With Department of Fisheries Closed Its Not Such A Merry Time For All!!!

As of now the fishing industry has yet to receive a response from the Fisheries Department and as it currently stands, all tuna pole vessels will have to be in port no later than midnight of the 31st of December. The Fresh Tuna Exporters Association sent the Department of Fisheries a legal letter from our lawyers for a request within grounds stipulated in the Marine Living Resource Act motivating for for the extension of all current permits until the end of January 2014. This extension will allow sufficient time for the department to pulls its finger out of what ever orifice it currently has it stuck up and roll out the rights allocation in line with the FRAP 2013. Despite the ever wise Minister guaranteeing that all rights will be allocated no later than the 31st of December, they have not been able to even respond to formal letters sent by industry such as the letter from the FTEA addressed to the minister below:

We will have to see what their official response will be on Monday upon their opening but I wouldn't dare hold my breath. The below article by John Yeld was extracted from the Cape Times and highlights the extent of this issue:

Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries’ Incompetence Prevents Fishing

 As of today, the decisions in the Fishing Rights Allocation Process (FRAP) 2013 have not yet been handed down and notified to the public. Given that existing rights expire on 31 December 2013 this is a cause of great concern for many right holders as they will have to return to port and cease fishing operations. To date no clarity has been given by Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) on an exact date when applicants can expect decisions, however, DAFF has reiterated its undertaking that rights will be allocated and applicant’s notified of decisions before midnight on 31 December 2013. This does not help as the vessels will have to remain berthed in ports until the rights can be issued and paid for.

It is anticipated that if DAFF complies with its undertaking, that successful applicants will be advised of the decision to allocate them a right along with rules to govern the dispensation that will allow them to continue their fishing operations. To date DAFF has provided no clarity as to how it intends to allow for the seamless transition from the expiry of the long term rights period to the new rights period without interrupting critical fishing operations. If no guidance is provided by DAFF or no special dispensation is created (which is envisaged) then in terms of the MLRA successful applicants will not be entitled to commence fishing operations in 2014 until they hold a valid catching permit for 2014.

The Letter below is from the Fresh Tuna Exporters Association addressed to DAFF and from which we have still not received a positive response.

Our concern at this stage is that the longer the publication of decisions takes the less time it allows successful applicants to obtain permits. We have been advised by Customer Services at DAFF that their offices close on Tuesday, 24 December 2013 at 10h00 and will reopen on Thursday, 2 January 2014 at 8h30. This effectively means the successful applicants will not be able to apply for permits if the decision on applications is made or publicised any later than 10h00 on this coming Tuesday morning.

Dawson and Edwards have advised that concerned applicants submit a letter to DAFF on Monday or Tuesday morning, prior to closing of the Customer Services Centre, applying to the Minister for an exemption in terms of Section 81 of the Marine Living Resources Act. This exemption application would be a request by existing right holder applicants to continue their fishing operations in January or until such time as they are issued with a valid 2014 catching permit by DAFF without a right or a valid catching permit. As things currently stand rumors suggest that unsuccessful long term rights holding applicants will not be permitted to continue fishing between the period of the notification of the delegated authority’s decision and the finalization of the appeal by the Minister. This would, of course, have disastrous effects for the businesses of any unsuccessful applicants and could well destroy existing businesses.

  

Currently the entire fleet is at sea and are unaware of these issues and it has been up to the respective tuna associations to apply on their behalf for the the extension. With the past 2-3 years of tuna fishing having been disastrous, the impacts of the grounding of the fleet would have extreme consequences on the local fishermen and their families. With the recent good run of tuna catches, the lack of understanding and urgency from DAFF is very worrying. The minister has assured that rights will be issued before the end of the year, but not even the amount payable by successful applicants has been gazetted yet. Basically, even if you are awarded a right, the government doesn't know how much you would need to pay for it. 

