A short post as I am immersed in preparing camera gear for an upcoming shoot. I wanted to highlight a couple of interesting articles I have recently read that not only touch on ocean and environmental issues but also deal with the human, political, or economic components that we must be prepared to deal with if we expect to make real progress.
The Ocean Health Index:Miller-McCune.com ran an interesting article, actually the first of a three, on the development of an Ocean Health Index. Three of the lead scientists in this multi-disciplined project explain how the index is being developed. The Ocean Health Index intends to express more than just the state of ocean biodiversity. There are hoping to attain a more holistic indicator of ocean health that incorporates plants and animals, people, economic or commercial viability, and more.
"Each of us individually, and each of our organizations, is vested in defining and measuring ocean health from a more holistic perspective than has been attempted in the past. The rationale for doing so is to evaluate what is happening to individual and very different parts of the ocean (such as fisheries, water quality, and carbon-sequestering coastal habitats) without losing sight of how the ocean as a whole is changing from place to place and from time to time. The litmus test for the success of our efforts will be whether the Ocean Health Index helps policymakers and the public to make better decisions about what they get from, and leave in, the ocean."
The Ocean Health Index project entails hundreds of scientists, government officials, and other subject matter experts, plus in various academic, research, government, and conservation organizations. It is hoped that the index will be ready for use in early 2012. The Future of Fish:TIME Magazine's latest cover story looks at the stake of our commercial fisheries and the need to turn to effective, environmentally-viable fish farming, or aquaculture. The article details the status of many commercially-sought after species and what fish holds promise within a farming model.
Anyone who has spent any time reading this blog knows that I am an advocate of aquaculture, despite its challenges to doing it in an environmentally-safe manner, as it poses the most logical solution to pulling fish from the wild - the same solution man realized long ago with cattle and poultry.
Says TIME writer Bryan Walsh, "With 7 billion people, however, the planet doesn't have much space for such freedom. It's not that commercial fishing will disappear; in fact, sustainable fisheries like Alaska's wild-salmon industry may even produce boutique foods, finally earning what they're worth. There's no doubt that something will be lost in the transition to mass aquaculture, as fish — the last true wild food — are domesticated to support human beings, in much the same way we tamed cattle, pigs and chickens thousands of years ago. But if we're all going to survive and thrive in a crowded world, we'll need to cultivate the seas just as we do the land. If we do it right, aquaculture can be one more step toward saving ourselves. And if we do it well, we may even enjoy the taste of it."
Climate of Denial: In some circles, the term global warming is being jettisoned in favor of climate change. Why? Because the deniers of the effects of our dependence on fossil fuels take aim at every heavy snowfall or extended rain and declare "What warming?" But that's just part of the orchestrated games that are played by those who prosper from our continued expelling of thousands of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere - and by the media who prefers to feed off of the controversy rather than deal with the overwhelming facts.
In its latest issue, Rolling Stone, that venerable instigator of alternative thinking disguised as an entertainment magazine for the youth, presents Climate of Denial: The Media & the Merchants of Pollution, written by former Vice President Al Gore. It is, perhaps, not the usual detailed assessment of our current climate condition given by someone who has been leading the charge for several decades now.
This time, Vice President Gore looks at why we are not further along in dealing with this earth-threatening issue. And he does so in some very pointed descriptions, "Most politicians and the media, sadly, fall into two categories: those who cheerlead for the deniers, and those who cower before them." The gloves are off as he identifies the political motivators and economic supporters behind the politicians who choose to deny that climate change exists. From Republicans to President Obama, no one is spared a critical assessment - in a word, the Veep's p.o.'d.
"The climate crisis, in reality, is a struggle for the soul of America. It is about whether or not we are still capable - given the ill health of our democracy and the current dominance of wealth over reason - of perceiving important and complex realities clearly enough to promote and protect the sustainable well-being of the many. What hangs in the balance is the future of civilization as we know it."
However, by no means is Al Gore throwing in the towel. The article reviews many of the latest environmental indicators of the effects of global warming, then lays into the various players to whom we charge the responsibility for doing something about it, but then concludes with a measure of hope and optimism by turning to all of us and giving us some direction as to what we should be doing, how we can be the game-changers in ultimately making climate change the critical and pressing issue it needs to be.
Well, I thought it would be a short post. . .
Read about the Ocean Health Index in Miller-McCune.com. Read about fish farming in TIME Magazine. Read Al Gore's article on the politics of climate change in Rolling Stone.
Aquafarming, also known as aquaculture. To some it holds the key to truly sustainable seafood; to others it represents an ecological threat. On the one hand, aquafarming shifts the burden off wild fish populations but it also introduces potential ecological imbalances with excess antibiotic use, concentrated fish waste, and an unattractive ratio of the amount of feed required for a pound of fish.
