Marine Biology » Marine life

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

Yard-Long Undersea Bug Terrorizes Robo-Sub, Internet

Clay Dillow — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:20:01 +0000

This monstrosity surfaced on the Web this week, after first surfacing attached to a remotely operated undersea survey sub. While this 2.5-foot specimen is indeed more monstrous than most of its species, it's really just a harmless, friendly giant isopod, a sea scavenger that dwells in the deep, cold waters of the oceans.

Resembling giant woodlice, isopods are oceanic bottom-feeders, dining mostly on whale carcasses and the like. The vast majority of them are found at depths below 1,200 feet, so they are not generally sought out in any commercial capacity and therefore we don't see them very often. However, we hear isopod is something of a delicacy in Taiwan, where its white, lobster-like meat is boiled and enjoyed in seaside restaurants.

Isopod is Ready for Its Closeup: Gwynzer

Most isopods reach lengths of just over one foot at the high end of the spectrum, so either this one truly leviathan-sized or the description of its length has been a bit exaggerated. But hey, what's a good fishing story if you don't embellish a little bit.

[Reddit via Gawker]

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

Reefs and rainforest in Indonesia’s far east

Environment: Marine life | guardian.co.uk — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:23:30 +0000

Indonesia's Raja Ampat islands are home to the world's greatest concentration of marine biodiversity. Now there is a world-class eco-resort to experience it from

Andrew and Marit Miner's daily commute involves a leisurely 10-minute ride in a rowing boat, accompanied by schooling fish and occasional dolphins. Their home – a grass-thatched cottage powered by wind and solar energy – sits high on a limestone karst facing a blue-on-blue vista that stretches to a misty chain of atolls on the horizon. The nearest place with any infrastructure is Sorong, a dreary and dilapidated industrial port in West Papua, four hours away by speedboat.

Four years ago, Andrew decided that this far-flung marine frontier in the remote eastern waters of the Indonesian archipelago would make a great place for a resort. So he persuaded Marit to leave Bangkok, where she ran a clothing business, gave up his job as a guide on a dive boat, secured funding from 40 friends and acquaintances and built the Misool Eco Resort.

You could think them crazy to set up home and a business somewhere so remote, but this area – known as Raja Ampat, or Four Kings, after its major islands – is home to the greatest concentration of marine biodiversity on the planet, a fact scientists discovered only in the past decade. It took me and the photographer two days to get there from Bali, with an overnight stop in Makassar, capital of South Sulawesi province, and another night in Sorong (Raja Ampat regulars wryly pronounce it "so wrong"). The journey from the UK can be done in two days, too, with a stopover in Jakarta. And it is well worth the effort.

Andrew and Marit's DIY approach has produced a low-impact enclave that wouldn't look out of place in the Maldives. The wood – all 600 tonnes of it – used to build the year-old resort came from fallen trees. Biological waste is used to fertilise the gardens, creating a closed system and feeding plants such as lemon grass, ginger and heliconia. The whole aesthetic is by turns whimsical and quietly sophisticated, with weathered wooden walkways connecting nine water cottages, a restaurant pavilion and a dive centre, all fringing a shallow cove on the edge of the resort's house reef. There are crayons on the driftwood table by my bed and a view inspiring enough to make me use them.

Stingray, octopus, reef shark, bumphead parrotfish, barracuda – I spot all of these, and not on a dive but from the veranda of my cottage – a cosy little thatched folly with a cushion-strewn bed under a diaphanous mosquito net and a bathroom open to the sky. Diving aside, this would make a great place for a honeymoon.

Under the water lurk stranger beings – elaborately armoured scorpion fish, weird patterned carpet sharks, neon nudibranchs with wispy rainbow filaments and pygmy seahorses, which barely reach an inch in length. The scale, density and variety of the coral are unlike anything I've ever seen. Scientists estimate that 75% of the earth's reef-building corals can be found in Raja Ampat, and new marine species are being discovered, seemingly every other week.

Things are just as interesting above the water. One afternoon, we wend our way by boat through the limpid channels of a marine lagoon studded with jungle-drenched islets. On one of these rocky outposts we see 5,000-year-old petroglyphs depicting dolphins, handprints and other nameless symbols.

"Nowhere else I know has such spectacularly beautiful scenery both above and below water," says Andrew. "It's the combination that's so special – reefs to rainforests. And we have this 425-square-mile Marine Protected Area (MPA) at the very centre of the greatest concentration of marine biodiversity on the planet – that's huge."

Andrew came to south-east Asia 17 years ago to escape the winter doldrums of his native Cornwall, became a dive master and took to the endlessly varied waters of the Malay archipelago on board a converted phinisi sailing boat. These elegant wooden liveaboards, built by the seafaring Bugis people of Sulawesi, are popular with divers. Over the course of seven years, he witnessed reefs and marine life diminishing everywhere, through a mix of destructive fishing and unregulated tourism. Then he came to Raja Ampat.

"It might sound dramatic, but this place is of global importance," Andrew says as we take afternoon tea on the veranda of the circular restaurant pavilion, a daily ritual here. Three baby reef sharks glide back and forth a few feet away, a surreal counterpoint to my Earl Grey and shortbread. "Scientists reckon that coral species here may be more resistant to [stress-induced] bleaching. We're also part of the Indonesian through-flow, which carries coral spawn and larvae down into the rest of Indonesia, restocking many of its reefs."

