www.elsevier.com/locate/marpolbul

Marine Pollution Bulletin 49 (2004) 1–3

Editorial

The triumph of evil

I retired on 1 July 2003 from my various positions at

the University of Hong Kong, an occasion tinged with

both regret and optimism for a new life ahead. It is,

however, I suppose only natural for all retirees to look

back on their working life and reflect on its failures and

successes, achievements (or not), its many pleasures andthe occasional moments of unhappiness. Undoubtedly,

one measure of any academic’s success is reflected in his

or her students and I was privileged to teach and be the

supervisor of a wonderful group of young people. An

important person in my career was Bob Clarke who

invited me to be the Asian Regional Editor for Marine

Pollution Bulletin and commissioned two editorials a

year for the journal. I accepted the invitation with adegree of trepidation because I had never written such

articles before. Notwithstanding, the first editorial on

the pollution-fuelled disaster of Tolo Harbour in Hong

Kong was published in 1988 (Marine Pollution Bulletin

19: 299–300). Since that time, my pact with Bob has

produced other editorials and when I retired Charles

Sheppard expressed the hope that I would continue to

write. Thus, formal retirement and the reminiscencesthat accompanied it led me to mull over a few of my

more recent editorials which have diverged from the

journal’s classic view of organic and inorganic pollution

of the marine environment and their impacts upon it.

In 2002 I wrote an editorial about whaling, mostly by

Japan (Marine Pollution Bulletin 44: 1–2). Subsequently,

in 2003, Iceland rejoined Japan and Norway as a

whaling nation and in August of that year three vessels,commissioned by the Icelandic Marine Research Insti-

tute, set out to kill 38 Minke whales ostensibly to study

their impacts upon fish stocks and under a flag of sci-

entific research. Not, however, my flag of scientific re-

search. Similarly in November 2003, Japan’s whaling

fleet of five vessels––three of them catchers––set out for

Antarctica with a remit to kill 400 Minke whales, again

for scientific research. The by-products of such whalingresearch are sold as meat and in Japan dolphins are also

hunted. In October 2003, researchers of the Sea Shep-

herd Conservation Society filmed fishermen killing 60

Striped dolphins in an inlet into which they had been

corralled and then gaffed and their throats cut. The inlet,

0025-326X/$ - see front matter � 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2004.03.011

close to Taiji in Wakayama Prefecture, became a river of

blood and for 7 months each year such a scene is re-

peated up and down the coastline of Japan and some

20,000 animals will be slaughtered in this manner

reportedly for human consumption but mostly for pet

food as public demand for the meat has plummeted inrecent years. The killing of dolphins is not prohibited by

the International Whaling Commission, a toothless

dinosaur of an organization that still countenances

membership of its body by such non-whaling countries

as Dominica, Antigua, St. Lucia, Grenada and the

Solomon Islands and who sit on it merely to give covert

support to Tokyo in return for aid.

Also in 2002 I wrote an editorial about Australia’strade in live sheep and cattle to Asia, particularly, the

Middle East (Marine Pollution Bulletin 46: 379–380).

Such a trade annually involves the export of some 6

million sheep and 1 million cattle of which, in 2002, an

estimated 14,500 animals died at sea and were thrown

overboard. On 5 August 2003, the Dutch owned m.v.

Cormo Express, identified earlier as one of the worst

death ships, left Fremantle, Western Australia, witharound 58,000 sheep on board bound for Jedda, Saudi

Arabia, where the animals would be slaughtered for

halal meat. Upon reaching their destination, however,

on 21 August, Saudi authorities rejected the shipment

because, they claimed, 30% of the animals were infected

with scabby mouth. Australian authorities denied this

fruitlessly and so began an 80-day voyage of misery for

the sheep as the Cormo Express sailed the Arabian Gulf,Red Sea and Indian Ocean looking for a buyer. Thirty

countries in the Middle East were offered the sheep, one

by one, by their Saudi owners, but all declined. During

the ensuing nightmare voyage, in searing 50�C temper-

atures, the sheep inevitably began to die. Such an

embarrassing saga, not just for the trade valued at A$11

billion (US$8.7 billion) a year, but also for Australia,

ended when its Government, which had purchased thesheep for A$4.5 million (US$3.6 million), offered them

to Eritrea as a gift with the inducement of a further gift

of A$1 million (US$800,000) plus 3,000 tonnes of free

feed to off-load, transport and slaughter the animals. By

journey’s end, however, 5,581 (9%) dead sheep had been

2 Editorial / Marine Pollution Bulletin 49 (2004) 1–3

thrown overboard. The surviving 52,000 animals were

eventually landed at Massawa, Eritrea, on 24 October

2003 after a voyage that cost the trade some A$10 mil-

lion (US$7.9 million). As a final twist in the saga, theEritrean Government has offered some of the sheep to