Merry Xmas DAFF

Namibia’s Success Leaves South African Fishing Industry Shrugging Its shoulders

The recent newspaper article “Namibia limits oil exploration to cater for tuna migration” has left a bitter impression on their neighboring tuna industry in South Africa. Anna Erastus, a senior Namibian fisheries ministry official in conjunction with the Namibian Large Pelagic and Hake Long Line Association has successfully managed to postpone all seismic testing near the South African border in close proximity to Tripp Seamount. The oil exploration will now be conducted outside of the traditional tuna catching months when the albacore tuna (main target specie) migrate up the Benguela Current from South African waters. Following suit with the Australian blue fin tuna industries headway with seismic testing, the Namibian testing will now only be conducted during winter months namely, May to September when these species are absent. This has shown to not impede on the migration of the tuna and subsequent catches have been improved. The Namibian catches have gone from 4000 tons in 2011 to a mere 650 tons last year showing a steady decline in catch rates whilst seismic testing has been conducted.

                                                      News Paper Article 26.11.2013

All this effort would have been too no avail as the South Africa Fisheries Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson has yet to even respond to formal letters addressed by her counterpart in Namibia requesting that this issue be prioritized. They have since sent her and the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs, Edna Molewa  a follow up letter but too the same avail. With the tuna migrating though SA waters up the coast and into Namibia, if South Africa still goes ahead with the proposed testing in the Orange Basin close to the border, the effects could possibly be detrimental to their season. It seems the Namibians are peeing in to that proverbial wind.

The Second Letter Addressed to Tina & Edna

With South Africa and Namibia sharing an ICCAT quota for albacore, Tina Joemat-Petterson needs to realize that it’s going to be the South African flagged vessels that will significantly loose out as these vessels are responsible for the majority of the Namibian landings. In essence, it will be local fishermen and their families that will ultimately pay the price. From a Namibian perspective, their industry relies upon the South African flagged vessels to employ the majority of their seasonal fishermen, the factories for volumes of throughput and other associated secondary services such as the ship’s agents and chandlers.

Nan Price of the Dolphin Action and Protection Group has been actively opposing the seismic testing being conducted and has commented that the effects of the underwater blasts have far reaching consequences which I will cover in a latter blog entry. For the affects of seismic testing on marine life please read an earlier blog post titled: Seismic Effects on the South African and Namibian Tuna 2012/2013 Season
.

The Spectrum Map Showing the Seismic Testing Blocks In Purple

The consequences of the seismic testing have far reaching implications and is simply a trans border issue. I could even argue that this issue should be elevated to the level of the Benguela Current Commission but alas, we can’t seem to even get our Minister to put one foot in front of the other. I wonder what will motivate her? A sizable envelope no doubt?

Priorities For ICCAT

The general public may not be aware of the international regulations/ stipulations that is being recommended from such an organisation as International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF). Their latest article highlights the importance of the Regional Fishery Management Organisation (RFMO's) to govern and regulate their respective oceans for sustainability. In Cape Town the South African government is hosting the 23rd annual International Commission  For The Conservation Of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) conference. I was unable to attend as part of the 54 man South African delegation comprising the Department of Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries (DAFF) and industry as for certain reasons. Besides this setback, I feel that the South African Tuna Pole Fishery will be well looked after by those representatives from our industry namely, The Large Pelagic SMME Association and The South African Tuna Association both of which I'm on the respective committees. Various topics will be tabled for discussion throughout this week concerning the tuna species in the North and Southern Atlantic Oceans. A more heated topic is that of the blue fin tuna with Japan and Spain baying for an increase to their respective quotas and in stiff opposition to this are the likes of Green Peace and ISSF, who will compellingly argue that scientific data proves otherwise. The South African quota is so small that our vessels manage to catch our country's quota in a matter of a few weeks and such, blue fin tuna on the long lines are simply cut off the line dead when the quota is finished. However, South Africa is in the final stages of full membership with the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) will subsequently have their quota increased substantially. South Africa which shares its quota with Namibia have consecutively under caught its ICCAT quota for albacore.

