Marine Biology » Environment

Millions of sea turtles dying in fishing gear, report warns

Suzanne Goldenberg — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:35:48 +0000

Tens of thousands of sea turtles were trapped and killed by commercial fishing fleets over the past 20 years, but real total could number millions

Millions of sea turtles have been inadvertently trapped and killed by commercial fishing fleets over the last 20 years, a global survey has found.

Six of the seven species of sea turtle are under threat. The study, published in Conservation Letters, said the biggest danger to their survival was being inadvertently caught up by commercial fishing gear - long lines which can stretch for up to 40kms studded with hooks or vast nets - to become what is known as bycatch. Once snared, the turtles are unable to come to the surface to breathe.

Although turtles, the second largest reptile species on Earth, are still hunted for their meat and shells, accidental entrapment is a greater threat.

"Bycatch, writ large, is the most serious, acute threat to the sea turtle population globally," said Bryan Wallace, the lead author.

"Trawlers are completely indiscriminate. The target might be shrimp but for every pound of shrimp that might comp up with a given haul, there might have five or 20lbs of bycatch. That could be turtles, it could be all sorts of things," said Wallace, a professor at Duke University and science adviser to Conservation International.

The study is the first global survey of commercial fishing operations, gauging the effects on sea turtles of three widely used methods of fishing gear: long lines, gillnets and trawls.

It reviewed existing records from fishing fleet operations around the world. All the data was based on direct onboard observations or interviews with fishermen.

According to those records, more than 85,000 turtles were snared between 1990 and 2008. But Wallace said the figure covered barely 1% of fishing operations, and did not cover smaller fleets. "A conservative estimate is that the true total is probably in the millions of turtles," he said.

However, he said the adoption of different equipment - such as turtle excluder devices or escape hatches which allow turtles to swim free of large nets - could dramatically reduce the numbers of bycatch. Some countries have now made such precautions mandatory.

One of the report's recommendations was for consumers to be conscious of where their fish was sourced.

The report also recommends seasonal bans on fishing to avoid turtle migration routes.

The report identified four regions where urgent conservation measures are needed: the Mediterranean, the eastern Pacific, and the south and north-west Atlantic off the coast of the United States. It said the crowded, heavily fished Mediterranean had some of the highest rates of bycatch because of heavy use of long lines and trawling. The coast off Mexico's Baja Peninsula, a crucial nesting area for sea turtles, was also deadly.

According to the IUCN red list of endangered species, five species of sea turtle - hawksbill, leatherback, Kemp's Ridley, green and loggerhead - are either endangered or critically endangered. The Olive Ridley is classed as vulnerable while flatback turtles are classed as "data deficient", meaning there is not enough research to make a conservation assessment.

Suzanne Goldenberg

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Chagos islands marine protection plan comes under fire from three sides

John Vidal — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 15:15:59 +0000

Foreign secretary David Miliband's action condemned by British MPs, Mauritius government and native Chagossians

Anger mounted today over Britain's decision last week to create the world's largest marine protection zone around the Chagos islands as an influential group of British MPs joined the government of Mauritius and a large group of islanders to condemn the way the decision was made.

The world's leading conservation groups welcomed the move to ban fishing across an area the size of France, but the Mauritian government, which claims the Indian Ocean islands, and the largest Chagos refugee group, which is fighting for the right to return to the islands, have deplored the way they claim the, foreign secretary, David Miliband rushed out the decision without their consultation.

"Perfidious Albion is dishonest. I am very angry," said Mauritian foreign minister Arvin Boolell.

Olivier Bancoult, chair of the Chagos Refugees Group, the largest collection of exiles, said he was "shocked" that Britain had not shown the islanders even a draft of the proposal.

Speaking from Mauritius, he said: "The British government has shown its true face in the way it does things with no respect for democracy and consideration for others' opinions. We have been taken for a ride."

Details of the conservation zone have not been made public, except that it is to become a full "no-take" area. This ban on fishing, previously Chagossians' main livelihood, could make it impossible to live on the islands if the islanders won the right to return.

"Everyone would have been happy with the creation of a marine protection area providing it had made provision for the interests of Chagossians and Mauritius, which it could so easily have done," said David Snoxell, former British high commissioner in Mauritius and chair of the Marine Education Trust.

