It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Tuesday, September 07, 2021
SO MUCH FOR CANADIAN SHIP BUILDING
Shipbuilding Boom Reaches Great Lakes: 10 “Super-Eco” Lakers Ordered
Fednav plans to modernize its fleet with 10 new eco bulkers (Fednav)
The rapid growth in shipbuilding orders in 2021 has now reached the Great Lakes with one of the largest newbuilding orders for the waterways. Canada’s dry bulk shipping group Fednav placed an order for 10 new ocean-going lakers. It represents a nearly 10 percent increase over the company’s current fleet of 120 vessels with the order being a key element of fleet modernization and designed to support Fednav's sustainability goals.
The order went to Japan’s Sumisho Marine Co. and Oshima Shipbuilding for the 10 new lakers. The ships will be built at the Oshima shipyard in Japan, with the first vessel expected to be delivered in mid-2023. The design for the vessels was developed jointly between Fednav and Oshima.
According to Fednav, the new generation of vessels will be “super-eco lakers” that represent the most efficient vessels to date for the company. They will be equipped with the latest technology, including Tier III engines and the capability of burning biofuels. The result will be that their carbon emissions will be 33 percent less than the vessels they will replace, including a Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) footprint at least 87 percent smaller.
"We are delighted to include these new vessels to our fleet to support the shipping industry and reinforce our commitment to the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway," said Paul Pathy, President and CEO of Fednav. "These new vessels are aligned with our long-term strategy to invest in our future and support our transition toward more sustainable shipping.”
Fednav is the largest international dry-bulk shipping group in Canada. It operates a fleet of about 120 bulk carriers trading worldwide, of which 60 are owned. The Canadian operations include both the Great Lakes and the Arctic.
Bottom fouling by marine growth is a subject of frequent disputes in time charters. Fouling increases friction and affects the performance of the vessel in terms of speed and fuel consumption, and it also necessitates cleaning. The bottom may be in a fouled condition at the time of delivery or - as happens more frequently - it may get fouled during charter service.
When the bottom is fouled during service, often it is due to orders given by the charterer for a long idle stay at a port or anchorage. Bottom fouling may also result from slow steaming ordered by the charterer.
Various factors influence bottom fouling. They include the idle or near-idle period, the speed that the vessel steams at if not idle, the vessel’s distance from the shore, the depth of the water, the temperature of the water, the freshness of the water, sea current, duration and intensity of sunlight, etc. The chance of attracting marine growth is greater in tropical waters and near shore. It is less in freshwater (e.g. the Mississippi River) and under high current (e.g. Chittagong). Vessels may perform ‘paint runs’ to break the idle period. Often, however, a paint run may not yield the desired result. Usually, the anti-fouling paint is unlikely to be effective if the vessel is idle or near idle for more than two weeks.
If the bottom is fouled at the time of delivery, the shipowner has to bear the loss caused by the consequent underperformance as well as the cost of cleaning and the loss of time in cleaning by off-hire. The question is more difficult if the bottom is fouled during charter service as a result of the charterer’s orders. The shipowner’s standpoint will be that the charterer must bear the consequences because it happened by charterer’s orders. The charterer will take the opposite standpoint.
First, we consider bottom fouling from the perspective of the standard NYPE form (referring to the oft-used 1946 version), the most popular form for dry cargo time charters. Second, we will look at the common modifications made to this form that affect the bottom fouling issue. Third, we will consider the subject from the perspective of SHELLTIME 4 form – the oft-used form in time charters of tankers.
NYPE form
The NYPE form, unlike NYPE 2015 form, has no specific provision dealing with bottom fouling, but a few other clauses have an impact on this issue. The shipowner warrants the speed-consumption capability of the vessel at the time of delivery (lines 9-10). The shipowner is to maintain the hull, machinery and equipment in a thoroughly efficient state throughout the charter service (cl 1). Clause 8 requires the shipowner to comply with the employment orders given by the charterer. This comes with an implied indemnity by the charterer for the consequences. The charterer is to redeliver the vessel in the like good order and condition as delivered, ordinary wear and tear excepted (cl 4).
