In recent years, illegal fishing has accounted for at least 20-50% of the global catch, leading to plummeting fish stocks. This unscrupulous robbing of the livelihoods of local fishermen also has a human cost, as the industry profits off the backs of migrant workers, many of whom are in debt bondage.

—

Global fish stocks have been plummeting due to illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing in many maritime regions of the world. Satellite imagery has revealed fleets of fishing boats plundering various coasts around the world, particularly in developing nations, many of which are located in exclusive economic zones and territories that do not have strict regulated control structures for fisheries. 

Currently, nearly 20% of all IUU activities take place in West African nations such as Mauritania, Senegal, Gambia, Cape Verde and Sierra Leone, where industrial fleets target areas that have been traditionally reserved for small-scale fishing communities. In these nations, IUU fishing is estimated to account for up to 40% of all fish caught! IUU activities are also prevalent in the Galapagos, where Chinese fishing fleets were recently found to be scooping up sea life in the marine biodiversity hotspot just outside the 200-mile legal zone. This in itself is not illegal, but when local authorities attempted to apprehend the vessels, they turned their tracking systems off to avoid being spotted, which is not allowed. 

Other affected nations include Indonesia, where government authorities have admitted how difficult it is to track IUU vessels due to the country’s many islands and archipelagos. Various nations in the Western Central Pacific Ocean, such as Palau, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands, also have high rates of IUU fishing for similar reasons. 

To cut costs, IUU fleets often employ underpaid migrant workers from Southeast Asia and Africa, many of whom are subject to frequent physical and verbal abuse. Kaohsiung, Taiwan, and Cape Town, South Africa, are key connection hubs for the movement of these forced labourers. Forced to work up to 20 hours a day, many migrant workers have no choice but to continue working, since they are often in debt bondage. This means that they are forced to work to repay transportation from one port to another. The only way these labourers can get out of debt bondage is to work until the crew captains have deemed that they have worked enough. Oftentimes, this means they will work indefinitely, until they manage to escape or are rescued. The UN has declared this to be a form of slavery.

You might also like: Book Review: Ocean of Life: The Fate of Man and the Sea

IUU fishing is attractive because of the lack of taxes or duties. As such, IUU fleets often target expensive species such as salmon and lobster (inexpensive species like cod are also targeted due to their popularity), which are already overexploited by legal fisheries and are often subject to taxes and restrictions. By turning off their transponders, fleets can take as many fish as they want without the fear of getting caught. Only affluent nations such as Norway, for instance, can afford strict controls in the waters under their jurisdiction and utilise satellite and camera technology to detect illicit fishing. 

Enacted in 2009, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)’s Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (PSMA) was the first international treaty designed to prevent and suppress IUU fishing. The US then established the Seafood Import Monitoring Program in December 2016 to address IUU fishing products entering the market. 

Accordingly, Australian and American fleets have started using cameras combined with machine learning to spot suspicious behaviour and identify species of fish that should not be there (i.e., species from no-catch zones). These species are identified and recorded so they can be compared to what fishers report in their logbooks, which, along with other gathered information, will be used to map, track, and disrupt IUU fishing and prevent and stop the movement of forced labourers. 

No-catch zones – which are marine protected areas that bar fishing, mining, drilling and other potentially exploitative activities – may also be useful in preventing IUU fishing. However, studies have revealed that the usefulness of no-catch zones is largely dependent on whether the pattern of fish dispersal is density dependent. When population density is high due to restrictions on fishing, this may increase competition for food or space, thereby affecting traits such as body growth, reproductive patterns and mortality, as well as encouraging fish to disperse to other (i.e., less competitive) areas outside of the no-catch zones. 

As a result, when the pattern of fish dispersal in a no-catch zone is density dependent, stricter controls on IUU fishing in reserves or in legal fishing areas may actually increase the aggregate level of illegal fishing. This is particularly the case “in a fishery where illegal fishing can only be partially controlled.” Accordingly, researchers and policy-makers must take into account the effects of density dependence when determining how useful no-catch zones would be in preventing IUU fishing.

One thing is for certain – the global community needs to work together to address the systemic issues that cause IUU fishing. The Pew Charitable Trusts has developed an international conservation program that aims to promote better fishing practices and end IUU fishing. They have suggested a global system that will help to provide a cost-effective way for developing and developed nations alike to “identify, monitor, deter and prosecute [those who ultimately benefit from and support] illegal fishing.”

This enforcement system is currently in the works. It will require all fishing vessels that operate in waters beyond national jurisdiction to have satellite transponders and unique vessel identification numbers, ensure countries implement port state controls consistent with the PSMA, and establish ways for the food service sector to identify and prevent ill-gotten fish from entering the supply chain.

As Pew strengthens and builds more partnerships with governments, industries, and NGOs, we will move closer to curbing IUU fishing.