ICCAT is responsible for the management of the tuna stocks within the Atlantic and thus allocate Total Allowable Catch (TAC's) to each nation with an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the Atlantic. Based on their scientific research conducted on stock assessment, they will issue each complying nation with a respective quota for each specie. ICCAT ensures that sufficient management systems are in place and functional to ensure correct governance of each flag state as well as a comprehensive fishing vessel register. In short the Atlantic tuna is only as well governed as the flag state within that particular stock is being caught and ICCAT ensures with all its checks and balances that thus is so.

The ISSF has notably made recommendations to ICCAT on the global issues of Harvest Control Rules and predetermined Reference Points to avoid and prevent over fishing of the stocks. ISSF is pushing for a closed vessel registry and a cap placed on the total number of fishing vessels allowed to actively fish in the Atlantic. Currently ICCAT does have this in place, but the ISSF is rallying even further for the reduction of the total fleet capacity to more acceptable levels. Under the topic of Fish Aggregating Devices (FAD's) the ISSF is challenging ICCAT for the comprehensive recording of data in log books for all catches concerning these as well as a FAD closure such as what is implemented in the Pacific for 2 months of the year. FAD's are responsible for the majority of juvenile tuna catches. Currently ICCAT does not enforce total catch retention to ensure that all tuna caught is landed and not dumped at sea. Undesirable species and sizes are discarded at sea to allow for the more valuable species to be landed.

Whilst ICCAT remains on top of all the five RFMO's with regards to compliance within the Atlantic, there is still scope for improvement from the pilot scheme that is currently been implemented by the ICCAT Compliance Committee. All in all our Atlantic Ocean is in good hands so to speak and is one of the better managed global oceans.

You Decide - Imported vs Local Wild Caught Line Fish

This argument is currently doing the rounds on our local newspapers with recent articles by journalist John Yeld namely; "‘Snoek’ imports sinking local fishers” and “Imported fish costs less,say retailers.” Both these articles provide the average consumer insight into the issues facing the local fisherman and the retailers alike.

The fisherman argue that imported Yellow Tail (Seriola Lalandi) and Snoek (Thyrsites Atun) is ruining their market with far reaching consequences for all dependent thereupon, whilst the retailers will argue it affords them the consistency for their customers at the right price. Let’s be honest here. It’s a tough and complex argument as we are discussing the livelihoods of so many artisan fishers and the consumer being positively affected by the importation of frozen line fish. The locally caught fish supplied during “fish runs” will experience a price decrease with basic economic understanding of demand vs supply. The price will fluctuate drastically depending on the volumes being caught, whereas the price for imports will be more stable according to the rate of exchange, thereby affording the retailers the opportunity to plan ahead and guarantee supply. The retailers cannot rely on the seasonal catches for regular supply and so have turned to the highly competitively priced imported farmed fish. The average consumer probably would not be able to tell the difference anyway. It is therefore not a quality issue rather that of an affected livelihood.

Whilst no one will argue the point that farmed (aquaculture) fish is not as tastier, firmer ,etc than wild caught, the public has a right to know what they are purchasing and from which origin. The manner in which we prepare and cook our “catch” also closes the gap between the fresh taste and that of the farmed with countless recipes involving complex spices.

The National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications (NRCS) has strict import regulations and all fish products are thoroughly tested prior to being released for our local consumption. There are more regulations adhered too with the importing of frozen fish than what is currently being implemented on the line fish boats. In fact there are none for these vessels operating within this fishing sector. For argument sake, most commercial fishing vessels will have to follow a strict set of guidelines called the HACCP principles (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points) which is enforced by the NRCS in other fishing sectors. This body is also responsible for all testing being done and also issues our Health Certificates for fish exports with South African origin. We currently test for lead, cadmium, mercury and histamine, just to name a few. Now the skiffs/ ski boats that are currently operating are not subject to these HACCP principles than say the commercial tuna operators are. For instance these commercial line fish vessels will have no ice on board to chill their catch ensuring the absence of histamine. Their catches are offloaded into the open back of the vehicles and simply covered by a tarp. (once again no HACCP here) The truth is that whilst the public is mostly unaware of this and other similar transgressions, the imported product is in fact healthier and safer for you to consume, provided the retailers follow the HACCP guidelines and cold chain.