It has been held that the obligation to maintain includes the obligation to keep the bottom free from fouling throughout charter service. Accordingly, if the bottom gets fouled during service, the shipowner will be liable for the underperformance (The Al Bida) and for the cost of cleaning (The Kitsa). The charterer cannot be faulted for redelivery with fouled bottom (The Kitsa).
Does the vessel go off-hire for the time of cleaning (cl 15)? In one case, the court rejected an off-hire claim for the cleaning-time (The Rijn). In another, the court admitted the off-hire claim but by reliance on a rider clause rather than the standard off hire clause (The Kitsa).
What about the implied indemnity by charterer attached to cl 8? Courts have again held this not to favor the shipowner because long waiting in ports and consequent bottom fouling is something foreseeable at the time of the fixture (The Kitsa).
In mitigation of the predicament, shipowners frequently add a rider clause to shift the bottom fouling losses to the charterer. That may be in the form of BIMCO Bottom Fouling Clause for Time Charter Parties 2013 (or less often the 2019 version) or a custom-crafted clause.
The scheme of NYPE 2015 form is that the warranty is a continuing one, unlike the one in the NYPE form. It places on the charterer the responsibility for underperformance as well as the cost of and time involved in cleaning consequent upon bottom fouling from charterer’s order for idling exceeding 15 days or such other periods as parties may specify. There is an option for specifying different periods for idling in tropical/seasonal tropical waters and non-tropical waters.
SHELLTIME 4 form
There is no clause to deal with bottom fouling in the SHELLTIME 4 form. Performance warranty is a continuing one (cl 24) and the maintenance obligation (cll 1 and 3(a)) parks on the shipowner the liability for underperformance by bottom fouling developed during service. The redelivery obligation does not specify the condition required at redelivery (cl 8). There is no obligation on the charterer to clean a fouled bottom when redelivering.
The shipowner is to comply with the employment orders of the charterer, in return for which the charterer gives an express indemnity (cl 13). For reasons stated in The Kitsa, the indemnity will not be of avail to the shipowner here (The Coral Seas). A vessel may go off-hire for the time actually lost where speed is reduced by breach of the maintenance obligation (cl 3(b)) but not for the time of cleaning (cl 21).
Conclusion
Bottom fouling triggers the issues of underperformance by lesser speed and higher fuel consumption and of the cost of cleaning. In the absence of a charterparty provision to the contrary, ordinarily the shipowner will be liable for these costs. This is primarily because of the maintenance obligation of the shipowner. However, under the standard off-hire clauses, it is likely that the vessel will not go off-hire for the time of cleaning.
Dr. Arun Kasi is an advocate and solicitor in Malaysia. He specializes in charter disputes arbitration under the terms of LMAA and SCMA, and he is the author of The Law of Carriage of Goods by Sea (Springer: 2021).
Dr. Kasi extends his thanks to Mr. Prokopis Krikris, Claims Manager at Meadway Bulkers Athens, and Mr. Themistoklis Karvounidis, Demurrage Analyst at Stolt Tankers Rotterdam, for reviewing this article.
Under a revised maritime traffic safety law published earlier this year, certain foreign vessels sailing in Chinese-claimed waters will be required to give advance notice to China's maritime authorities starting September 1.
The controversial law requires foreign operators of submersibles, nuclear vessels, ships carrying radioactive materials and ships carrying bulk oil, chemicals, liquefied gas and other toxic and harmful substances to provide detailed information including the vessel name, call sign, current position, cargo, port of call and estimated time of arrival.
Issued by the Maritime Safety Administration (MSA), the law stipulates stiff penalties and fines for noncompliant ships and gives Beijing the power to order vessels that threaten the safety of the country’s internal or territorial waters to leave.
“This law is developed for the purposes of strengthening maritime traffic management, maintaining the maritime traffic order, ensuring the safety of life and property, and safeguarding the rights and interests of the state,” states the law as revised and adopted by the Chinese National People’s Congress in April.
Although Beijing asserts that the new law will apply to navigation and maritime safety, emphasis on “the sea areas within the jurisdiction of China” has stoked anxiety over the navigation of ships in the wider Indo-Pacific region.
