Relevance for design of dFAD recovery programmes
Our results provide guidance for implementing effective dFAD recovery programmes. More than 40% of dFAD trajectories in the Indian and Atlantic oceans drifted away from fishing grounds never to return, potentially later stranding in coastal areas (Imzilen et al.5 estimated that 10–20% of all French dFADs eventually strand, whereas 16.0% of our trajectories that definitively leave fishing zones strand). This loss represents at least 529 tonnes yr−1 of marine litter for the French fleet5,14 and probably 2–3 times that weight including all purse seiners in the two oceans28. More than 20% of dFAD trajectories that drifted away from fishing grounds passed within 50 km of a port (ranging from 3.3% to 31.6% for cut-off distances from 10 to 100 km; potentially underestimated due to remote deactivation of GPS buoys by purse seiners). This result suggests that coastal dFAD recovery programmes could be complementary to other mitigation measures, such as dFAD buoy limits already implemented by tRFMOs and spatio-temporal dFAD deployment closures proposed by Imzilen et al.5. Indeed, Imzilen et al.5 showed that prohibiting dFAD deployments in areas that would probably lead to strandings would principally protect coastal areas of the southwestern Indian Ocean and the eastern Gulf of Guinea, whereas we found that dFADs exiting fishing grounds from other areas, such as the northwestern Indian Ocean and the northern Gulf of Guinea, passed close to regional ports and could potentially be recovered at sea. Although our results are specific to the French and associated purse-seine fleet (representing ~1/3–1/2 of catch and dFAD deployments of all fleets28), available data indicate that other purse-seine fleets have similar spatio-temporal patterns of deployments28, suggesting that our results are applicable to the entire tropical tuna purse-seine fishery in the Indian and Atlantic oceans.
These results contrast somewhat with existing analyses from the western and central Pacific Ocean, where it was estimated that 36% of dFADs ended up outside fishing grounds, but that the final recorded position of these abandoned dFADs were typically far from ports (502–952 km)29. Although these differences may be related to the larger spatial scales of the Pacific Ocean, additional analyses based on examinations of entire trajectories are needed to assess viability of recovery programmes based on ports.
Consequences of spatial and temporal variation of dFAD loss
High seas recovery could also be structured around our results on where important percentages of buoys exit fishing grounds towards the high seas. In the Indian Ocean, dFADs definitively leaving from the eastern border (70° E) end up stranded in or transiting through the Maldives and the eastern Indian Ocean. This happens relatively less frequently in the period from June to August and becomes much more frequent from October to December. Low loss rates during June to August are consistent with known seasonal patterns in dFAD deployment and fishing during this period4,25. At that time of the year, dFADs are deployed by fishers with the intent that they drift along the eastern African coast until they reach the main dFAD fishing grounds off Somalia, avoiding strong monsoon-driven currents favourable to eastward export of dFADs from July to December27. This is followed by a more intense dFAD fishing season during August–October. Finally, starting in October/November, a period of transition towards fishing further south in the Indian Ocean occurs, with relatively more focus on free-swimming school sets25,30, probably contributing to abandonment of dFADs in the northern Indian Ocean in the last quarter of the year.
In the Atlantic Ocean, dFADs lost to the high seas exit fishing grounds mostly from the northwestern border (between 10° and 20° N) and southwestern border (2°–5° S), which is consistent with transport by the North Equatorial and South Equatorial Currents26. Although the seasonality of loss is less marked in the Atlantic Ocean than in the Indian Ocean, the peak months of July and December are associated with transitions in the spatio-temporal distribution of deployments from principally deploying just north of the equator off of West Africa to focusing on the Gulf of Guinea further east30. These transitions could lead to increased dFAD abandonment in areas highly susceptible to export of dFADs, although seasonality in currents may also play a role.
Challenges facing recovery programmes
While the information provided in this paper on spatio-temporal patterns of dFAD loss provides an essential foundation for implementing dFAD recovery strategies, there are several important practical challenges to the success of such efforts. Most efforts towards reducing or removing marine debris after it has been created have so far focused on beach clean-ups31,32. Such operations are costly, time-consuming and only capture a fraction of the overall debris18,33. Recovery at sea is a promising alternative solution34, but this requires consolidating systems to observe these debris35 and understanding their drift36, as well as putting in place appropriate incentives and socio-economic and political frameworks37. Broadly, data availability (for example, access to near-real-time location data from all fleets), equipment availability (for example, appropriately sized and equipped vessels for collecting large debris such as dFADs)32, recovery programme structure (for example, collaboration with local fishers, NGOs and/or nation-states; use of support vessels, and/or chartering of dFAD recovery vessels) and funding sources (for example, reuse of recovered tracking buoys or dFAD plastic floats, and/or polluter-payer systems collected at dFAD deployment or manufacturing) need to be optimized to recover a maximum number of dFADs while minimizing costs and fishing impacts. These considerations highlight the importance of identifying areas leading to losses and multiple ports of different sizes from which operations could potentially be conducted, as we have done above, as well as careful analysis of the possible impediments to implementation of recovery programmes.
Some possible impediments to dFAD recovery programmes are environmental, strategic or geopolitical. For instance, although the Somali coast is identified as a dFADs stranding hotspot in winter5 and has potential for a port-based recovery programme as we show here, recovering dFADs along this coast is unlikely to be a priority due to the area’s relatively limited number of sensitive habitats, such as coral reefs, and because of the difficult and dangerous socio-political situation in the country and its adjacent waters. On the other hand, the Maldives archipelago is likely to be a priority given that it is an area with high dFAD stranding rates on coral reefs5 and also has many dFADs that leave fishing grounds and never return. Implementing a recovery programme in this area could be particularly valuable, especially given that the Maldives is well integrated into regional maritime transport and tuna fisheries. However, implementing such a programme for a large island chain composed of >1,000 individual islands will probably be complex. Extensive collaboration with regional stakeholders, such as research institutes, fisher associations and NGOs, as well as buoy manufacturers, would be essential to operationalize a recovery programme in the Maldives and elsewhere.