Saudi Arabia. It is, however, at least in Australia, un-

known if this offer has been accepted. The political fall-

out from such a debacle was large. In November 2003,

animal rights activists in Sydney sabotaged a shipment

of 70,000 sheep destined for the Middle East by feeding

them pig meat. A review of the self-regulated trade by

the Australian Federal Government concluded thatthe trade’s voluntary scheme of control was ineffec-

tive and had overseen a series of earlier disasters lead-

ing up to the Cormo Express fiasco. It recommended,

among other things, that the Australian Quarantine and

Inspection Service be put firmly in charge of the trade

with the establishment, if possible, of a central quaran-

tine facility in the Middle East. As I said in my editorial

on the subject, it is not for me to preach about the ethicsof Christian suppliers and Islamic customers involved in

such a trade: this is for better-qualified citizens of both

religions. Notwithstanding, when the sea is being pol-

luted by the excrement from 6 million sheep and 1

million cattle each year, with possibly up to 9% of such

animals also being thrown overboard to further con-

taminate it, I feel I do have a right to voice the opinion

that the trade should be discontinued.Staying with Australia: in early 2004 I wrote an edi-

torial about marine pollution of a more sinister kind

(Marine Pollution Bulletin 48: 1–2). Using a number of

examples, which I want to revisit here, I argued that

gangsters are now exploiting the more profitable re-

sources of the sea. I reported that after a 21-day chase,

the Uruguayan registered fishing vessel Viarsa was

boarded by fisheries protection officers deep in theSouthern Ocean for allegedly illegally fishing for Pata-

gonian toothfish in Australian territorial waters. As I

write, the captain and Spanish crew of the Viarsa are

still in custody awaiting trial. In December 2003, how-

ever, the 55 m Russian registered long-liner, The Lena,

similarly caught illegally fishing in Australian waters

with 90 tonnes of toothfish in its holds was sunk to

become a diving attraction, its captain and crew earlierbeing fined A$100,000 (US$79,000) and its toothfish

catch valued at A$1 million (US$790,000) confiscated.

A similar fate seems to await the Viarsa and possibly

another fishing boat, the Uruguayan-registered Maya V

which in January of this year (2004) was also caught in

Australian waters with a 200 tonne catch of Patagonian

toothfish valued at A$4 million (US$3.2 million). Under

the Australian Fisheries Management Act, its 35 Chil-ean and Uruguayan crew also face hefty fines. It has,

however, emerged that the Uruguayan Government in-

structed the captain of the Viarsa to evade Australian

capture, creating a diplomatic row. Most recently, fur-

thermore, an initiative put to a meeting of the 24

member [International] Commission for the Conserva-

tion of Antarctic Marine Living Resources suggesting

that vessels fishing in southern hemisphere watersshould be fitted with a ‘‘black box’’ to track their course

at sea, was rejected by Argentina. In response, and to

protect its legal fishery from the South American illegal

fishermen, the Australian Government has announced

that henceforth its fisheries protection vessels will be

fitted with 0.5 mm calibre mounted machine guns.

In the same editorial, I also reported upon the Asian

gangster control of the illegal trade in South African andAustralian abalone. So serious has the problem become

that the government of Western Australia has intro-

duced an abalone fishing season which is restricted to a

short period from 15 May–1 October in any one year.

There are about 30 licensed abalone fishermen in Wes-

tern Australia. For the general public, a 6 week season

from 2 November–7 December allows each person to

take a bag limit of 20 Roe’s and 5 Green- or Brown-lipped abalone but only on Sundays from 07:00–08:30.