China claims sovereignty over the vast majority of the South China Sea, including areas located hundreds of miles beyond the 12-nm limit accepted under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The nation has occupied and developed multiple islets in the Paracel and Spratly Islands, building forward military bases equipped with air defense systems, strategic runways and piers for naval vessels.
“China is once again testing the international community to gauge how it will react to the enactment of yet another maritime law that exceeds the permissible jurisdictional limits of international law, as reflected in UNCLOS,” said Raul (Pete) Pedrozo, Professor of International Law at the Stockton Center for International Law, in a recent analysis.
Pedrozo predicts that Beijing will use the new law to engage in grey zone operations below the threshold of armed conflict, seeking to intimidate its neighbours and further erode the rule of law at sea.
Notably, the new law grants the MSA the powers to establish ship routing and reporting areas, traffic control areas and restricted navigation areas. Ships passing through important fishery waters, areas with dense maritime traffic, ship routing areas and traffic control areas must strengthen their lookout, maintain safe speeds, and comply with special navigation rules.
The new law asserts that foreign warships and other government vessels used for non-commercial purposes that violate Chinese laws and regulations while engaged in innocent passage shall be dealt with in accordance with “the relevant laws and administrative regulations.”
Video: Container Fire Aboard Ship Docked in Vietnam
Fire brokeout in the cargo hold of a vessel docked in Vietnam
[Brief] Vietnamese authorities report that they were successfully able to extinguish a container fire aboard the feeder vessel that works between the country’s ports.
Reports indicate that the fire broke out in the number two cargo hold of the 8,720 dwt vessel Morning Vinafco while the vessel was handling cargo in the Ho Chi Minh City port of Ben Nghe. Video shows smoke billowing from the open hold of the feeder vessel while at the dock on September 4.
The fire and a possible explosion were reported to the local port authorities at around 8:45 am on Saturday after the crew was unsuccessful in putting the fire out on its own. The port police, border guard, and local fire crews responded to the fire. After about 30 minutes the flames had been extinguished, but crews remained on the screen.
Local reports indicate that no one was injured in the fire but that goods loaded aboard the containership were heavily damaged. The captain told authorities that a container had been loaded aboard the ship overnight that was believed to be the source of the fire. There was no indication as to the contents of the container.
The 500 teu vessel operates with a crew of 16 and travels along the Vietnamese coast transshipping containers from the international port to regional hubs. Local authorities were investigating the source of the fire, but AIS data indicated that the vessel departed Ho Chi Minh City on September 5.
Over the last two decades, the West African seaboard has been a stomping ground for industrial trawlers. Although most of them are flagged locally by West African nations, they are owned and operated by foreigners, mainly in China or European countries.
Unfortunately, lax implementation of fisheries laws have enabled IUU (illegal, unreported and unregulated) fishing to go unabated, resulting in a massive decline in fish stocks. Environmental concerns, mostly focused on saving marine ecosystems and controlling climate change, have been the basis for policy changes to stop IUU fishing.
However, it is imperative to view IUU fishing from a human rights perspective - especially the immutable impact it has on poor coastal communities of the affected countries.
West Africa has also been synonymous with piracy, particularly in the Gulf of Guinea region, which has received extensive attention from maritime players and the United Nations.
While responding to a recent United Nations Security Council (UNSC) meeting on maritime security, one of West Africa’s eminent maritime researchers, Dr. Ifesinachi Okafor, said that failure to include the human cost for IUU fishing has led piracy to get more attention than the costly plunder of fisheries by foreign vessels.
“In the last 50 years, Africa has lost over $200 billion to illegal fishing by vessels linked to foreign nations. Illegal fishing is so extensive that it amounts to 40-65 percent of the legally reported catch in West Africa alone. Yet, there has been zero resolution on this by UNSC. In contrast, the economic cost of piracy over the last 20 years does not amount to $20 billion. Neither does the environmental impact directly affect the livelihoods of millions of people,” Dr. Okafor said. “Yet, over 30 Security Council resolutions and presidential statements have been issued on piracy in the Gulf of Aden and Gulf of Guinea since 2008. Foreign partners invest millions in tackling piracy while simultaneously investing billions in enabling their fishing vessels to plunder depleting fisheries in Africa.”