The regulation of the line fishing sector by the Department Of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) is somewhat inadequate when compared to other sectors such as the hake long line and tuna pole. For instance the hake long liners have to off load their catches into a factory at the expense of the operators so as the government can enforce strict controls over quotas. Whilst the hake is a quota based or Total Allowable Catch (TAC) management, the line fish and the tuna pole sectors are Total Allowable Effort (TAE) whereby the government manages this stock by looking at the total effort sustained upon the sector’s natural resources. The traditional line fishermen are afforded the luxury of estimating their catches and paying their levies in advance. I wonder how close their estimates are to the volume that’s actually being landed?

But such is the business sense not to pay higher prices for inconsistent supply when you can import a farmed product regularly and at competitive prices. It’s literally a no brainer but the consumer needs to be well informed as to what it is exactly that they are purchasing to make an informed decision. The retailers mustn't misconstrue the already price conscious consumer with wild caught promises displays of frozen farmed fish on ice. A quick simple short term solution would be to ask the fish monger at your local retailer as to what is on display. They should know and be able to inform you to make the right purchase for you at the right price accordingly.

Whilst I understand the plight of the fishermen,   as a consumer “what affects my pocket is what counts” and if they looked after their fish from their hooks to the consumer then it could be arguably a far superior product worth paying a premium for. Until this is the case, I prefer to purchase from sea frozen and farmed sources unless it hasn't been caught on board my own boat. 

Blessing of the Fleet

 The Blessing of the Fleet was held this past Saturday and Sunday in Cape Town Harbor at the V&A Waterfront in perfect sunny conditions. The masses that participated in the weekend’s proceedings were treated to good food, music and above all witnessed a century old tradition still being enjoyed today. The blessing of the fleet has been in existence for centuries in Mediterranean fishing communities and has only been practiced in Cape Town since 1989 when the local Portuguese Community decided to celebrate this tradition as well. Today, this festival signifies the readiness of our tuna fleet as we patiently await the arrival of the tuna which usually occurs between September and October every year. And how fitting was it for the south easterly trade wind to blow, as this is the wind that also signifies the change in seasons and assists in pushing the warmer waters around our coast?

With selected vessels all being decorated in traditional fare such as palm leaves and flags, they departed for a procession around the harbor and once they were beyond the breakwater, all attending on board bare witness of the Catholic Mass and blessing for a safe and bountiful season. The vessels are blessed so that all on board may have safe return and earn an honest living. Words are also expressed for those seamen whose souls were lost at sea but never forgotten and a flowered anchor wreath is cast into the ocean in their honor. The procession returns to the quayside upon when the keenly awaited festivities of dancing and entertainment begins. Traditional Portuguese food is prepared with the same enthusiasm as one would expect from their mother’s kitchen. All funds raised from this 2 day festival are in aid of the Portuguese Cultural and Welfare Center.

The majority of tuna vessel owners and captains in South Africa are Portuguese and mostly originate from Madeira. Unfortunately for this industry, we are not seeing the younger generations following in their parent’s footsteps and pursuing a career on sea, as they would rather pursue more glamorous occupations. Rather, there is a trend for younger South African’s seeking ownership and employment within this industry. Possibly next year, we could see a change in venue to Hout Bay Harbor where I would imagine there being a better participation from the South African tuna fishermen.

With the 2013 blessing have come and gone, all are now occupied with their final preparations for this year’s (hopefully) plentiful season…so many livelihoods are at stake. 

This Channel's Credibility Is Seriously Questionable...Discovery or Disgrace???

The Discovery Channel aired “Shark Week” in the States starting on the 4th of August 2013. I was informed of the Megalodon attack near Hout Bay by concerning friends living in Boston who were shocked to have learnt that an entire fishing boat was sunk and all on board subsequently eaten by a suspected prehistoric shark. Search results indicate that the last recorded shark attack in Cape Town was on the 19th April 2012 involving body boarder David Lilienfeld near Kogel Bay and a Great White shark. There is no media coverage regarding the Megalodon attack in Hout Bay, despite the program having “actual footage” from local news broadcasters. The Discovery Channel has done themselves a serious discredit to their audience by broadcasting this fictional episode.