"The Foreign Office statement completely disregards the Chagossians who are not even mentioned in it. They have been airbrushed out," he said.

Miliband also attracted the ire of the all-party Chagos committee, whose members complained that parliament had been sidelined.

In a letter to Miliband, chair of the committee Jeremy Corbyn said: "The action of the Foreign Office flies in the face of world opinion in respect of the Chagossians' right to return.

"I am shocked that you did not see fit to honour the undertaking given to parliament that there would be full consultation with islanders and MPs."

The Foreign Office had committed in a debate on Chagos two weeks ago that MPs would be briefed before any final decisions were taken on the marine protected area (MPA).

The all party parliamentary group wants to know what the urgency was for the MPA's creation and how the Foreign Office had time to properly examine 450 contributions, many of them complex, to the consultation.

The MPs are expected to ask Miliband to put the decision on hold pending a verdict on the islanders' right to return, due in the summer from the European Court of Human rights.

The islands were ceded to Britain in 1814 but were evacuated in the 1960s to allow construction of a US military base on the largest island, Diego Garcia.

About 2,000 people were deported to Mauritius, and Diego Garcia is now populated by an estimated 1,700 US military personnel and 1,500 civilian contractors.

John Vidal

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Letters: Indian Ocean marine reserve and the Chagossians’ right of return

Environment: Marine life | guardian.co.uk — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 10:54:29 +0000

The foreign secretary's announcement (UK sets up marine reserve in controversial area, 2 April) of the establishment of a marine protected area (MPA) around the Chagos archipelago (British Indian Ocean Territory) following the recently completed consultation is welcome news in principle. The area's conservation value is undisputed. However, as John Vidal's article (Good news for the warty sea slug is devastating for Chagos islanders, 30 March) indicates, there are important associated controversies regarding the displaced Chagossians' right of return and Mauritian sovereignty claims. The FCO's unilateral action over the MPA is exacerbating these tensions and unnecessarily undermining what should have been near universal support.

The Mauritian foreign minister is reportedly furious, having repeatedly requested a bilateral approach to the MPA process. Many Chagossians are similarly angered that the "no-take" commercial fishing zone may damage their future livelihood prospects. Their right of return – at least to the outer islands – could easily also have been granted magnanimously as part of the deal, thereby resolving what even the British government admits to have been a shameful historical injustice.

Thursday's announcement repeats earlier assertions that the MPA should not prejudice resolution of either of these issues. Significantly, it also implicitly leaves open the possibility of subsistence fishing and implies that Diego Garcia, site of the massive US military base, will be included within the MPA. However, it ignores the key fact that once established under international conservation instruments, MPA status is hard to change or rescind. Why does the FCO never fail to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity over the Chagos/BIOT?

David Simon

Royal Holloway, Universityof London

•?While some Chagossians are undoubtedly concerned by the marine reserve, there are many others who support its establishment. The Pew Environment Group and others supporting protection of the Chagos Islands have been working closely with the Diego Garcian Society, the largest Chagossian group in the UK.

Designation of Chagos as a protected area means the islands and their resources will be protected for the future, whatever it holds. If the Chagossians are one day granted the right to return, conservation arrangements could be modified to accommodate their needs.

Without protection, the Chagos' resources will continue to be damaged and diminished by commercial fishing.

It is difficult to think of anyone other than a few distant water fishing fleets that would be disadvantaged by the protection of the Chagos' resources, whereas millions would be advantaged, including those benefiting from the replenishment of the Western Indian Ocean's marine resources and those benefiting from better climate and marine science.

Alistair Gammell

Pew Environment Group

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Sustainable fishing move could help your cat reduce its eco pawprint

Adam Vaughan — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:35:52 +0000

Pet food manufacturer launching seafood varieties containing only marine stewardship council-certified fish

For the environmentalist who has done it all, from greening their home to decarbonising their travel, there's a new frontier: greening their pet.

Later this year the UK's 8m cat owners will, for the first time, be able to feed their kitties their favourite fish with a clear conscience.

In a move announced today, Whiskas and Sheba pet foods are to become the first to sell products using Marine Stewardship Council-certified fish, which is caught sustainably and without threatening further dwindling stocks.

