspot.com/2011/04/big-fish-review-part-2.html]

.

I recall the variety of creatures that were in the net, the fish, bugs, squids, the odd sting ray, sea snake and the sea urchins and marine sponges.  I recall one occasion when the skipper had had to shoot a shark with his .303 which had got caught up in the net.  I recall the marine sponges the most because of their strong seaweed like stench, and it was this stench in particular that caused me, a Victorian landlubber up until then, to become queasy.  I was sea sick by the smell more so than the motion of the boat.  I didn’t generally get sea sick.

For those ten days on that small trawler for three shifts a night, we raked the seabed of its marine life.  We only wanted the banana prawns which we sorted into white plastic tubs, covered with ice and snap frozen in the freezer down below.  The rest of the smelly marine creatures we tossed back overboard – dead.

I recall watching the depth sounder next to the boat’s wheel, displaying the colourful array of marine life activity (prawns).

But then later in the trip there were no colours, just a blank screen, so we headed back to Townsville.  The sea bed was just sand after our chain had dragged and raked the sea bottom.  Nothing was left alive.

Typical sea bed after trawling

Though hard manual labour and night shifts, the whole trawling process was pretty straight forward – head out to sea, throw the net over, trawl for three hours, haul in, sort the prawns from the rest, freeze ’em, then after the freezer was full head back in sell ’em and go to the pub.   A simple life.

That was my brief introduction to Queensland prawn trawling.  Yet looking back, the Charada was just one of hundreds of prawn trawlers that plied the Queensland coastline.  It was just ten days out of many years and decades of similar fishermen doing their trade since perhaps the 19th Century.  One must consider then how can there be any marine life left in Queensland inside the Great Barrier Reef?  At the age of twenty three I just accepted that trawling was a normal legitimate Queensland industry.  I hadn’t considered the environmental impact at the time. The work was there.

.

---

.

For years the Queensland Fisheries Service (QFS) has assured that commercial prawn trawling has met strict environmental guidelines.  This has supported the prawn industry continuing to earn lucrative revenues from both domestic and export markets.  This has been reassuring, after all the World Heritage listed Great Barrier Reef is not far away.

In 2005, Queensland’s Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) and Fisheries Queensland jointly funded a marine research project called ‘Reducing the impact of Queensland’s trawl fisheries on protected sea‘.  This research project measured the incidental catch and fishing mortality of sea snakes in the Queensland trawl fishery.

By 2008, the project had concluded that about 105,000 sea snakes were being caught annually in the fishery, with about 26% dying as a result. The effect of bycatch reduction devices (BRDs) on the catch rates of sea snakes and prawns was also evaluated, as part of the project.  One BRD in particular, known as the fisheye BRD, was highly effective at excluding sea snakes from trawl nets, with no reduction in prawn catch rates.  As a result of the project, trawler operators are now being encouraged to install fisheye BRDs in their nets to reduce their impacts on these protected snakes.’

[Source:  Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, ^http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/28_5193.htm ]

Example of sea snakes caught in catch

.

.

---

.

So all that unwanted marine life we had been throwing overboard the Charada was officially termed ‘bycatch‘.  Sea snakes are protected species in Australia and therefore measures need to be implemented to minimise commercial fishing impacts on them, plus the many other bycatch that may happened to be threatened and endangered.

.

---

.

Then yesterday The Queensland Times reported the following article:

.

‘Net fishing damaging marine life’

.

[Source: ‘Net fishing damaging marine life’, The Queensland Times, 20110803,  ^http://www.qt.com.au/story/2011/08/03/net-fishing-damaging-marine-life-report/ , accessed 20110804]

.

‘Trawler fishing is devastating slow growing marine life and damaging Australia’s oceans, a new report has found.

The study by environmental consultancy J Diversity has found that seafloor fishing and gill netting is “indiscriminate” in its impact on marine life.

Less than five per cent of Australian waters are protected from fishing and mining.  It found in the south-west marine region gill nets up to eight kilometres wide are decimating shark and ray species.

NT Environment Centre director Stuart Blanch said the practice of trawling is as destructive as the clear-felling of forests on land and “death nets” must not further damage feeding and breeding areas for marine life.

“Trawling is one of most indiscriminate fishing methods. It produces only two per cent of wild fish harvest but up to one third of its bycatch,” Dr Blanch said.