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/shark-week/videos/megalodon-attacks-a-boat.htm

For the record, there was never a Megalodon attack in Hout Bay, Cape Town and here’s why. The Megalodon shark was an apex predator existing around 1.5+ million years ago during the Cenozoic Era. Remains of excavated fossils suggest that they grew to a lengthy 18 meters with individual teeth diagonally measuring a staggering 170mm making this one of the most powerful predators in vertebrae history.

Pictures: Wikipedia

This shark could have easily sunk the vessel that Discovery Channel suggests but there is no convincing evidence that these once powerful creatures are still in existence. Yes, one could argue that we have yet to explore and discover all of the oceans and that the Coelacanth was a famous discovery made not so long ago off our coastal waters. So what are the chances of a Megalodon swimming off Clifton beach or Hout Bay? Very slim! An apex predator of this magnitude would have to consume vast quantities of fish and other ocean mammals to sustain its self. I couldn't imagine a Megalodon sitting down to a nice vegetarian buffet of seaweed and the likes thereof. Surely with today’s modern technology, such as sonar, we would have found a Megalodon shark - especially with the tuna fleet operating from Hout Bay Harbor, someone should have caught one by now?

According to Marine Biologist Alison Kock, in recent years an ­average of only six people have been attacked every year in South ­African ­waters, with 26 attacks since 1960. Only one in 10 shark attacks are fatal. As ­tourists in particular spend more time in the waters sharks favor off Australia, America and in the ­Pacific, globally the number of attacks is ­growing. 

Cape Town has employed the services of "Shark Spotters” at all major beaches and hot spots along the Cape Peninsula. The spotters indicate to the public any presence of sharks with a color flag system as follows:

              Shark Have Been Spotted

 High Shark Alert

                   Spotting Conditions Are Poor

                         Spotting Conditions Are Good

       

  The previous shark attack involving a British tourist was due to his own ignorance as he had been warned about the shark sightings and still chose to swim. Use your common sense and take note of the Shark Spotter flags!

Statistically speaking you are safer in the sea than your own car… scary fact! You are more likely to die from cows, ants, mosquitoes, lightning, traffic light intersection (robots) and so on, than a shark attack let alone a Megalodon. Take a look at the list of the top 25 things more likely to kill you as opposed to sharks: http://kafe.com/news/25-shocking-things-more-likely-to-kill-you-than-a-shark/. I had a good chuckle at this list.

So Discovery Channel, I must admit that your episode on the Megalodon while it was more convincing than the original Jaws Trilogy in 1975, it is still flawed. Unfortunately for the tourism industry in Cape Town, there are Americans wondering the streets back home believing everything they saw. This is a fact as I have received numerous emails and phone calls from friends abroad. So on land one might consider yourself a “big fish,” but in the ocean we are merely part of the food chain. Respect it.

REF: Discovery Channel & Wikipedia

The Affect of Seismic Surveying on Bluefin Tuna Migration in the Bight off Australia

Following on from my previous blog: Seismic Effects on the South African and Namibian Tuna 2012/2013 Season, as mentioned I would discuss the effects the seismic testing has had on the Australian’s Southern Bluefin Tuna migration and subsequent poor catches.

The Australian Southern Bluefin Tuna Industry (ASBTIA) is strongly opposing and contesting the seismic surveying being conducted in the Great Australian Bight in first half of 2013 by Bight Petroleum (a Canadian Company). The tuna industry is arguing that the surveys are being conducted near the eastern part of the Bight where the bluefin tuna migrate through.  The association has gone on to say that due to the high level of concern they were considering launching action under the Common Wealth Environment Act to put a stop to the surveys. Some 3000 locals are employed in their tuna industry both directly and indirectly. This would be ideal for us in South Africa and Namibia if we had such acts in our constitution…but alas we have no such Act but since both governments are prioritizing job creation for the unemployed I feel that this should be a priority considering the number of people employed within the fishing sector. (One would think?) 

