This website was created in order to (somewhat) educate people on the problem of overfishing, to create a bit of awareness. If you care about our oceans I kindly ask you to link -by using one of the buttons or with a simple text link- these pages on your blog or website. A bit of awareness can make a real difference!

How to use

Use (simply copy+paste) one of the code snippets below on your website or blog.

• Yellow button embed code:
  • <a href="http://overfishing.org"><img width="150" alt="Overfishing.org - About overfishing." src="http://overfishing.org/hosted/linked/overfishingbuttonsmall_yellow.png" border="0px" height="56"/></a>
• Pink button embed code:
  • <a href="http://overfishing.org"><img width="150" alt="Overfishing.org - About overfishing." src="http://overfishing.org/hosted/linked/overfishingbuttonsmall_pink.png" border="0px" height="56"/></a>
• Red button embed code:
  • <a href="http://overfishing.org"><img width="150" alt="Overfishing.org - About overfishing." src="http://overfishing.org/hosted/linked/overfishingbuttonsmall_red.png" border="0px" height="56"/></a>
• Green button embed code:
  • <a href="http://overfishing.org"><img width="150" alt="Overfishing.org - About overfishing." src="http://overfishing.org/hosted/linked/overfishingbuttonsmall_green.png" border="0px" height="56"/></a>
• Blue button embed code:
  • <a href="http://overfishing.org"><img width="150" alt="Overfishing.org - About overfishing." src="http://overfishing.org/hosted/linked/overfishingbuttonsmall_blue.png" border="0px" height="56"/></a>

Please do not hesitate to use the contact page if you need any help with this! ]]> 27@http://overfishing.org/pivotcms/pivot/ pages Sun, 10 Feb 2008 20:30:00 -0700 http://overfishing.org/pages/Protection_of_the_Oceans.php?w=pages http://overfishing.org/pages/Protection_of_the_Oceans.php?w=pages#comm Protection of the Oceans

Marine Protected Areas, Marine Reserves

Een introductie

Verschillende aanpak ed

data

A glossary of marine and fisheries terminology (abbreviations and definitions). The glossary is in alphabetical order. Navigation is provided by using the first letter from the list below.

A / B / C / D / E / F / G / H / I / J / K / L / M / N / O / P / Q / R / S / T / U / V / W / X / Y / Z

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abiotic
The non-living parts of the environment, e.g. rocks, climate, and pressure, that affect ecological functions.
Abundance
The number of individuals in a certain stock or population.
Aquaculture
A generic term describing cultivation of marine / freshwater species. This includes both plants and animals.

Back to Top

Benthic
Living on or in the seabed.
Benthos
Organisms dwelling on, or attached to, the seabed.
Biodiversity
The abundance and variety of species, their genetic make-up, and the ecosystems and natural communities they all occur in. Defined by the UN-CBD as "the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems."
Biologically extinct
When a species population density is so low that no partners are available for mating purposes.
Biomass
The accumulative total weight of all living organisms in a stock or resource.
Biotic
The living parts of the environment, e.g. plants, animals and fungi, that affect ecological functions.
Bottom trawling
A fishing method -also known as Benthic trawling- that involves dragging trawl nets along the sea floor. A highly non-selective fishing method with a large amount of bycatch and destruction in the trawler area. Can be performed by either a single or a combination of ships.
Bycatch
Unwanted, non-target, marine species caught while fishing for another species.

Back to Top

Commercially unviable
The fishing effort -taking in account costs, subsidies, offset prices etc- needed being too high to make an economic profit.

Back to Top

Discards
Marine species thrown back after capture. Normally, most of the discards can be assumed not to survive.

Back to Top

Fishing capacity
A concept not yet rigorously defined, and there are substantial differences of opinion as to how it should be defined and estimated. However, a working definition is the quantity of fish that can be taken by a fishing unit, for example an individual, community, vessel or fleet, assuming that there is no limitation on the yield from the stock.

Back to Top

Overfishing
Catching too much fish for the system to support. See: what is overfishing.

Back to Top

Pelagic trawling
A fishing method that involves towing a trawl net trough the water column. Can be performed by either a single or a combination of ships.

Back to Top

UN-CBD
The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. See: biodiv.org.

Back to Top

Trawling
See bottom trawling and pelagic trawling.

An overview of seafood guides around the world. Last updated on January 22, 2008

Even though you have no intention to become a vegetarian you still want to eat fish and shellfish from fisheries that do not have an averse effect on the ocean or coastal waters. A sustainable caught or farmed fish so to say. Is this possible? The short answer is yes. The somewhat longer answer is yes, but as long as you make sure the fish is from a healthy population and harvested in a sustainable non-destructive manner. In case of farmed / fattened fish (aquaculture, mariculture) the fish or shellfish should not be fed with endangered wild fish The irony of fishfarming: many fish (e.g. cod, salmon, trout) are carnivorous, thus eating other fish (or whatever meat mixture they get in a farm). E.g. it takes >5kg (and up to a hundred kg) of feed fish to produce one kg of farmed Salmon. and the farm should not be an ecological hazard (e.g. pollution, risk of escaping fish) to the surrounding environment. In general locally caught or raised fish and shellfish is more sustainable than fish caught or raised far away in a different country or continent.

Eating with a (clear) conscience

A number of Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) maintain lists on fish to eat and to avoid. Aimed at consumers these lists are usually based on a simple colour system with green being good and red being bad. Not all list are of the same quality and not all NGOs follow the same methodology. In general these list do provide a good and easy buyers or consumers guide overview. Print a list on a small credit card sized piece of paper, stick it in you wallet, and always carry your environmentally friendly fish list with you! This overview is not as comprehensive as it can be and contributions, especially for new countries, are welcomed.

Europe

• Netherlands & Belgium
  De Goede Vis Gids
     One of the best guides available. By Stichting De Noordzee. (in Dutch, French version, pdf)
  Vis-a-Card
     Good fish guide by Greenpeace Nederland. Printable credit card sized card as PDF. (in Dutch)
  
  
• United Kingdom
  Fish purchasing guide
     Extensive purchasing guide by the Marine Conservation Society.
  Supermarkets: What to buy
     What not to buy and "better buys". By Greenpeace UK.
  
  
• Sweden
  Fisk Konsument Guide (seafood guide)
     By WWF Sweden. Printable credit card sized card (PDF). (in Swedish)
  
  
• Finland
  Seafood Guide
     By WWF Finland. Direct link to PDF. (in Finnish)
  
  
• Germany
  Fish and Shellfish Guide
     Annotated purchasing guide. By WWF Germany. (in German)
  
  
• Switzerland
  Seafood Guide
     Guide in French (PDF), German and Italian. By WWF Switzerland.
  
