“Stop Satellite-Assisted Slaughter in the Oceans” campaign casts spotlight on Iridium

27 Feb 2024 --- Ocean conservationists and environmentalists are currently negotiating with the UK satellite company Iridium to stop providing real-time tracking through its short-burst data services to the tuna fishing industry in the Indian Ocean. We speak to wildlife campaigner Alex Hofford and researcher Callum Roberts for the latest perspectives on this emerging issue.

“We would like Iridium to insert a restrictive ‘ethical use clause’ into future contracts with their distribution partners. If Iridium can’t control where its satellite technology is used, at the very least, they should put a restriction clause on its use in unsustainable tuna overfishing, an activity that causes hundreds of thousands of tons of sharks, turtles and whales to be pointlessly slaughtered each year,” Hofford, trustee of UK Shark Guardian and marine wildlife campaigner, tells Nutrition Insight.

In January, the coalition submitted a letter to Iridium alongside an industry call to fishing stakeholders worldwide about the insidious use of GPS data via “low-earth-orbit” satellite networks by fisheries to “slaughter” fish populations en masse. The real-time GPS tracking assists drifting Fish Aggregating Devices (dFADs) that use Iridium’s Short Burst Data (SBD) services. Nutrition Insight reached out to Iridium but did not receive any response.

“We are talking to Iridium now. They seem open to discussing these issues with us. We picked them because they are the biggest satellite operator facilitating overfishing. Hopefully, if we can get Iridium to act, others, like Inmarsat, will act too. We hope to trigger a domino effect that will somehow send a shockwave throughout the entire tuna overfishing industry,” says Hofford. 

Unseen horror of fish aggregating devices
The campaign has been coined “Stop Satellite-Assisted Slaughter in the Oceans,” and the original letter was drawn up by more than 100 marine conservation groups, scientists and global lawmakers.

Iridium Burst is a service that simultaneously transmits data to tens, hundreds, thousands or even millions of enabled devices. The coalition prioritizes the SBD module 96023 and SBD module 96034, contained in tens of thousands of enabled devices in the Indian Ocean — notably Spanish-made solar-powered satellite buoys — which frequently wash up on beaches, coral reefs and mangroves across coastal states, including the Seychelles, Somalia and Kenya. 

Hofford, a former underwater photographer for Greenpeace before becoming a campaigner, witnessed the destruction caused by dFADs firsthand. 

“Purse seine fishing boats from the EU deploy dFADs, which are often just a bunch of old fishing nets, buoys and ropes tied to a floating raft, all tethered together in a big clump and then dumped into the sea, with a floating satellite beacon attached to communicate its location.” 

“This fishing gear basically mimics what happens in nature, for example, the way that a palm tree or a dead whale floats in the sea, providing sustenance, rest and shade for marine wildlife. Fish arrive from all around and travel under it. As this mini ecosystem grows in size, it behaves a bit like an oasis in the desert.”

The coalition calls for the discontinuation of SBD modules, particularly 96023 and 96034 (Credit: FiskerForum).“Eventually small fish, big fish, different types of tuna, sharks, turtles and whales become concentrated underneath it — until the fishermen arrive and scoop the whole lot up in one go,” Hofford describes.

The satellite tracker on the dFADs allows fishers to set it adrift for months, collecting hundreds of tons of fish, often including overfished juvenile yellowfin tuna, once the huge net is deployed. 

“These devices really are ‘out of sight, out of mind’ Hofford stresses. “This kind of thing, no one on land knows about it — no one is really monitoring what’s going on with this harmful fishing gear.” They say there are observers on board, but really, it’s a joke. These fishing companies from Spain and France are very good at greenwashing, which is just another form of lying,” Hofford describes.

Regulation lags behind
The coalition states that removing these devices will barely affect Iridium’s profits and cites the high volumes of plastic waste and hazardous electronic waste pollution the devices generate as an added reason to discontinue them. Satellite tech and GPS mapping have significantly reduced natural refuges for fish to hide and rejuvenate.

“Satellite technology is dangerous for fish and fisheries sustainability because it makes it much easier to find fish. Its use must be coupled with powerful and timely limits on fishing effort to prevent overfishing. So far, that has rarely been the case,” Callum Roberts, professor of Marine Conservation at the Centre for Ecology and Conservation, University of Exeter, UK, tells Nutrition Insight.

“Satellite technology is also removing the ability of fishing boats to hide from scrutiny. We need to convert monitoring of clandestine activity, such as fishing in protected areas, into prosecution of guilty parties, which means satellite evidence will have to be made admissible in courts of law.”

The fast pace with which technology evolves leaves regulators on the back foot and “reactive” in their responses to fish stock declines. Often, regulatory responses come after the fact and do not prevent problems from happening. 

“Fisheries managers must find ways of matching fishing power to the availability of fish so as to achieve sustainability. That means limiting the amount of fishing effort or the technologies that can be used. Fish aggregating devices carry dual risks of overfishing and the possibility of disrupting the behavior and ecology of the target tunas and non-target species caught as bycatch,” Roberts explains.FADs are often times made from a collection of large and small pieces of junk (Credit: Galapagos Conservation Trust).

“Enforcement is one thing, but the adequacy of the regulations is another. If regulations are inadequate to protect stocks and restrain overfishing, no amount of enforcement can make them effective. There is insufficient regulation of many tuna fisheries to protect target and bycatch species.”

Multiple calls for FAD ban
Several coastal nations have called for the ban of FADs or stricter regulation of their use, which has been largely disregarded. Further exacerbating the situation, fishing companies state the “so-called bycatch” of sharks, whales and turtles is accidental, Hofford asserts.

“In February last year, India put forth a proposal at the UN Indian Ocean Tuna Commission to ban drifting FADs. Indonesia also put forth a proposal, not to ban, but just to impose stricter measures on these awful devices, but both failed because of the shady behind the scenes actions of the EU which is under the heavy influence of Spanish and French commercial fisheries,” Hofford explains. 

“Because of strong lobbying, these things are hard to ban, or even just regulate to the extent that endangered species decline can be halted. Coastal member states of the UN Indian Ocean Tuna Commission are heavily influenced by the prospect of European development aid being suspended if they vote the wrong way.” 

The coalition has called on Iridium to phase out its GPS satellite services to companies that use harmful dFADs.

“Conversely, a phasing out of your SBD services to the Spanish tuna overfishing fleet would have a hugely positive knock-on effect on Indian Ocean marine ecosystems as well as the threatened biodiversity lives within those ecosystems,” the coalition states.

By Inga de Jong