A recreational diver inspects a spiny lobster off Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. In Central America, divers collect lobsters for a living. Photo: Lois Booth, My Shot

Statistically, fishing is one of the world’s most dangerous professions and it is hard to imagine what could be worse than scuba diving for lobster along the remote and impoverished Miskito Coast of Honduras and Nicaragua (see Building a Sustainable Lobster Fishery Off Honduras).

The dangers of this profession have been graphically documented by NBC News and the New York Times.  According to Smithsonian marine biologist Stephen Box, who has been working with the Miskito community, there are about 3,500 people who depend on the lobster fishery for their livelihoods, of which it is estimated that 1,300 are divers.  Box, a National Geographic Ocean Fund Grantee, estimates that scuba diving for lobster results in about 120 cases of decompression sickness per year, of which around 20 are fatal.

In 2009, as part of a Central American wide agreement, governments acknowledged the human and environmental damage resulting from this fishery and committed to ban scuba diving for lobster by 2011. That was later extended to July 1, 2013 to allow Honduras and Nicaragua, the last two countries still using scuba diving in that capacity, more time to transition the fishing communities to better practices and alternative livelihoods.

Unfortunately, last month, in spite of having already developed a national transition plan, the Nicaraguan legislature voted to override the regional agreement and extend scuba diving for lobster for three more years.  During this time they could continue to transition away from diving to other fishing practices and alternative livelihoods, but skeptics fear there is now a track record of postponement and in the meantime the divers will keep getting “bent,” paralyzed and die as they try to survive in the poorest and most forgotten part of Central America.

Now all eyes have turned to the government of Honduras.

With Nicaragua having backtracked, there is pressure from some of the Honduran boat owners to keep kicking the can down the road and similarly renege on the national and international commitment to ban scuba diving for lobster.  About 35 large dive boats remain in operation, each employing dozens of divers.  With overcapacity in the dive fleet and declines in lobster landings, many of these boat owners are in debt.  Understandably perhaps, some prefer to stick with what they know despite diminishing returns, rather than face the uncertainty of a transition.

But discussions are underway with the Central American Economic Integration Bank and their new Markets for Biodiversity project to provide a solution that can help finance the transition of these boats to alternative fisheries, and possibly alleviate some of their debt.  Ultimately the closure can provide a real opportunity to restructure parts of the Honduran fishing sector to improve both its sustainability and profitability.

And in the communities of the Moskitia, viable solutions are also emerging.  Local leaders and fishing groups have been developing innovative plans for locally managed lobster fisheries, which could easily supply to the same international market for lobster. The idea is to increase the financial returns to local communities and thus provide the economic incentive for socially and ecologically sustainable practices.

International attention on this issue is growing.  Darden Restaurants, the owners of Red Lobster and many other seafood focused restaurants, buys around 40% of the lobsters exported from Honduras.  They recently wrote a strongly worded letter to the President asking him to complete Honduras’s commitment to put an end to scuba diving for lobster.  In fact, since 2009, Darden has been partnering with USAID and local NGOs to try to help put an end to scuba diving by supporting efforts to develop alternative incomes for the Miskito communities as well as the transition plan to safer and more sustainable fishing techniques.

The government of Honduras has taken all the right steps so far. Most importantly, they have demonstrated a sophisticated understanding that the lobster scuba fishery is not just a fisheries problem. It is also a social justice issue, a public health issue, and an economic development opportunity.  So the government has been involving not just the Ministry of Agriculture but also other key government agencies in developing their national position and transition strategy.

Supporters from many sectors, including a major international buyer, government aid agencies, multilateral banks, and NGOs, are ready to help build a path to sustainable lobster fishing and a better life for fishermen and their families in the Honduran Moskitia. With the clear and decisive leadership from the highest levels of government, Honduras, unlike Nicaragua, can turn the corner and move away from its lobster diving past, towards a new future of sustainable fisheries with healthier and more prosperous coastal communities.

Los Guardianes de los Arrecifes – Pesqueŕias sostenibles en la moskitia (English Subtitles) from iLCP on Vimeo.