  

The Americas

• Canada
  SeaChoice
     A comprehensive national seafood program. List available in PDF as well.
  
  
• United States of America
  Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch
     Good list with regional guides for five different US regions.
  Guide to Ocean Friendly Seafood
     Informative site and fish guides. By the Blue Ocean institute.

Asia & Oceania

• Australia
  Australia's Sustainable Seafood Guide
     Only as book or card, not accessible online. From the Australian Marine Conservation Society.
  Thanks For All The Fish
     ABC Channel fish pages. Based on the Australian Marine Conservation Societies guide.
  
  
• Indonesia
  Seafood Guide
     Fish and shellfish guide for Indonesia. By WWF Indonesia.
  
  
• Hong Kong
  Live Reef Food Fish
     Online fish ID guide of live reef food fish. By WWF Hong Kong.
  Seafood Guide
     Fish and shellfish guide for Hong Kong. By WWF Hong Kong.

Africa

• South Africa
  Southern African Sustainable Seafood Initiative
     An extensive database that even includes distribution maps of many local species.

Globally

For many countries no special guide is maintained. Seafoodchoices.org is a good starting point providing information on fish species, restaurants and suppliers. While maybe not directly developed for a certain country some of the guides mentioned above could be a good and useful start for guide-less countries nearby as well.

Eco labelling

Eco labels are based on the idea of consuming without detrimental effects on the environment. The precautionary principle is key in this. The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) standard is currently the only internationally used eco label for fish and shellfish. Before becoming the independent organisation it is now the MSC was set up by Unilever and WWF. The MSC label promotes responsible use. Fisheries, and from fish derived products, have to go trough a regular assessment in order to keep their MSC accreditation.

The MSC standard is given to fisheries acknowledged to be sustainable according to the three MSC principles. The organisation defines sustainable as „target fish populations are at healthy levels, sometimes having recovered from being depleted in the past. A well-managed fishery will ensure that there is a future for the industry and all those who depend on the fisheries for their livelihoods”. The three principles and the assessment scheme are based on the FAO guidelines for the ecolabelling of fish. FAO guidelines for the ecolabelling of fish and fishery products from marine capture fisheries. ftp://fao.org/...a0116t00.pdf

• Principle 1
  The condition of the fish stocks. This examines if there are enough fish to ensure that the fishery is sustainable.
  
  
• Principle 2
  The impact of the fishery on the marine environment. This examines the effect that fishing has on the immediate marine environment including other non-target fish species, marine mammals and sea birds.
  
  
• Principle 3
  The fishery management systems. This principle evaluates the rules and procedures that are in place, as well as how they are implemented, to maintain a sustainable fishery and to ensure that the impact on the marine environment is minimised.

Although a number of problems with individual fisheries have been seen in the past the MSC label is the best and most recognisable eco label for fish and shellfish we currently have in the world. If you consume fish than buying it from an MSC accredited source certainly is favourable over non MSC fish.

A buyers guide on MSC fish is provided on the MSC website.

Introduction to the historical setting and current management issues - published on April 7, 2007

The Voordelta is a large area of coastal waters within the Dutch North Sea coastal region. It extends from Rotterdam in the north up to the Westerschelde estuary in the south. The quality and abundance of flora and fauna in the area is remarkably high. The Voordelta management system is an early example of integrated and spatial planning taking in account economical as well environmental actors. Paper first written in March 2005, not all information is current. Please read the note at the bottom of this page regarding the new situation The Voordelta is alive again! As of January 29, 2007 a new Voordelta Management Plan is in public information / consultation. More information can be found on the Rijkswaterstaat Voordelta website (Dutch).

Introduction

Following the completion (in 1986) and the official inauguration by Queen Beatrix of the Oosterscheldekering storm surge barrier in the mouth of the Eastern Scheldt the Delta Project was officially declared to be completed. After a mere 25 years of planning and construction the vulnerable delta, the most southern part of the Dutch coastline, was decreased in length by 800 km and large areas of the country that were formerly only accessible over water were now connected to the mainland by a series of roads constructed on top of the barrier dams. The remaining coastline towards to North Sea spans only around a 100 km. The Delta Project in its final form resulted in the closure of three major estuaries of the Rhine river. Doing so has rapidly created large-scale morphological and related ecological changes and adaptations (which started as soon as the Delta Project started closing the "gaps" with in 1961 the Veerse Gat and from 1970 the onwards the remaining "larger gaps" of the Haringvliet, the Grevelingen and finally the partial closure of the Eastern Scheldt (Withagen, 2000 Withagen, L., 2000. Delta 2000: Inventarisatie huidige situatie Deltawateren. RIKZ, Min van Verkeer en Waterstaat, Directie Noordzee, Rijswijk. (Dutch).) to the new hydrodynamics in the North Sea area in front of the barriers, sluices and dune ridges. Since then a greatly modified morphological system with large similarities to the south part of the Dutch Wadden Sea has been formed. The area is bordered by the 20 metres isobath on sea (within the 12-mile Dutch Territorial zone), and the inner limit of the sea defences on the landwards side. It compromises about 900 km2 of the former overlapping ebb-tidal delta complex and adjacent beaches and dunes (Alphen, 1995 Alphen, J. van, 1995. The Voordelta integrated policy plan: administrative aspects of coastal zone management in the Netherlands. Ocean & Coastal Management 26: 133-155.).

Another important influence on the morphological system in the same region has been the construction of the Maasvlakte near Rotterdam Mainport on the northern side of the delta region. The Maasvlakte, as build as a "bulge" on the coastline outwards to sea, has had a big influence in way of accretion and modification of the coastal sand flow. Morphological changes from to the two projects are now slowing down and considered to be mostly settled, resulting in new changes only originating from other, external, evens as changes in sea level and new developments (the extension of the Maasvlakte, the Schiphol on Sea airport island and possible other "land creating" developments in the sea). The landscape of this area is one that varies from large parts of open sea to Wadden Sea like intertidal areas with sand banks, mudflats and salt marches, to beach and dune systems.