In comments at the debate, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken concurred that the debate over piracy must also take IUU fishing into account. “We must bring the same coordinated and comprehensive responses to other threats such as maritime safety and security. This includes IUU fishing- which undermines the sustainability of fish stocks, circumvents the green conservation and management measure, and violates the sovereign rights of coastal states and often goes hand in hand with the use of forced labor and other illicit activities,” he said.
In August, the Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) released a report from primary data it collected on socio-economic rights of small-scale fishing communities in Ghana. The focus was on impacts of IUU fishing on the human rights of artisanal fishermen.
Ghana has one of the highest rates of dependence on fish for nutrition in Africa, with fish providing 60 percent of animal protein intake and a yearly per capita fish consumption estimated at 28 kilos. In addition, Ghana’s marine fisheries provide livelihoods for around 2.5- 3 million people along the value chain, which is approximately 10 percent of the country’s population.
Despite the artisanal fisheries sector being a key economic mainstay in Ghana, it is in a perilous state with severe socio-economic implications to the small-scale fishing communities. Ghana’s artisanal fishermen rely on a small pelagic fishery, mainly Sardinella spp., also commonly referred to as ‘people’s fish’ due to their critical role to food security and local livelihoods.
Industrial trawlers are partly to blame for plummeting catches of smaller fish. Driven by the local lucrative trade, trawlers enter prohibited zones and illegally adapt their fishing gear to target sardinella, which are in high demand for local consumption. A major portion of these catches are destined for the illegal ‘saiko’ trade, where the trawlers transship the caught fish at sea to small purpose-built canoes for landing at Ghana’s ports. An estimate by EJF in 2017 on the ‘saiko’ trade revealed that 100,000 tons of fish were traded with a landed value of $50 million. The proportion of juveniles caught via this trade is estimated at 67 percent and in some extreme case reaching 100 percent.
Already, scientists have predicted the collapse of the small pelagic fishery within the next decade in a business-as –usual scenario, with FAO recommending closure of the sardinella fishery shared by Cote d’Ivore, Ghana, Togo and Benin to allow for fish populations recovery.
This comes at the cost of declining income and rising poverty in Ghana’s coastal communities. According to the EJF report, approximately 90 percent of the surveyed fishermen and processors saw a decline in their incomes over the past five years. Around 70 percent of these reported damage to their fishing gear by industrial trawlers.
As a result, fishermen are having to travel further out to sea in search of fish - beyond the six nautical mile / 30 meter depth Inshore Exclusion Zone (IEZ) restricted for artisanal fishing - yet they still report zero catch on some fishing days.
Marginalized and vulnerable coastal fishing communities add to the matrix of Gulf of Guinea piracy and the disastrous irregular crossings into Europe through the Mediterranean and the North Atlantic.
The opinions expressed herein are the author's and not necessarily those of The Maritime Executive.
'MAYBE' TECH
Port of Corpus Christi to Participate in CO2 Capture and Storage
Efforts are underway to transform the Port of Corpus Christi in to new energy hub (file photo)
The Port of Corpus Christi Authority and the Texas General Land Office announced their intention to co-develop a carbon dioxide storage solution in support of national decarbonization targets. The proposed project is part of a broader effort to adapt the industrial region of Texas to future opportunities. The Port of Corpus Christi recently also announced plans to develop a blue hydrogen production facility.
“Utilizing new, innovative carbon storage methods is a critical step in demonstrating that energy development and environmental stewardship are not mutually exclusive,” said Texas Land Commissioner George P. Bush. This partnership will ensure that Texas energy developers continue to responsibly utilize resources for future generations, as well as provide good-paying jobs, and abundant and affordable energy.
The Texas Land Office has been pursuing several projects seeking to position the state as part of the future energy transformation. Recently, it also issued a Request for Proposals from entities interested in constructing carbon storage infrastructure on lands the office holds in Jefferson County, Texas to the east of Houston near Beaumont and Port Arthur, Texas.