Every year, the governments that are members of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT) struggle to jointly manage this highly migratory fish, and every year it’s a battle of science versus politics and short-term profit versus long-term sustainability.  Given the Atlantic bluefin fishery is worth about $1 billion annually, and individual fish can sell for tens of thousands of dollars, it’s no surprise that politics has played such a prominent role in past management decisions.  In 2008, ICCAT’s handling of bluefin tuna was deemed a “travesty in fisheries management” and an “international disgrace.”

Bluefin tuna

In 2009, ICCAT turned a corner. For the first time, it set annual bluefin fishing catch limits in both the eastern and western Atlantic in line with the advice of its scientific body. This September, in preparation for setting new limits, ICCAT scientists updated their estimate of the number of adult bluefin tuna remaining in the western Atlantic.  Bluefin found west of 45°W longitude are considered by ICCAT to be part of the western Atlantic population, whose only known spawning ground is in the Gulf of Mexico.  The stock assessment provided a glimmer of hope, detecting a 13% increase in the western population since 2009.

However, the population remains severely depleted at just 36% of what it was in 1970, a time when industrial fishing had already severely depleted the species.  While it is encouraging that following scientific advice works, ICCAT’s scientists recommended that managers keep the western catch limit at 1,750 metric tons. This would allow the population to continue to increase and give scientists time to address major uncertainties in the stock assessment that may be artificially inflating their estimates of western bluefin.

Testing Cooperation

When governments came together in Agadir in November, it was clear that this would be a test of whether ICCAT would continue to make sound, science-based management decisions or if it would go back to its old ways.  Governments including the U.S., Japan, Brazil, and others, joined by conservation groups and Pew Environment Group took a position to strictly adhere to the scientific advice and not increase the catch of western bluefin.

However, others at the meeting argued against the scientists’ advice, claiming that the bluefin have recovered and that it is time to reap the benefits.  Some commercial fishermen from the U.S., Canada, and Japan along with the Canadian government decided to make their own interpretation of the science.  In simple terms, their argument is that some yet-to-be-identified environmental factor has caused an irreversible shift in the western bluefin population and now, even if more adult bluefin are left in the ocean, the population will never be much greater than it is today. Following this logic through, if nothing is to be gained from keeping more fish in the ocean to reproduce, then nothing is lost if they take more out. Therefore, the Canadian government and industry representatives called for increasing the bluefin quota to 2,000 metric tons for the next three years —a very risky proposition given there is no evidence to support their theory and plenty of evidence to suggest that western bluefin cannot withstand increased fishing pressure.

On November 19, the final day of ICCAT’s annual meeting in Agadir, sound science emerged victorious. ICCAT decided to maintain eastern and western bluefin quotas in line with the scientific advice, marking a big victory for bluefin and for those scientists and countries that have fought hard to protect them.

The battle is far from over, however. While quotas were supposed to be set through 2015, advocates for increasing the quota were successful in requiring that quotas for the western bluefin be revisited next year.  Additional attacks on the science are likely. These attacks will likely focus on the productive capacity of bluefin (i.e., claiming that increased fishing is sustainable given there can be no more bluefin than there are today) and on the resilience of bluefin to fishing pressure (i.e., claiming that bluefin tuna are spawning at younger ages and in areas outside the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean).

More Attacks on Science?

These politically motivated attacks on the science are not unique to Atlantic bluefin tuna and are being waged in multiple fora in the quest for higher catch limits on depleted species.  Requests for annual stock assessments are distracting scientists from more pressing priorities such as improving their models to reduce uncertainties. Competing models presented by industry-funded scientists are being touted as equally likely to those models presented by independent scientific bodies.  It’s a clever strategy—muddy the scientific advice enough to justify any management decision.

ICCAT has scheduled a meeting this June in Japan that will bring together both scientists and fishery managers to review the current science and “support” the next western bluefin tuna stock assessment.  It’s critical that this meeting focus on the best available science rather than serving as a political forum to water down the current scientific advice.

