Measures to reduce albatross mortality in long-line fisheries do exist and have done for at least 10 years. The most effective are night fishing, flying lines of streamers behind boats to scare albatrosses off hooks, adding weight to long-lines so they sink faster, setting long-lines deep underwater and expelling offal discreetly.

However, experience has shown that educating fishermen about mitigation measures, though essential, is unlikely to make a difference and fishermen are unlikely to comply with conservation requests voluntarily.

Mortality is probably highest in the illegal fishery for Patagonian toothfish, where pirate vessels don't carry independent observers and probably don't use protective measures. It is also high in the Indian Ocean tuna fishery, because of the large number of albatrosses in that part of the world, the difficulties of managing fisheries in international waters, and the lack of observers on vessels.

Even with the existence of easy-to-use mitigation measures seabird mortality has remained unacceptably high, principally because of the lack of full compliance with the measures. Consequently the legal toothfish fishery around South Georgia, an island in the southwestern Atlantic Ocean with one of the largest toothfish quotas, is closed during the eight month albatross breeding season. This most heavy-handed of measures has been necessary to take seabird mortality to safe levels (in the 2000 season 14.5 million hooks deployed caught less than 50 seabirds) and has encouraged some fishermen to try catching toothfish with craypot-like cages instead of hooks.

Unfortunately the existence of effective mitigation and neat international agreements don't necessarily translate into seabird-friendly fishing practices. Unfortunately the realities of human nature and vested interest tend to get in the way.

With many different nationalities involved in long-line fishing, it's clear that a collaborative, multi-national approach is required if the problem is to be solved.

This is occurring, albeit slowly. Solutions are being developed at international and national levels, by governments and researchers and by some fishermen. The initiatives of greatest importance, because of their global co-ordination roles, are those by the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels, the Global Environment Fund and the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources.

The FAO has produced an international plan of action to reduce seabird mortality in long-line fisheries. This calls for all nations with long-line fisheries to produce plans on how they intend to deal with the problem. Some nations have completed their plans and several nations have theirs in the draft stage; participation is, of course, voluntary and time will tell how attentive and genuine long-lining nations have been in responding to this important FAO request.

So, can albatrosses and long-line fisheries co-exist?

Co-existence between albatrosses and long-line fisheries inside national economic zones should be possible but relies on several assumptions: that relevant nations produce effective plans of action (NPOAs), that seabird conservation measures are woven into the fabric of fisheries management legislation and that adequate observer coverage of vessels exists.

In international waters though it's a different story. In the absence of a fix-all mitigation technique that fishermen find beneficial we are left with voluntary compliance, and that doesn't inspire confidence. In international waters, unless something unexpected happens - like the collapse of fish stocks or contraction of fisheries to waters not frequented by albatrosses - then albatrosses and some other seabird species will continue to be taken in large numbers and further population reductions will be inevitable.

It's difficult to see the solution, and the albatross's survival is tenuous, but an ocean - a world - without albatrosses would be an overwhelming tragedy. We believe it's a fight worth fighting. Will you join us?

Thanks to Graham Robertson and the Australian Antarctic Division for information contained here.