Long time readers of this blog know what my position is. I favor aquafarming as I believe it holds the best potential, the best alternative to today's industrial fishing. As I see it, the concept of sustainable seafood indeed does relieve some of the pressure off declining fish populations, but it is only postponing the inevitable. So long as mankind interjects itself as a predator in a naturally balanced marine ecosystem, that system will ultimately suffer. Any seafood taken from the wild is "bushmeat" as Dr. Sylvia Earle describes it and, on land, we stopped taking bushmeat to feed the bulk of the population centuries ago.
While I am a supporter, I will also be the first to say that current aquafarming is beset with major problems that need to be addressed to protect surrounding waters and/or improve the quality of the end product. Take, for example, farmed salmon.
Genetically-Altered Salmon While most of the salmon that is sold in markets is farmed, it is not done in the most efficient manner. It takes approximately 3 pounds of feed (usually fish meal products, which cuts into the populations of those fish used as feed) to produce 1 pound of salmon. Being sensitive to these types of imbalances (like the large amounts of CO2 produced to generate a gallon of CO2-reducing ethanol), researchers have been using gene-splicing to produce variants that grow faster - as much as twice as fast - thereby requiring less feed to reach a commercially marketable size. TIME magazine listed the new salmon as one of the top 50 best inventions of the year.
But would you consume genetically-altered salmon (or "Frankenfish" as its critics have dubbed it)? Well, we have been consuming genetically altered plants, like rice and corn for some time. And it would appear that the fast-growing salmon will likely gain approval for sale from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA); open hearings have now concluded but there are still some FDA committees that are looking into health issues such as allergies to the new salmon.
Some environmentalists opposed to genetically-engineered seafood are focusing arguments on the impact to wild populations if the new salmon were to be accidentally introduced into open water. Farmed salmon is usually raised on land but the potential is there for it to be inadvertantly introduced and the fear is that the new salmon would quickly come to dominate and eradicate the wild species. There has been talk of a "Trojan Gene" effect, used to describe the genetic advantage of the new salmon to take over.
This is being hotly contested, coming from an unusual source: the scientist first responsible for proposing the Trojan Gene hypothesis. The Los Angeles Times reported that Professor William Muir of Purdue claims his work on the Trojan Gene is being misrepresented. His original hypothesis was based on a genetically-altered salmon that grew faster and bigger, with size giving it a potentially distinct advantage. But the salmon that has been developed does not grower larger, simply faster.
According to the Times, "Muir told the FDA Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee evaluating the GE salmon that 'the data conclusively shows that there is no Trojan Gene effect as expected. The data in fact suggest that the transgene will be purged by natural selection. In other words the risk of harm here is low.'”
Exaggeration or misrepresentation, like negative politics, always succeeds in clouding the issue, so I suspect it will take some time before it is sorted out by the FDA and a decision is rendered as to whether genetically-altered fish will be available to the consumer. And then it will need to prove itself in the open marketplace.
Shrimp: Wild Caught or Farmed The market demand for shrimp is another example of how aquafarming holds great potential but must address some serious issues. Shrimp is some of the most popular and affordable seafood in the world; but the two primary methods for harvesting shrimp leave much to be desired. For one, shrimp is caught in the wild using bottom trawling nets which rake across the ocean floor catching the bottom-dwelling shrimp but also a wide range of bycatch - from fish to sharks and rays to sea turtles. In the process, this fishing technique leaves behind a shattered and leveled seafloor, making it one of the must destructive fishing techniques currently used.
The other technique, typically found in Asian countries, is aquafarming shrimp in large but densely packed ponds. The possibility of disease in this situation is extremely high and so a variety of antibiotics get introduced - many of which can pose a threat to humans. The use of antibiotics has been a major issue throughout all of aquafarming because of the potential for diseases to develop drug-resistant strains.
The website ShrimpSuck.org takes the position that consumers should choose not to purchase or consume shrimp at all because of the dangerous or destructive outcomes of either shrimp fishing with bottom trawling nets or aquafarming. That would seem to be a logical position at first blush. However, with demand high and cost cheap, it is likely that the market for shrimp will remain for some time. Therefore, I would propose that efforts be concentrated on improving shrimp aquafarming as there does not seem to be another viable and effective method for catching wild shrimp that excludes bycatch or damage to the seafloor. Larger ponds, better water filtration, different or lower dosage antibiotics - there are many steps that could be researched.
Aquafarming: fraught with serious issues that need to be addressed if it is to be a viable alternative to destructive commercial over-fishing or to seafood bans, whether voluntary or imposed by species extinction. Economics and the need to feed a growing populace compels us to get aquafarming on a productive and environmentally-safe track.
The logic is so simple: if you harvest from a finite resource without giving back then you will deplete it.
But combating that is the economic principal that requires the use of available resources to meet market demand and sustain business growth.