ICCAT is to be commended for listening to its scientists this time around, not just in the western Atlantic but in the eastern Atlantic as well (where the quota was increased slightly to 13,500 metric tons, in line with the scientific advice).  If Atlantic bluefin and the communities that depend on them are to once again flourish, it is up to ICCAT member governments to defend the best available science and to continue on its course of choosing the scientific advice and long-term sustainability over short-term political and economic interests.

To see legal bluefin fishing in action, check out the second season of Wicked Tuna on National Geographic Channel, premiering on Sunday, January 13 at 9 PM ET.

People have long had an affinity for the water. Photo: Carlos Vidal, MyShot

There are two things I know for sure: 1) we all love the beach; and 2), we all want to help out when others are in need.

Here’s the data: According to the U.S. government, American coastal businesses dependent on clean oceans and beaches (mostly fishing and tourism) generated $225 billion in 2008. The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana-Purdue University estimates that three weeks after Hurricane Sandy, which slammed the East Coast and impacted 65 million people in late October, fundraising for relief efforts stood at $219 million.

Stir up these two good human tendencies in a pot of politics and what do you get?  That’s right, Federal Flood Insurance!  Seriously, listen to Sandy, Irene, and Katrina; they are talking to you.  They’re saying that we have a choice.  We can continue to waste taxpayer money pretending we can keep things the way they were in the past, or we can plan smart and fair adaptations for our coasts that account for climate change.

Yes, I reveled in the long list of satirical blogs and Steven Colbert poking fun at the North Carolina legislature’s attempt to make sea level rise illegal.  Unfortunately, once the laughing stopped we came back to the real world, where low-lying sandy coastlines move over time.

In the real world climate change will increase the frequency and intensity of storms.  According to “Surging Seas,” a new report from Climate Central, by 2030 many locations along the coast are likely to see storm surges combining with sea level rise to raise waters at least 4 feet above the local high-tide line.  More than 6 million people live on land below 5 feet.

By 2050, the study projects that widespread areas will experience coastal floods exceeding this level.  In dollars, that means that American taxpayers are on the hook for at least $527 billion of vulnerable assets in the nation’s coastal flood plains.  (Watch Rob Young and Andy Coburn from the Center for the Study of Developed Shorelines at Western Carolina University explain the reality in plain English.)

By now you may be making the connection of what this has to do with taxes, politics and the deficit. Coastal communities receive a variety of federal and state subsidies that offset the risks associated with building in areas vulnerable to storms and sea level rise.  We are paying people to put themselves in harm’s way. These subsidies include post-storm disaster assistance, funds for beach nourishment and coastal protection projects, and yes, federal flood insurance.

Federal flood insurance hurts taxpayers because premiums are capped at a level that reflect less than half of the real risk.  That’s why even before Hurricane Sandy, the U.S. National Flood Insurance Program was $18 billion in the red.  As an example of how absurd this can get, an article in The Weekreports that, over the years, the federal government has shelled out a total of $2 million to repeatedly rebuild a single flood-ravaged home in Humble, Texas, assessed at just $116,000. Another home, in Wilkinson County, Miss., worth $69,900, has been flooded 34 times since 1978 and collected $663,000 in insurance payments.  But every time there’s a hurricane we (and our government representatives) watch the devastation on TV and want to do something.  Local politicians rush to Congress to ask for more money for the Federal Flood Insurance Program and local rebuilding efforts.  Who wants to say no?

Hurricane Sandy caused damage in the Outer Banks. Photo: Jamie Sharp, My Shot

What’s the alternative? 

“Get appraisals for their homes, write them a check, knock the homes down, and just let it go back to its natural state,” said Steve Sweeney, president of the New Jersey state Senate, after Sandy.  That’s the kind of rational and courageous talk that could get a local politician in big trouble.  And here is some more politically unpalatable logic:

1. Plan future development in low-risk environmentally robust areas, not high risk, environmentally sensitive areas.
2. Phase out the Federal Flood Insurance program and let that encourage people to get out of harm’s way (help lower income homeowners make the transition to a safer place).
3. Identify and prioritize those things that are specifically sea-shore dependent like shipping terminals, fishing ports, beaches, and essential natural habitats that underpin our ocean economy.
4. Use hard protective infrastructure only as a last resort.  Use “soft solutions” (dunes and wetlands) as the main solution.

