International group sparks debate with sweeping measures to protect sharks: 'We are overexploiting the species'
Sharks are often captured as bycatch — unintentional catches in fishing nets — during tuna fishing expeditions, and the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission made protecting the marine animals a focus, Mongabay reported.
An estimated 100 million sharks are killed each year, according to the International Fund for Animal Welfare. Along with bycatch, millions are killed through finning, where people remove shark fins and put the animals back in the ocean to die.
In its attempt to help, the IOTC included more species within shark-retention bans, restricted certain fishing gear, and enacted stronger reporting requirements for all caught sharks. The organization also ruled that all sharks brought to shore must have their fins naturally attached to their bodies to prove they were not finned.
Shortfin mako sharks, however, were not included in the full retention ban. Instead, boats will be allowed to keep the fish if they are already dead by the time they're brought into the boat. Certain fishing gear that's proven detrimental to makos will also continue to be allowed.
"Sharks won for the very first time at the IOTC, except the shortfin mako," Iris Ziegler of the German Foundation for Marine Conservation told Mongabay. "For shortfin mako, it was a disaster. We are overexploiting the species, and it may never recover."
Sharks are among the large predators that can reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emitted each year by storing carbon in their bodies. They also feed on smaller, plant-eating fish, helping preserve some of the kelp and other marine plants that store carbon.
Scientists have actually floated the possibility of introducing reef sharks, and other large predators, into certain environments to help meet carbon-removal targets within the Paris Agreement.
The IOTC also decided to later review a 2024 assessment that said yellowfin tuna are no longer being overfished. In particular, the group expressed skepticism about the data used within that assessment.
"We have significant concerns over the seemingly miraculous recovery of the stock, given the decade of unrelenting overfishing that preceded the IOTC's most recent yellowfin stock assessment," Jess Rattle of the Blue Marine Foundation told Mongabay. "It is essential that these issues are resolved and that the assessment is reviewed and revised accordingly."
Do you think America does a good job of protecting its natural beauty?
Definitely
Only in some areas
No way
I'm not sure
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
3 hours ago
- Forbes
Updated Carbon Law Reveals: Emissions Must Drop 12% Per Year
The world is rapidly running out of time to stop catastrophic climate impacts. According to an investigation by Swedish NGO, Klimatkollen, carbon emissions must be halved by 2030 for a chance of limiting global warming to 1.5°C. That is equivalent to emission reductions of about 12 % t per year. This investigation, in collaboration with the Exponential Roadmap Initiative, seeks to answer what pace of emission cuts is needed to meet Paris Agreement targets starting in 2025. I A recent investigation by Swedish NGO, Klimatkollen, calculated that, starting in 2025, the world must halve emissions every five years. This is a pace equivalent to emission cuts of around 12% per year. But even if the world manages to adhere to the new 12% a year reduction pace, the future is not a safe place. The calculation implies only a 50/50 chance of limiting global warming to about 1.5°C, based on a global carbon budget of 305 billion tons of CO₂, as well as 5.5 billion tons of CO₂ in remaining residual emissions by 2050 that can be offset by carbon capture and storage. And the calculation does not take into account one of the core principles in the Paris Agreement: that those with more responsibility and capability should go faster. Frida Berry Eklund, co-founder of Klimatkollen and EU Climate Pact Ambassador, states: 'Citizens have a right to know what science-based emission cuts in line with 1.5°C means in practice, to be able to hold decision makers in business and governments to account. We need to focus on what's needed, not what's politically possible, to give our children a fighting chance of survival." Carbon Law is a scientifically based framework presented by Professor Johan Rockström, Johan Falk, and Owen Gaffney in 2017, inspired by Moore's law of computer development, which provides the rule of thumb – halving emissions every decade from 2020 onwards. However, we are now five years behind schedule as global emissions continue to rise, hence the new calculations. The updated Carbon Law calculations show what is required at the global level to limit global warming to 1.5 C: a halving of emissions every five years starting 2025. But the rule of thumb annual emission cuts of 12% , can also be a guiding light for citizens to hold countries, companies, and organizations to account. Owen Gaffney, co-founder of the Exponential Roadmap Initiative says: 'The remaining carbon dioxide budget for 1.5°C is currently being consumed at a rate of 1% every month. To avoid critical tipping points in the climate systems, emissions must be reduced as quickly as possible while also avoiding economic collapse. That we reached 1.5°C last year is a clear signal that we must intensify our efforts to protect the Earth's climate system.' It is clear that the world is rapidly running out of time to stop catastrophic climate impacts. But pushing for emission cuts of 12% annually presents a science-aligned rule of thumb for citizens everywhere to hold decision makers to account. We need deep emission reductions—now. Core Concept of the Carbon Law: 1. Halve global CO₂ emissions every decade from 2020 onward (according to the updated calculations this now means halving every five years from 2025) 2. Double carbon removal technologies and capacity every decade 3. Reach net-zero emissions by around 2050 According to Frida Berry Eklund, "The strength of the 12% emission cuts per year number is that it gives citizens, companies and countries, a clear science-aligned rule of thumb to compare climate action to. However, the rule of thumb does not take into account the core principle of the Paris Agreement, that those with high historical emissions and ability to transition need to cut emissions faster." With another recent study stating that 89 % of the global population is in favor of stronger climate policies and the Actuaries Climate Risk Index warning of global economic collapse if we abstain from reducing the emissions, the green light cannot be any greener for the politicians to act.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Experts make alarming discovery after analyzing species for over 2 decades: 'Evolution in action'