These are the concepts that fishery management has been wrestling with for decades - and it is becoming more and more apparent that economic interests win in the short term and the environment loses in the long term.
I have sited in past postings the European Union's inability to effectively manage its industrial fishing. It has failed to the extant that it moves from one species to another, harvesting until there effectively is no more in their territorial waters. And so they export their trade to other countries, fishing in the territorial waters of developing countries who are lured by the economic gains of providing fishing rights and/or fishing crews to prop up struggling economies - ultimately sacrificing their natural resources for short term gain.
A report recently published by the New Economics Foundation declares that the EU has now basically consumed all of its own fish and must look elsewhere to meet demand. The report says the EU has reached a "fish dependence day" and is now having to live off the rest of the world when it comes to seafood.
The report, Fish Dependence: The Increasing Reliance of the EU on Fish From Elsewhere, states, "In a context of finite resources and growing populations, the current EU model is unsustainable. The EU's increasing fish dependence has implications for the fish stocks in other countries, which are also overfished, and for the communities that depend upon them."
It makes me recall the science fiction film, Independence Day, which portrays an attack on the earth by malevolent aliens that travel the galaxies, plundering all the natural resources of a victim planet before moving on to the next one. We don't need fictional aliens to see that that is exactly what is happening right now in our oceans.
Also making the rounds of various online forums right now is a startling video from Alex Hofford, showing industrial shark fishing at its most graphic. In the Japanese city of Kesen-numa City, blue sharks and salmon sharks are piled high like cord wood, awaiting processing which includes the removal of their fins and, in the case of the salmon sharks, their hearts. In watching the video I was struck by the methodical way in which the workers went about their business - with gentle musak playing in the background and visitors walking above.
Here are hundreds and hundreds of sharks - animals that, because of their low reproductive rates, can in no way withstand such massive harvesting - all being dispatched like cattle in a slaughterhouse. And to the Japanese, that is exactly what it is. This is something that many western pro-shark advocates fail to appreciate: to the Asian markets, seafood is food, no different than beef or poultry. The butchering of sharks to them is no different than the butchering of cattle or chickens.
But there is one crucial difference: cattle and poultry are breed and raised for consumption; the majority of seafood is not.
The Asian markets may not have developed sizable cattle and poultry operations, and they may never will. But if any society - Asian, European or otherwise - is going to respond to a growing market demand for seafood, then they must make a concerted commitment and effort in developing effective and environmentally-safe aquaculture while also radically changing open-water commercial fishing as we know it today. Unless capable of being successfully grown in an aquaculture environment, some commercial species will need to be severely restricted, if not off limits all together.
The EU report states, "There is only so much fishing that our oceans can sustain. So for fisheries policies to be sustainable, they need to acknowledge and respect the ecological limits of the marine ecosystems on which they depend."
The logic is simple. But the motivation to act in the face of a bleak future is apparently difficult.
Throughout many fisheries worldwide, overfishing has greatly reduced fish stocks and the response of some governments has been the subsidization of fleet expansion - more vessels, more nets and related equipment - so as to maintain or increase catch levels of a dwindling resource. Unfortunately, while this logic may make some sort of economic sense, it also most certainly hastens the inevitable collapse of the species and the industry itself - a sort of Band-Aid solution for a festering, terminal wound.
In a recent report put out by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), a drastic reduction in commercial fishing subsidies is being proposed as a way to save both the fishing industry and fish populations. The report recognizes that approximately 20 percent of the world population depends on seafood as a primary food source and that there are over 170 million people involved in commercial fishing and processing. But the report also recognized that by 2003 , 27 percent of the world's marine fisheries had collapsed. And without a major restructuring of how this marine resource is utilized, that number was bound to increase.
According to UNEP, $27 billion (USD) is being spent each year as subsidies - $8 billion of which is earmarked for managing marine protected areas, but the rest is being spent on propping up fishing fleets to maintain or expand fishing capacity when that capacity already exceeds what is sustainable. UNEP proposes a systematic restructuring in subsidies, focusing more on buying up excess vessels and retraining fishermen, thereby reducing commercial fishing to a level that would be more in line with enabling fish populations to provide their "maximum sustainable yield."
Would this allow commercial fisheries to meet increasing demand from an ever-growing human population? Probably not, but it would forestall the total elimination of one fishery after another, while alternatives are developed such as aquaculture. Others have indicated that taking any food from the sea will lead to its eventual elimination, that "sustainable fishing" is a myth. Whether that is true or not, it must be recognized that a demand for seafood will always exists and so steps must be taken to best preserve what is most certainly not an endless resource.
Some have also suggested that the economic rationale that supports farm subsidies - where, instead of expansion, productive farmland sits idle for the purpose of maintaining stable prices - may need to be re-examined in the face of the moral dilemma of developing nations in need of food staples for an undernourished populace.