OR, heck, just keep paying taxes to rebuild someone else’s beachfront property – again.

Miguel Jorge is the Director of the National Geographic Society’s Ocean Initiative and a member of the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF) Board of Directors.

Bubba Cochrane. Photo by Mark Thein of GulfWild.

Bubba Cochrane always knew he wanted to be a fisherman. So, despite concerns from his family, he began his career as a deck-hand and eventually saved enough to buy a permit and boat of his own. He’s 43 years old now and owns a commercial fishing business out of Galveston, Texas. Business is good – but he can easily remember what fishing used to be like.

“When I got started, fishing was a race: when the season opened we fished every day until we were notified that the quota was caught. That meant lots of fishing all at once, a glut of fish in the market, and bad prices when we got back to the docks,” said Bubba, reminiscing about his early days in the fishery.

Through the mid-2000s, the red snapper fishery was on the brink of collapse. Even with so few fish in the population and a short season, the fishing derbies meant that the price at the dock stayed low, hurting the profits of commercial fishermen. Fishery managers tried to address the price problem by breaking up the season into the first 15, then 10 days of each month. Fishermen would fish for 10 days, and then wait until the next month to go out again.

These sporadic openings were not the solution fishermen like Bubba wanted. “It’s hard to run your business in just the first 15 days of a month; a lot can get in the way. I tell people to imagine a gas station only being able to sell gas for the first ten days of each month or a contractor only being able to build houses in that short window.”

The pressure on Bubba’s business and his way of life was intense. “A derby is really stressful – you’re worried about the weather or if you get sick or even hurt. And it means you miss a lot of birthdays and holidays with your family, because when fishing is open you’d better be on the water.”

In the derby fishery, being safe was a luxury Cochrane could not afford. “Good weather was a bad thing. If the weather was good, the price was bad because everyone was fishing.”

This all changed in 2007, when the commercial red snapper fishery implemented an individual fishing quota (IFQ) program, a form of catch share.

Fisheries in the United States are managed under a system called catch limits. A catch limit is a scientifically-based cap on the number of fish that can be harvested from a fishery each year in order to keep the stock healthy for future seasons. Catch share programs, at its most basic, give exclusive fishing rights to commercial fishers to harvest a specific percentage of the total catch limit. When a boat hits its individual quota for the year, it has to quit fishing unless it is able to lease or buy quota from another boat in the same fishery. Catch shares take the pressure to race to catch fish off of the commercial fishermen, letting them fish their quota year-round. In turn, it stabilizes the price of their catch and gives them the power to make business decisions that are best for them (instead of being hostage to a limited open season).

For Bubba it sounded like another band-aid that wouldn’t solve the problem. That was until he attended a workshop to learn about how catch shares work. “I was worried about being able to catch enough. Then I learned you could buy and lease quota.” Bubba was able to find a seller and purchased more quota for his business.

“Because the price has stabilized and even increased from before the IFQ, I’m making more for my catch and spending less to catch it, because I’m not always racing to go out.”

Since the implementation of the catch share program in the commercial red snapper fishery, the value of the commercial fishery has gone up 150 percent.  Reports from other fishermen echo Bubba’s – they are making more and spending less to catch fish.

For conservation, the results are clear. The fish population has increased enough to warrant a 60 percent increase in the catch limit. Discarded or wasted fish have been reduced dramatically. Because commercial fishermen can catch red snapper year-round, they are throwing less overboard. That means more fish in the ocean for commercial and recreational fishermen.

“Catch shares taught me about stewardship. I know what sustainability means and I believe in it,” said Cochrane. “There’s a future for the fishery. Most older fishermen would have never let their kids get into fishing. I have a nine-year-old son; before the IFQ I would have pushed him from fishing, now I’m encouraging him to become a fisherman some day.”

Click here to learn about how National Geographic’s Ocean Initiative is helping to identify and support individuals and organizations that are using creative and entrepreneurial approaches to marine conservation.