Port officials noted that the Corpus Christi area has a high density of industrial CO2 target sources and that it can leverage the existing network of pipeline infrastructure to support the development of carbon capture. They noted that such a solution would involve infrastructure to transport and permanently store CO2 captured by various industrial target sources in the greater Port of Corpus Christi area.
“The energy transition is a strategic focus in hitting both commercial and environmental targets for the Port of Corpus Christi,” said Sean Strawbridge, Chief Executive Officer for the Port of Corpus Christi. “We are sending a clear message to the American people, to our industry partners, and to the global energy marketplace that the state of Texas and the Port of Corpus Christi intend to establish a large scale CCS management hub.”
Academics from the University of Texas at Austin reportedly have mapped the geology of the Texas Gulf Coast and determined this region is ideal for the injection and storage of pressurized CO2. Under their plan, the Land Office and the Port of Corpus Christi have identified the Texas Coastal Bend region as the next focal point for developing a scalable carbon management solution.
Carbon capture is also an element of the plan announced last month to create the region’s first carbon-neutral hydrogen production facility at the port. The goal is to convert Howard Midstream Energy’s existing Javelina refinery services facility to scale hydrogen production for exports to overseas demand centers or possibly for marine use. Howard intends to capture its carbon emissions at Javelina, either directing the CO2 to industries that require it for production, such as steel, or that assimilate it, like cement, or to store the CO2 at locations such as the new agreement with the Land Office.
FOR PUTIN CLIMATE CHANGE IS GOOD
DP World May Build Vladivostok Terminal for Arctic Container Shipping
Dubai-based port operator DP World is launching a feasibility study for a new container berth at the port of Vladivostok, Russia’s primary shipping hub in far eastern Siberia.
If the study determines that the terminal is viable, the new berth would help to expand Vladivostok’s port into a transshipment hub, in line with the proposed development of Russia’s Northern Sea Route (NSR). The study will be completed in partnership with FESCO, Russia’s leading intermodal transport company. The agreement supports a broader partnership between DP World and Russian nuclear power agency Rosatom, the operator of Russia’s icebreaker fleet and the lead department for the development of the NSR.
“DP World supports President Vladimir Putin’s vision for the Northern Sea Route, which is one of the last great trading routes in the world to be developed. Opening up an alternative route to the Suez Canal between East and West will increase the resilience of world trade. It has great potential to develop economic activity and prosperity in Russia’s far north,” said Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem at a signing ceremony.
The NSR runs through Arctic waters north of Siberia, from the Kara Sea to the Bering Strait, and Russia hopes that it can develop it into a busy commercial shipping lane. The route would reduce the length of voyages between East Asia and Northwestern Europe by 4,000 nm, cutting the shipping time by about two weeks. Russian President, Vladimir Putin has set a target of 80 million tons of cargo to transit through the route by the end of 2024, more than double the current volume of 33 million tons.
The proposed berth in Vladivostok would be part of the infrastructure needed to operationalize the route. Cargo would be brought to the port by feeder ships and rail from countries in East Asia, then loaded onto Arctic-class container ships. On Russia’s West, Murmansk port is also earmarked for development to connect cargo to ports in Northwestern Europe. Under the plan, DP World would manage the feeder connections at the two ports.
“We are delighted to be working closely with a company such as DP World that is handling roughly 10 percent of the global container traffic,” said Andrey Severilov, Chairman of FESCO.
The two firms' discussion about cooperation appears to have been ongoing for some time. In January 2020, Russian business newspaper Vesti Finance reported that DP World was interested in bidding for a 49 percent minority stake in Fesco; DP World did not confirm the proposed transaction.
CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M PERMANENT ARMS ECONOMY
First 7th Fleet Guilty Plea in Long-Running “Fat Leonard” Fraud Case
Among the information passed to the contractor was details on the schedule of the USS Tarawa (US Navy file photo)
More than four years after the indictments were filed, the U.S. Department of Justice announced the first guilty plea by an officer in the Seventh Fleet in the Navy’s bribery and fraud scandal known as the “Fat Leonard” case. The largest fraud case in Navy history has resulted in federal charges against 34 Navy officials, defense contractors, and the Singapore-based Glen Defense Marine Asia owned by Leonard Francis, the defense contractor who plied them with luxury hotel stays, meals, entertainment, and prostitutes. So far, a total of 26 individuals have pleaded guilty.