Featured image by: Flickr 

The post Illegal Fishing Devastates the Seas and Abuses Crews appeared first on Earth.Org.

Callum Roberts’ 2013 book, Ocean of Life: The Fate of Man and the Sea, follows the fascinating relationship between man and water. A powerful warning to save our oceans before it is too late, this book does not hold back – it shows us just how much of an impact overfishing, pollution and climate change have had on marine life. 

—

Roberts starts Ocean of Life by putting our exploitation of the ocean into historical context. He holds a magnifying glass to humanity’s relationship with the ocean, critiquing how – especially since the Industrial Revolution – we have treated the ocean as our personal food source and trash can, without considering the negative impact that our selfishness has had on marine life. 

To start off, this book is incredibly well-researched and presented. Roberts’ sentences are delightfully concise and precise, never long-winded or pretentious. There is no purple prose here – Roberts’ arguments are straightforward, convincing and well-cited, making his work easy to digest and understand. 

Despite how packed with information this book is, it never comes off as sensationalist or alarmist. Rather, the tone of this book is informative and empathetic. Unlike some authors, who can be myopically anthropocentric at times, Roberts is compassionate towards animals and humans alike (perhaps unsurprising as he is a marine biologist). Accordingly, he has included striking photos to illustrate the devastating impact of pollution on marine life, the most memorable of which shows a dead flamingo with plastic in its stomach.

Furthermore, instead of speculating about what may happen in the future, Roberts sticks to proven facts and viable solutions. This makes his book stand out from other recent environmentalist works’ inability to offer solutions for the “doomsday scenarios” they present through their barrage of facts and statistics. The last quarter of Ocean of Life is packed with potential solutions that industries, companies, governments and ordinary people can adopt. 

You might also like: Why are Corals Glowing?

Ocean of Life stands out in particular for outlining the impact of overfishing on marine life. As he writes, the industry’s assumption that “there are always more fish in the sea” is dangerous, since they continue to rely on this assumption even when there is clear evidence to the contrary. Overfishing has led to smaller catches, depleted ecosystems and shrunken fish. As an example, in Key West, Florida, goliath grouper fish have been shrinking in size and abundance since the 1950s. Roberts emphasises this point by including photos that illustrate just how much these fish have shrunk. In the 1950s, the goliath groupers were as tall as the men posing with them, but by 2007, the fish had shrunk to a portion of their original size. As Roberts notes grimly, “[m]odern-day tourists [travelling to Key West] have no idea that anything has changed”- the grins on the anglers’ face are “just as broad today as they were in the 1950s.”

Unfortunately, we may be more like these tourists and anglers than we think. Most of us are currently experiencing what Roberts calls the “shifting baseline syndrome,” in which “we take for granted things that two generations ago would have seemed inconceivable.” This is why so many of us are still in denial about “creeping environmental degradation.” One of Roberts’ goals in this book is to address this shifting baseline syndrome by telling us what exactly is at risk. “History offers many examples of civilisations that have been destroyed by environmental catastrophes that they have unwittingly brought on themselves,” he recounts. The Mayans’ hillslope farming practices, for example, depleted their region of topsoil, leading to prolonged drought and the end of the Mayan civilisation. Like the Mayans, we too will bring about our own demise if we do not stop to think of the consequences of our actions. 

All in all, Roberts’ tour de force is a sobering read. Not only is it full of relevant facts about the ocean and human history, but the last quarter of the book also provides us with realistic solutions for the problems canvassed in the first three-quarters of the book. I recommend it for anyone interested in saving our oceans – which should be everyone.

The post Book Review: Ocean of Life: The Fate of Man and the Sea appeared first on Earth.Org.

David Wallace-Wells’ 2019 book, The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming presents a terrifying prognosis for the future of our planet – that if things continue at the present pace, large parts of the planet will become uninhabitable by 2100.

—

Inspired by his 2017 New York Magazine article of the same name, Wallace-Wells’ book builds upon his previously established arguments, outlining how the future can still be salvaged despite the damage humanity has already done. This book also addresses why we, as a species, are so indifferent to climate change despite all the information we have about its disastrous consequences. 

Wallace-Wells’ facts are generally well-presented and laid out. The opening chapter, “Cascades,” is particularly poignant, as it lays out exactly what is at stake if we do not take the steps to rectify the damage we have already wrecked upon the environment. He pulls no punches. “It is worse, much worse, than you think,” Wallace-Wells writes. “The force of retribution will cascade down to us through nature, but the cost to nature is only one part of the story; we will all be hurting.”