The waters off East Antarctica are among the most pristine in the world, but fishers have long eyed them. Photo: John B. Weller/Antarctic Ocean Alliance

Some 1.2 million people asked the 25 member governments of the Commission on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR, composed of 24 countries and the EU) to take action during their annual meeting this week to conserve Antarctic marine ecosystems. Most of them answered this call and were prepared to work on proposals for marine protected areas and reserves in the ecologically important Ross Sea and East Antarctic regions. Ultimately, however, the Antarctic conservation aspirations of the majority of CCAMLR members were reportedly blocked by just a few countries, under the leadership of China.

CCAMLR requires consensus on all decisions, which allows a small minority to stifle the aims of the majority.

Since 2009, CCAMLR members and observer organizations have worked constructively to develop a system of marine protected areas (MPAs) in the Southern Ocean, which surrounds Antarctica. CCAMLR members pledged to develop this network to help fulfill the targets set by the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD). The WSSD targets call for countries around the world to establish representative networks of MPAs throughout the world’s oceans by 2012, and CCAMLR agreed that it would create such a network in the Southern Ocean by that time. This pledge was followed up with intensive scientific analysis, special workshops, and targeted diplomatic engagement.

At last year’s CCAMLR meeting, experts advised that the science on the ecosystems of the Ross Sea and East Antarctica was sufficient to move forward with creating MPAs in those areas. In the case of the Ross Sea, there is a long, impressive record of important scientific research, and the ecosystem itself has been identified as one of the most pristine marine ecosystems remaining on the planet. In fact, it’s difficult to imagine a more ideal candidate for protection. East Antarctica is a vast region with many significant populations of seabirds and marine mammals plus unique bioregions – again, an obvious area to protect.

Nevertheless, the meeting closed on Thursday without any new MPAs designated, to the disappointment of the countries that had put forward proposals, the environmental community, and those 1.2 million people. So what happened? It seems some countries are putting economic gain over conservation, even though CCAMLR is first and foremost a conservation body (as its name implies). According to a report in The Australian, a major Australian newspaper, China blocked all MPA proposals this year due to its desire to maintain access to fishing. Interestingly enough, China does not currently fish in any of the areas proposed for MPAs, meaning that it would be prioritizing potential economic gain over certain conservation benefit.

CCAMLR’s meetings aren’t open to the public. An official meeting report is published but it is not a transcript of the proceedings, so many comments will not be reflected in the official record. However, other countries known to be skeptical of MPAs include Russia and the Ukraine. Science and conservation in the interest of the broader public is getting trumped by economic concerns in service of a few. The recalcitrant countries are not convinced by reams of scientific data from experienced researchers, and they are not too concerned about living up to their own promises. The result is that our oceans don’t get the protections they need, whether in the Southern Ocean or anywhere else.

The Southern Ocean is relatively remote, and fishing activity is less intense than it is in many parts of the world. If countries can’t protect the marine ecosystems here, then what hope is there for the rest of the world?

CCAMLR members have agreed to continue working on MPAs in advance of their 2013 meeting. The question remains whether all countries are truly willing to live up to their commitments and give the amazing biodiversity of the Southern Ocean the protection it deserves.

Hong Kong, where the conservation community met to discuss sustainable fisheries. Photo: J. Baylor Roberts, National Geographic

Where do you go to foster dialogue and partnerships leading to an environmentally, socially sustainable seafood marketplace? Why, Hong Kong of course – the epicenter of demand-driven ocean destruction! A strange location for the 10^th International Seafood Summit? No, actually it’s a brilliant and timely move on the part of SeaWeb, the conference organizers.

For more than a decade, conservation groups have been pushing for a healthier ocean by building market demand for sustainable seafood with good progress. Currently, the Marine Stewardship Council has certified 179 fisheries as sustainable, totaling 7 million metric tons (or 8%) of the total world catch. Retailers from Whole Foods to Walmart to Marks and Spencer have made public commitments to source certified seafood. More recently, some businesses are further incentivizing fisheries that are far from sustainable to improve by buying from them as long as they stay engaged in detailed improvement projects and show progress. Groups like Sustainable Fisheries Partnership and WWF have been leading the way in implementing these science-based plans.