Now back on topic, the bluefin tuna migrate normally through the Bight for approximately five months out of the year and a temporary solution would therefore be to conduct the surveys outside of these months. During November 2011 to May 2012 whilst BP was conducting their seismic surveying in the Western Bight, the migration paths of the tuna completely changed. The ASBTIA went on to say that long term documented data by CSIRO from the past 30 years indicated that the tuna migrate directly thought the surveying area each year. The Australians usually catch their tuna west of Port Lincoln and the 2012 season catch data shows the exact opposite and in fact was caught east of the port. The last time bluefin were caught near Kangaroo Island was way back in 1980 according to ASBTIA. The only change to the Australian tuna season is that of the seismic activity and this variable is now speculated to have been the real factor behind this. 

The tuna industry has since done research to try and explain the reasoning behind the change. The Australians have gone on to spend approximately AUS$20mill (A portion contributed by BP) to fund the study of the ecosystem as a whole. I can never imagine either of the Southern African countries collectively budgeting, even a small portion of this amount into the same research here. (Long may I live to eat my own words)

On the political front there are two politicians opposing the seismic testing namely Senators Penny Wright and Rachel Siewert who argue that the seismic testing around Kangaroo Island has unacceptable environmental risks no matter the time of year. They have gone on to say that the region is home to more than 20 species of whales and dolphins and the Southern Bluefin Tuna are known to migrate here as well and marine reserves should not be compromised by industries which damage biodiversity and sustainable fishing. 

Just like back home, an immediate solution would be for the seismic surveying to be conducted outside of the tuna migrating and catching season. Until we have conclusive data documenting that seismic activity does in fact impact the migration of tuna, this will remain a “David VS Goliath” scenario.

Ref: Port Lincoln Times

Seismic Effects on the South African and Namibian Tuna 2012/2013 Season

The evidence accumulated by the Large Pelagic and Hake Longlining Association of Namibia points out that it is mostly the albacore and bigeye tuna that are negatively impacted by the seismic testing currently being conducted in both the Namibian and South African EEZ.

In Namibia and South Africa, the seismic explorations are threatening livelihoods, jobs, investments and the already ailing respective economies. The past tuna season has been dismal at best and it is speculated that this seismic testing being conducted is the direct result. For your reference the tuna export company that I am employed as the trade manager has only exported this past season 10% of what’s considered “normal” volumes.

The albacore pole and line industry is seasonal (October to May), which impacts on its economic viability, and given the very poor catches these past three years, particularly this season, it needs support more than ever before, to secure its future.

One of the major consequences is that of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT is a RFMO – Regional Fishery Management Organisation) quota utilization. Since tuna is migratory, ICCAT sets the respective tuna and swordfish quotas for the entire Atlantic Ocean. ICCAT moderates the albacore tuna quota sharing arrangement between Namibia (5000mt), South Africa (5000mt), Brazil (3500mt), Chinese Taipei (13500mt) and Uruguay (1200mt) Namibia is fortunate to be able to work with South African Tuna Pole and Line (P&L) vessels to catch its quota, because Namibia currently only has a limited number of its own vessels. Annually ICCAT adjusts each country’s quota according to catches; size of the country’s fishing fleet, the importance of the tuna on the local economy, amongst other criteria. Should a country under perform, then they stand a real chance of losing a portion of their quota to another nation. Each country has to govern and regulate their fishery in accordance to the ICCAT rules and regulations. ICCAT’s annual conference will be held in Cape Town this year and we are all looking forward to hosting this important event.

There is a large concern in the Namibian large pelagic sector as three years ago (2011), more than 4000 tonnes of albacore tuna was caught by around 40 vessels landing into Luderitz alone. During 2012 only around 1800 tonnes was caught, and devastatingly, only around 600 tonnes for 2013 so far where over 70% of the annual catch is during February to March – everything points to increases in seismic exploration in Namibia and northern South African waters being the main reason, due to fish avoidance. The tuna are migratory and are mostly caught off the “Tripp” underwater seamount, close to the border of South Africa, where much of the seismic exploration activity has and is currently still taking place. Low catch performance also threatens the likelihood of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) further decreasing Namibia’s quotas.