The latest guilty plea came from retired Chief Warrant Officer Robert Gorsuch who on August 31 in federal court in the Southern District of California admitted to receiving more than $45,000 in bribes. Gorsuch served as the Seventh Fleet’s Flag Administration Officer from January 2005 to March 2008. In his position, Gorsuch provided administrative support to the Seventh Fleet Commander, department heads, and other senior officers of the Seventh Fleet staff. The incidents that he pled guilty to included parties in Manila, hotel stays in the Philippines, Malaysia, and Japan, and a dinner in Australia dating from 2007 and 2008.
“Mr. Gorsuch will be held fully accountable for accepting lavish gifts in exchange for, among other things, passing classified information to Mr. Francis and GDMA,” said NCIS Director Omar Lopez. Gorsuch, age 54, is facing a maximum penalty of fifteen years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000.
According to admissions in his plea agreement, Gorsuch sent Francis computer disks containing classified ship schedules for the Navy’s Seventh Fleet. Prosecutors documented emails between Gorsuch and Francis in 2007 and 2008 which among other details described the planned movements of the U.S.S. Tarawa and U.S.S. Hopper for December 17-21, 2007. Other emails showed Francis in 2008 requesting ship schedules and Gorsuch promising to reply with the information.
“Gorsuch essentially sold his honor for a few nights at the Shangri-La,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Randy Grossman. “Gorsuch sacrificed his integrity for so little and caused so much harm in the process. Today, Gorsuch has admitted his part in this scandal and will be held to account for his conduct.”
Investigators said the actions and information provided by Gorsuch and the other defendants helped Francis’ ship husbanding business win and maintain contracts with the U.S. Navy. They estimate that Francis’s company over billed the Navy by over $35 million.
Gorsuch was one of nine members of the U.S. Navy’s Seventh Fleet indicted in March 2017 for participating in a conspiracy with Francis. The remaining defendants, who are accused of trading military secrets and substantial influence for sex parties with prostitutes, extravagant dinners, and luxury travel, are scheduled for trial on November 1, 2021. They include U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Bruce Loveless; Captains David Newland, James Dolan, Donald Hornbeck, and David Lausman; Colonel Enrico DeGuzman; Lt. Commander Stephen Shedd; and Commander Mario Herrera.
Industry Dialogue Helps Sustain Antarctica's Krill Fishery
As nations seek increased catches in the Southern Ocean, scientists are trying to track the impacts of fishing and climate change on this vital part of the Antarctic food chain
At the height of the Cold War, a hungry Soviet Union launched an unlikely strategy to reduce its reliance on grain imports from the West: the superpower despatched hundreds of fishing boats to Antarctica and told them to come back with krill.
Krill – small crustaceans related to the prawn and lobster – do not carry much meat on a single body. But added together, the world’s krill population weighs in at between 300 and 500 million tonnes. Beyond single-celled organisms like bacteria and viruses, the hundreds of trillions of krill in our oceans represent the greatest biomass of any wild animal on the planet.
With little competition, the Russian vessels netted as much of this bounty as they could carry and returned to the motherland, where Soviet scientists mashed up the protein-rich creatures into a nutritious paste called Okean. Citizens were expected to mix it into their vegetables and soups. British officials got hold of some in 1973 and reported its taste as “very pleasant”. But the idea never really caught on and, by the 1980s, the Soviets were turning much of the krill they caught into animal feed.
By the early 1990s, of course, the Soviet Union – and its appetite for Okean – were no more. Left undisturbed, the krill were free to swim and drift around Antarctic waters, where they help feed other kinds of life – they serve as an important prey species for the unique region’s penguins, seabirds, seals, fish and whales.
“I am a little bit frightened about the local effects of the increasing fishing effort because the fishery is nowadays very concentrated in space and time,” says Bettina Meyer, a krill researcher at the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Bremerhaven, Germany. “Due to the very high level of krill biomass that we currently have, and the krill management measures in place, we are not in big danger. But we do have to keep a very, very careful eye on it.”