Over the years, the Summit has fostered an increasingly productive and positive dialogue between environmentalists and the industry, leading to this evolution in the European and North American seafood markets. The first Seafood Summit in 2002 was held as a closed-door gathering of mostly environmental organizations to discuss HOW to work with the private sector. Last year, the Summit had nearly 700 attendees, with executives from numerous North American and Western European businesses.

And there lies the problem. While my North American and European colleagues are down at the bar in Hong Kong celebrating their progress over some dim sum and a Tsingtao, Asia remains the scariest place in the world if you’re a fish and a pretty harsh place to scrape out a living if you’re a fisherman.

Fish is a major protein source throughout Asia for both rich and poor. Even though fish stocks across Asia are in very bad shape, fishing effort keeps growing along with demand, driven by rising population and income. This means that there is little chance of things getting better any time soon. Tens of millions of sharks are killed every year due to China’s demand for shark fin soup. Similarly, the trade in live reef fish is emptying the world’s most diverse coral reefs. Bottom trawlers from Asian countries continue to fish illegally along the coast of Africa leaving next to nothing for local fishermen to catch.

So while we have made progress, this is no time for complacency. It is time to move beyond the same old dialogue in our little corner of the world. The folks at SeaWeb knew this when they brought the Summit to Hong Kong. After all, while cultures and language may challenge our efforts to communicate, it’s ultimately one ocean and we are all in this together. I’ll have the lobster and the beer but let me talk to you about that soup.

Maine fishermen haul in a catch of herring. (Photo by B. Anthony Stewart)

The race for the moral high ground in sustainable fishing is heating up here in the US. Things started getting hot back in April when supermarket chain Whole Foods announced it would stop selling seafood not certified as sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council or red-listed by either the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch Program or the Blue Ocean Institute. The response has been pretty strong from many local food and fishing community advocates.  A recent article “Beyond Red Lists: the power of community supported fisheries,” in the online environment magazine Grist lays out the argument for ditching your sustainable seafood guide and buying your fish from a local fisherman. Wired Magazine’s Geekmom recently blogged about “The Ins and Outs of Community Supported Fisheries” (CSFs). CSFs build on the conventional wisdom underpinning the local food movement, that locally produced food is better for the environment, supports local jobs and offers a fairer price to local food producers. The hip CSF trend has been growing rapidly, with more than 20 CSFs established in the US since 2006.

But is locally caught fish inherently sustainable? NOAA says that CSFs can promote less intensive fishing practices by helping fishermen shift their operations away from the traditional business model of catching high volume to make ends meet. This could reduce pressure on fish stocks as fishermen focus on delivering smaller quantities of high quality seafood on a weekly basis over the course of the season. CSF subscribers pay up front for their fish, which can encourage some fishermen to limit their fishing effort because they can earn more by controlling their costs.

But what if the fishery is already overfished? What if there is poor management and too many fishermen out there putting too much pressure on the resource?  How is a well-intentioned “locavore” supposed to know? Should she just trust the local fisherman?

Ultimately, if you care about a healthy ocean then the seafood you consume has to come from a well-managed fishery regardless of how big the boat is or how the fish made its way to market.

Don’t get me wrong, I love the idea of supporting local and sustainable fishermen but the problem is the vast majority of Americans don’t have a goat farm down the road producing artisan cheese (and if they did, maybe they couldn’t afford it), and not everyone can go down to the harbor for their weekly allotment of black cod, pacific halibut, or fresh oysters.  The less fortunate of us still go to the supermarket for our seafood, which means that seafood cards and certification, imperfect though they may be, still play an important role in helping the average consumer.

Miguel Jorge is the Director of the National Geographic Society’s Ocean Initiative and a member of the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF) Board of Directors.