The report says the WA South Coast Shark Fishery and Great Australian Bight Trawl Fishery catch at least 34 and 50 shark and ray species but discard around one third of the catch.  It also says most Australian stocks have been fished to between 20 to 40 per cent of their unfished biomass, below the threshold of 75 per cent recommended by scientists to ensure fish stocks are conserved.  Gavan McFadzean from The Wilderness Society called on federal Environment Minister Tony Burke to rule out any move that would benefit seafloor trawling or gill net fishing in new marine sanctuaries.

“If the Minister allows these death nets into important feeding and breeding areas, he would undermine the government’s election commitment to improve protection of our marine life,” he said.

Brings back memories of my ten days on the prawn trawler

.

---

.

Back in 1987, at age 23 I was clearly naive about what I was involved in, but governments and fisheries cannot feign naivety.

.

Yesterday’s response comment  by ‘Atrax’ from Maroochydore is apt:

.

“Gees it took a new megabucks report to tell you this?

We sure have some geniuses in the Australian Marine management departments.

Of course it damages marine habitat and spawning sites.

This has only been known for the last 50 years, they banned Scallop dredging in Port Phillip bay because of this 35 years ago.

The bycatch destroyed in purse seine and gill netting is mind blowing.

Just shows how useless the drones in these departments really are.”

.

---

.

‘Satellite images reveal trawling damage’

.

[by Robert Shikina, rshikina@starbulletin.com, ^http://archives.starbulletin.com/2008/02/25/news/story01.html, accessed 20110804]

.

‘Bottom trawling, a fishing practice that involves dragging a net along the seabed behind a boat, causes extensive damage that can even be seen from space, a Hawaii scientist reports.

“There is a massive amount of mud that gets kicked up,” said Les Watling, a professor of zoology at the University of Hawaii.

He joined other scientists in a presentation on the problem last week in Boston at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Trawling is not a problem in the deep waters around Hawaii, since the method is used in waters less than about a mile deep, but areas where it is used sustain a significant loss of marine life, he said.  “It does more harm to the sea floor than any other kind of fishing, and now we have images from space showing how much sediment it lofts into the water column,” added Elliot Norse, president of Marine Conservation Biology Institute.

A University of Hawaii zoologist is among a group of scientists decrying the destructive effects of bottom trawling, a type of fishing, visible in satellite images from space.  “We’re hoping that people will have a look,” said Les Watling, a professor of zoology at the University of Hawaii. “There is a massive amount of mud that gets kicked up.”

The satellite images of mud trails kicked up by bottom trawling are available on the Web site www.skytruth.org, inside the gallery and labeled as “trawling impacts.”

Watling, who has been working for about 15 years on limiting the effects of trawling, added that 99 percent of the areas that are trawled cannot be seen by a satellite.  He was a panelist in a session that discussed the effects from bottom trawling at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science this month in Boston.  Since trawling cannot be done in waters deeper than 6,500 feet, it is not a problem around Hawaii, but in areas where it is used, there is usually a significant loss of marine life, scientists say.  Trawling equipment can be about 150 feet across and weigh half a ton. In its wake the trawling nets leave nothing but rubble, killing sponges and coral on the sea floor.  Bottom trawling is used to catch shrimp and other bottom fish such as cod.

“Trawling removes much of the life from the sea floor,” said Elliot Norse, president of Marine Conservation Biology Institute, who participated in the session.

.

“The effect is basically to denude the sea floor.”

.

He said bottom trawling catches more unwanted fish and does more harm to the sea floor than any other kind of fishing. The sediment disturbing the water column can also clog fish gills, possibly reintroduce absorbed carbon into the water and kick up toxic materials that have settled to the bottom, Norse said.

“Now we have images from space showing how much sediment it lofts into the water column,” he said. “Not just affecting the sea floor, it also affects the water column.”

Ten years ago, Norse and Watling completed a study that found bottom trawling covers an area the size of the continental United States every year.  John Amos, president of skytruth.org, used the detail in satellite images from Google Earth to discern the fishing vessels creating the squiggly sediment trails from bottom trawling. He gathered satellite images from the U.S. Geological Survey of fishers using bottom trawling in the Gulf of Mexico and China.

“I think that what’s exciting about this imagery is it’s one of the few examples where we can provide people with visual truth of what we’re doing to the oceans,” Amos said. “Imagery from space can actually show what we’re doing to the bottom of the ocean floor. When you show people images they understand, they get it in ways that thousands of pages of reports doesn’t quite communicate.”
.

– end of article –

.

.