When I remark on the profusion of baby sharks on their doorstep, Andrew and Marit exchange meaningful smiles. "This place used to be a shark-finning camp," says Marit, a Swedish-American with a flair for good design (she handled the interiors) and smart marketing. "You only see babies because the adult population was almost destroyed [by the practice of harvesting shark fins and dumping the rest of the carcass at sea]. They're coming back, but it will take a decade for things to stabilise again."

The change of use is encouraging, all the more so because local people have a vested interest in conservation. A no-fishing zone means nothing unless you can enforce it, so having secured funding from campaigning group WildAid, Misool Eco Resort now has a boat crewed by local people running patrols four times a week and is lobbying to extend the no-take zone.

The next day, I find myself in the sparse, neatly kept home of Hadir Yelkom, an elder of Yellu village on Misool island itself, an hour's ride by speedboat from Misool Eco Resort. He welcomes the businesses that have moved in: "Before, we couldn't stop outsiders from fishing here illegally because we couldn't catch them in our long boats," he says, referring to the encroachment of big industrial boats from other parts of Indonesia and as far afield as the Philippines. "The local businesses gave us speedboats to chase them and now they don't come anymore." Having a bunch of fierce-looking Papuans confiscate your fishing gear before politely asking you to leave is clearly a strong deterrent.

A group of children peer in at us from the doorway; others are doing back flips off the jetty for the benefit of the photographer. It is afternoon, and most of the adults are at work in the nearby pearl farm, a relatively sustainable marine industry since oysters need optimal conditions to bear pearls – plus vigilant security.

For its part, Misool Eco Resort employs more than 60 people, many of them from Yellu. But the village does more than provide a workforce, it's also the leaseholder and proprietor of a vast tract of marine territory that not even the Indonesian government would dispute. The three NGOs working in the area, Conservation International, The Nature Conservancy and World Wildlife Fund have recognised the value of this clan-based system of ancestral tenure and are concentrating their efforts on making conservation goals dovetail with those of local people, using sustainable tourism as an economic incentive. Working closely with government and local communities, they've managed to establish seven Marine Protected Areas – the challenge now is to manage them effectively.

But the NGOs weren't the first people to engage with this place; rather a few intrepid pioneers who came for reasons other than conservation. After a week at Eco Misool Resort, I meet the man I'm told blazed Raja Ampat's watery trails.

A dugong is not something I ever imagined laying eyes upon, much less from the air. From an altitude of 250m, it is a pale silhouette against the blue, whale-shaped to my untrained eye. The pilot, Max Ammer, spotted it, even though he was busy keeping our two-seater ultralight aloft.

"This is absolutely the best way to patrol Raja Ampat," the Dutchman tells me over the intercom. As if to prove his point, we spot a ramshackle vessel in a concealed bay, leaking a slick of oil. We promptly dive to 20m to let the crew know they've been seen.

Max runs Papua Diving, run from two resorts on the island of Kri, close to Raja Ampat's biggest island, Waigeo. He first came out to Raja Ampat 20 years ago, in search of military hardware abandoned when the war in the Pacific ended abruptly with the atomic bomb. He sold vintage parts retrieved from jungles and underwater wrecks to collectors, made a tidy sum and diversified into dive tourism, building Sorido Bay, the area's only other luxury resort, a collection of seven bungalows and a first-floor lounge restaurant that resembles a traditional long house. His other project, Kri Eco Resort, a 10-minute walk round a headland, is more basic but visually captivating – six houses on stilts around a jetty, with a backdrop of electric-green rainforest. The diving here is as spectacular as at Misool, but different, with lots of hard corals and thick schools of big, pelagic fish.

Like Andrew and Marit, Max has close links with local communities and conservation groups. He employs around 100 staff, most of them Papuan, and is committed to investing in their training and education – many of his dive masters used to be fishermen. His dive manager, Otto Awom, a big, softly spoken man who regales me with local folktales one evening, has been his friend and collaborator for 16 years.

The plane was bought with a grant from Conservation International, with the proviso that Max conduct regular patrols looking for illegal boats and signs of destructive fishing practices. While he's largely positive about conservation efforts, he echoes a sense of urgency and frustration I also detected in Misool: "It's like having a ship with a leak and measuring how long it will take before it sinks. You have to fix the leak first." He believes more effort should be directed towards enforcing no-fishing zones and eradicating destructive fishing practices. "And then education, that's the most important thing in the long term," he adds.

Like so many hitherto-unexplored frontiers, Raja Ampat is emerging as a viable "destination". The resorts I stayed at had guests from the UK, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Germany as well as Asia – most, though not all of them, divers. The diving vanguard will soon be followed by other adventurers – both Misool Eco Resort and Papua Diving are planning to offer kayaking trips, and rock climbers will be drawn to the rugged monoliths that dot the islands. And I'm told the birdwatching is world-class. The challenge will be to develop tourism in tandem with conservation and community. These resorts are excellent examples of how that can work.

Way to go

Where to stay

Seven nights in a one-bedroom cottage at Misool Eco Resort costs from €1,490 per person, including transfers, all meals and one night with dinner en route in Sorong. A seven-night package at Kri Eco Resort with full board and four dives a day costs from €1,260 per person. A similar package at Sorido Bay costs from €1,791.

Getting there

Emirates flies to Jakarta from Gatwick from £471 return including taxes. Flights from Jakarta to Sorong cost about £100 with Express Air or Merpati. Boat transfers to Misool and Kri leave Sorong in the early afternoon.

Further information

All visitors to Raja Ampat must purchase a Rupiah 500,000 (£36) conservation fee. This can be done in Sorong at the JE Meridien hotel , or at the resorts.

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