Well aware of how this can erode the trust shoppers have in them, supermarkets have partnered with aquarium seafood guides, conservation groups and some of the mudslingers themselves. Especially in tough economic times, retailers understand well the imperative to offer consumers nutritious food at a good price. But if they can keep prices low and adopt the latest sustainable seafood slogan, that’s a win for them. It’s also a win for their advocacy group partner since they get to take credit for helping to make the seafood market “more sustainable.” I wish the world were as simple as a tagline on a can of tuna. The problem is that it’s not clear these simple solutions are improving the situation with tuna fishing in our oceans.

Photo by Winfield Parks

One group that seemed to understand the reality and hard work of making the oceans healthier has been the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership (SFP), a non-profit leader that for years has quietly worked with major unsustainable fisheries to help them set a multi-year course with clear milestones towards sustainability. Rather than divest from an imperfect fishery, they have worked closely with buyers, encouraging them to keep buying some fish while promising to buy more as an incentive for continued improvements. This moves markets toward more sustainable products and, more importantly, has a real impact in the ocean. SFP has been one of the most effective sustainable fisheries programs you have never heard of. So it came as quite a surprise when, at the Boston Seafood Show in early March, the group publicly released canned tuna procurement specifications for retailers, a la WWF in Europe, or Greenpeace.

One of SFP’s most startling recommendations was for retailers to stop sourcing tuna from vessels that fish in regions where stocks have been overfished. What ever happened to working with fishermen to be part of the solution? Stocks that have been fished too much need good fishermen to help bring them back to life. If good management measures are in place, and scientists agree that the fishery can recover, abandoning vessels means punishing fishermen that follow rules and discouraging further improvement.

Groups like the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF) are working with the world’s major tuna buyers, WWF and fishermen to implement a global continuous improvement program. It’s tough work and it will take time, but I believe it has the greatest potential of any effort to transform tuna fishing at a global scale. To me it all comes down to a twist on an old expression: “if you’re not part of the problem, you can’t be part of the solution.” It’s a pretty straightforward and powerful concept even though it does not fit on a tuna can label. As for SFP’s new tuna procurement recommendations to retailers, I guess some business opportunities are too tempting to pass up even if that means jumping on an unfamiliar bandwagon.

Miguel Jorge is the Director of the National Geographic Society’s Ocean Initiative and a member of the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF) Board of Directors.

Photo by Walker Smith

By Claire Christian

The Ross Sea in the Antarctic brings to mind visions of icebergs, penguins, seals and whales.  Yet, increasingly, the Ross Sea – with its harsh environment of sub-zero temperatures and iceberg-riddled waters – is being visited by fishing vessels from around the world.  Unfortunately, many of these vessels are not equipped for the harsh polar conditions, as evidenced by the two serious accidents in the last month, which follow another tragic accident in 2011 in which 21 people were killed.

The first accident involved the Sparta, a Russian-flagged vessel that was not ice-strengthened, hitting ice on December 18. The ice ripped a hole in the ship’s hull that caused her to take on water, and required the Royal New Zealand Air Force to drop repair supplies to the crew by plane.  Rescue efforts were hampered by heavy sea ice, with help only coming seven days later by the South Korean icebreaker Araon. Fortunately, the entire crew survived the ordeal.

The second accident was more tragic.  On January 11, 2012, the Korean fishing vessel Jeong Woo 2 experienced a fire on board.  Three crew members died, and several others were injured.  Other Korean fishing vessels nearby rescued most of the crew, and the U.S. research vessel Nathaniel B. Palmer took those needing medical treatment to McMurdo Station.  All of the injured have now been airlifted to New Zealand, and three remain in serious condition.

While the Sparta incident appears to be a case of massively bad judgment, that is, taking a ship not designed for ice into an ice-heavy area, it’s too soon to know what caused the fire on the Jeong Woo 2. Nevertheless, these incidents echo last year’s sinking of the Korean fishing vessel Insung No. 1, in which 21 crew members died after a net hauler shutter was left open, allowing water to flow in when a wave hit the ship.  The ship’s water pump was non-operational at the time, resulting in the capsizing of the ship.

