Fishy Business
The problems with fishery management are mounting—and time may be running out
- By Anne Sasso
- Smithsonian.com, September 24, 2007, Subscribe
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization began collecting fishery statistics in the 1950s. About that time, industrial-scale fishing exploded; soon, more boats chased down more fish using more efficient equipment. Since then, 29 percent of commercial fish species have suffered collapses, and many more stocks have been depleted. Entire fishing industries, such as cod in Nova Scotia, have disappeared. Many fish species, like the bluefin tuna, are on the brink of extinction. Even birds and mammals that feed on fish, including humpback whales in Canada's Bay of Fundy, are losing the competition for fish to commercial fishing fleets.
Marine scientists agree that governments must act quickly to reverse the decline in fish stocks, but recent studies illustrate just how complex fishery problems have become. Multiple strategies are needed—and needed now—to ensure that ocean health is preserved, and to motivate the fishing industry to ply its trade in a sustainable manner.
"If [positive action] happens real fast, we can conceive of things being halfway sustained," says fisheries biologist Daniel Pauly of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. "If this doesn't happen—and it looks unlikely—then the devastation will continue."
Over the years, management authorities have addressed the problem of overfishing in many ways, with limited success. They have put annual restrictions on total catch both at the fishery and vessel levels, ending seasons once the quotas are met. They have limited the availability of fishing licenses. They've even tried paying fishers to quit the business, through boat-buyback programs. But these efforts are undermined by government subsidies to the fishing industry, Pauly says.
In a non-subsidized world, once fish stocks become depleted, fishers would no longer be able to earn a living. They would, theoretically, migrate to other livelihoods, enabling the stocks to recuperate. Once replenished, the existing fisheries would prosper, competition would move in and this boom-and-bust cycle would repeat itself.
Subsidies short-circuit this system by paying fisheries to continue fishing depleted stocks, exacerbating the decline, impoverishing the ecosystem and contributing to the cycle of escalating subsidies. Roughly $30 billion in subsidies are paid each year—about one-third of the value of world fisheries, Pauly says.
In a review paper published in Science last June, a group of researchers led by fisheries expert John Beddington of Imperial College in London argues that subsidies undermine sustainability and should be replaced with rights-based incentives. Instead of relying on complex, top-down management, the authors suggest giving ownership rights to fishers under clearly stated rules. These include harvest strategies based on the size and health of fish stocks; catch restrictions based on the size and age of fish; gear restrictions; and well-defined fishing seasons and areas. The possibility of losing ownership rights, they argue, is enough incentive for fishers to comply with the responsible behavior.
In addition to adjusting practices, another important strategy is to adjust mindsets, says marine conservationist Boris Worm of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada. In the past, fisheries have sought to provide the maximum catch of fish that taste good while ignoring the larger effects this tactic has on the ocean. But now scientists believe that even individual marine species have a wide-reaching influence on the ocean ecosystem. Simply put, every species that is overfished threatens the sustainability of the sea.
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.









Comments (1)
This is an interesting article in that it opens new windows of thinking. Of particular interest is that we may not be able to manage marine complexity; but rather we may do better managing our impact on ecosystems. This is an extremely important conclusion that merits thoughtful thinking. By the same token is it better to manage projects (which are embedded with complexity), or better try to manage the impact of projects? Any manager realizes that the projects involve many balances and interactions. Intervention will result in only disturbing the natural balances and the consequences will be unknown. Like a marine ecosystem, which may revert to type upon the removal of its disturbance factor(s) people would rearrange naturally to produce their best. It is like administering a drug in a human body that can be sure of its all side effects? The universality of your conclusion deserves further discussions.
Posted by Ali Anani on June 22,2008 | 02:22 AM
Hello, How can I help?
Posted by donna smits on December 4,2007 | 08:36 PM