Experts make alarming discovery after analyzing species for over 2 decades: 'Evolution in action' Overfishing in the Bornholm Basin over the last several decades has made eastern Baltic cod shrink in size. What's happening? As Mongabay observed, a June 2025 study by GEOMAR stated that eastern Baltic cod have shrunk over time. Between 1996 and 2019, they lost about half their length and almost four-fifths of their typical weight. While fishing wasn't a variable tracked by the study, the researchers still believe it caused this rapid evolution to an extent. Trawling companies were only allowed to catch fish over 14 inches long to protect juvenile fish. But as of 2019, trawling has been banned. The study, published in the journal Science Advances, looked at the DNA of the fish to confirm this change. Researchers found that the gene patterns of smaller fish have become more common over time. "What we are observing is evolution in action, driven by human activity," said Professor Dr. Thorsten Reusch, one of the study's co-authors, in a press release. "This is scientifically fascinating, but ecologically deeply concerning." Why is overfishing concerning? Overfishing can severely damage our food supply chains and our ecosystems. According to the World Wildlife Fund, the global fishing industry is worth about $362 billion. If we continue to overfish, people will lose their jobs and sources of income. Overfishing exploits coastal economies and causes financial instability. It also threatens the survival of many marine animals. When overfishing takes fish out of the equation, that creates an imbalance within marine ecosystems. It could also lead to severely endangered species like the vaquita porpoise and Maui's dolphin going fully extinct. Do you think your city has good air quality? Definitely Somewhat Depends on the time of year Not at all Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. What's being done about overfishing? The banning of trawling in 2019 demonstrates the importance and value of taking action and spreading the word about environmentally harmful practices. It may take a long time to reverse the damage done to eastern Baltic cod, but researchers hope the tides will change for these fish. "That's why a paper like this is so important," David Conover, a professor emeritus in biology at the University of Oregon and a co-author of a related 2019 study, told Mongabay. "It's going to up the dialogue and increase conversations in the management community." Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Scientists sound alarm as invasive pest overruns iconic US desert: 'Affecting the overall stability of the system'
Scientists sound alarm as invasive pest overruns iconic US desert: 'Affecting the overall stability of the system' Many people enjoy mustard, but for California's Coachella Valley, this invasive plant is having an unexpected and negative impact. What's happening? Mongabay reported on a 17-year study recently published in Ecology that discovered that Sahara mustard, or Brassica tournefortii, is outcompeting native plant species for vital resources in the Mojave Desert. The result is less stable plant communities, which raises the issue of whether native species can continue to exist and thrive in environments overrun by changes to the climate and the introduction of invasive species. The study found that whereas many native species in the desert wait for germination cues to bloom, invasive plants, like Sahara mustard, are capable of germination at any time of the year. This flexibility in germination allows the Sahara mustard to have an advantage, which means the plant will take over areas of the desert before native species even think of blooming, thus blocking the native species from growing at all. Desert ecologist and university professor Scott Ferrenberg, who was not a part of the study, explained to Mongabay how this contributes to less stable communities of plants. "You get this one-two punch that you have a climate system that's changing and potentially decreasing the abundance of native species that are otherwise moderate- to low-abundance, and you have this invader that's affecting the overall stability of the system," he said. Why are invasive species concerning? As this study shows, one of the most significant issues with invasive species is their ability to grow incredibly fast and take over areas. As they do so, they outcompete native species for vital resources, leaving the native species with less opportunity to grow and thrive. Invasive species come with other issues, too, as they can change the chemistry of the soil they grow in, make plant communities less stable, and even impact human food supplies. As such, protecting and prioritizing the native species of an area is beneficial not only to the native plants but also to local fauna and even people, as it helps conserve natural resources and protect food supplies. What's being done about invasive plant species? Invasive plants can be difficult to deal with due to how quickly they proliferate. However, many groups help fight back against these plants by organizing days to go through local parks or forest areas and remove any invasive species they find. These groups are always looking for volunteers, so you may want to see if your town or city has any such groups. Government organizations are also hard at work to eradicate invasive species by educating the public on them, as well as via eradication strike teams and conservation efforts, as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reported. Do you think America does a good job of protecting its natural beauty? Definitely Only in some areas No way I'm not sure Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet. Solve the daily Crossword
