Bye bye bluefin

The news about the bluefin tuna just keeps on coming. This week we had an exclusive story with some new predictions that the bluefin tuna population in the Med and the Northeast Atlantic is about to collapse. The only way of avoiding this with any certainty is a ban on fishing. However the current strategy for conserving the bluefin tuna involves more fishing and fishing that will cause the population to decline so precipitously that it would qualify as critically endangered.

As the story details, despite fine words about a ban at the IUCN meeting a month in October, the European Union, and the UK are heading to a crucial meeting held by ICCAT with a mandate that seems to do all it can to avoid actually mention moratorium. (See our piece and also this AFP report). While WWF is encouraged by signs in Italy and Spain of interest in a moratorium on bluefin tuna fishing, it is of course the EU/EC that has the seat at the table (which is one of the most important among the 46 nations involved in ICCAT).

The EC contends that it has done a good job on managing the bluefin through ICCAT, despite all evidence to the contrary. Matters are coming to head, though, at this November's meeting.

Underscoring this was a letter from ICCAT chairman Dr Fabio Hazin which was sent on October 31st to all the delegates. He writes, "I believe that this upcoming ICCAT meeting may very well be the most important one our Commission ever faced. ICCAT credibility is seriously at stake at this moment and our fate will be sealed ultimately by the decisions we make at Marrakech".

Every year, the politicians at ICCAT ignore the scientific advice. This year, there is more talk of heeding the scientific advice. But there is still plenty of wiggle room. A EC spokesperson said "there is not only one scientific advice". Within any estimate is a degree of uncertainty, and this can typically be exploited to allow for more fishing. One of the scientists who reworked the ICCAT data, said that some of the assumptions that had been made up in their models were incredibly optimistic.

In an interview, Andy Rosenberg, a fisheries scientist at the University of New Hampshire, also questioned the degree to which the scientific committee at ICCAT were truly independent. He says the scientists do a good job, but ultimately the committee is taking its "marching orders from the various members states. The science committee is asked to analyse various options."

He adds, "it really is up to governments and governments will respond to public pressure. But it is always too slow. Its a matter of people saying that this isn't acceptable. We need public outrage, this is the common heritage of mankind and an international resource and this is how we are dealing with it".

More soon on this. But for now I'll leave you with a few more of Dr Hazin's words.

"Let's not fool ourselves: there will be no future for ICCAT if we do not fully respect and abide by the scientific advice.... our credibility will be irreversibly jeopardized and the mandate to manage tuna stocks will surely be taken out of our hands. "

"...we must be aware that this is our very last chance to prove that we can do our job properly. if we fail, other institutions will take over. And if one stock falls out of our hands, others may well do likewise."

"please make every effort to ensure that your delegation will not miss such a crucial and historical moment for the Commission".

Managed to death
If nothing is done soon, the bluefin tuna will disappear from the MediterraneanOct 30th 2008

Endorsement and all that

I've been intrigued and slightly mystified at the number of people from all around the world who have asked me about which presidential candidate The Economist will endorse this time round--as if our endorsement would makes the slightest bit of difference to the outcome.

Any endorsement we give involves a slightly different calculus to that of most Americans. We wonder what is best for the world overall.. rather than what is best for America. We place a far greater emphasis on foreign relations, and stances towards various foreign, diplomatic or intergovernmental issues than Americans.

The decision is always a difficult one. While we are naturally drawn to the Republicans for their right wing economics... with its emphasis on free and unencumbered trade, we are not drawn to the right-wing social views with regards to issues such as capital punishment, homosexual marriage, creationism and abortion. While the Democrats score highly here, they always lose points on the free trade issue--which is a large part of what we are about. So it can be hard to endorse a Democrat. Unless of course there is no alternative.

Last time, we gave a very grudging support for Kerry (not that it made any difference), and probably because the alternative option was so bad. Anyway, our 2008 endorsement is coming up this week. Watch out. I firmly predict that it will make absolutely no difference at all.

For light amusement, check out this round up of previous presidential endorsements from our archive.

Coming up this Thursday/Friday, even more on bluefin tuna. The story is moving on. I'm finding myself absolutely amazed at how poor the management of the bluefin tuna is in the Atlantic. It is an absolute disgrace. Yet the politicians seem to be able to get away with continuing business as usual because the world at large doesn't really get worked up about overfishing.

Also published today, my recent correspondent's diary from Istanbul.

Correspondent's diary: Science in Istanbul, day one
An odd crowd congregates in a stunning city

Out of tuna

Bluefin tuna. Incredibly valuable, and increasingly rare. This marvellous fish is being hunted to extinction in the Atlantic and Mediterranean.

Can anything be done? Maybe if the members of The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas manage to pull their collective fingers out. Bluefin tuna fishing needs to be banned for a period, while a real management plan can be agreed on.

For more see today's story:

Green.view: Sleeping with the fishes. High time to save the Mediterranean bluefin

Space and more

Its been a busy month. I went to Istanbul on the 24th to give a talk on the media to a group of grid scientists. It was a challenge giving a talk to a roomful of people who were tapping away at their laptops. This, apparently, is what grid scientists do at their meetings. They multi-task by answering emails, browsing the web and listening to presentations. It will probably catch on, so watch out.

Then it was off to the International Astronautical Congress, a wonderful affair in Glasgow this year. From which I filed a piece about the latest developments in the privatisation of space travel.