Asides of the expected, but at the time not fully understood, changes in the ecological and morphological system the opening up (by means of the greatly improved road system) of the area created a spur of economical developments not planned nor thought of when the Delta Plan was first created; in its original form the Delta Plan was simply a plan to provide coastal defence, not social and / or economic development. These developments have greatly increased the stress human activities have on the area. Human activities are mainly related to tourism, recreation and fisheries. In the wider region an increase in industry, transport (shipping to the port of Rotterdam as well as the Belgium ports and also based traffic) and urbanisation occurred. These also have an effect on the region. At the same time the ecological quality of the area is increased in importance due to the new habitats and related ecosystems that have been formed (Alphen & Molendijk, 1993 Alphen, J. van, & Molendijk, R, (editors)., 1993. Vorm in Verandering: Integraal Beleidsplan Voordelta. Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, Directie Noordzee. (Dutch).). Within / between all these activities, including the vision of seeing the environmental resources as a valuable user function, a lot of conflicts existed; closed flatfish nurseries versus fisheries, sea based wind turbines versus shipping etc. To tackle this the Dutch government announced the wish (in its fourth national report on physical planning; the Vierde Nota Ruimtelijke Ordening, 1988 Ministerie van VROM., 1988. Vierde Nota Ruimtelijke Ordening. (Dutch). and again in the Vierde Nota Ruimtelijke Ordening Extra, 1991 Ministerie van VROM., 1991. Vierde nota over de ruimtelijke ordening extra, deel 4: Planologische Kernbeslissing nationaal ruimtelijk beleid. (Dutch).) in 1988 to develop an integral policy for the area, now formally called the Voordelta. This wish solely came from the national government itself as local communities, the provinces, fisheries, recreation and other stakeholders did not ask for this (Jones, 1998 Jones, S.D.R., 1998. A Comparative Analysis of Coastal Zone Management in England and the Netherlands. University of Hull, England.). The policy has been developed to safeguard the continuous development of nature in the area, and to specify how fisheries and recreational activities can be placed into this (Alphen & Molendijk, 1993).

Conception of the integrated policy plan

Formal preparation of the Voordelta policy plan (Vorm in Verandering: Integraal Beleidsplan Voordelta, 1993) (IBV) began in 1989 with the formation of the steering group Bestuurlijk Overleg Voordelta (BOV) lead by the North Sea Directorate of Rijkswaterstaat (RWS), the executing body of the Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management (Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat). Aim of this group, which consisted of policy makers and authorities (the four government departments dealing with the Voordelta, and two provincial authorities, and a multitude of authorities from municipalities and waterboards, 30 members in total) was to create a policy plan that via an integrated approach made sure all interest in the Voordelta where covered by the management scheme (Jones, 1998). Advising the BOV was the Ambtelijk Overleg Voordelta (AOV), a committee of officers and staff members from the ministries, Rijkswaterstaat and provinces. Detailed planning of the plan (the actual writing and preparation of the plan) was performed by the Projectgroep Voordelta, this group did not have representatives from the municipalities (Alphen, 1995). Interest groups (conservation NGOs, fisheries organisations etc) as well as all other non-governmental stakeholders were left out of the formal decision making framework and had to rely on informal contacts with the members of the various steering groups (so called Action Centred Networks or ACNs) for each sector (key sectors being: Nature and Natural Development, Fisheries and, Recreation) that had been formed to get their point of view across. Both fisheries and the recreation sector have been in opposition to the structure and aim of the IBV as soon as it was initially described in the Vierde Nota Ruimtelijke Ordening in 1988. Their common argument has been that the structure and its aim as described in the Vierde Nota Ruimtelijke Ordening seemed unnecessary and was bound to create restrictions for both sectors (Alphen, 1995).

In June 1991 a draft plan, the Preferred Policy Option or PPO, was published for public consultation. Key points in this plan were the closure (for recreation and fisheries) of sensitive areas as shoals and tidal flats, as well as the removal of recreation facilities near these areas. New recreational facilities were to be developed in / near non-sensitive areas. Along with the PPO an alternative policy plan (from the three that were made), the Nature Policy Option or NPO was also published. These two plans were both considered to be suitable to the management aim described in the Vierde Nota Ruimtelijke Ordening three years before: to conserve the natural development of the Voordelta, as well as to the finer criteria set up by the BOV (Sideway & Voet, 1993 Sideway, R., & Voet, H. van der, 1993. Getting on Speaking Terms: Resolving conflicts between recreation and nature in coastal zone areas of the Netherlands a literature study and case study analysis. Rapport 26. Werkgroep Recreatie van de Landbouwuniversiteit Wageningen, Ministerie van Landbouw en Visserij, The Hague.). As the PPO option took in account the needs of the recreation and fisheries (defined by the BOV as key for the area, being second in importance to Nature and Natural Development) and within its framework enabled both to develop further locally, the NPO option was more conservative in nature and, although not completely outlawing, limited the fisheries and recreation much more as the PPO did (Jones, 1998).

The moment the draft plan was published for consultation a large number of comments from the well-established conservation NGOs, the recreation sector and the fisheries sector aroused. Conservation NGOs were worried that in the long term policy and management aims in the PPO focused on nature conservation and natural development would be loosened up and compromised to make way for more development and opposed the PPO in favour of the NPO option (Sideway & Voet, 1993). Recreation and fisheries (and with them most of the local municipalities) on the other hand were mostly happy with the PPO option as it underlined most of their expectations for the management of the Voordelta. The conservation groups as well as some scientists successfully raised the topic of the quality of information and scientific data on the impacts of recreation on wildlife -mostly wading birds, porpoise and seals. Large parts of the Voordelta are now assigned under the EU Bird- & Habitat Directive (Bird area assigned in 2000, habitat directive formerly implemented in 2008) and Natura 2000 network as well as the area being a Ramsar wetland site- and lobbied in favour of a more precautionary approach to nature conservation, closing large areas of the Voordelta for fisheries and recreation. Questions were raised if seals for example needed disturbance distance zones of 500, 1000 or 1500 (as in the Dutch Wadden Sea area) metres. The particular question of the seal disturbance zones was questioned by recreational groups. As consultation went on, strong lobby of the conservation NGOs forced the BOV to redesign its criteria to ultimately assure more room and/or focus for nature conservation (Sideway & Voet, 1993).

The second draft of the plan, the draft policy plan, was published in May 1992. While maintaining the aims and objectives of the PPO the details of the individual proposals were implementing much more restrictions on fisheries (the full and year round closure of shoals and shallows of less then six meter below mean sea level) and access and development for recreation. These extra restrictions were put in place to comply with the new, more focussed on conservation, criteria put into place by the BOV due to the strong lobbying of the conservationists (Sideway & Voet, 1993). This draft plan had to be submitted for approval by the various organisations participating in the steering group. During this process, that ultimately took more then a year, lobbying stirred up again and one of the participants (the municipality of Westvoorne) withdrew from the entire process because of the strong public disagreement in the municipality on a proposal to close one of its beaches for motor vehicle access (Jones, 1998). The final version of the plan and its formal implementation was signed by the members of the BOV in October 1993. The Integraal Beleidsplan Voordelta includes descriptions of the policies and measures, the ultimate aims of the policy plan and a spatial translation of the policies and measures into a zonation scheme to allow a quick assessment of the management of various areas of the Voordelta and the level of environmental protection in the various areas (Alphen, 1995).