In the 2002 season, it was estimated that about 5,000

fishers took 28 tonnes of abalone from the waters of the

Perth metropolitan area. Notwithstanding, such rules

are breached on a massive scale and Australia as a whole

faces the challenge of an international illegal fishery well

organized by powerful, well financed, and often armed

Asian gangsters. For instance, in July 2003, three menwere prosecuted and fined A$285,000 (US$225,000) for

supplying a dealer with over three tonnes of abalone. On

22 March 2004, as a further example, four men were at

2:45 am arrested emerging from the sea with 755 Roe’s

abalone worth A$16,500 (US$12,400). If found guilty,

the fine will be �10 times the abalone’s value. When

dried abalone is worth A$3,000 (US$2,200) per kilo-

gram in Singapore and even more in Hong Kong, suchhoodlum controlled interest in the trade is to be ex-

pected and is widely believed to be funded by drugs.

Finally, to demonstrate the rapacious self-interest

that today controls the exploitation of fishery resources,

I end this editorial on a deeply tragic note. An annual

fortune valued at £8 million (US$12 million) lies buried

in the muds of Morecambe Bay in northwest England.

The fortune is in the form of the lowly cockle, Cerasto-derma edule, which though traditionally of minor, sea-

side importance to the English, is a delicacy in Europe

and Asia. And gangsters have targeted it. Although few

English people would dare to venture onto the treach-

erous muds of the bay, since December 2003 More-

cambe locals report that up to 300 Chinese people have

been seen daily collecting cockles by the sackful. Pre-

dictably, such a situation was a disaster waiting tohappen and on the evening of the 5 February 2004 it did.

Nineteen Chinese people (17 men and 2 women)

drowned on Morecambe Bay as the huge (6 m), ice-cold,

treacherous tides of the Irish Sea swept over the shore

3Editorial / Marine Pollution Bulletin 49 (2004) 1–3

trapping them in soft mud. Three drowned standing up

in the mud as the waters covered them. One such victim,

Mr. Guo Binglong, had a mobile phone and reportedly

telephoned his family in China to tell them he was goingto die. The other cocklers blundered about directionless

in the dark and cold, eventually succumbing to hypo-

thermia and a horribly slow death by drowning. It

transpires that the victims were all illegal immigrants,

mostly from Fujian Province in China and who, to pay

off the exorbitant fees of £13,000 (US$25,000) charged

by the snakeheads who brought them into the country in

the first place, were sent onto the mudflats by so calledgang masters to collect cockles. The Chinese are paid £8

(US$12), half of which is retained for accommodation,

food, transport and a work ‘‘registration fee’’, to toil a

9 h day collecting cockles valued at £80 (US$120). To-

day, English cockles are worth £1,000 (US$1,500) per

tonne, twice the value of 2003 and, as with Patagonian

toothfish, abalone and probably a plethora of other

mostly unreported resources, they have become thelatest target of ruthless gangs who prey on na€ıve and

often desperate people who, in turn, either in their

poverty or through ignorance, know and care noth-

ing about sustainability and risk their lives for a pit-

tance.

It transpires therefore that post-retirement, little has

changed in the world. Except for increased tragedy. But

what has this got to do with marine pollution? I argue,everything, because what is essentially over-fishing, or

over-exploitation, has just a big an impact upon marine

ecosystems as our more traditional view of pollution.

And I further believe that because of this, pollution

researchers should be as proactive in identifying conse-

quences to strengthen arguments in the public domain

against the activities of gangsters in particular, as they

are in their condemnation of industry and governments.

Not only do such gangsters rape our common marineresource, they also destroy the environment and the lives

of innocent people just as effectively as any chemical

contaminant. For example, 300 cockle gatherers must

have an enormous impact upon migratory wading birds

that use Morecombe Bay as a feeding ground. Not just

the research is needed, however, it is also necessary for

many more marine scientists to speak out against such

environmental ruthlessness and the horrors of whalingand the live sheep trade. Maybe too Marine Pollution

Bulletin could better foster this by broadening its scope

enabling contributors to relay to a wider audience that

which they do best, that is, document and inform others

of the consequences of marine pollution in all its forms.

The 18th century politician Edmund Burke (1729–1797)

is reputed to have said ‘‘All that is necessary for the

triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.’’ Such aquote, though paraphrased in quite different contexts

usually by politicians seeking justification for unpopular

causes, seems apt because really bad men are now intent

on adding to the pollution of our seas.

Brian Morton

Research Associate

Aquatic Zoology

Western Australian Museum

Francis Street

Perth, Western Australia

Australia

E-mail address: prof_bsmorton@hotmail.com