You can read more about UNEP's commercial fishing subsidy proposals - part of an overall strategy for a "Greener Economy" - by clicking here (PDF download) or reading UNEP's latest press release.
With many environmental issues, real quantifiable progress is often attained when scientists and commercial interests can sit down and objectively discuss the situation. SeaWeb.org, through its Seafood Choices Alliance, realizes this and has been taking steps to get what can seem like disparate interests to sit down at the same table to discuss the reality of ocean acidification.
Ocean acidification is when the oceans become more acidic from the absorption of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. This increase in the water's acidity levels impacts a variety of corals, shellfish, and other animals that rely on the use of calcium in building shells or other supporting structures - a process that is severely weakened by the more acidic water.
SeaWeb has conducted two workshop meetings - one in Portland, Oregon and another recently held in St. Petersburg, Florida - between scientists and commercial fishing leaders to discuss what the latest data says about the current and future status of ocean acidification, and what it means not only for the marine species but for the commercial fishermen and aquaculture companies.
"It is good for various and even opposing stakeholders of a public resource to sit down and talk. At least we can understand the investment each of us has in our finite fisheries and oceans," said Bobby Aylesworth, chairman of the Board of the Southeastern Fisheries Association, about the workshops. "Hopefully we find some common ground to grow from." According to SeaWeb, one of the ways that scientists hope to collaborate with the seafood industry is through the sharing of data. Ocean acidification is not something that anyone can hide from, so by sharing data drawn from water quality tests taken at hatcheries and nurseries, combined with ongoing scientific studies by local scientists; all interested parties can have a better idea as to what changes are taking place within their own particular region of commercial concern.
There is already documented evidence of the impact of ocean acidification on sealife, so it behooves commercial industry to work with scientists - rather than to oppose or worse yet, buy-off scientists - to get an accurate picture of the issue. Nothing grabs the attention of policy and decision makers regarding an environmental threat than when a commercial enterprise is put at risk. When may be thought of as a bit esoteric suddenly becomes very real.
Tilapia is one of the more common seafoods being aquafarmed nowadays. In fact, 75% of this fish that is consumed comes from ocean- or inland-based farms. But, as with much of the aquafarming taking place today, it is beset with challenges that impact the environment - from feed and waste pollution to the threat of invasive species (escaping tilapia).
While there have been several standards of practice instituted in the past, a new set of standards recently put in place by the Tilapia Aquaculture Dialogue (TAD), is purported to be more comprehensive and up-to-date in addressing the many issues faced by this growing industry. TAD is a collective of commercial, scientific, and conservation experts and the new standards cover a wide range of issues that would benefit the environment and the people involved in tilapia farming (some of the farming takes place in developing countries and so employee concerns were also included).
Tilapia aqua farmers who meet and maintain the standards can become certified through a process that will be established and monitored by GLOBALGAP and, ultimately, by the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) which is currently being created. These new standards are a major step forward because they apply measurable metrics as opposed to more vague environmental "goals."
“We support the tilapia standards because they will help us tell our customers the story they want and deserve to hear – that they are eating tilapia which was raised in an environmentally friendly way,”said Craig Watson, Vice President of Agricultural Sustainability of Sysco Corporation, the largest foodservice distributor in the United States. “And with the ASC in place, we will have the assurance that the standards will be adhered to properly, which will bring credibility and longevity to the standards.” Regular readers of this blog know that I am an advocate of aquaculture as it potentially can offset or possibly replace the damage caused by open ocean commercial fishing. These standards are an important step towards addressing the challenges aquaculture faces as it grows to meet demand.
Read World Wildlife Fund press release. The press release provides a link to download the complete standards.
I have mentioned in several past posts, my enthusiasm for the development of responsible aquafarming, also called aquaculture. It comes from a simple realization that man has learned to raise cattle and poultry to feed its population through the understanding that the continued taking of wild animals would not suffice.
Unfortunately, centuries ago, man did not make that same intellectual leap when it came to seafood. And we have been, as Dr. Sylvia Earle describes it, eating ocean "bushmeat" ever since, all to the ultimate detriment of the ocean's ecology.
But there are some very serious challenges that aquafarming must overcome for it to be truly commercially successful without harming the environment. This requires the cautious and well-thought out use of science and technology to insure maximum yield will also protecting the environment within which the aquafarm exists. Once you determine just how it is to be done right, then there must be regulations and enforcement to insure it is done properly. This requires government oversight and this is where it can get a bit tricky.