Working with the Voordelta policy plan

After 1993 the IBV has not been formally revised or updated. As it has a non-legal status an Administrative Agreement has been signed by all parties involved in the BOV in which the various administrations expressed their intention to incorporate the IBV and the 47 points of its action programme into their legal planning instruments. Main legislation to implement are the EU Birds and Habitat Directive, the Nature Conservation Act and the Fisheries Act. According to Alphen, 1995, this process was started roughly a year after the signing of the agreement. The Voordelta Newsletter 15/16 (December 1999), including an article describing the outcome of the Voordelta Evaluation, however states the plan has low priority with the people responsible for executing it. Implementation and executing of the policy plan is taking place on a snail's pace. Key reasons for this sluggishness seem to be the delay in the proper implementation of the Natuurbescherminswet (the Nature Conservation Act) and the vagueness around the extension of the Maasvlakte. A third delay still relevant at this moment in time seems to be caused by the problems with the Vijfde Nota Ruimtelijke Ordening (the fifth national report on physical and spatial planning), the following abandoning of this (not implemented) spatial management plan and the development of the Nota Ruimte which, when implemented, will be successor of the Vierde Nota Ruimtelijke Ordening Extra.

Although some problems and issues -mostly regarding a number of fish stocks- are still apparent in the area it seems that most of the wider conservation aims of the IBV have been accomplished by now. The Voordelta is a healthy system with great value for nature, recreation and fisheries (in that order). A number of SPAs / SACs have been put into place and by 2000 all of them had received proper management plans (Withagen, 2000). After 1998 / 1999 it seems that interest in the policy making and management process has come down a bit and the Voordelta has taken in a for granted place in the area. The last Voordelta Newsletter was published in 2000 and overall focus of "what direction to take with the Voordelta" seems to have shifted towards the newer, legal, planning instruments and more important to the Maasvlakte extension and the related nature compensation in the Voordelta area. Of the 47 actions in the original policy plan only seven (and two where close to being realised) had been realised in 1999 (Voordelta Nieuwsbrief 15/16, 1999 Centraal Informatiepunt Voordelta., 1999. Werken aan een nieuwe impuls. Voordelta Nieuwsbrief 15/16. Rijkwaterstaat, Directie Noordzee, Rijswijk. (Dutch).). The current consultation & managing body (the Stuurgroep Voordelta) of the Voordelta has decided in 1999 and again in 2002 to reassess the list of actions in the IBV. Also it was decided to rethink the way interest groups are involved in the further implementation and execution of the IBV. It is not clear what the outcome of these two goals were.

The Voordelta and the Maasvlakte-II extension

The delay in implementing the Nature Conservation Act in the Voordelta seemed to be mostly related to the difficulties around the Project Mainportdevelopment Rotterdam (the extension of the Maasvlakte or Maasvlakte-II). Already in 1991, with the Vierde Nota Ruimtelijke Ordening Extra it was acknowledged that the entire Voordelta (which includes the Maasvlakte area) should be managed according to the "green direction". Though that it was in the economies best interest to pursue the "blue direction" in the small part of the Voordelta covered by the Maasvlakte area. The blue direction offers more opportunities for economical development and a lesser focus on nature conservation. In June 1999 the Dutch parliament formally acknowledged the need for more space in Rotterdam Mainport by agreeing on the interim report Project Mainport on Track. In 2004 the formal decision was taken by the Dutch parliament, the province of South-Holland and the city of Rotterdam to extend the Maasvlakte with a first 500 ha. The now planned size of the harbour and industrial area will be around 1000 ha with a total influenced and changed planning zone (loss of seabed) of 3123 ha (Brouwer & Tempel, 2001 Brouwer, H., & Tempel, R. van der, (editors)., 2001. Advies over natuurcompensatie bij een tweede Maasvlakte; Advies ten behoeve van PKB-plus deel 3 en de adviesaanvraag bij de Europese Commissie. Expertisecentrum PMR, Rotterdam. (Dutch).). As this leads to a loss of protected environment (see above, among other things it is assigned as a special bird area, part of the Natura 2000 network) nature compensation on sea had to be found in order to comply with the Natura 2000 goal of "maintaining the structural integrity of the network".

Although a number of alternatives was considered, the idea of having a "sea reserve" or "marine reserve" (a term without any legal definition, merely used to indicate that the proposed nature compensation offers a higher level of protection than the already existing conservation means in the area) within the Voordelta was seen as a structural part of any of the alternatives (Brouwer & Tempel, 2001). As the Voordelta already favours a fairly high level of protection, and the natural values are high compared to the compensation needed it is calculated that adding the extra level of protection the declaration as "sea reserve" can offer is only about ten percent. This basically means that for every hectare of lost seabed ten times as much compensation is needed. An area of 31.230 ha (the total influenced and changed planning zone times ten) will be large enough to accommodate slow moving animals as crabs, lobster and snails. To provide a proper reserve for fish as ray (larger animals, but still not moving over large distances) the area is too small (Lindeboom et al, 2001 Lindeboom, H., et al., 2001. Een zeereservaat in de Voordelta als compensatie voor Maasvlakte 2. Alterra, Texel. (Dutch).). Management changes to upgrade part of the Voordelta to a sea reserve will basically mean a complete and year-round closure of about one third of the area to all disturbing activities, including fisheries, recreational boating and (military-) flights. The full area (the seabed) will be closed for fisheries and other bottom disturbing activities. Three areas within the Voordelta were deemed suitable for implementing of a sea reserve. Ultimately the location in front of the Haringvliet has been selected as most suitable as it will provide a large increase in shellfish (cockles an mussels) used by birds to feed on, and will also provide valuable nursery grounds for certain species of fish. This is also the option that least affects fisheries and may even have a positive effect on the middle to longer term in providing overspill (Brouwer & Tempel, 2001). Currently the Management Plan Sea Reserve is being finalised by Rijkswaterstaat and the Projectgroup Mainport Rotterdam. It is expected to be ready for public consultation in September 2006. To achieve its aim of implementing the nature compensation before starting with the construction of the Maasvlakte (second half of 2007) the national government wants to implement the management plan in the first half of 2007 latest. The shape and management scheme of the Sea Reserve will not have a fixed status. As the amount of protected ecology and habitat to be lost due to the Maasvlakte extension is currently unknown (government sponsored monitoring and counting projects are currently in progress) it is possible that changes are made during an evaluation moment somewhere in the next couple of years (Brouwer & Tempel, 2001).