Another major challenge for at-sea dFAD recovery is availability of appropriate vessels to remove dFADs from the water. The vertical subsurface structure of dFADs generally stretches from 50 to 80 m below the surface. The weight of the materials used to build dFADs and the numerous sessile organisms that attach to the ‘dFAD tail’ eventually make dFADs very heavy (up to hundreds of kilograms) and therefore difficult to remove from the water. Complete removal is probably only possible for medium to large vessels with an appropriate crane or winch for hauling heavy material. Purse-seine vessels themselves could participate in dFAD recovery efforts, but this would be costly and disruptive to fishing. For smaller vessels, it may only be possible to remove some parts of the dFAD, potentially aided by natural breakdown of the object or acoustic release systems, such as the GPS buoy, plastic flotation devices and/or surface raft metallic or plastic structural elements. However, this could still be extremely useful as the remaining material will normally sink before reaching coastal environments, thereby potentially avoiding the most important environmental impacts. This strategy would be particularly valuable if the subsurface structure can be made of biodegradable materials9,23,38. Imzilen et al.5 suggested that the removal of GPS buoys by artisanal fishers is already occurring in coastal areas. Therefore, if dFAD tracking information can be made accessible and appropriate incentive mechanisms are put in place to encourage recovery of dFAD elements, this strategy could substantially reduce marine debris from dFADs. Other practical considerations should be taken into account once at port, such as the availability of infrastructure for shipping, disposing of, recycling and/or reusing tracking buoys and other dFAD components. All of these potential impediments can be addressed, but they will require active engagement from fishers, tRFMOs, NGOs and coastal nations.
Complementary measures
In addition to such recovery programmes, existing complementary measures controlling the numbers of dFADs present at sea (for example, limits on the number of operational GPS-tracking buoys and limits on the use of support vessels) may need to be strengthened, as a higher number of dFADs obviously contributes to higher risks of marine debris and stranding. Lowering limits on the number of dFADs may also encourage vessels to increase sharing of buoy information, thereby maximizing use of dFADs and potentially reducing dFAD loss. However, oddly enough, such measures may aggravate problems of ALD dFADs if their consequences are not accurately anticipated. For example, limits on the number of tracked dFADs implemented by tRFMOs have modified the strategy of some components of the purse-seine fishery, encouraging them to remotely deactivate satellite-transmitting GPS-tracking buoys when dFADs leave fishing grounds to maintain the number of operational buoys below authorized limits. The loss of position information prevents the tracking of dFADs outside fishing grounds and may result in under-estimation and spatial bias in estimates of the risks of stranding and loss5,39. A potential solution would be to consider ALD dFADs as part of a stock of ‘recoverable dFADs’ that are not counted as part of the individual vessel’s quota of operational buoys, but for which position information is transmitted and made available to partners involved in recovery programmes39. Other useful options to facilitate the recovery of buoys include limiting the per vessel number of deployments instead of limiting the number of tracked dFADs and/or making new deployments contingent on recovery of an equivalent number of already deployed dFADs. The current tRFMO-implemented reduction in the number of support vessels in the Indian Ocean is also likely to increase the loss of dFADs because these vessels may be used to recover dFADs before they leave fishing grounds, highlighting the urgent need for complementary dFAD management and recovery approaches.
Financial considerations
A final question about dFAD recovery programmes is how they could be financed. The logistical challenges described above, such as chartering appropriate recovery vessels, involve substantial costs that cannot be ignored. The most simple and logical financing scheme would be a polluter-payer programme whereby vessels, dFAD manufacturers and/or fishing nations pay some monetary amount per ALD dFAD, potentially in proportion to its expected negative impacts, into an independently run and verified clean-up fund. The basic elements for identifying which vessels, fishing companies and/or nations are deploying dFADs are largely in place via tRFMO reporting requirements, dFAD vessel logbooks and purse-seine observer programmes. The detailed spatio-temporal maps provided here and in Imzilen et al.5 identify where the losses and impacts are occurring, thereby providing a blueprint for apportioning such funds geographically.
Missing elements
The missing elements for reducing dFAD loss are mostly political: facilitating access to tracking and activation-deactivation information for all ALD dFADs (for example, the EU recently objected at the 2nd Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) ad hoc working group on dFADs to making dFAD data publicly available for scientific purposes); implementing requirements for appropriate disposal of ALD dFADs; and improving collaboration between industry and regional stakeholders concerned with clean-up programmes. Although these missing elements may seem formidable, there are very promising precedents for rapidly addressing these types of issues. Throughout the 2010s, various initiatives of purse-seine fleets, national scientists, tRFMOs and organizations such as the International Sustainable Seafood Foundation (ISSF) have allowed the rapid adoption of mitigation measures. This was the case for non-entangling dFADs40, best practices guidelines for the release of sensitive species41,42,43, exhaustive observer coverage44,45 and dFAD management plans46, which are all required for ISSF-participating fishing companies if they wish tuna from their fishing vessels to be accepted by ISSF member canneries. A similar approach could be used to address dFAD loss, using the fulcrums of the ISSF, Marine Stewardship Council certification and European Union (EU) environmental regulations to extend the commitments already made by some of the fleets (for example regarding data availability and tests of recovery mechanisms) to other fleets and other areas, and therefore rapidly transform industry behaviour for the benefit of all.
Source: Ecology - nature.com
