UN Proposes End To Fishing Subsidies: restructuring could avoid collapse of fish stocks

Throughout many fisheries worldwide, overfishing has greatly reduced fish stocks and the response of some governments has been the subsidization of fleet expansion - more vessels, more nets and related equipment - so as to maintain or increase catch levels of a dwindling resource. Unfortunately, while this logic may make some sort of economic sense, it also most certainly hastens the inevitable collapse of the species and the industry itself - a sort of Band-Aid solution for a festering, terminal wound.

In a recent report put out by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), a drastic reduction in commercial fishing subsidies is being proposed as a way to save both the fishing industry and fish populations. The report recognizes that approximately 20 percent of the world population depends on seafood as a primary food source and that there are over 170 million people involved in commercial fishing and processing. But the report also recognized that by 2003 , 27 percent of the world's marine fisheries had collapsed. And without a major restructuring of how this marine resource is utilized, that number was bound to increase.

According to UNEP, $27 billion (USD) is being spent each year as subsidies - $8 billion of which is earmarked for managing marine protected areas, but the rest is being spent on propping up fishing fleets to maintain or expand fishing capacity when that capacity already exceeds what is sustainable. UNEP proposes a systematic restructuring in subsidies, focusing more on buying up excess vessels and retraining fishermen, thereby reducing commercial fishing to a level that would be more in line with enabling fish populations to provide their "maximum sustainable yield."

Would this allow commercial fisheries to meet increasing demand from an ever-growing human population? Probably not, but it would forestall the total elimination of one fishery after another, while alternatives are developed such as aquaculture. Others have indicated that taking any food from the sea will lead to its eventual elimination, that "sustainable fishing" is a myth. Whether that is true or not, it must be recognized that a demand for seafood will always exists and so steps must be taken to best preserve what is most certainly not an endless resource.

Some have also suggested that the economic rationale that supports farm subsidies - where, instead of expansion, productive farmland sits idle for the purpose of maintaining stable prices - may need to be re-examined in the face of the moral dilemma of developing nations in need of food staples for an undernourished populace.

You can read more about UNEP's commercial fishing subsidy proposals - part of an overall strategy for a "Greener Economy" - by clicking here (PDF download) or reading UNEP's latest press release.

Information source: SeaWeb.org.

Ocean Contaminants, Pollution & Trash: the water's murky but the issue is clear

I was reviewing the latest Marine Science Review from Seaweb on Contaminants and Pollution #318. It listed over 20 articles covering research studies on the impact of pollutants on marine ecosystems. From everything including pharmaceuticals to pesticides to manufacturing process ingredients, a chemical witches' brew is able to find its way into the seas through direct discharge into waterways, seepage through soil and groundwater, and from the sky.

The impact is felt worldwide, from deformed sturgeon in China due to triphenyltin, an agricultural fungicide; to contaminants found in seagull eggs as far north as Alaska; to the effect of pharmaceuticals and other pollutants on parasites and other single-celled organisms that form the foundation of a marine ecosystem.

Laying blame or divining efficient solutions is not so easy. Though banned for many years, there are still significant traces of the pesticide DDT being found in the egg shells of Arctic seabirds. There is plenty of research going on that is producing alarming, definitive data. The question is: What is being done to stop it?

In San Francisco, California, one positive move has occurred: under a settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity, last week the Environmental Protection Agency proposed to formally size up the harmful effects of 74 poisonous pesticides on nearly a dozen imperiled species in the San Francisco Bay Area. The settlement concludes a 2007 Center suit over the EPA's violation of the Endangered Species Act in registering the pesticides and allowing their use without considering the detrimental effects they may have on federally protected species -- decidedly not pests. The settlement could be a habitat-saving grace for 11 Bay Area animals, from the delta smelt to the San Joaquin kit fox. And until EPA's analysis of the pesticides' effects is completed, the agency promised, it will restrict the use of all 74 pesticides in and abutting endangered species habitat.

"The toxic stew of pesticides in the Bay-Delta has played a major role in the collapse of native fish populations, and pesticides are a leading cause of the loss of native amphibians," said Center Conservation Advocate Jeff Miller. "This agreement is a positive step for protection of some of the Bay Area's most endangered wildlife from pesticides."

Also, check out this very thorough report from the United Nations Environmental Programme, Marine Litter: A Global Challenge. Not only does it provide a detailed examination of marine litter in all of the major oceans, from plastic to, well, you name it, but it also provides strategies and solutions for each region. It's a great reference tool, not just a quick skim read. Check it out; it's a free PDF download.