A decade of Voordelta, now what

After a little over a decade since the implementation of the IBV it seems apparent that things are, and have been, moving in the right direction. As the implementation of the constructions laid out in the Delta Act of 1958 basically created a new habitat and related ecosystem within the Voordelta area the IBV tried to support this development when the period of hard structural engineering of the delta works was over. A process that already started with the protests against a fully closed Eastern Scheldt (and resulted in the beautifully deformed monster; the Oosterscheldekering) it became clear with the IBV that a different way of coastal management and thinking about the coast had entered the policy making process. Had the traditional thinking of Rijkswaterstaat and the various ministries always been one of protecting the coastline against threats from the sea, the new way of thinking was one of fitting the sea and the sea-region into spatial planning. Now government would not only construct defensive systems to protect against the water but would also construct facilities (legislative as well as real world) for various uses as recreation, fisheries and nature conservation.

Science shows that the nature (the single most important "management interest" in the policy area, the IBV being an integrated plan there is just interaction with the other interests as recreation and fisheries though) in the area has developed well during the last decades and is an important contribution to the Dutch marine nature. This should of course be seen in a critical view as in a way the Voordelta area as a whole can be seen as some kind of natural nature compensation created to compensate for the loss of similar areas due to the construction of the delta barriers and the resulting closure of some of the estuaries. The creation of the Maasvlakte extension will put extra stress on the area. It's still to be seen what exact influence this will have on the habitat and ecology. The Voordelta Sea Reserve compensation will hopefully add to the resilience of the area as a whole as it will create a fully closed area. An area safeguarded from most (although a large oil spill will be quite hard to keep out) external disturbances by its strong ecological structure.

Although the extension of the Maasvlakte and the connected sea reserve is currently the hottest issue in the Voordelta a number of other issues and opportunities are also playing at this moment. For as long as the IBV existed the beach with motor vehicle access in Westvoorne has been a hot topic locally as well as one disturbing consultation in IBV process as a whole. As recently the beach was finally closed for motor vehicle access the discussion has entered a new state of passionate debate in where even politicians from the province seem to become involved. A second issue is the possible placement of a near shore wind farm. This debate has just been started but might end up to be an interesting one as new policy seems to have openings for the creation of a park in the Voordelta area. A third, and for many people (mostly older people who remember the 1953 disaster), painful topic is the further "breaching" of the fixed sea line by creating fresh water / salt water transition zones to facilitate nature development with possible benefits for fisheries and recreation in some of the estuaries. It will be interesting to see how the Voordelta is doing in the upcoming years in lights of the implementation of new legislation as the Nota Ruimte Ministerie van VROM, Ministerie van LNV, Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, Ministerie van Economische Zaken., 2004. Nota Ruimte; Ruimte voor Ontwikkeling. (Dutch). (which, among other changes, includes a call for decentralisation where possible) and the IBN2015 Rijksinstituut voor Kust en Zee., 2002. Naar integraal kustzonebeleid; Beleidsagenda voor de kust. Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, Rijkswaterstaat. (Dutch)., the positive or/and negative results of the sea reserve on the nature, recreation and fisheries, and the possible implementation of fresh water / salt water transition zones in the Eastern Scheldt and other estuaries. With a continuous focus on integrated planning and maybe with a better involvement of local, non administrative, stakeholders (as an example of the current relation; the Dutch association of fisherman still refuses to give out recent statistics on fisheries they collect as they do not completely trust the policy makers) the IBV or the new version of it should be able to work fairly smoothly for the next couple of years.

Our oceans comprise almost three quarters of the surface of the earth. "The World Ocean (Oceanosphere) contains on the order of 1,340.7 million km3 of water, making up 1/800th of the total volume of the Earth (1,083.3 billion km3). Alternatively, the volume of fresh water is about 35.8 million km3. If the Oceanosphere was shown in the form of a sphere, its radius would be equal to 690 km, or 0.11 mean radii of the Earth (6,371 km)." - http://www.oceansatlas.org/unatlas/about/physicalandchemicalproperties/background/seemore1.html With an average depth Deepest point on earth is the Marianas Trench with 11.022 metres. Most oceanic waters are less than 1.000 metres or between 3.000 and 4.000 metres. of ~3.700 metres the marine habitats encompass roughly 300 times the habitable volume of the land based (terrestrial) habitats. The oceanic ecosystem is comprised of complex and interlinked systems where each organism relies on its own niche (e.g. habitat) for survival. A change in any biotic Biotic - The living parts of the environment, e.g. plants, animals and fungi, that affect ecological functions. or a-biotic Abiotic - The non-living parts of the environment, e.g. rocks, climate, and pressure, that affect ecological functions. variable, and thus a change or disappearance of a habitat, can have disastrous consequences for the organisms relying on that.

Habitats and ecosystems

The majority of all plant and animal life on earth is found in the oceanic ecosystems. Marine ecosystems can be split up in a number of zones. While a number of classifications exists on this the following is a very practical list: Alexander, D., & Fairbridge, R. W. (1999). Encyclopedia of environmental science. Kluwer Academic encyclopedia of earth sciences series. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

• Oceanic - relative shallow part of the ocean on top of the continental shelf
• Profundal - deep water below the range of effective light penetration
• Benthic - the seabed, bottom substrates
• Intertidal - area between the high and low tides
• Estuaries - semi-enclosed body of water flowing -e.g. a river- to the sea
• Mangroves - saline coastal swamp in (sub-) tropical region
• Coral reefs - limestone structure constructed by organisms
• Salt marshes - coastal wetland extending landward to the high tide line
• Hydrothermal vents - system driven by chemosynthetic sulphur bacteria

The main oceanic habitats are reefs, deep sea / trenches, open ocean, and intertidal / shore.

Ecology

The oceanic ecosystems are populated with a tremendous amount and diversity of life. Ranging from the smallest krill to the Blue Whale, the largest mammal (up to 40m and 150tonnes in weight) known to men.

• Microscopic plankton
  This is where the oceanic food chain begins. Microscopic free floating plants called phytoplankton are the most abundant primary producers on earth and fully depend on photosynthesis for their existence. This is why they are found close to the surface of the water. (the photic zone) Somewhat larger and feeding on the phytoplankton sits the zooplankton (protozoa), a group of tiny, mostly free floating, animals. These are a mixture of larvae from fish, sea stars, worms and corals (and the likes), but also consist of fully grown adult animals like copepods, krill (euohausiids) and minuscule shrimps.
  