There are also other possible other impacts on tuna catch rates such as the effects of the sonar that are fitted to most of the vessels which direct impacts are unknown at this stage. El Nino (climate change), stronger than usual winds, swell as well as currents and water temperatures during the fishing season have directly impacted the ability to successfully catch tuna. This past season we have found that there has been an abundance of feed around the fishing grounds and it is speculated that the tuna could not be hungry enough to catch. There are no records of landings of albacore during its migratory cycle through international waters before it reaches our waters again. Large volumes of the school could be caught by vessels operating in international waters and therefore less and less fish reappears each year.

This map below show an interpretation of the migration route of albacore tuna based upon catches:

Area 1. October – April.      

Area 2. September – January          

 Area 3. August – December

This map indicates the albacore migratory route south to north showing catch concentration zones. Which route it takes from the northern point is unknown as this graph is based on landings only. The majority of Namibia’s catch is on Tripp Sea Mount. I'm not a 100% sure of migratory periods for area 2 & 3 but this looks somewhat accurate based upon landings in South Africa.

The effect of noise pollution on marine animals is documented as they are highly sensitive to acoustic sound. Marine fish and mammals depend on sound for various functions such as; avoiding predators / hazards, navigation, reproduction, communication with group members and young, food-finding and sensing their environment. (Source: Dr. Simon Harding & Dr. Lindy Weigart, October 2012. Scientific Synthesis of the Impacts of Underwater Noise on Marine and Coastal Biodiversity: Key Findings and Future Research Needs. International Biodiversity Conference, India UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA16/INF/12)

The seismic noise being generated by the exploration for oil and gas penetrates the sea floor 100kms+ below. The airgun sends a very loud blast between 230-250 decibels at predetermined intervals towards the seabed. The decibels may increase according to whether it is 2D or 3D testing being conducted. The effects of the seismic airguns are far reaching as such recorded by the moored hydrophones along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge some 4,000km!!! (Nieukirk et al. 2012)

Seismic surveys are carried out during marine oil and gas exploration in order to investigate subsea geological formations. During seismic surveys high-level, low frequency sounds are directed towards the seabed from near-surface sound sources towed by a seismic vessel. Signals reflected from geological interfaces below the seafloor are recorded by multiple receivers (or hydrophones) towed in streamers. Analyses of the returned signals allow for interpretation of subsea geological formations. Seismic surveys are undertaken to collect either 2D or 3D data

                                                   

Airguns are used on an individual basis or in arrays. Usually and in the past  a single source airgun array consisting of three strings of 10 airguns (30 in total) is used. While a single airgun could typically produce sound levels of the order of 220-230 dB re 1 mPa @ 1m, arrays produce sounds typically in the region of 250 dB re 1 mPa @ 1m. The majority of energy produced is in the 0 to 120 Hz bandwidth, although energy at much higher frequencies is also recorded. High-resolution surveys and shallow penetration surveys require relatively high frequencies of 100 to 1000 Hz, while the optimum wavelength for deep seismic work is in the 10 to 80 Hz range. One of the required characteristics of a seismic shot is that it is of short duration (the main pulse is usually between 5 and 30 milliseconds). The main pulse is followed by a negative pressure reflection from the sea surface of several lower magnitude bubble pulses. Although the peak levels during the shot may be high, the overall energy is limited by the duration of the shot.

The data collected allows for interpretation where the most likelihood of deposits of natural resources such as gas and oil may be found.

  An  airgun  array  being  fired  during  a  marine  geophysics  research  project:

And aft view of the seismic airgun and hydrophones being trailed behind the vessel

A view of the seismic airgun explosion

Documented research on noise impacts on fish or invertebrates have shown the following:

•       Disruption in schooling and migration (Sarà et al. 2007)

•       Disruption of homing or orientation (Simpson et al. 2010).