Antarctic krill
Several different species of krill are found across the world’s oceans, but the Antarctic variety (Euphausia superba) is by far the plumpest and so the most valuable catch. Often found in massive swarms, which can number millions of animals and stretch for several miles of ocean, Antarctic krill haven’t been routinely studied in all seasons over the years, and scientists don’t understand some key features of their life cycle. That can make it difficult to predict their numbers and distribution from year to year, as well as the impact of fishing them in the era of accelerating climate change.
Krill abundance in some regions is known to fluctuate greatly, but the reasons for this aren’t clear. Another issue not understood fully is population dynamics: how many mature krill need to spawn to provide enough offspring to keep numbers sufficiently high. Finally, little is known about where the young krill migrate to in their first year of life.
These uncertainties help to explain why researchers are cautious about judging the possible impact from the fishing industry, Meyer says.
“We have a lot of knowledge gaps,” she says. “When you compare for example the maps of distribution of the krill larvae to the distribution of the entire population, then it might be that only a small proportion is responsible for replenishing the entire population.”
In other words, although a relatively small proportion of krill are pulled from the Southern Ocean each year, if those catches happened to target breeding adults, then such fishing could have an oversized impact.
Officially that should not happen. The Antarctic krill fishery is well managed and branded as sustainable. And unlike some contested areas around the world, scientists, conservationists and the fishing industry there enjoy a largely co-operative and constructive relationship. “I think the relationship is very friendly and also very open,” Meyer says.
CCAMLR
Along with other species, the Antarctic krill fishery is managed by the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), made up from a group of 26 nations (including the European Union) with an interest in the region. The commission monitors stocks, assesses the health of the fishery and sets limits on how much krill can be taken each year.
CCAMLR splits the waters surrounding Antarctica into three large areas. The limits on fishing are based on an estimate made in 2010 that krill stocks in one of these large areas – Area 48 on the Atlantic side of the continent – totalled 60.3 million tonnes. This allowed the commission to set an absolute cap on catches – called the “precautionary catch limit” – of 5.61 million tonnes each year. The actual annual take is nowhere near that figure. Fishing is only allowed in seven “sub-areas” and divisions, each of which have their own caps – added together, the total catch from each of these sub-areas cannot exceed 620,000 tonnes – the so-called “trigger level”. However, at present, fishing is only taking place in four of the sub-areas, all in Area 48. The most popular of these, sub-area 48.1 around the Antarctic peninsula, has an annual catch limit of just 155,000 tonnes.
Source: CCAMLR (Graphic: Manuel Bortoletti / China Dialogue Ocean)
In 2020, a total of 450,781 tonnes of krill were taken across the sector, a figure that has doubled in the last five years but is still comfortably below the trigger level. So, all is good? Not necessarily.
Fishery management strategies that permit what look like relatively low catch levels across large regions could still prove to be unsustainable, says Philip Trathan, head of conservation biology at the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, the United Kingdom. “It matters where you take it from,” he says. “Say for the sake of argument you are allowed to take 100 tonnes from a defined area. That limit is set with an assumption you are going to take it evenly from across that area. But you’re not going to do that. You’re going to go to the areas where it’s most predictable and most profitable. And those are probably also the regions where the penguins, seals and whales go as well.”
In other words, the fishing industry could be taking their permitted and precautionary amounts of krill out of the mouths of predators that rely on them. That’s important because rises and falls in krill population from year to year, including those influenced by fishing, are believed to have a knock-on effect on the predators that eat them – notably penguins. A 2020 study of penguin colonies in the South Shetland islands, which lie about 120 kilometres north of the Antarctic peninsula, suggested a link between levels of krill fishing in surrounding waters and declining health of the birds.
Using decades of data going back to the 1980s, the research, led by George Watters at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in La Jolla, California, found that when local fishing catches of krill spiked, penguins took longer to find food and had fewer healthy chicks.