  Primary production by phytoplankton accounts for an estimated 90 percent of the total plant production on earth, and is a major source of oxygen.
  
  
• Plants and algae
  Just as phytoplankton, plant and algae is mostly found in shallow water or in places where light can penetrate the water column to a fair extent. Most real plant organisms are found in intertidal areas (mangroves, beach grass) and in shallow, highly saline, waters (seagrasses such as zostera and thalassia).
  
  Macro-algae (seaweeds) are found everywhere from the intertidal seashore (fucus) to clear, shallow oceans (kelp forests) to free drifting on the oceans currents (sargassum).
  
  No plants -relying on sunlight for their photosynthesis- are found in the deep sea as no light reaches this zone. The only primary producers in the deep sea are bacteria who rely on hydrogen sulphide released by hot water geysers to make their food.
  
  
• Fish
  The majority of the over 22.000 species of fish we've discovered live in the oceans. Fish can be found everywhere in the marine habitats: from the deepest depths of the cold and dark oceans to the coastal intertidal regions we humans inhabit as well. Fish are classified into two groups: fishes with jaws and fishes without jaws (lampreys and hagfish). The jawed fish make up most species and can be divided further into fish with cartilage skeletons (sharks, rays, skates) and fish with bony skeletons (tuna, cod, basically everything else).
  
  Many adaptations can be found among the various species. Whole for example a typical fish is cold blooded some species have adapted themselves and are able to raise their internal body temperature above that of the surrounding water. Examples of this are tuna, swordfish and a variety of shark species. Other species have adapted to an amphibious lifestyle (mudskipper, many adaptations), for great speed (the torpedo shaped rainbow trout), to suck food from the bottom (the sturgeon, equiped with a "vacuum cleaner"), or to lure prey (the anglerfish, equiped with a "light emitting" lure on top of its head).
  
  Small fish mainly feed on plankton (both zooplankton and phytoplankton) and large fish feed on smaller fish. At up to 15 meter the largest fish in the world, the whale shark, is a filter feeder only capable of consuming tiny plankton. Other fish like flounder and plaice feed on molluscs and worms near the bottom.
  
  
• Marine invertebrates
  Invertebrates, those animals without a spinal column or notochord, make up the largest part of the biodiversity of the oceans. A wide variety of species can be found all over the water column, from the benthic substrate, to the sea floor, to the sea surface. Due to lack of a rigid inner system to protect themselves many have shells or hard exoskeletons. Their size ranges from microscopic to a number of metres.
  
  The sheer variety of the group includes corals, worms, shells, sea urchins, sponges, crustaceans (e.g. lobsters, crabs, shrimp, barnacles), molluscs (e.g. squid, octopus, snails, bivalves) and many more species.
  
  
• Marine mammals
  Some of the most loved (if only for their apparent level of cuteness) organisms in the oceans belong to the marine mammals, a group of mammals that evolved on land but migrated back to the sea. These mammals that spend the majority of their lives in or near the water and depend on it for their food can be split up in two: real marine mammals (three groups), and marine mammals still in the process of returning to sea (two groups).
  
  Fully marine mammals (order, species)
  • Sirenia - Manatees and Dugongs
  • Carnivora, family Pinnipedia - Seals, Sea Lions, and Walruses (33 species)
  • Cetacea - Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises (over 70 species)
  Semi marine mammals (order, species)
  • Carnivora, family Ursidae - Polar bears
  • Carnivora, family Mustelidae - Sea Otters and Marine Otters
  Marine mammals differentiate from other marine life on a number of key points: they breathe air (most other marine animals extract oxygen from the water), they give live birth (one or two calf's at a time), they are warm blooded, have a high internal body temperature and maintain this between narrow limits, and they have hair (cetaceans have little or none).
  
  In order to cope with the marine environmental the mammals have developed a number of adaptations. These vary widely among the animals and their behaviour. Marine mammals have a universal need to keep their inner body warm at all times, most have thick layers of blubber around their body to prevent heat loss. Sea /Marine Otters and Polar Bears are exceptions on this as they rely more on fur and behaviour to deal with this. Other examples of adaptations are the streamlined bodies (where external ears are non-existent and limbs have vanished or changed into flippers), highly efficient livers and kidneys (very good filters which remove excess salts from the blood and prevent dehydration. Marine Mammals get their fresh water by eating fish), and the sonar (echolocation, enabling very good tracking of prey, and communication over thousands of kilometres) toothed cetaceans are equiped with.
  
  
• Sea birds
• Reptiles

Overfishing basics

Where can I find answers

This website goal is to be a source of information on overfishing; on its basic problems, specific situations (case studies), progress and solutions. As of April 2007 the site was just launched and the information available is rather limited. In time this will become better when more articles and information is added to the site. If you have specific questions the discussion forum is a good start.

Overfishing basics

What can I do to help

The effects of overfishing are still reversible, that is, if we act now and act strongly.

When fish stocks decline and and fisheries become commercially unviable Commercially unviable: The fishing effort -taking in account costs, subsidies, offset prices etc- needed being too high to make an economic profit. the damaged stock gets some rest and generally struggles along on a pathetic level compared to it's pre-fishing level, but doesn't go biologically extinct Biologically extinct: when a species population density is so low that no partners are available for mating purposes.. A damaged system is struggling and shifting, but can still be active (e.g. filled with jellyfish instead of cod).

If we want to we can reverse most of the destruction. In some situations it might only take a decade, in other situations it might take many centuries. Yet in the end we can have productive and healthy oceans again as is shown in many examples around the world. We do however need to act on it now, before we cross the point of no return.

Every long-term successful and sustainable fishery, near-shore or high-seas, needs to be managed according to some basic ground rules:

• Save catch limits
  A constantly reassessed, scientifically determined, limit on the total number of fish caught and landed by a fishery. Politics and short time economical incentives should have no role in this.
  
  
• Controls on bycatch
  The use of techniques or management rules to prevent the unintentional killing and disposal of fish, crustaceans and other oceanic life not part of the target catch or landed.
  
  
• Protection of pristine and important habitats
  The key parts in ecosystems need full protection from destructive fisheries; e.g. the spawning and nursing grounds of fish, delicate sea floor, unique unexplored habitats, and corals.
  
  
• Monitoring and Enforcement
  A monitoring system to make sure fishermen do not land more than they are allowed to, do not fish in closed areas and cheat as less as possible. Strong monetary enforcement is needed to make it uneconomic to cheat.

We need to make sure management systems based on these rules are implemented everywhere. In combination with the banning of the lavish -hidden- subsidies to commercially unviable fisheries.