While eight out of 10 cats are likely to have no opinion on the provenance of their fish, Mark Johnson of manufacturer Mars Petcare said people were increasingly aware of the importance of sustainability.

"The End of the Line film [a documentary about overfishing] has had a big impact," said Johnson, the company's UK general manager. "We are now the first pet company to make a commitment to sustainable fish, and we hope that will act as a catalyst for the whole industry."

Supermarkets have been quick to respond to rising human demand for sustainable fish, with the Co-operative eliminating threatened species from its own-brand products and Marks & Spencer recently becoming the first high-street name to sign up to WWF's new seafood charter.

But pet lovers have so far been limited to giving their animals human food such as sustainably caught tinned tuna: an expensive way to limit their pets' ecological impact.

While cats and dogs may seem unlikely environmental villains, UK pet owners buy 1.5m tonnes of food a year and globally there are an estimated 750m pets who consume 20m tonnes annually.

The authors of a recent book, Time to Eat the Dog?, warned that the energy required to feed a cat is the same as that required to build and drive a Volkswagen Golf for 6,000 miles a year.

Robert Vale, one of the authors, has said that poultry and rabbits have a lower impact than red meat and fish when used as pet food. "When feeding a pet… the advice is to think feathers and long ears, not horns and fins," he said.

Under the Mars Petcare plan, MSC-certified fish will be available in Whiskas and Sheba brands to all European consumers by Christmas, with certification eventually coming to all the company's fish products in Europe. It pledged to source all its fish globally from sustainable sources by 2020.

The MSC badge is awarded through a voluntary process whereby fisheries approach the council to be assessed under 23 different criteria, followed by an annual audit.

The process can cost $150,000 (£100,000); Mars has said it will absorb the cost of buying the more expensive fish.

Conservation groups WWF and the Marine Conservation Society welcomed the news. Jason Clay of WWF US said: "There is no quick fix to this problem but when companies as influential as Mars take a leadership role, it is great news for the world's oceans."

However, experts also argue that pet food companies need to reduce the prime fish in their products, which is included as whole fillets in some of Mars Petcare's products but will be phased out under the new initiative.

Callum Roberts, professor of marine conservation at University of York and the author of Unnatural History of the Sea, said: "Clearly it's more sustainable using certified products than uncertified ones, but what makes me uncomfortable is we are feeding so much fish protein to pets when there isn't enough fish in the world to give everyone a healthy amount of fish in their diet.

"I say this as a cat owner: Pets are definitely second rate when it comes to eating fish, and should be largely fed by the trimmings market."

Adam Vaughan

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Chagos Islanders attack plan to turn archipelago into protected area

John Vidal — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 18:20:14 +0000

UK government proposals a ploy to block displaced Chagossians from returning to their homeland, say campaigners

• In pictures: wildlife of the Chagos
• Tony Juniper: a chance to preserve a natural wonder

The 55 islands and the sparkling seas around them are famed for their clean waters and pristine coral reefs. They are described by naturalists as the "other Galapagos", "a lost paradise" and a "natural wonder" and are officially recognised as a biodiversity hotspot of global importance.

This week the British government, backed by nine of the world's largest environment and science bodies, including the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew, the Royal Society, the RSPB and Greenpeace, is expected to signal that the 210,000 sq km area around the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean will become the world's largest marine reserve. If it does, all fishing, collection of corals and hunting for turtles and other wildlife will be banned across an area twice the size of the British isles.

More than 275,000 people from more than 200 nations have sent messages in support of Britain's full protection of the Chagos Islands and their surrounding waters, but one group is distinctly uneasy.

The original Chagossians, who were deported between 1967 and 1973 to make way for a giant US nuclear air force base on the largest island, Diego Garcia, say they would in effect be barred from ever returning because the marine protection zone would stop them fishing, their main livelihood. "There would be a natural injustice. The fish would have more rights than us," said Roch Evenor, secretary of the UK Chagos Support Association, who left the island when he was four.

The islanders, who number about 4,000 and live in exile in Britain, Mauritius and elsewhere, have battled through the British courts for nearly 20 years for the right to return and appeared to have won an important victory in 2000 when the then foreign secretary, Robin Cook, decided in their favour. But following the September 11 attacks, the UK government reversed Cook's decision and the Chagos case has migrated between courts. Most recently, the House of Lords ruled against them after Britain cited American security concerns. Their last hope is that the European court of human rights will overturn the decision in their favour in the next few months.

