Dangers to Marine Species

[Lisbeth]

New review identifies 75 species affected by marine collisions



21 May 2020

At least 75 different marine species – ranging from whales to dolphins, sharks, sea otters, seals, penguins and sea turtles – have been recorded as being killed through collisions with ships, as revealed in a review published on Tuesday in Frontiers of Marine Science. The review, authored by the Endangered Wildlife Trust’s Claire Patterson-Abrolat, with researchers Dr Renee Schoeman and Dr Stephanie Plön, both of the Nelson Mandela University, showed that collisions between marine animals and ships occur far more regularly than previously thought. While reports of incidences with smaller species are rare, it is likely that this is due to reporting bias such as simply not noticing that they were struck.

“It’s not just large commercial vessels that are responsible”, revealed Patterson-Abrolat, “but small recreational vessels too. Injury to the animals can be pretty horrific, ranging from minor injury to an animal through to deep lacerations, fractures, haemorrhaging, amputated body parts such as fins or tails, or even death.” Injury to an animal may also lead to reduced fitness which in turn lowers reproduction rates and even population sizes. Most affected are the long-lived species which take longer to reach sexual maturity and give birth to just one or two young at a time.

“It isn’t just the animals that suffer, vessels may incur damage such as cracked hulls or broken propellers. In a few cases, the ship’s crew can also be injured, with extreme cases resulting in being knocked overboard and loss of life”, said Patterson-Abrolat.

So, what can be done about this? Temporary rerouting of ships during breeding seasons could reduce the risk of collisions, but this is often directed only for whales; many other vulnerable species often receive little or no attention. Establishing communication channels with mandatory reporting and early warning systems could give both the ships and the animals more time to take avoidance procedures should a collision be likely. Having a trained observer on board can also increase the detection of an animal in the water allowing the ship to alter course or warn the animal of its presence.

A range of deterrent devices has also been developed. These have been found effective on species such as the North Atlantic Right Whale but were not effective on Grey Whales. A Manatee Alert Device (MAD) has proved successful in alerting that species. Propeller guards have also been found to be successful for species such as Loggerhead Turtles.

The report made more specific recommendations such as developing a centralised database of ALL collisions noted in the oceans, to allow the identification of potential hotspot areas. With at least 75 species being recorded as involved in collisions with vessels, and noting that there may be a reporting bias against the smaller species, this may be a larger problem than initially thought.

Research should be conducted to determine whether or not injured species have a reduced breeding success rate and how this impacts on populations, if there is any way of determining when smaller species have been involved in a collision, and how to identify high-risk areas for all species.

Enforcement should be stepped up where necessary to ensure adherence to speed reduction zones, and education and awareness materials should be made available to ship crews and recreational skippers.

Oceans provide valuable recreational and transport services and the importance of these should be central to the rebuilding of our oceans' economy. If nothing else, COVID-19 has provided us with a valuable opportunity to reflect on our past actions and to build an economy that truly considers its impact on the environment but that also ensures the prosperity of humankind.

The full paper is available at https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00292

[Alf]

Why only now and not before

This doesn’t make sense

[Lisbeth]

Most likely because it's the first research being done

[Lisbeth]

MARINE CONSERVATION VICTORY

Landmark De Hoop Marine Protected Area conviction sets precedent for environmental accountability


A pregnant bronze whaler shark being processed aboard the White Rose, a Unathi Wena Vessel. Photo taken by a previous crewman. (Photo: Supplied)

By Julia Evans | 03 Dec 2024

For the first time, the state successfully convicted a fishing company not only for illegal fishing within a Marine Protected Area but also for causing environmental damage, resulting in a R1-million fine and signalling a tougher stance on marine conservation enforcement.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
In a historic verdict delivered on 27 November, the Bredasdorp Regional Court in the Western Cape handed down a landmark ruling against Gqeberha-based fishing company Unathi-Wena Fishing, marking the first conviction for environmental degradation linked to illegal fishing within a Marine Protected Area (MPA).


Crewmen on the White Rose pull a spearnose skate from the water, classified as endangered at a global level in 2006. De Hoop Marine Protected Area, 10 May 2019. (Photo: Supplied)

This precedent-setting case signals a tougher stance on fisheries violating MPA laws, potentially reshaping how marine conservation is enforced in South Africa.

As Daily Maverick previously reported, this case is significant because it’s the first time the state pursued charges related to environmental damage caused by illegal fishing in an MPA, carrying a much higher potential fine than previous offences.

In May 2019, the White Rose, a vessel operated by Unathi-Wena Fishing, was caught fishing illegally within the De Hoop MPA, a no-take zone. Photographic evidence shows fishermen pulling out several fish, including sharks and rays, some of which are endangered.