So, what can I do to help

It's fair to say that individuals cannot solve this global problem all by ourselves, we need politicians to strengthen international law. What we can do is make a difference. Over a decade ago many people started buying dolphin-friendly tuna. Now the time has come to buy ocean friendly tuna. Which might actually entail not buying any tuna at all. Check out the Guide to Good Fish Guides. Here are some of the actions you yourself can undertake.

• Be informed
  Read up a bit on the issues of overfishing, have a look at some articles on this site, see if you can find some information regarding your local situation. Keep in mind that while this is a global problem every local situation is different.
  
  
• Know what you eat
  If you eat fish make sure you know what you eat, and pick the ones with the lowest impact. Have a look at the Guide to Good Fish Guides for some tips.
  
  
• Spread the word
  I know, it's all rather obvious, but this is simply how it works. Let your voice be heard!
  • Friends - Mention to your friends why you refrain from eating certain fish, tell them about the problems we're faceing -pointing them to the Overfishing Basics at overfishing.org might be a good idea.
    
    
  • Elected officials - Write to your elected officials or political party and tell them you are concerned about overfishing and destructive fishing methods. Ask them what they think of the fisheries problem and what they are doing to manage our oceans in a sustainable manner.
    
    
  • Media - Your local newspaper almost certainly has a section dedicated for letters by readers or articles. If you are motivated it writing a letter to the editor is a good way of getting a wide audience.

Continue to chapter four: Where can I find answers.

Overfishing basics

Why is overfishing a problem

In the first chapter we discussed already that globally fishing fleets are at least two to three times as large as needed to take present day catches of fish and other marine species. To explain why overfishing is a problem we first have to get an idea on the scale of the problem. This is best done by looking at some figures published by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. The FAO Fish and Aquaculture organisation - http://www.fao.org/fi/default.asp The FAO scientists publish a two yearly report (SOFIA) on the state of the world's fisheries and aquaculture. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA) can be found on http://www.fao.org/sof/sofia/index_en.htm. Figures on this page are taken from the 2006 version of the report. The report is generally rather conservative regarding the acknowledging of problems but does show the main issues. In general it can be stated that the SOFIA report is a number of years behind time of the real situation.

• 52% of fish stocks are fully exploited
• 20% are moderately exploited
• 17% are overexploited
• 7% are depleted
• 1% is recovering from depletion

The above shows that over 25% of all the world's fish stocks are either overexploited or depleted. Another 52% is fully exploited, these are in imminent danger of overexploitation (maximum sustainable production level) and collapse. Thus a total of almost 80% of the world's fisheries are fully- to over-exploited, depleted, or in a state of collapse. Worldwide about 90% of the stocks of large predatory fish stocks are already gone. In the real world all this comes down to two serious problems.

• We are losing species as well as entire ecosystems. As a result the overall ecological unity of our oceans are under stress and at risk of collapse.
• We are in risk of losing a valuable food source many depend upon for social, economical or dietary reasons.

The single best example of the ecological and economical dangers of overfishing is found in Newfoundland, Canada. In 1992 the once thriving cod fishing industry came to a sudden and full stop when at the start of the fishing season no cod appeared. Overfishing allowed by decades of fisheries mismanagement was the main cause for this disaster that resulted in almost 40.000 people losing their livelihood and an ecosystem in complete state of decay. Now, fifteen years after the collapse, many fishermen are still waiting for the cod to return and communities still haven't recovered from the sudden removal of the regions single most important economical driver. The only people thriving in this region are the ones fishing for crab, a species once considered a nuisance by the Newfoundland fishermen.

Fishing down the food web

It's not only the fish that is affected by fishing. As we are fishing down the food web Fishing down the food chain: After depleting the most valuable fish we move on the second most valuable fish etc etc. This both involves physically fishing on different locations (from sea mount to sea mount) as well as changing to different, usually smaller, species. Between 1950 and now we systematically worked down our way along the food chain by fishing out all the top predators one after the other. the increasing effort needed to catch something of commercial value marine mammals, sharks, sea birds, and non commercially viable fish species in the web of marine biodiversity are overexploited, killed as bycatch and discarded (up to 80% of the catch for certain fisheries), and threatened by the industrialized fisheries. The total amount of fish we take from the system and consume is rising every year. In 2005 we consumed 95 million tonnes of fish. 86 million tonnes of this came from marine fisheries and 9 from inland fisheries. Fish farming accounted for another 50 million tonnes (43%) of production, indirect much of this was fed with the fish from the marine fisheries. In 1980 less than 10 percent of all fish came from fish farming. Scientists agree that at current exploitation rates many important fish stocks will be removed from the system within 25 years. Dr. Daniel Pauly describes it as follows:

„The big fish, the bill fish, the groupers, the big things will be gone. It is happening now. If things go unchecked, we'll have a sea full of little horrible things that nobody wants to eat. We might end up with a marine junkyard dominated by plankton.” Dr. Daniel Pauly and others, "Fishing Down Marine Food Webs" SCIENCE Vol. 279 (February 6, 1998), pgs. 860-863.

Dr. Daniel Pauly, Professor and Director of the University of British Columbia's Fisheries Centre, gives a short introduction on the problem of overfishing. A fragment from an Oceana video. Fisheries on the Brink, Oceana. video.google.com. Edited by me.

Continue to chapter three: What can I do to help.

Overfishing basics

published on March 5, 2007

This is a guest article from scuba diver and shark enthusiast Patrick. He regularly blogs about shark and whale conservation as well as on other environmental topics @ the Shark Bait Blog.

The instantly recognisable theme tune of the movie 'Jaws', masks the fact that Sharks of all species have a great deal more to fear from Homo sapiens than the other way round. More people are killed by lightning strikes, falling coconuts and the domestic dog each year than are attacked (let alone killed) by sharks.

In contrast the gigantic number of sharks killed by the international shark fishing industry (much of it destined for the Shark Fin soup market) are so mind bogglingly vast that the figure is in danger of losing its impact through its sheer size. The IUCN's Species Survival Commission, Shark Specialist Group estimates that tens of millions of sharks die worldwide each year as a result of directly targeted fisheries or exploitation of by-catch, in particular the long lining Tuna fisheries.

Unlike some other commercially targeted fish species (although it is becoming ever more evident that the majority of fisheries in international waters are currently being unsustainably overexploited) the vast majority of Shark species simply do not reproduce anywhere near fast enough to sustain the level of exploitation of modern industrial commercial fisheries.

There are a number of recent historical examples of shark populations fished to commercial extinction and since many schooling shark species congregate in single sex groups the possibility of real extinction of localised shark populations is often the result.