One problem with the current fishery management approach, Trathan says, is that it sets up an annual free-for-all that pits fishing vessel against fishing vessel to scoop up as much krill in the shortest time possible. For example, this year the cap for zone 48.1 was reached in early June, so the area is now closed until December. Such an “Olympic-style” management plan can force fishing activity into smaller areas and shorter fishing seasons.
Many scientists and conservation groups would like to see tighter controls on exactly where and when the krill can be caught. Those measures could include dividing the existing sub-areas into smaller zones, each of which would then be allocated its own (smaller) maximum take.
Some countries have gone further and backed the establishment of new marine protected areas, including one around the Antarctic peninsula, which could lead to stricter controls and even outright bans on krill fishing in the most sensitive regions.
Keen to avoid such regulation, the krill fishers have taken steps to show they can manage the threat themselves. In December last year, an industry group called the Association of Responsible Krill Harvesting Companies voluntarily suspended fishing close to three penguin colonies on the Antarctic peninsula for 12 months. This adds to a series of existing buffer zones the industry has established around penguin colonies in which local krill fishing is halted during the incubation and chick-rearing season.
CCAMLR is due to discuss possible new restrictions in November, but Trathan, who sits on the commission’s scientific advisory group, says it’s unlikely much progress will be made. “I think it’s a tall order and it sort of depends on the process as well as the science, making sure that we’ve got enough time to discuss it in the detail that is needed.”
The current focus is on keeping the existing protection in place. The management system that divides the trigger-level catch limit between the seven sub-areas and divisions is due to expire this year. If not renewed, fishers would technically be able to take up to 620,000 tonnes of krill from wherever they liked: including the sensitive waters around the peninsula.
Who fishes?
Krill fishing is currently dominated by Norway. Helped by technology that continuously pumps the contents of submerged nets onboard, Norwegian vessels bagged almost 250,000 tonnes last year, which is more than double its nearest competitor. Chile, South Korea and Ukraine also take significant amounts of krill. An important new player is China. The country landed almost 120,000 tonnes of krill last year (up from 41,000 in 2018 and 50,000 in 2019).
“[Krill fishing] fits with the Chinese policy to develop its distant water fishing fleet,” says Nengye Liu, director of the Centre for Environmental Law at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia. The gap between the number of krill allowed to be caught and the number actually caught is of interest to Chinese policymakers as having potential to grow or even just maintain that fleet."
Climate change
As nations target increased krill catches in coming years, scientists are anxious about another possible pressure on stocks. A cold-water species, researchers aren’t sure how the crustaceans will manage as the waters around Antarctica steadily warm.
“Change will happen, but it will happen slowly, so maybe they will be able to adapt. We don’t know,” says Katharina Michael, a krill researcher at the University of Oldenburg in Germany.
To try to find out, Michael and her colleagues caught krill off the Antarctic coast and put them in giant tanks filled with different temperature seawater for eight months. They found that krill responded differently when the water was 3.5C or higher: their metabolism significantly increased, they used more oxygen and they grew to be significantly smaller.
“There is an increased energy demand, which may have implications for long-term processes. So, energy might be taken away from growth and reproduction,” Michael says. “We don’t know that yet. We have to investigate. But there is something going on.” Water temperature in krill habitats changes a lot with the seasons and weather, but currently range from -1.8C to 5.5C.
The Alfred Wegener Institute’s Meyer says the possible effects of warmer temperatures on krill body size is something that should be closely monitored in the future, along with other important information such as the distribution and density of krill stocks.
To gather real-world data, Meyer hopes to take advantage of the currently good relations between krill researchers and krill fishers. With limited slots available aboard scientific research ships and field stations, Meyer hopes that more fishing vessels could help, either by hosting scientists or by taking samples themselves.
With more reliable measurements, the management system could be made more responsive, with catch limits tightened or relaxed from year to year to match the real-world state of the fishery. “What CCAMLR needs to find is a way to reduce the risks to predators like penguins, seals and whales, while recognising that fishing is allowed,” Trathan says. “But ultimately the more krill you take out the more likely you are to see an effect.”
David Adam is a freelance journalist based near London.
This article appears courtesy of China Dialogue Ocean and may be found in its original form here.