The Ocean Conservancy has an excellent article explaining the problems in developing national standards for aquafarming. Currently, there are several issues of concern regarding aquafarming: ocean pollution due to feed waste, fish waste, and medications; keeping farmed fished contained and not entering a wild fish population accidentally; responsibility for the maintenance and/or dismantling of an aquafarm (dismantling due perhaps to severe ocean weather or storms); and impacts on other fish populations that are required to act as feed sources for the farms. Many of these issues could be regulated by several different agencies but, without a unifying national policy of standards, we're only setting ourselves up for a bureaucratic nightmare with overlapping agencies, jurisdictions, criteria, and responsibilities.
According to the Ocean Conservancy, one of the last acts of the Bush Administration was to put forward a U.S. plan to increase aquafarming from $900 million to $5 billion by 2025. This plan provided for the National Marine Fisheries Service to issue permits to meet the goal but did not specifically or clearly address how it was to be done responsibly, ie: regulation and enforcement. Pollution or water quality issues would be handled by one agency, often using terrestrial standards in place of a non-existent marine standard; environmental impacts would be handled by another, and so on. It was basically putting the cart before the horse, and many scientific, conservation, public advocacy and even commercial fishing groups objected. This stalled the roll out of the plan, halting it on several occasions, but it was eventually put into place in September of 2009 - flaws and all.
"Establish an overarching, federal regulatory system for offshore aquaculture that includes standardized, precautionary measures to protect the environment and coastal communities. The key provisions of the legislation include:
1. Establishing a clear, streamlined regulatory process for offshore aquaculture with specific provisions and permit terms to protect marine ecosystems and coastal communities;
2. Requiring coordinated, regional programmatic environmental impact statements to provide regulatory certainty, ensure environmental protection for sensitive marine areas, and reduce conflicts among competing uses of the marine environment; and
3. Authorizing new funds for research to provide the crucial feedback needed for adaptive, environmentally-sound management of this new use of offshore waters."
Right now, this is just proposed legislation, newly introduced. Watch how it develops and stay on top of the efforts of groups, like the Ocean Conservancy, in retracting the current piecemeal plan. And you can expect to hear more in this blog as I continue to promote aquafarming as our best chance at attaining sustainable commercial seafood levels while protecting the ocean's wild populations from decline and possible extinction.
On a similar note to Monday's post, there is a push to revise the European Union's overall fisheries management and an important conference coming up this month regarding aquaculture.
In the 70's, EU fishermen began working together to determine fishing ground rights and levels of equal access. Out of that came the Common Fisheries Policy in 1983 which was supposed to conserve marine resources to, both, protect the environment and sustain the EU commercial fishing industry. Unfortunately, even with several revisions, it has failed to live up to its expectations and populations of popular commercial seafood like cod, sole, and other species are in rapid decline.
So, another reformation of the policy is being considered by the European Commission, following the release of a critical report, Green Paper on a reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. The key challenge: too many boats, too little fish. To meet demand, the fishing industry expanded capacity (more boats), but without sensible catch limits in place or enforced, then this expanded capacity has greatly reduced the population of many commercial species. Rather than reduce capacity, the industry was subsidized - which means the expanded fleet was able to continue overfishing a dwindling population since their lost revenue was being covered by the government. That may have made business sense, but from a conservation point of view it meant a grim future for many marine species.
To provide any future for the various marine species and the commercial fishing industry as well, there will have to be some tough decisions that will have to be made regarding an industry that has expanded itself to the point of collapse.
And this is where the next bit of news comes in. Perhaps those in the commercial fishing industry who are faced with a loss of business can consider making a transition into aquaculture (aquafarming). There will be a major conference on aquaculture on September 25-29. Sponsored by the World Aquaculture Society, World Aquaculture 2009 will be held in Veracruz, Mexico. Kind of an industry convention for aquaculture, the event will include speakers, panels, and symposiums along with displays from various suppliers in the industry.
As a proponent of aquaculture but one who also recognizes that it is in its infancy and has some major environmental hurdles to overcome, I hope there will be some good that comes out of the event. In my mind, aquaculture is the only viable option that we have in supplying seafood products without damaging the ocean populations and the supporting ecosystems. Unfortunately, I believe that "sustainable seafood" is only a stop gap measure - placing a finger in the dike, as it were - and to make any truly sustainable effort to meet demand, aquafarming must be aggressively pursued and all its technological and environmental issues must be addressed and solved.
At last month's BLUE Ocean Film Festival, I had the opportunity to videotape an interview with Dr. Sylvia Earle on behalf of planSEA.com, an organization dedicated to teaching ocean conservation to the next generation: the children.
Dr. Earle is one of the leading figures of ocean exploration and conservation and we touched on a great many subjects in our interview. Here is a segment that addressed the need for education and also an important perspective regarding the taking of seafood.
I found her viewpoint in comparing seafood to "bushmeat" very enlightening. I've always said we rely on raising cattle and poultry as a way to feed the masses and Sylvia backs that up with the idea that we long ago realized that simply taking wild terrestrial animals (bushmeat) would not work, that it could not be sustained.