Gavin Maxwell is famous for writing the book Ring of Bright Water about his pet otter, what is not so well known is that during the 1950s, Mr Maxwell owned a Basking shark fishing company on the island of Soay, off the coast of Scotland and in the space of a few years using relatively primitive harpoon equipment, decimated the local Basking shark population; ruining his business in the process.

The history of the international porbeagle shark fishery in the northwest Atlantic (NAFO subareas 3 - 6) repeats this pattern. in 1961 the fishery was started on a previously unexploited population of Porbeagle sharks, peaked in 1963 and had already crashed by 1965; the population has not significantly recovered. Campana et al. Population dynamics of the porbeagle in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22:106-121, (2002).

Bull sharks are renowned for their ability to tolerate fresh water (the Bull Shark has been recorded some 2,600 miles (4,200 kilometres) upriver from the mouth of the Amazon) and until recently Lake Nicaragua in South America actually had a resident population of breeding Bull sharks... however the Nicaraguan dictator Somoza permitted a shark-fin processing plant to be built on the shores of the San Juan River. So during the 1970s, thousands of sharks were caught and killed each year then processed through this Japanese plant, as a result the shark population collapsed; few if any sharks now remain. The last media reports of a sighting date back to the year 2000, there have been few recent scientific investigations and the shark population is considered to be virtually wiped out.

These are just three specific examples, far more worrying is the fact that now vast areas are being affected.

A report by Julia Baum and Ransom Myers published in Nature in 2004 found that the Oceanic White Tip, once one of the most common sharks in the world; according to their census in the Gulf of Mexico are now almost extinct there, over the past 50 years Oceanic Whitetip numbers in the Gulf have crashed by more than 99%. Baum, J. K. & Myers, R. Shifting baselines and the decline of pelagic sharks in the Gulf of Mexico. Ecology Letters, 7, 135 - 145, doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2003.00564 (2004). The crisis had not been noticed before simply because of a lack of data. Myers found a government survey of the number of whitetip sharks accidentally caught on tuna fishing lines in 1954 in the Gulf of Mexico. No further record was kept of the sharks' numbers until 1992, because the sharks weren't being 'intentionally' fished in the Gulf.

The study adds to a body of work that points to a massive decline in numbers of large predator species in the oceans. Baum and Myers previously found that silky sharks in the Gulf of Mexico have declined by around 90% since the 1950s. And hammerhead shark numbers in the Atlantic have plummeted by 89% in the past 15 years. Baum, J. K. et al. Collapse and conservation of shark populations in the Northwest Atlantic. Science, 299, 389 - 392, (2003). "Sharks are in a global extinction crisis," says Myers. "Wherever you look around the world the story is the same."

Myers has called for a worldwide ban on shark-finning. Canada, Australia and the United States have outlawed the practice, although enforcement has proved difficult and anti-finning laws in other countries have in many cases been based on the short term economic requirements of fishing industry interests rather than long term conservation. The World Conservation Union (IUCN) is spearheading a campaign for countries to recognize the damage caused by the trade in shark fins.

Facts & Figures

Despite an increasing level of publicity over the Shark finning Industry in the international media, more action is desperately needed in 2007.

Expert findings show even the fastest, widest ranging sharks are threatened by overfishing as more species added to IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: More oceanic or "pelagic" sharks are being added to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species based on the findings of this week's international expert workshop, convened by the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC), that examined the conservation status of these highly migratory sharks against Red List criteria.

"The qualities of pelagic sharks - fast, powerful, wide ranging - too often lead to a misperception that they are resilient to fishing pressure", said Sarah Fowler, Co-Chair of the IUCN SSC Shark Specialist Group (SSG). "This week, leading shark scientists from around the world highlighted the vulnerability of these species to overfishing and concluded that several species are now threatened with extinction on a global scale." More oceanic sharks added to the IUCN Red List @ http://www.sharktrust.org/content.asp?did=26868

Many shark species are slow to mature and produce few offspring which means they are simply unable to support international fishing industry exploitation.

Whatever the claims of quacks and snake oil salesmen, shark products have NEVER been medically proven to prevent, let alone cure cancer. The Truth About The Shark Cartilage Scam @ http://www.nautilusproductions.com/sandtigersharks/scam.html

Articles index

Something missing, a question on overfishing, weird errors? Go to the forum and ask for help. If demand is large enough this page will be updated and transitioned into a real FAQ.

Overfishing.org - How I stopped overfishing and learned to love the fish.

Over three quarters of our planet are covered by the oceans. Their biodiversity is unmatched and they contain over 80 percent of all life on earth, mostly unexplored. Millions of people worldwide are depending on the oceans for their daily livelihoods. More and more all this is endangered because of ignorance and a global lack of management.

To idea and goal of this website can be paraphrased with one sentence: Overfishing.org is an independent source of information on the most dangerous threat our oceans are facing today. Most material is written by Pepijn Koster (me for the remainder of this page). material from other authors is tagged as such. The site was launched bare-bone in late March 2007 and will grow steadily over the next couple of months.

If you find errors or think you can do better, do not hesitate to sign up for the forum or / and contact me directly. Fact supported criticism is welcomed as well as appreciated and a serious reply is guaranteed.

Contact

The author of this site can be reached by email on pepijnkoster@gmail.com. A second option, and strongly favoured for any site related topics, is via the discussion forum. Oh, and in case you wonder: I do eat fish.

Site information & Feeds

Overfishing.org is a dynamic site designed to be widely usable and easy on the eyes. Some of the software tools used are PHP, Pivot, Simple Machines and Yahoo Pipes. Most of the small icons are part of the Silk icon set. The fish image on the front page is from Wikimedia Commons.

A number of RSS feeds are available. Some more will be added in the future.

• Last ten articles - FEED
• Last ten threads on the discussion forum - FEED

Use of material

As an educational website it's aim is to inform. And what better way to reach an audience is by reproducing information on other media. Unfortunately this is not as easy and foolproof as it sounds. For the moment the following copyright notice applies to the entire website:

Overfishing.org - All content, unless stated otherwise, are Copyright 2007 Pepijn Koster. No reproduction allowed.

You are always invited to quote (with link) and / or link to the pages of course. Asides of that no copying please. The authors of the material on overfishing.org spend lots of time creating material and would appreciate it to be viewed as originally planned. No copying also guarantees no outdated versions of pages are on the internet. If you would like to use / reproduce any of the material you are invited to contact me.

Exceptions on the copyright and no-copying notice are school papers and the like. If these are for offline use there is no need to ask permission. You do need to reference properly of course. I also appreciate it if you drop me a line about the use of the material.

Individual contributions to the discussion forum are owned by their respective posters.