During the trial in 2022, the State alleged that the fishing company not only violated fishing laws, but also caused potential harm to the marine ecosystem by fishing inside the MPA.

The defence argued that the fishing activity didn’t harm the environment, while the prosecution presented expert testimony from marine biologists and fisheries researchers, highlighting the crucial ecological role of MPAs and the detrimental effects of removing protected species such as sharks.

Read about the significance of the case in Daily Maverick: Landmark verdict expected over illegal fishing inside Marine Protected Areas

Although the company pleaded guilty to fishing inside an MPA under the Marine Living Resources Act – an offence carrying a maximum fine of R800,000 or two years’ imprisonment – for the first time, the State pursued an additional charge under the National Environmental Management Act. This law penalises actions likely to detrimentally affect the environment, with fines of up to R5-million.

A ragged tooth shark that was killed, jaw taken and dumped by the White Rose, a Unathi Wena Fishing vessel. (Photo: Supplied)


Finally, on 27 November, the verdict was released. The Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment confirmed the court had found Unathi-Wena Fishing guilty on all counts.

Imraan Patel, the chief operations manager of Unathi-Wena Fishing, testified in mitigation of sentence.

The accused were convicted and sentenced for illegally fishing inside the MPA and fined R150,000. But the landmark ruling – the accused were also found guilty of committing “any act or omission which detrimentally affects or is likely to detrimentally affect the environment,” resulting in a R2-million fine, with R1-million suspended.

Dr Enrico Gennari, a marine ecologist from the Oceans Research Institute in Mossel Bay, welcomed the judgment, saying, “A multimillion-rand fine shows the court’s recognition of the seriousness of this offence.”

Setting a precedent

“This will definitely set a precedent for South Africa and even globally,” Pierre de Villiers, senior manager of marine and coasts operations at CapeNature told Daily Maverick. De Hoop MPA is overseen by CapeNature, a Western Cape entity.

“I think this is the first time that species living in the ocean are not only being considered of any value if they are food for humans,” he said.

“This is the first time that species have been recognised for their vital role in a functioning ecosystem. That value is incredibly important and probably will outweigh the value of that same animal as just food for humans.”

As Daily Maverick previously reported, based on the State witnesses’ expert testimonies – MPAs serve as safe havens for various species, allowing fish populations to regenerate and thrive without the pressures of overfishing.


Drone shot of the White Rose as it leaves the De Hoop Marine Protected Area, off the eastern boundary, in 2020. This photo shows an endangered hammerhead shark, landed alive and not returned to the ocean. (Photo: Supplied)

This is particularly important as many fish stocks globally are under threat from unsustainable fishing practices, leading to declines in species such as sharks and rays, which play vital roles in maintaining the ecological balance. So by restricting human activities like commercial fishing, MPAs help preserve genetic diversity and the overall resilience of marine life, which is essential for adapting to environmental changes.

“The court outcome is a welcome deterrent against practices that undermine current successful efforts to conserve our marine wildlife and biodiversity through establishment of marine protected areas,” JP Louw, Head of Communications at SANParks told Daily Maverick.

“This is particularly important as this case involves a corporate fishing operation player who now faces punishment for disregarding South Africa’s world-renowned approach to conservation management.”

Overall protection

While this case prosecuted a fishing company, many marine biologists (and State witnesses) hail this a win for the fisheries industry too.

During the trial, UCT fisheries professor Colin Attwood explained that by limiting the number of fish that can be extracted from the ocean, MPAs help ensure the productivity of fisheries. Overfishing can deplete fish stocks to levels where they are unable to replenish their losses themselves or provide economic benefits.

During testimonies, officials noted that South Africa’s fish stocks are under significant pressure from exploitation. However, they highlighted that rulings like this reflected a growing recognition by the courts of the constitutional rights of law-abiding fishermen, quota holders and the broader public to benefit from sustainable marine resources.

Such sentences, therefore, are intended to serve as a strong deterrent against illegal activities in MPAs.

“These broad ecosystems are in actual fact what sustain the human race and, obviously, all the species inside,” said de Villiers, emphasising the interconnectedness of human, animal and environmental health—a principle central to the global “One Health” approach.

This case is a good example of the “One Health” approach because illegal fishing practices not only threaten marine biodiversity – such as endangered shark and ray species – but also affect communities that rely on healthy fish populations for their livelihoods.

“So, the bigger picture is now being looked at and I find this exciting from an enforcement, monitoring and holistic ecosystem management perspective,” said de Villiers.

“I would even go so far as to suggest that multi-species fisheries models are introduced by the scientists who manage the fish stocks so that we can get a more balanced quota that provides for humans as well as for the ecosystem.” DM