But that is exactly what we do with the ocean's bounty - and it is a very limited bounty, limited in the sense that it was never meant to feed the human population. That is why I have always been a supporter of aquaculture or aquafarming, recognizing that there are significant challenges that need to be addressed regarding the practice but convinced that the ultimate future of seafood harvesting will need to come from these controlled methods.
I have had the pleasure of meeting with Dr. Earle and her staff on several occasions and let me tell you, she is one busy person. As explorer-in-residence with the National Geographic Society, she works 24/7 with major ocean conservation organizations and with the prominent decision-makers to help shape the future of our oceans.
It must be frustrating at times because the bureaucratic wheels can seem to turn so slowly. But I take heart in something I read recently in TIME magazine regarding political decision-making and the control of power. In an article about FDR, David Kennedy wrote,
"As the historian Henry Adams wrote, the greatest fear 'was power; not merely power in the hands of a president or a prince, of one assembly or several, of many citizens or a few, but power in the abstract, wherever it existed and under whatever form it was known.' That's why the framers of the Constitution constructed a political order based on 'checks and balances.' That arrangement has conspicuous virtues, but it also designs a measure of paralysis into the American political system. It impedes swift adjustment to changing economic and social realities. It sustains a chronic deadlock in which trauma and shock become necessary preconditions for effective political action. To a degree not found in other political cultures, it forges a perverse partnership between danger and opportunity."
Okay, in essence, it is saying that our political bureaucracy is structured to prevent the concentration of power and avoid knee-jerk reactions. And that's a good thing. Maddening, but a good thing. Particularly if we wait for environmental "trauma and shock" to elicit a political response, we know that it won't be an isolated event but a harbinger of many more, catastrophic events.
That's why we must persevere with both generating broader public awareness and motivating our leaders to act. Enough "events" have already occurred, there is enough evidence, enough data needed to act; we don't need to wait for the roof to cave in on us.
Both, the Shark Divers and Beqa Adventures blogs picked up on this post from the Southern Fried Science, a South Carolina marine biology grad student. It's a disturbing look at supply and demand economics regarding fisheries and it bolsters my attitudes regarding the importance of developing successful aquaculture. Here's a portion of the post:
"The basic premise is that many fisheries are completely supply limited. Even if we were to reduce 90% of the demand for certain fish, the remaining demand would still be great enough to consume 100% of the supply. If 100 people all love grouper, but only 10 grouper are being produced at any given time, then even if you convinced 90 people to never eat grouper, the other ten would still eat the 10 grouper being produced, and nothing would change. I was surprised that it’s taken me this long to start understanding what that means."
This also relates to shark products, particularly regarding the dollar value that increases with their continuing scarceness, even with reduced consumer demand. You can read the entire post here.
This past Monday, I ran a post about aquaculture and the efforts to find alternatives for fish meal; one of the concerns being that the demand for fish meal is a contributing factor to the reduced populations of feeder fish (also known as prey fish or bait fish).
The loss of these smaller fish has a negative impact on the health of many other ocean animals in the food chain. These little guys are a major building block that is being severely chipped away.
Oceana has just released a detailed report on the subject. Hungry Oceans: What Happens When the Prey is Gone? takes a comprehensive look at the issue; examining the scope of the problem, the impact and implications, and - just so it's not all gloom and doom - the solutions.
"We're constantly making life difficult for endangered species from seabirds to whales, and going hungry is not going to help. Valuable fish like bluefin tuna are struggling, and we can't expect the fishery to recover when we are stealing their food supply. By taking food from the tuna we could end up hungry ourselves" said Margot Stiles, Oceana marine scientist.
We often focus on the big things that catch our eye and our attention: big whales, big sharks, big polar bears. But it can be the little things that can be our undoing.
Click here for an Oceana press release. The report is available from their web site home page.
I am one of those who is a firm believer in aquaculture as a method to meet seafood demands without decimating wild populations, but it is in its infancy and is experiencing all of the growing pains associated with a new technological enterprise. According to the AAAS panel, in the growing/feeding process there are greenhouse gas emissions associated with the type of food used (in addition to harvesting/catching and shipping methods). Monitoring aquaculture operations in several countries, it was determined that when certain types of plant-based meal are introduced, there is a lower level of greenhouse gas emissions. However, not all plant-based meal produces positive results; wheat gluten or palm oil produced higher gas levels.
However, there are others hard at work at other possible beneficial substitutes. Reported in the Coloradoan, a Fort Collins brewery is developing a technique in which a portion of it's brewery waste products can be converted into a fish meal substitute. (Not sure if you end up with drunken fish, though!) The significance of finding a replacement for fish meal is due to the declining populations of anchovies and sardines. These "feeder fish" not only support the fish meal trade but are important prey items for larger fish, all the way up to tuna and dolphins (not to mention its value to low-income human populations).