Today, Chagossian supporters accused the government of duplicity. "The British government's plan for a marine protected area is a grotesquely transparent ruse designed to perpetuate the banning of the people of Mauritius and Chagos from part of their own country," said Ram Seegobin, of the Mauritian party Lalit de Klas, in a letter to Greenpeace seen by the Guardian. "The conservation groups have fallen into a trap. They are being used by the government to prevent us returning," said Evenor.

They were backed by Clive Stafford Smith, director of the human rights group Reprieve, who has challenged the UK government on the use of Diego Garcia by the US to render suspected terrorists. "The truth is that no Chagossian has anything like equal rights with even the warty sea slug. There is no sense that the British government will let them go back. The government is not even contemplating equal rights for Chagossians and sea slugs."

Supporters of the islanders also suspect that the timing of the announcement of the protected area is highly political. "Clearly, the British government is preparing a fall-back plan; if they lose the case in Europe, then there will be another 'reason' for denying the banished people their right of return," said Olivier Bancoult, a Chagossian leader in Mauritius.

Today, scientists and conservationsists denied that they were being "used" by the government.

"The UK government agrees that a marine protection area will not create a barrier for the Chagossians to return. The two issues are separate. If the Chagossians are given a right to return, any conservation measures will be adjusted. The aim is to protect the reserve now so that the resources there would be available for the Chagossians if and when they return. As it is, the seas there are being heavily depleted by French and Taiwanese fleets," said a spokeswoman for the US-based Pew environment group, which is expected to contribute millions of dollars to establish the reserve.In a letter on its website, Greenpeace said: "[We] acknowledge and support the Chagossians in their struggle, and hope that they are successful. But at the moment, the Chagos Islands are being administered by the UK government, and whatever way you look at it, taking steps to protect the marine life there is a good idea. If and when the Chagossians are repatriated, then the protection of the seas around the archipelago will need to be readdressed, and yes, that may well involve allowing fishing by the islanders."

But David Snoxell, former high commissioner to Mauritius, said the marine reserve would set up a significant barrier to the Chagossians' return. "The environment groups were beguiled [into giving their support]. If the government were to designate a protection area they would be erecting a psychological, legal and economic barrier against the Chagossians, and send a strong message that they would not be welcome in their homeland. It would be highly prejudicial."

John Vidal

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

How Japanese sushi offensive sank move to protect sharks and bluefin tuna

Justin McCurry — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 12:32:24 +0000

Aggressive lobbying operation borrowed tactics used at whaling negotiations

To conservationists it was a gratuitous act of provocation; but to the Japanese officials whose embassy served bluefin tuna sushi to guests hours before last week's UN vote on a trade ban on the fish, it was a show of confidence that their diplomatic offensive had worked.

Confirmation duly came when delegates at the Washington Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, or Cites, voted against the tuna trade ban in Qatar's capital, Doha.

Japan's aggressive lobbying operation in the days before the vote will be familiar to veterans of International Whaling Committee meetings, where poor island nations vote with Japan in return for investment in their fishing industries.

Now, with the dust still settling on a disappointing summit for conservationists, activists are concerned that trade and commercial considerations are overriding the need to conserve other threatened species.

"Japan clearly mobilised massive efforts to keep fisheries out of Cites," Mark W Roberts, the senior counsel and policy adviser for the Environmental Investigation Agency, told the Associated Press. Japanese officials flooded the conference floor, offering advice to supportive delegates.

Their endeavours, carried out with all the precision of a military operation, also brought defeats for proposals to regulate the coral trade and protect several species of shark targeted for their fins.

In another tactic copied from whaling negotiations, Japan was testing the diplomatic waters months before the UN meeting, gauging how many votes it would need to assure victory.

Last week, members of the 30-strong Japanese delegation were using their years of negotiating experience at conservation meetings to devastating effect. The EU, by contrast, was divided over its response, while the US dithered before finally voting for the bluefin ban.

But by then, Japan had built up a formidable coalition of 68 votes, while 20 voted in favour of the ban, with 30 abstaining.