Why have there been so many accidents in such a remote area of the ocean where there are few vessels of any kind?  Certainly, the icy Southern Ocean is quite dangerous.  But the incidents described above indicate it’s not just about Mother Nature – humans who visit the Ross Sea have failed to take standard safety precautions and maintain their vessels properly.  One Russian official even expressed surprise that the Sparta had been approved to go to the Southern Ocean, since it has none of the features that ships visiting polar waters should have.  The remoteness of the Antarctic further complicates matters, because incidents that might be survivable in warm waters where the weather is mild may not be in a place where the water is frigid and the weather violently unpredictable.

Why are all these vessels even going to a place with so many dangers?  The answer is Chilean Sea Bass, or the Ross Sea toothfish (Dissostichus mawsoni).  It’s a valuable fish that sells for a high price, leading to an apparent willingness to take risks with safety and even with fishing regulations.  Last year a Korean vessel in another part of the Southern Ocean knowingly exceeded the catch limit for the area by 339%.  Even after being advised by authorities that the catch limit had been reached for the area, the vessel continued to fish.  Toothfish are slow growing, which means it takes them a long time to recover from overfishing.  And since they are a top predator, overfishing them could cause major disruptions to the rest of the food chain.

Overfishing and illegal fishing for valuable fish aren’t new problems, but these violations are surprising because they don’t involve rogue ships from countries that routinely defy international norms. Russia and Korea are both signatories to the treaty that governs fishing activities in the Southern Ocean, as well as active participants in Antarctic governance.

There is currently a process underway to designate large-scale marine reserves and marine protected areas (MPAs) in the Southern Ocean.  Advocates say such areas are necessary – even in a place seemingly so remote from human activities – precisely because of these kinds of incidents.  Cold waters recover more slowly from the kinds of oil spills and pollution that can occur after ship accidents.  Furthermore, MPA proponents note that the Ross Sea and other areas of the Southern Ocean boast unusually pristine ecosystems, which can be valuable laboratories for scientists seeking to understand how to restore damaged ecosystems elsewhere in the world.  Fishing would not be eliminated all together, but enough areas would be closed to fishing to ensure that the ecosystem has a chance to recover when accidents happen.

So there’s a tradeoff to be had between profits and protection.  With new deep-sea species discovered in Antarctica just last week, the only question is whether the profits from toothfish are worth the clear risks to human life and the environment.

Claire Christian is the Director of the Secretariat of the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC), an organization dedicated to the protection and preservation of the Antarctic environment.

There are several reasons why this is happening:

First, this is a publicity stunt.  Every now and then when an extraordinarily large and fatty N. Pacific bluefin is caught, it is rushed to Tokyo on ice to maximize freshness and value (never frozen like Atlantic or Southern bluefin).  When it shows up at the world famous/infamous (your choice) Tsukiji fish market, the owner of one of the major sushi chains or an upscale restaurant will pay a ridiculously high price as a marketing campaign (note: we in the West are not their audience).

It is also no surprise that it happened now.  New years celebrations are the time to impress your friends and neighbors in Japan by serving the most exquisite sushi you can’t afford, so sushi prices in Japan tend to spike this time of year.  In Japan, serving Toro, or bluefin belly fat, is the ultimate gesture of graciousness towards your guests.

Also, the North Pacific bluefin is the most prized of all the species/stocks by the Japanese.  This is their bluefin caught right off their coast so it will always fetch a higher price.

The last time one of these amazing creatures showed up on the auction block a Hong Kong-based sushi chain was involved in the winning bid.  One more way the rise of China is freaking out the Japanese: this time they are taking away their most prized food!  Throw in the desire to create some sense of optimism in post-tsunami Japan and naturally the “Sushi Audacity Cup” had to be brought home to Tokyo.  After all, they needed to reclaim their national culinary treasure.

If you are still scratching your head, you’re not alone.  But, all joking aside, before we criticize the Japanese, think back to our own experience with cod, orange roughy and now Chilean sea bass.   The answer is not to disparage someone else’s culture but to try to understand, respect and work with all the people of the world to make sure there are plenty of fish in the sea for all of us to enjoy in different ways.