There are those who say that fish raised on fish meal, as opposed to plant meal, tastes better. This may be due to the different oils found in each. According to the Fish Site, a Brazilian soybean processor is developing a technique for extracting oil from algae which would be high in omega-3 fatty acids, similar to fish meal. An acre of algae can produce up to 42,000 gallons of oil compared to only 210 gallons from an acre of soybean. The company is also looking into methods for capturing the CO2 emissions given off by the processing plant and directing it to the algae which uses it in photosynthesis.
With industrial open water fishing continuing to deplete fish populations worldwide, each stride to improve the efficiency and environmental impact of aquaculture is a great step forward.
Many thanks to Seaweb.org for the heads up on these news items.
In previous posts I have referred to the challenges and potential of aquafarming. While it holds considerable promise in meeting the commercial demand for seafood, it is an industry in its infancy and is experiencing its technological growing pains as it addresses issues from parasite control to pollution from the waste products of concentrated, confined fish populations.
Another challenge cited in a recent issue of Annual Review of Environment and Resources has to do with the feeding of aquafarmed fish. Small to medium-size fish like anchovies, sardines, and mackerel - often referred to as forage fish - are being harvested in great numbers to feed poultry, pigs and other terrestrial animals. That puts enough pressure on the populations of forage fish as it is, but now there is the added pressure of supplying them to the growing aquafarm industry. This further deprives pelagic predators and many seabirds of a primary food source.
When I engage audiences in discussing the importance of apex predators like sharks, I often refer to the predator-prey pyramid. This hierarchy of survival is depicted as a pyramid because at the wide base of the pyramid are the plankton and small forage fish - available in large numbers because of a high reproductive rate - which serve as a foundation. And as you ascend up the pyramid to larger and larger predators, the pyramid narrows, representing nature's ability to control those populations through reduced reproductivity.
All well and good but as we continue to harvest more and more forage fish, which are relatively easy to catch, we begin to undermine the foundations of that pyramid. This not only impacts nature's balance and reduces the forage fish populations and potentially the animals that feed on them, but it also affects commercial demand and the price of forage fish can increase - which hampers developing nations who rely on forage fish for food and to build aquafarming as a viable alternative to other negative fishing practices.
As we jockey resources in an attempt to fulfill our needs, we may ultimately have to address the 800-pound gorilla in the room that we have tried to ignore: 6.7 billion people and rising.
One of the ways to get commercial interests to move in more eco-friendly directions is to appeal to base instincts. In this case, economic viability. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO, part of the United Nations), in conjunction with the World Bank, has released an assessment of marine fisheries and, as one might suspect, it shows a massive loss of revenue due to a decline in catch. (Read the press release.)
But poor management is as much to blame as is declining seafood populations. Commercial fisheries are plagued by over-capacity and over-efficiency - too many boats and advanced fishing techniques. The rising cost of fuel might be a nail in the coffin, but the problems were brewing long before fuel became an issue. Basic business economics says when you have a limited market (or resource, as in the case of seafood) and you expand operations, at some point the rate of revenue will decline. How many businesses have we seen become victims of expansion beyond what the market can bear? From computer chips to coffee shops.
The commercial fishing industry must address the need to scale back its operations to become more efficient - which will have a positive effect on seafood populations and can actually prevent market prices for seafood from skyrocketing. But it requires a shift in the industry, moving and retraining manpower and resources into other related areas, such as aquaculture/aquafarming.
A parting thought on the recent Life on the Edge Symposium: On the last day I attended a panel discussion on "Environmental Action Points for the Next Administration." The panel included Dr. Mark Bernstein, Managing Director of the USC Energy Institute, and Dr. Joshua Newell, Research Professor at USC's Center for Sustainable Cities. Much of the discussion focused on sustainability and climate change issues - the "big" issues that get so much press these days.
During the Q&A that followed the panel discussion, I asked the panel to prioritize their perceived environmental issues, and their answer surprised me. Even though their professional focus is on climate and energy, they felt that the most pressing and immediate issue was that of marine conservation and commercial over-fishing. They all felt that declining commercial fish populations and the subsequent drop in nutrition that loss will impose on many developing nations was a critical issue and one that would rear its head long before climate issues reach critical mass. And this coming from a group of climatologists!
It may not be "sexy" subject matter, as the journalists would say, but commercial fishing, declining seafood, and the future of aquaculture needs to be communicated to the general populace to prod our decision-makers into action.
I was having a discussion with some people the other night about marine conservation issues and commercial overfishing. These folks were quite convinced that even sticking with "sustainable seafood species" was ultimately a lost cause - by removing fish without giving something back, you are upsetting the natural marine order and depletion of any species is inevitable.
That may or may not be true in every case, but it certainly is one reason why I support the aquaculture or aquafarming efforts taking place around the world. The logic behind these activities is pretty simple: we are giving something back.