The result has been greeted with relief among fish traders and sushi lovers in Japan, which imports 80% of the Atlantic bluefin catch.

"We were very pleased with the result, but that doesn't change the fact that criticism persists over the management of tuna stocks," a fisheries agency official, Kenji Kagawa, told the Guardian.

"It should never have been up to the Washington convention to determine policy. Protecting stocks and stamping out illegal fishing is the work of regional fisheries bodies," such as the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas.

While countries that voted against the ban, including Libya, Egypt and Zambia, denied they had been subjected to undue pressure, Japan conceded it had funds to offer to fishing industries in developing countries, and that some of that money had been used to send delegates to attend the Doha meeting.

The infamous sushi buffet, said Masanori Miyahara, chief counsellor at the fisheries agency, was nothing more than an innocent cultural event.

"We wanted to show what it is," he said of the servings of prime bluefin. "You can't buy votes by just serving bluefin tuna. That's a silly idea."

Justin McCurry

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Bluefin tuna fails to make UN’s list of protected fish

David Adam — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:19:26 +0000

Japan, Canada and scores of developing nations opposed the measure on the grounds that ban would devastate fishing economies

• Mediterranean EU countries block bluefin tuna ban
• Push to ban trade in endangered bluefin tuna

Video: Relief in Japan as bluefin ban voted down

Global talks on the conservation of endangered species have rejected calls to ban international trade in bluefin tuna, raising new fears for the future of dwindling stocks.

Countries at the meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (Cites) in Qatar voted down a proposal from Monaco to grant the fish stronger protection. The plan drew little support, with developing countries joining Japan in opposing a measure they feared would hit fishing economies.

It is understood that the UK, the Netherlands and possibly other European nations voted in favour of the Monaco proposal, against the EU's official position.

Campaigners complained that debate on the fate of the Atlantic bluefin fishery was cut short and an immediate vote pushed through by Libya. Seventy-two out of 129 Cites members voted against the trade ban and 43 voted in favour, with 14 abstentions.

Dr Sergi Tudela, head of fisheries at WWF Mediterranean, said: "After overwhelming scientific justification and growing political support in past months, with backing from the majority of catch quota holders on both sides of the Atlantic, 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."

The UK environment secretary, Hilary Benn, said: "As we have long argued, bluefin tuna must be afforded protection if we are to avoid losing it forever. Today the UK has shown its commitment to bluefin tuna. We are disappointed that proposals to list bluefin tuna on appendix I of Cites were defeated."

Monaco introduced the proposal because it said only extreme measures can save stocks of the iconic migratory fish, which have fallen by 75% due to widespread overfishing. Only the United States, Norway and Kenya supported the proposal outright. The European Union asked that implementation be delayed until May 2011 to give authorities time to respond to concerns about overfishing. It's official position was to abstain in the vote on the Monaco proposal.

Japan, which imports 80% of Atlantic bluefin and had led the opposition to the ban, restated its position that Cites should not regulate tuna and other marine species. It said it would accept lower quotas for bluefin tuna, but said they should come from the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), which currently regulates the trade.

"Japan is very much concerned about the status of Atlantic bluefin tuna and has been working so hard for many years to ensure recovery," said Masanori Miyahara, of the Fisheries Agency of Japan. "But our position is very simple. Let us do this job in ICCAT, not in Cites. This position is shared by majority of Asian nations."

Tudela said: "ICCAT has so far failed miserably in this duty so every pressure at the highest level must come to bear to ensure it does what it should. It is now more important than ever for people to do what the politicians failed to do, to stop consuming bluefin tuna."

WWF said it would step up calls for restaurants, retailers, chefs and consumers around the world to stop selling, serving, buying and eating the endangered fish.

Monaco had said its proposal would not mean a permanent ban and that trade could resume once stocks recovered.

"This exploitation is no longer exploitation by traditional fishing people to meet regional needs," Monaco's Patrick Van Klaveren told delegates. "Industrial fishing of species is having a severe effect on numbers of this species and its capacity to recover. We are facing a real ecosystem collapse."

The tuna defeat came hours after delegates rejected a US proposal for a Cites ban on the international sale of polar bear skins and parts. The US argued that the sale of polar bears skins was compounding the loss of the animals' sea ice habitat due to climate change. There are projections that numbers of the bears, which are estimated at 20,000 to 25,000, could decline by two-thirds by 2050 because of habitat loss in the Arctic.

