Wednesday, October 23, 2019

Ghost Gear Regulations in Response to the Rise of the "Conscious Consumer."

Ghost Gear Regulations in Response to the Rise of the "Conscious Consumer."

Since the 1980’s the marine debris issue has gained significant attention within scientific research, governmental regulations, as well as independent and public communities. More recently, the impacts of “ghost gear” via derelict fishing gear have just begun to gain popular media attention; partly due to the surfacing of graphic images of ocean wildlife getting entangled and injured in the gear. Additionally, the scientific community has taken interest in the rising issue due to concerns over its current and potential impacts on the environment, wildlife habitats, human health, and ultimately the productivity of the ocean. 

To give a short summary: Ghost fishing, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, refers to fishing gear, including: longlines, gillnets, trawls, and crab pots/traps, that are not under control of a fisherman, either commercially or recreationally. A prohibition of dumping or abandoning fishing gear was established by the International Maritime Convention in the 1970s. Ghost gear, however, still enters the ocean by abandonment, breakage, or loss. In many ways, ghost gear can be harmful to underwater ecosystems. The derelict fishing gear not only adds to the marine debris issue, but is also responsible for the unintended injury or death of marine organisms and benthic fauna; ghost gear often continues to fish and entangle various species such as whales and marine birds and mammals even after it has been detached from its vessel.

Shocking Statistics

  •  It has been roughly estimated that ghost gear makes up around 10% of the total marine debris in the ocean
  • 46-80% of the macro-plastic in the ocean come from ghost gear
  • 640,000 tonnes per year in ocean

Starting back in 1994, studies had identified the potential impact of ghost fishing on commercially targeted fish stocks. More recent studies have also indicated that fish stocks can be affected due to ghost gear induced fish mortality, while studies on the economic impacts have suggested the costs of replacing lost gear, or by complying with new regulations, can negatively impact fisheries. 

For businesses and corporations, the concern not only lies with loss of fish stock but also in consumer preference. With the rise of the ‘conscious consumers’ wave, many are growing increasingly concerned over the affliction of plastics in the oceans as, well as the ethicality of the production of the food they purchase. Just look at incidents such as the ban of plastic straws at Starbucks or the removal of plastic shopping bags around the world. In a 2017 report by CONE Communications on corporate social responsibility, it was found that when companies support environmental or conservation issues, 92% of consumers have a more positive image of the company, while 88% of consumers say they would be more loyal to a company. Additionally, at 89%, consumers are more likely to switch over to a company that is environmentally responsible.

Independent organizations working towards education and outreach, as well as an increase in published literature, have been advancing the understanding of the issue. However, a detailed understanding of its impacts on habitats, species, fish stocks, and economy is still limited due to cost-prohibiting factors, as well as the general complexity of the international issue. As a result, very few laws and regulations have been established to address it. It is critical that all seafood companies are proactive and take the first initiatives to prevent the future pollution of ghost gear in our oceans.

Posted by Lauren Mason (6)

10 comments:

  1. I had no idea what fishing "ghost gear" was before I read this post. I knew about ocean pollution but did not know about its components. The statistics and reports you provide make it clear that action must be taken. It also appears from the information you provide that ghost gear pollution can be easily prevented. I wonder if our ocean's current polluted state could enable more jobs or marine biologists. Although prevention is of utmost importance, I wonder what actions can be done now to undue what has already been done to the marine bio-communities.

    -David Frykenberg

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I really like the way you are thinking! It's common knowledge that the ocean needs scientific help, but it seems that all the attempts to clean it up are done by small non-profit organizations. There's no doubt in my mind that in general, the climate crisis could create many jobs, but it's all about finding the money source here in the US!

      Posted by Lauren Mason

      Delete
  2. It surprised me how large the percentage fishing gear makes of the overall amount of trash in the ocean. It makes sense though when you think about it, since countries such as Indonesia and the Philippines contribute to the most ocean waste, however both these places also have large amounts of fisherman compared to most other countries.

    -Isaac Collibee

    ReplyDelete
  3. i did not know what fishing ghost gear was before. i mean i always thought that with all the fishing going there would definitely be some pollution with fishing gear but i did not it was this high. i wonder what else has been done than establishing laws.

    Posted by Pam Jimenez

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From my knowledge there has been a bit of non-profit work, but most of the push for legislation has come from the consumers push. Big corporations are more likely to care about sustainability if their is a profitable demand for it!

      Posted by Lauren Mason

      Delete
  4. As a scuba diver and marine- enthusiast it always breaks my heart when I find human trash in reefs where there should be none. My hobby I made me aware of the impact on marine life through fishing nets and other gear, but I didn't know there was a specific term for that issue. I highly recommend to explore videos on youtube that show how fishing gear can damage habitats or entangle large animals, which can cause serious injury or death. There are also labels on food products that indicate how the fishing process was conducted, in case any one want to know.
    http://seafood.edf.org/buying-fish-what-you-need-know

    - Gene

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for that resource. It seems like the main takeaway from my post has been that it's up to consumers to make the push for change and legislation when it comes to the fishing industry. It gives me hope that so many people are concerned with the issue but that's not enough! We need to spread the word and make it our objective to become conscious consumers. Just making the effort to buy sustainably sourced can tuna can make a difference!

      Posted by Lauren Mason

      Delete
  5. I had heard that majority of the plastic pollution in the ocean was due to fishing materials before. I never knew they had a name for it, though. As I was reading this post, I was wondering what kind of regulations could be set in place for limiting the quantity of ghost gear left in our oceans. If a lot of it is left because of accidental breaks or loss of equipment, I wonder if it is possible to use equipment that is less likely to end up as ghost gear. It would also help if the same companies responsible contributed funds to ocean clean-up projects and such; until they can find other ways to help reduce the waste they create.

    Posted by Meagan Gustafson

    ReplyDelete
  6. As someone that had no idea that ghost equipment in oceans even exists, this whole reading was a big surprise to me. I find it appalling that so much gear is just left to sit there in the ocean, specifically 10% of all marine debris (which is a LOT). I think fishing practices in general just need more oversight as the ocean affects everyone, the same way that what we do as humans affects the ocean.

    Posted by Brian Lee

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is a good point and I'm glad my post has brought to you some insight. I think that you're right that the fishing practices need more oversight. The idea sounds good in theory but it's not really realistic. You have to think about fish migration patterns, different laws and policies world wide, and country agreements. That's why pushing individual fishing corporations to modify their practices can actually make more change than trying to create a global agreement to "protect the oceans."

      Posted by Lauren Mason

      Delete