You might also like: UN Warns of Famine Risk in Four Countries

The Uninhabitable Earth, however, can be a dry read. Many of Wallace-Wells’ paragraphs are long barrages of statistics and speculation. After a hundred or so pages (this book is over three hundred pages in total), it is easy to get tired of Wallace-Wells’ repetitive writing style. His prose is not beautiful – it is unnecessarily arcane, and merely functional in that it serves the purpose of showing you how humanity is doomed, but is in no way memorable, fun or even easy to read. Some of his sentences take up nearly the whole page! 

Wallace-Wells’ scope is also quite narrow. He chooses to focus almost exclusively on what may happen to humanity once we go through the predicted 2 to 8 degrees Celsius of warming between now and 2100, which makes the scope of his work rather myopic for a work focused on the environment. As he freely admits, he is not and never has been an environmentalist. In fact, he admits, he is “like every other American who has spent their life fatally complacent, and wilfully deluded, about climate change,” and has only recently awoken to the horrific future humanity may have unwittingly created for itself. Given his background, it is not entirely surprising that he says little about how climate change will impact other species. However, Wallace-Wells comes off as particularly insensitive about the impact of climate change on animals and other non-human lifeforms, even saying at one point that “the world could lose much of what we think of as nature, as far as I cared, so long as we could go on living as we have in the world left behind.” Ultimately, his anthropocentric perspective is a missed opportunity to discuss just how dangerous climate change is for all living things, not just humanity. 

In general, the book says too little about what we can do to prevent this doomsday scenario from occurring. Accordingly, many of Wallace-Wells’ critics have criticised his book as being overly alarmist. Although we do not and cannot dispute any of the facts he has laid out, we will have to agree with his critics that his over-focus on past events, major incidents, and what may happen in the future as a result of our past actions detracts from the overall impact of his book. The Uninhabitable Earth would have been a much more powerful piece of work had Wallace-Wells provided more insight or suggestions as to how to fix the problems we are currently facing. Ultimately, he comes off as all talk and no action. 

Wallace-Wells’ research is also lacking at times, making his book unfocused and strikingly unfactual in places (despite, and perhaps in spite, of his barrage of facts). Certain chapters of this book – in particular, the chapter on the economic consequences of climate change – have surprisingly few citations for a work that is otherwise packed with facts. In a similar vein, when he mentions how “many of the planet’s largest lakes have begun drying up, from the Aral Sea in central Asia […], to Lake Mead […],” he provides no concrete proof that these changes are caused by climate change. After throwing names of various lakes and seas that are drying up at the audience, Wallace-Wells concludes this paragraph with a vague “[c]limate change is only one factor in this story, but its impact is not going to shrink over time.” 

All in all, I really wanted to like The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming. It works as a cautionary tale, but Wallace-Wells’ abrasive bombardment of statistics without proper explanation, myopically anthropocentric perspective and lack of concrete suggestions for how we can protect our planet ultimately make this book an unenjoyable slog of a read. 

The post Book Review: The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming by David Wallace-Wells appeared first on Earth.Org.

The Draft Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification 2020 in India, drafted by the Indian Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) with the intention to overhaul the process of environmental regulation of infrastructure projects, has been widely criticised for its “pro-industry” and “anti-environment” legislation clauses, which may regularise projects that violate environmental norms.

—

The Draft EIA Notification 2020 is a formal legal decision-making process enacted to examine, evaluate and predict the environmental impact of any developmental project or programme. According to the MoEFCC, this notification seeks to make the decision-making process more transparent and expedient “through [the] implementation of [an] online system, further delegations, rationalisation, standardisation of the process, etc.”. 

Many believe, however, that the notification was drafted in such a way that allows for industries to continue turning a blind eye to environmental concerns. Echoing the sentiments of many activists, environmental groups, students and biologists, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi described the notification as “a disaster [which] seeks to silence the voice of communities who will be directly impacted by the environmental degradation it unleashes.”

You might also like: How China Could Become Carbon Neutral by 2060

Critics have particularly taken issue with how 40-plus types of industries – including but not limited to clay and sand extraction and the creation of solar thermal power plants – are exempt from prior environment clearance (EC) with the approval of expert committees or prior environmental permission or provision (EP) without the approval of expert committees. These industries were previously required to secure prior EC or EP. Further, some projects – such as irrigation, production of chemical fertilisers, acid manufacturing, and the development of roads, highways and buildings – are totally exempt from public consultation. 

Solar energy projects are likely included in this notification because they reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, however this overlooks environmental concerns such as the requirement of large land area, diversion of agricultural land and changes to drainage patterns brought on by the construction and operation of solar parks. 

The undertaking of an EIA is a minimum environment and social safeguard and the lack of them may discourage investment. For example, The World Bank, which funds solar projects in India, including the Rewa Solar Park in Madhya Pradesh, insists on an EIA before embarking on projects, something that this “anti-environment” draft legislation violates.

As many critics have argued, the notification’s endorsement of this ex post facto environmental clearance goes against the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Rohit Prajapati, which had struck down such clearance as unconstitutional. In the words of the Supreme Court, “allowing for an ex post facto clearance essentially condones the operation of industrial activities without the grant of an EC (environmental clearance). In the absence of an EC, there would be no conditions that would safeguard the environment…” 

Further, the period for public consultation on projects has been reduced from 30 to 20 days, endangering the tenets of public participation. It even exempts massive construction projects under category B2 from having to conduct public consultations at all before seeking environmental clearance.

It also creates confusion as to how the country will embark on environmental projects in the face of its membership in the Rio declaration adopted by the UN in 1992, which calls for EIAs. They are also required under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and United Nations Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC), both of which India is a party to, which both contain a requirement to have a prior EIA in situations having a significant threat to the environment. 

Accordingly, if the draft notification is passed as law in its current form, it will set a very bad precedent for the future. As environmental lawyer, Parul Gupta, wrote in a document by Vindhyan Ecology and Natural History Foundation, “the proposed safeguards of penalties and compensations are inadequate to counter the inevitable and irreversible ecological destruction. It is submitted that if the Draft Notification is implemented, it will ultimately lead to unscientific and unsustainable development.” 

Hopefully, the Ministry of Environment in India will take this outcry into account and withdraw or modify this “anti-environment” draft legislation. As Shibani Gosh – fellow, Centre for Policy Research and Advocate-on-Record, Supreme Court – reminds us, the Ministry of Environment needs to “be clear about its role – its mandate is to create and sustain a regulatory framework that prevents the plunder of our natural resources, not actively accelerate the pace of environmental devastation.”

The post Public Outcry in India Over New ‘Anti-Environment’ Legislation appeared first on Earth.Org.

An international team of 22 researchers led by National University of Singapore (NUS) has found that the global loss rate of mangrove forests is less alarming than what has been previously suggested, a welcome development for one of the most valuable ecosystems on the planet. 

—

According to Dr. Daniel A. Friess of NUS, loss rates of mangrove forests were estimated at 1% to 3% per year during the late 20th century. Now, the loss rate has dropped to 0.3% to 0.6%. This drastic drop is due to successful mangrove conservation efforts around the globe.

Mangroves are trees or shrubs that grow along the coastlines of more than 100 countries in subtropical or tropical regions. They provide two different types of habitats for a bustling variety of fauna: underwater roots and tree and shrub foliage above ground. Mangrove roots, in particular, are home to a diversity of invertebrates (particularly crabs, snails and worms) and fish. 

Mangroves also possess root systems that reduce water pollution by absorbing inorganic substances. Notably, mangroves are excellent at storing carbon from the atmosphere, making them great air purifiers.

Mangrove forests offer many benefits to people, including protection from coastal erosion and storm damage. They also provide people with products such as fuelwood, construction materials and fisheries resources, since mangroves act as nurseries for many coastal fish. 

You might also like: Massive Crater Discovered in Siberia: Did the Climate Crisis Cause It?

According to Dr. Stefano Cannicci’s research, Hong Kong’s mangroves in particular harbour “eight species of trees, fifty-three species of crabs and forty-two species of snails, which is more than what is currently known for the mangrove forests of the whole African continent.” 

The team determined that the reduction in mangrove global loss rates is the product of improved monitoring and data access, changing industrial practices, expanded management and protection, increased focus on rehabilitation and stronger recognition of the ecosystem services provided by mangroves.

In Hong Kong, for instance, much has been done in the past 20 years to conserve mangrove forests. The government of Hong Kong has attempted to preserve mangroves by designating marine parks and reserves to protect marine habitats throughout Hong Kong. The Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar and the surrounding Inner Deep Bay wetlands is one of these reserves. Home to tens of thousands of migratory waterbirds, the Mai Po Nature Reserve and the surrounding wetlands have been recognised as a Wetland of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention since 1995. Mangroves in Hong Kong represent the largest remaining mangrove patch within the Pearl River Delta. 

However, mangroves continue to be threatened by aquaculture, agriculture and urban development. Southeast Asia is a hotspot for mangrove deforestation as mangroves are cut down to make space for aquaculture ponds, cleared for rice paddy cultivation and reclaimed for industrial development. 

“However, despite recent mangrove conservation successes, tempered optimism is necessary, as conservation gains are not evenly spread, nor guaranteed into the future,” cautions Dr. Friess. Countries such as Myanmar, Indonesia and Malaysia continue to show rates of loss that are substantially above the global average, due to the rapid expansion of rice cultivation in Myanmar and the rise of oil palm plantations in Malaysia and Indonesia. This is why conservationists need to make sure that conserved and rehabilitated mangrove systems are ecologically functional and adaptable to challenges such as sea-level rise, deforestation and damming. 

The post Global Loss Rate of Mangrove Forests Has Dropped appeared first on Earth.Org.