"We're disappointed," said Jane Lyder, the Department of Interior's deputy assistant secretary for fish and wildlife and parks. "But we understand that Cites is still trying to understand how to incorporate climate change into its decision-making."

Canada, along with Norway and Greenland, led the opposition to the US proposal. They said the threat from trade was minimal and the hunting carried out by indigenous people was critical to their economies. Only 2% of Canadian polar bears are internationally traded and the country strictly manages the commerce, Canada said.

David Adam

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Blighted beaches: Britain’s shores are drowning in litter

Environment: Marine life | guardian.co.uk — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:28:29 +0000

Beach litter figures down overall, but quantity of plastic found on shorelines grows to unprecedented levels

From the mundane debris of food wrappers and cigarette butts, to a laboratory incubator and a dead goat, Britain's beaches are strewn with litter, according to the Marine Conservation Society.

The volunteers who conducted the survey, the UK's biggest, found one piece for each step along the shore. The results showed litter levels along the coasts have increased dramatically since 1994, from 1,000 items per kilometre to over 1,800 items. It also found that plastic litter was at its highest level ever.

In 2009, the overall number of items on beaches declined - falling 16% from last year's record high to 342,000. But the percentage of plastic litter reached an unprecedented 64%. Emma Snowden, litter projects coordinator at MCS, said: "It's a lot of these single throwaway items."

The most common type of litter was small plastic pellets, broken down from larger items. Other items in the top 10 include food wrappers, cigarette butts, plastic drinks bottles, chunks of polystyrene and cotton bud sticks, of which nearly 13,000 were found.

The report warns that coastal communities are bearing the brunt of the rising tide of litter, which can harm tourism, fishing and water sports. Marine animals are also at risk - thousands of birds, turtles, fish, and marine mammals are thought to die each year by eating or becoming tangled in litter.

The rise of plastic is of particular concern because it breaks up into ever-smaller pieces rather than degrading. "In the marine environment, plastic just doesn't disappear," said Snowden. Scientists suspect that these plastic pellets may absorb potentially toxic chemicals which are then ingested by marine animals.

The government plans to convene a round table this autumn to discuss the problem of marine litter. Each major party has signalled their support for government action on the issue.

The MSC stresses, however, that it is also matter of personal responsibility. "Every bit of litter has an owner," said Snowdon. "We can all help by not dropping or throwing it out the window, by taking a cloth bag to the supermarket, by refilling water bottles. Sewage-related debris is a really easy one to stop. If people would stop using their toilets as a wet bin, we wouldn't have this on the beach."

The public was responsible for nearly half of the rubbish surveyed this year - items such as crisp wrappers and drink bottles made up 42% of the total collected. Fishing, shipping, and sewage-related debris added a further 22%. Although some items travelled from countries as far away as China and Saudi Arabia, most of the rubbish, according to Snowden, comes from the UK. "Of the litter we can source, the majority is from us: the great British public. People are dropping it on the beach, but even in towns and cities, it's washed down the drains."

Some parts of the country were harder hit than others. Welsh beaches had the highest level of litter this year, up 21% from last year, to 3,100 items per kilometre. Scotland's levels of litter declined 26% in 2009, but its beaches were still polluted enough to put it into second place. England came in third overall, but the south west was the most rubbish-strewn region in the entire country with 3,269 items per kilometre.

These statistics reflect geographical location as well as how many people use the beaches. "The south west always tends to have the highest because it's a popular destination for tourists," said Snowden, "but also because of its proximity to shipping lanes."

The south west receives about twice the national average of shipping debris, according to the report, but the south east has been affected as well. Last year, Northern Ireland had the lowest densities of litter - this year, the beaches of the Channel Islands were the UK's cleanest.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Sea Shepherd seafarers battle sickness and Japanese whalers | Wietse Van Der Werf

Environment: Marine life | guardian.co.uk — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 09:17:06 +0000

The engineer on the ageing Steve Irwin ship describes his role in chasing down whalers in the Southern Ocean

When I rolled back into port this month with the Sea Shepherd team and our ship the Steve Irwin, it had been an eventful few weeks at sea, chasing Japanese whalers around the Southern Ocean in a bid to stop their annual whale hunt. I joined the ship in August as part of an international crew of volunteers, eager to work with an organisation willing to physically intervene against the poaching.