We raise cattle to insure we have a supply of beef.
We raise chickens to insure we have a supply of poultry.
And we do the same for fruits and vegetables.
But when it comes to the sea, for centuries we have just taken. Aquaculture can reverse that approach. But it's not without its challenges. Whether on land or at sea, there are issues of potential pollution from feed or animal waste, introduction of diseases or parasites, logistical challenges because of the required size of the facilities, and so on.
These are challenges that must be conquered and there are some definite strides being made. I have mentioned some in past postings regarding the Indian Ocean's bluefin tuna, Chesapeake Bay's blue crab, and more. I would strongly recommend that you support the companies and organizations involved in aquaculture. As the demand for seafood increases, it's the only logical answer.
I recently posted a story about Tuna in the Mediterranean. Here's an interesting follow up in this week's TIME magazine. There is an article about the Bluefin Tuna found in the Indian Ocean between Australia and Indonesia (Click here to read article.). The tuna migrate through these waters to breed and because their migratory paths are predictable, their populations have been severely hunted, reduced to 10% of what they were in the 60s - all to meet the demands of the Japanese sushi/sashimi market. Okay, that's the bad news.
The good news is that one company, Clean Seas Tuna, lead by Hagen Stehr, is making progress in developing aquaculture techniques for tricking confined tuna into thinking they are in their happy mating grounds, enabling Clean Seas Tuna to gather fertile eggs for farming. The developed offspring could add to the levels of tuna currently being farmed in open water pens.
While Stehr has his skeptics, it is encouraging to see work continue in improving aquafarming techniques. To meet growing demand, advances will need to be made. Otherwise, many commercial species will continue to head towards eventual depletion.
P.S. - I'm always interested in what pops up in the general media, like TIME. It's an indication of what issues are being disseminated to the public at large. While we marine conservation advocates peruse our various web sites, blogs, and scientific sources, I also make a point of checking on publications as diverse as TIME and Fortune.
On June 17th & 18th, I was the guest of theNational Aquarium in Baltimore for a screening and lecture of Island of the Great White Shark. Like many of the aquariums I have visited, this is a marvelous, proactive organization with a very dedicated staff. I had the opportunity to swap stories with Chuck Eicholtz, the Aquarium's dive safety officer, and Alan Henningsen, fish research specialist and resident shark expert.
Suzanne Ebbert and Polly Yanick of the membership department kept my itinerary full and I had a marvelous opportunity to tour the Center of Marine Biotechnology (COMB) to witness first hand the progress they are making in replenishing the regional Blue Crab population through aquaculture. A mainstay of the Chesapeake Bay, the blue crab population has diminished by as much as 80% through over-fishing. The efforts of COMB to rebuild the breeding population hold great promise.
On Tuesday, the 17th, I had the opportunity to be interviewed by the FOX 45 Morning Show to promote the Wednesday night screening. Click on this Fox 45 news link. The screening was well-attended and the Aquarium has a fantastic theater - great picture and incredible sound. The audience included Aquarium board members (many thanks to Lee Riley for the introduction), Aquarium staff, volunteers, and members, and the "just curious." For some, I think the film and follow-up discussion helped to dispel a few myths. For others, it stoked the fire in their engine for shark conservation. The best compliment I received was relayed to me by Suzanne Ebbert, Director of Membership, who told me people approached her saying, “This is why we joined the aquarium as members, for programs like this.”
My thanks to the Marjorie Lynn Bank Lecture Series for supporting this event. Upcoming screening: July 17th @ Harvard Museum of Natural History w/Dr. John Mandelman
A short post as I am immersed in preparing camera gear for an upcoming shoot. I wanted to highlight a couple of interesting articles I have recently read that not only touch on ocean and environmental issues but also deal with the human, political, or economic components that we must be prepared to deal with if we expect to make real progress.
The Ocean Health Index: Miller-McCune.com ran an interesting article, actually the first of a three, on the development of an Ocean Health Index. Three of the lead scientists in this multi-disciplined project explain how the index is being developed. The Ocean Health Index intends to express more than just the state of ocean biodiversity. There are hoping to attain a more holistic indicator of ocean health that incorporates plants and animals, people, economic or commercial viability, and more.
Anyone who has spent any time reading this blog knows that I am an advocate of aquaculture, despite its challenges to doing it in an environmentally-safe manner, as it poses the most logical solution to pulling fish from the wild - the same solution man realized long ago with cattle and poultry.
In its latest issue, Rolling Stone, that venerable instigator of alternative thinking disguised as an entertainment magazine for the youth, presents Climate of Denial: The Media & the Merchants of Pollution, written by former Vice President Al Gore. It is, perhaps, not the usual detailed assessment of our current climate condition given by someone who has been leading the charge for several decades now.