Saint Anselmo's Fire. Some more steps towards the commercialisation of space travel. Oct 2nd 2008

Related to this I also sent in a green.view about the environmentally critical new bit of space hardware, the Orbiting Climate Observatory.

A is for earth. The world will soon know more about carbon dioxide. Oct 6th 2008 Web only

After this I headed up to visit a company called Oxford Nanopore, which is working on a new way of sequencing DNA. About which, more soon.

Other recent articles:

Green.view The greening of gardening. Horticulture will change as the climate does. Sep 22nd 2008 Web only

Green.view Win-win. Save the world and become a millionaire. Sep 8th 2008 Web only


Hardygrades. One small step for the animal kingdom. Sep 11th 2008

LEADER Economies of scales. A new way of saving fisheries shows it can work; it deserves more attention. Sep 18th 2008

A rising tide. Scientists find proof that privatising fishing stocks can avert a disaster. Sep 18th 2008

Spaced out

Just when things were getting a little dull on the space front, lots of things seem to be happening at once. Politicians have realised that there is a long gap between the retirement of the shuttle and the earliest point that the new system, Constellation, could be flying to the space station. There is talk of trying to close that money with more cash, and retiring the shuttle later than 2010. But this will be politically risky, because the chances of an accident with each shuttle mission are possibly as high as 1 in 75. In any case, at some point engineers have to stop working on the shuttle and start building the new system, there has to be a gap of sorts. Then, just as things couldn't look worse, Russian goes and invades Georgia, scuppering plans to buy Russian transport to the space station in the gap.

Enter the Dragon. The war in Georgia is prompting a rethink of America’s route into space. Aug 21st 2008

We also published a a piece that has been in preparation for a long time, on export controls in the US space industry. Not exactly headline grabbing stuff, but actually crucial if you work in this business.

BRIEFING: Space technology
Earthbound. Gravity is not the main obstacle for America’s space business. Government is. Aug 21st 2008

Space 2.0

Last week I was in Mojave, hearing Virgin Galactic update the world on its progress in creating the world’s first commercial space line. Rolling out of the hanger was White Knight 2. This is a giant new composite aircraft that will loft a spaceship to high altitude. She looked stunning: shiny, colourful and ever-so slightly alien. The work of Burt Rutan’s team at the company Scaled Composites. A lot of work remains. Much testing and firing of engines, followed by flights that get incrementally higher.

As ever, the press unveiling was handled with just a little bit of PR pzazz by the Virgin team. Partway through the press conference, a giant curtain was zipped away to reveal White Knight 2 standing on a bit of airstrip that the press had been walking over just half an hour before. Behind her, perfectly lined up for the press photos, was one of Virgin America’s new planes. The Airbus was called “My other ride is a spaceship”.

There is less progress to report with the spaceship. She was in the Scaled hangar, covered by black dustsheets but clearly unfinished. Although she is 60% or 70% complete (depending on who you speak with) no work has been done on her for the last year. Work stopped after an explosion almost a year ago that killed three engineers and seriously injured three others.

A report on this is imminent, and word has it that work on the spaceship will resume after the report... and that the project will continue with its use of hybrid rockets.

Someone mentioned to me that the team will be modifying the engine to make sure that nitrogen oxidiser in the engine does not flow over composite material at all, only metal parts. I’ve no idea how this could have been involved in any explosion, but if any readers do--you can email me at natashaloder@economist.com

Links to the piece follow:

Knight in shining armour

Private space tourism is just the beginning Jul 31st 2008

Pesky-cides

On the face of it, writing about European pesticides legislation doesn't appear to be the most fascinating exercise. But this is a subject that is getting everyone very hot under the collar. European legislators want to remove some of the most hazardous substances from use as pesticides--because of their potential to harm people and the environment through misuse. And when they are looking at harm to people, they don't just mean consumers but also the people who apply pesticides.

Such a hazard-based approach annoys lots of people who see this as politics interfering in what was previously a scientific approach. Previously this approach was entirely risk based. A substance can be very hazardous, but in actual day-to-day use pose little risk to anyone because of the way it is used. Conceivably, something that is less toxic, may be harming more people because of the way it is applied (say just before harvest).

In any case, it seems that there is little chance of much change to this legislation when it reaches Parliament for its 2nd reading this year.

A balance of risk. Pesticides keep food edible and cheap. On the other hand they are, by definition, poisonous. Europe’s legislators thus face a dilemma. Jul 3rd 2008

Reader comments:

Random Scientist wrote:
July 03, 2008 18:26
The cost of pesticide tests will go sky high. The market will be handed over to few biggest companies, those which either have some approved pesticides or can afford tests. Did anarchic greens want to create oligopoly of big corporations? Anyway, they did it.

Fastfish wrote:
July 03, 2008 23:27
More proof that we base sustainable population calculation on an unsustainable foundation. The common tone expressed is that there is no point in considering any other option. Can the Economist provide more than a window onto Purgatory or Hell?

Aroman wrote:
July 04, 2008 04:37

I agree with Random Scientist. This "prove that this is safe" policy is the same that we have seen in chemicals (REACH) and medicine. In all cases the effect is the same: old and trusted substances are driven from the market because nobody invests to prove them safe and we are left with expensive substances that for many years will stay on patent. And the threshold for further innovation becomes nearly unsurmountable.

I don't understand why the old policy of periodically outlawing the most unsafe substances has become obsolete.