As an engineer, working in the engine room fills an important role in the campaign effort. Having an older vessel, the success of our operation very much depends on us keeping the engines running smoothly and ensuring we have enough speed and durability to catch up with the whaling ships and stay with them for as long as we can. On the one hand we have a team of very experienced engineers, officers and seafarers onboard. On the other, a part of the crew learns along the way. Their commitment to take risks, dedication to work and the personal sacrifices they have made to come onboard make them much valued members of the team.

The Southern Ocean is an unforgiving place. Many of the new crew get hit by the wave of seasickness which spreads through the ship during the first few days out of port. Although people get used to the life of rolling and pitching pretty quickly, it is far from comfortable. Sleeping becomes quite difficult when your bunk is rolling back and forth or you sleep in one of the forward cabins with near zero gravity. Imagine trying to catch up on some much needed sleep after a long day at work when you get thrown up against the ceiling every 10 seconds. Life at sea made me appreciate the comfort and ease of life on the land.

At first sight, the sea is a pretty cold and empty place. But after a closer look, you find the place crawling with life. Albatrosses fly gracefully across our bow and occasionally land on deck for a quick rest stop. Seals lie dotted around on the ice floes and our presence has on some occasions been responded to with angry growls from those we awoke from their afternoon nap.

A couple of centuries ago, whales were considered a shipping hazard with the need for careful navigation around enormous pods of whales. Now we are happy to get quick glimpses of breaching humpback, piked or fin whales.

One day, about 50 metres from the ship, two humpback whales jumped out of the water, throwing their huge bodies up in the air, and crashing back down, causing huge eruptions on the surface. We all rushed up to the deck and stood there in awe. Up until that point we hadn't seen many whales at all. Quite a discouraging observation when you consider a vast industrial whaling fleet looming about. But here they were and happy to show off their tricks. Amid the cheering and clapping from the growing crowd of spectators on deck, they continued to breach, flip and dive back down. When you see these animals in the free, open ocean, their wilderness, their world, it gives you strength to carry on.

During this year's campaign we were in many confrontations with the whaling ships. Blocking their slipway, trying to stop them from entering the whale sanctuary area and ensuring the harpoon ships stayed close by to keep an eye on us instead of going off over the horizon in a bid to resume whaling. Standing outside on the deck and seeing a ship bearing down upon you at speed is a thrilling sight and we have needed to take greater care in looking out for the movement of the whalers. With two — what we believe deliberate — rammings, of which one resulted in the sinking of the Ady Gil, they have shown themselves to be prepared to use violence against us. It seems that with increasing value put on threatened animals in the wild, poachers are willing to go to extremes in defending their lucrative operations.

After having followed the factory ship Nisshin Maru for over three weeks while no whaling could take place, we were forced to head back to land. Low on fuel, food and fresh water we turned the ship and set course for Australia.

During the last night with the whaling fleet I stood outside on deck and looked out at the factory ship in front of us for one last time. I felt a great sense of pride, to know that in the 21st century it is still a committed, dedicated, and hard working group of ordinary people that can bring about the change needed to keep this planet healthy and sane. In fact, it is the only thing that ever has.

• Wietse Van Der Werf was a crew member of Sea Shepherd's 2009-2010 anti-whaling campaign

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

The world’s smallest sea horse

Environment: Marine life | guardian.co.uk — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:59:55 +0000

Hippocampus satomiae, little bigger than a pea, has been found on reefs in Indonesia

Little bigger than a pea, the smallest known sea horse, Hippocampus satomiae, was discovered at a depth of about 15 metres on reefs in Indonesia, from Derawan island to northern Sulawesi and Borneo. Like other pygmy sea horses, its size and camouflage make it difficult to spot. This species resembles, in texture and colour, the sea fans with which it lives. It has a pouch in which it carries its young, which are only 3mm in length. Animal names ending in -ae honour women, in this case Satomi Onishi, a diving guide who collected the first specimen.

Quentin Wheeler International Institute for Species Exploration, Arizona State University, www.species.asu.edu/

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds