ARTICLE IN PRESS

0308-597X/$ - s

doi:10.1016/j.m

�Tel.: +617 4

E-mail addr

Marine Policy 30 (2006) 357–359

www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

Concern for Southern Ocean fish stocks and bird populations

Colin Hunt�

Economy and Environment, 4 Oak Street, Yungaburra, QLD 4884, Australia

Received 22 March 2005; accepted 24 April 2005

Abstract

The paper highlights the challenges faced by parties to the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (SBT). The

parent stock of SBT is at historically very low levels and the probability of stock recovery under present catch quota levels is also

low. Seabird kill associated with longlining for SBT is now a major concern and several species of endangered Albatross could be

heading for extinction unless improved methods of bird exclusion are widely adopted in the SBT longline fishery. Australia in

particular has much to lose if these trends are not reversed.

r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Southern Bluefin Tuna; Seabird

1. Introduction

The fates of valuable species of fish and several speciesof birds seem, on the evidence, to literally hang in thebalance. Australia must play a very strong hand if it is toavoid being portrayed as a collaborator in the collapseof the Southern Bluefin Tuna (SBT) and of severalAlbatross species. However, ‘‘out of sight, out of mind’’is how one could characterise the potential resource andecological calamities playing out in the Southern Ocean,adjacent to Australia. This article therefore seeks tomake the issues of resource management in the SouthernOcean more prominent (Fig. 1).

2. Overfishing and stocks

Like other tuna fisheries the SBT fishery is charac-terised by being subject to the forces of economicglobalisation, i.e. increasing trade and capital flows andconstantly improving technology [2].

ee front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

arpol.2005.04.004

0953532.

ess: colinhunt@bigpond.com.

Catches rose rapidly to extreme heights in the late1950s and 1960s—the Japanese catch peaking at over80,000 tonnes in 1960. The Japanese catch tended todecline thereafter but the Australian fleet increased itseffort and its catch topped 20,000 tonnes in 1982 [3].

Steeply declining catches throughout the 1980s causedalarm bells to ring, and in 1989 SBT quotas wereintroduced for the catches of Australia, Japan and NewZealand. The Commission for the Conservation of SBT(the Commission) was subsequently established in 1994,charged with managing SBT stocks.

However, internal disagreements have threatened toundermine the effectiveness of the Commission. Accord-ing to Small [4] the Japanese have disagreed over thelevel of catch quotas, established an extensive researchfishery over and above their quota and moreoverreduced the number of monitoring observers on vesselsto below that called for by New Zealand and Australia.

Catch quotas did not initially apply to non-membersof the Commission: Korea, Taiwan and Indonesia; andup until year 2000 only 75% of the total catch wascapped. When Korea and Taiwan were brought into theCommission’s fold in 2002, the overall quota wasincreased to 14,030 tonnes to accommodate them.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

y1960

y1970y1980

y1990y2000

010

2030

4050

6070

8090

100

Per

cen

t o

f 19

60 s

tock

Fig. 2. SBT parental biomass. Source of data: CSIRO [5].

Fig. 1. Southern Bluefin Tuna, Thunnus maccoyii. Source: [1].

Fig. 3. Black-browed Albatross, Thalassarche melanophrys, one of the

species most affected by longline fishing. Source: [9].

C. Hunt / Marine Policy 30 (2006) 357–359358

Total catch, accounting for that of non-members, isnow as high as 17,000 tonnes. Meanwhile, the parentalbiomass is estimated to have declined to only 4–19% ofits 1960 size (see chart, Fig. 2) [3].

On the Australian government’s own assessment thestock is still being overfished [3]. As a consequence,according to the Commission’s own scientists [6] there isapproximately a 72% chance that current catches willresult in a reduction in stocks in 2020—the year targetedby the Commission for stock recovery. The Australiangovernment agrees that, because catches have notdecreased, there is little chance of that recovery objectivewill be achieved [3]. Worldwide concern over the state ofSBT stocks has been such that the species is officiallylisted as ‘critically endangered’ by the World Conserva-tion Union.

Australia’s tuna quota is all taken by purse-seine,unlike that of New Zealand, Japan, Korea and Taiwan,which is taken mostly by longline. Australia’s catchconcentrates on juvenile SBT which are transferred tofattening pens off the coast of South Australia at Port

Lincoln. The fattened tuna are sold in the lucrativeJapanese markets.

Because juveniles are exclusively targeted by theAustralian fishery, a question could be asked whetheran imbalance might develop in SBT breeding stocks.

3. Ecological concerns of SBT farming

There is considerable disquiet about the ecologicalimpacts of tuna farms, which have been dubbed‘feedlots of the ocean’. Concerns extend to impacts onwild stocks of pilchards that are harvested elsewhere andimported to feed the Port Lincoln tuna.

The in situ ecological concerns centre on the potentialdeleterious effects of the concentrations of effluentgenerated by the farmed fish, akin to that from urbansewage outfalls but not regulated. Fish farm feedingpractices have provided a food source for Silver gullsand Pacific gulls and their increased numbers, accordingto the Conservation Council of South Australia, havereplaced local seabird populations [7]. A further impactis on dolphins, whose entanglement in the tunaenclosures is said to be their greatest cause of death [8].

4. Albatross species threatened

Also reduced to ‘critically endangered’, ‘endangered’or ‘vulnerable’ levels by tuna fishing are 14 species ofAlbatross (including the fabled Wandering Albatross)that are distributed through the Southern Ocean areaunder the management of the Commission [4].

Albatross are drowned by being fatally attracted tothe baited hooks payed out over the sterns of tunalongline fishing boats (Fig. 3).

The Commission has established a seabird bycatchmitigation measure requiring its vessels to employ

ARTICLE IN PRESSC. Hunt / Marine Policy 30 (2006) 357–359 359

bird-scaring devices south of 301 South. But, accordingto Small [4], the Commission is not monitoring thecompliance with, or the effectiveness of, this measureand is not collecting data on Albatross kill.

Even if it were, the Commission would probably findthat the incidence of death was still appalling even withbird-scaring devices deployed. Japanese researchers [10]estimate that Japan’s longline fleet kills 6000–9000 seabirds a year despite the fact that its vessels are requiredto use the preventive devices.

An additional issue is the level of illegal, unreportedor unregulated fishing for SBT and the high level of birddeaths associated with it. The UK-based NGO, BirdLifeInternational [11] estimates that over 100,000 birds,including tens of thousands of Albatross are killedannually by pirate tuna vessels operating in the South-ern Ocean.

5. Challenges for Australia and the commission

Apart from illustrating the difficulty of managing astock that is fished by several disparate nations, this casestudy illustrates that, to be effective, quotas must meettwo criteria. First, quotas must apply to most of thecatch; second, the overall cap must be set at a level thatwill guarantee ecological sustainability. To be effectivethe Commission must include Indonesia and other morerecent fishers targeting SBT. From the evidence it can beargued that only a reduction of SBT quotas across theboard will guarantee the long-term recovery of SBTstocks and of the fishery.

Another enormous challenge is to increase the levelsof surveillance and apprehension necessary to reduceillegal fishing. Not only do illegal fishers undermine tunamanagement by falling outside tuna management andquota agreements but they also fail to employ Albatrossscaring devices.

Australia has a crucial role to play in the Commissionfor the Conservation of SBT and, moreover, it has agreat deal to lose if tuna stocks fail to recover andAlbatross species are driven to extinction. However, thepoor cohesion demonstrated to exist within the Com-mission suggests that Australia’s negotiating skills willbe tested to the limit.

References

[1] Google Images. http://images.google.com.au/images?hl=en&lr=

&q=+southern+bluefin+tuna+&btnG=Search. www.warre-

n.usyd.edu.au/bulletin/NO34/fish1.jpg, 2005.

[2] Hunt C. Economic globalisation impacts on Pacific marine

resources. Marine Policy 2003;27(1):79–85.

[3] Australian Government. Southern Bluefin Tuna fishery, Fisheries

status reports. http://www.affa.gov.au/, 2005.

[4] Small C. Regional Fisheries Management Organizations: their

duties and performance in reducing bycatch of albatrosses and

other species, BirdLife Global Seabird Programme, BirdLife

International, Sandy, Bedfordshire, UK, 2005.

[5] CSIRO. Southern Bluefin Tuna, media and information sheet.

http://www.marine.csiro.au/LeafletsFolder/31sbt/31sbt.html,

2005.

[6] Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna,

Report of the fifth meeting of the Stock Assessment Group, 6–11

September, Seogwipo City, Jeju, Republic of Korea: 4. http://

www.ccsbt.org/docs/meeting_r.html, 2004.

[7] Conservation Council of South Australia. http://www.ccsa.

asn.au/news/tunavic.html, 1999.

[8] South Australian Government, State of the environment report,

Environmental Protection Agency, Adelaide. http://www.

environment.sa.gov.au/, 2003.

[9] Thomas R. http://www.birdlife.net/, 2005.

[10] Kiyota M, Takeuchi M. Estimation of incidental take of seabirds

in the Japanese Southern Bluefin Tuna long-line fishery in

2001–2002. Paper presented to the fifth meeting of the Ecologi-

cally Related Species Group, Wellington, New Zealand, 2–5

February, 2004; cited by [4].

[11] BirdLife International. http://www.birdlife.net/, 2005.