•       Masking of mating calls (Vasconcelos et al. 2007)

•       Decreased feeding efficiency (Purser and Radford 2011)

•       Reduced catch rates of 40-80% > 30 km from seismic survey (Engås et al. 1996)

•       Seismic noise deafened fish ears- no recovery after 58 days (McCauley et al. 2003)

•       Massive hearing trauma in 4 squid species (Andre et al. 2011)

•       Increased stress signs (Buscaino et al. 2010; Graham and Cooke 2008; Wysocki et al. 2006;      Santulli et al. 1999)

Noise Impacts on Whales and Dolphins

•       Increased stress hormones (Rolland et al. 2012)

•       Change in feeding or mating calling behavior (Parks et al. 2007; Castellote et al. 2012;  Melcón et al.   2012; Risch et al. 2012), even 200 km away

•       Disruptions of feeding and displacement over days (McCarthy et al. 2011; Tyack et al. 2011; Miller et al. 2009)

•       Displacement over weeks (Castellote et al. 2012) or years (Morton & Symonds 2002; Bryant et al. 1984)

•       Sudden unexpected permanent hearing damage (Reichmuth et al. 2009)

•       Catatonic behaviour, loss of control of muscle movement (Gray & Van Waerebeek 2011)

•       Hearing damage in whales causing more net entanglement  (Mann et al. 2010; Todd et al. 1996)

•       Decreased species diversity   (Parente et al. 2007)

We know that marine animals are highly dependent on sound. Noise can cause deafness, avoidance of important habitat, stress, and declines in fisheries’ catch rates. The seismic testing affects ecosystem-wide, cumulative, and synergistic impacts on marine biodiversity and genetic resources.

These pictures below clearly illustrates the effect of the seismic testing on other species:

 In this picture one can notice the "triangular fish ears" before the seismic blast.

After the seismic blast one can notice the absence of these "triangles" considered to be the fish's ears.

From: McCauley et al. 2003

Seismic  testing  activities  around  Namibia’s  Tripp  Sea  Mount  fishing  grounds

These maps below show the extent of the seismic testing being conducted off our coast.

 Overview  of  recent  seismic  surveys  off Namibia  and  South  Africa (18 months)

At the beginning of 2012, the seismic surveys (in red) in Namibia started in January through March during the peak of the tuna season.  The seismic surveys (in yellow and orange) on the South African side of the border were very close to Namibia’s Tripp Seamount fishing grounds, starting in October 2012 and running through to May 2013.  On the Namibian side of the border (in blue) the surveys started in February 2013.The majority of the seismic activity is between the October – April months of the Namibian tuna season, and some overlaps with the South African season of August to January respectively.

There are a few “Immediate” Solutions” available to the tuna industry. Such could possibly be the undertaking seismic exploration outside the tuna season, due to the risk of the seismic operations impact on the fish’s migration patterns. (I will discuss this topic with regards to the the migration patterns of the Australian bluefin tuna case in a later blog posting) A quieter airgun alternative such as vibroseis could be utilized as long as this is scientifically proven to be effective. Undertake research to assess how far away from fishing grounds seismic testing should occur for there to be no impact on migrating tuna.

I would like to conclude that the pole and line fishery, due to low financial margins and recent poor catches is struggling financially. The sector fears seismic exploration could financially destroy the fishery if immediate actions are not taken. Seismic testing is consequently a trans-boundary issue with South Africa and Namibia and possible consultation with the Benguela Commission may be necessary. The effects on fish, especially fish distribution and seismic avoidance, as well as food chain organisms are scientifically proven. It remains to be seen if the tuna will follow their usual migration pattern and return this year.

References:

• ·         CapFish SA (Pty) Ltd Notices to Mariners of Offshore Seismic Surveys
• ·         Dr. Simon Harding & Dr. Lindy Weigart, October 2012. Scientific Synthesis of the Impacts of Underwater Noise on Marine and Coastal Biodiversity: Key Findings and Future Research Needs. International Biodiversity Conference, India UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA16/INF/12
• ·         Ministry of Fisheries & Marine Resources catch statistics
• ·         Ministry of Mines and Energy seismic exploration license data.
• ·         Presentation made by K. Lauffer of the Large Pelagic and Hake Longlining Association of Namibia  and David Russel