"The Legality and Sustainability of European Union Fisheries Policy in West Africa." MIT International Review. Spring 2007. p. 32-41.

a sibilant intake of breath

"Fueled by billions in government subsidies..."

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

I was just watching a 60 Minutes segment online about Bluefin Tuna and Sushi in Japan.   They went through the usual cycle of there being a few fishing boats at first, then larger more sophisticated vessles and then up through fish farms.  

In Japan they have such demand for what was once a delicacy, they can now sell the sushi for 50 cents a piece!

So, what puzzles me is how this "sustainable" system can produce so much so cheaply and yet be...sustainable?

It also makes me ask...what is "overfishing".   Take any population.   If you cull the largest mature adults, after they've mated, then what role, if any, do they play in the population.   It would seem to me, that since inside a population, or group, there is constant competition for resources, food, and so on, that the remaining "runts" would be thankful that the larger fish were caught and turned into sushi.

And this seems the same for any large, high order animal.   One the one hand, people decry the fate of the polar bears.   But what about the other polar bears?   I mean, I think it would be great if there were far less adult humans eating up the planet and using up all the stuff, and I'm sure you all feel the same way about me.   So if the aliens or whatever start coming down and harvesting us, for many people, it would be the best thing going.   Twice as much stuff for the survivors.

Back to the fish.   I think of it like, an large adult who's mated has no more biological role.  If you extract that individual for food, well, that actually frees up more resources.   It doesn't take away anything at all.   It would encourage growth and the population would happily rush to fill that slot.

Right?

My Log

The second of the NYT's three-parter on European demand for fish is posted here. It gives a really good summary of why fishing turns into overfishing - namely, because it is so easy, there is no meaningful penalty for fishing ships working illegally, and there is so much profit to be had.

If you extract that individual for food, well, that actually frees up more resources.   It doesn't take away anything at all.   It would encourage growth and the population would happily rush to fill that slot.

"Unlike agriculture, where investment in technology and capital increases long-term yields, without regulation technological development in fishing can only lead to more rapid resource depletion. Fishing remains sustainable only when regeneration exceeds exploitation. That balance must be at the core of any sensible fisheries policy, like those emerging in Iceland and New Zealand. The comparative barrenness of the North Sea and the Grand Bank demonstrates that this balance has not been respected, even when the states that are involved are the richest, most technologically capable, and most scientifically advanced in the world. Dr. Daniel Pauly, of the UBC Fisheries Centre, equates the process of "fishing outwards" to a hole being burned through a piece of paper. At the center are the now depleted waters of Europe and much of the Atlantic. According to Charles Clover, Environment Editor of The Daily Telegraph, two-thirds of Europe's commercial fish stocks are already outside their biological safety limits, while cod stocks have collapsed from Canada to Sweden. These problems of depletion have spread to the coasts of Antarctica, Australia, New Zealand, Africa, and elsewhere. They have reached into trenches and onto sea-mounts that were previously inaccessible to fishermen. The global trade system conceals depletion by allowing access to ever more distant stocks, thereby perpetuating the process of fishing outwards while concealing its occurrence.

As well as fishing out, a process of "fishing down" to successively lower levels in the food web occurs, eventually yielding ecosystems containing nothing more than "jellyfish and plankton." Removing the top predators in an ecosystem does not, as earlier ecological science predicted, vastly increase the numbers of smaller animals. More often, it seems to destabilize food webs and populations. With a resource that is as important and as incompletely understood as the sea, it seems elementary to exercise caution when undertaking activities that have had tragic consequences in the past. When the states in question exist in far more dire circumstances than those of the developed world, such caution is doubly valid, especially as they have fewer means at their disposal to correct environmental mistakes.

Once a particular area, such as the Mediterranean or the North Sea, is depleted, its fishing capacity can no longer be used. The trawler fleets that once fished off of Naples or Plymouth must now travel ever farther afield to fill their holds. Disheartening evidence from depleted fisheries suggests that areas rendered barren may not soon recover, as they experience what is known in the ecological literature as the Allee Effect: a phenomenon whereby depleted resources are less productive and behave differently than healthy ones. This effect can drive species that are not eliminated by human activity to extinction regardless, as observed with the passenger pigeon."

a sibilant intake of breath

Also, John, the catching of all the big fish forces the overfished species to change their reproductive biology, so that they breed earlier and earlier with each generation, before they get big enough to get into the nets. This downward push creates a small species out of a once large species, one that is no longer a key top trophic level predator, altering the food chain. It's unknown whether this would revert in the absence of fishing pressure. I'd like to think so, and common sense would argue, but we don't really know.

Erik

The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,100+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more

and now I know why it wasn't published.

Bottom line: There is no such thing as sustainable fishing on a commercial scale.

Buying a Big Mac is probably better for the environment than buying tuna.

Dems the facts.

I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info.

...not only are they overfisihin' the Africian waters, but when they try to place restirictions on European waters, it does little good.

More than half the fish in Europe are caught illegally:http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/01/half_the_fish_i.p ...

I never really understood what fishing subsidies were.  But I found this video on youtube that explains what's happening in Africa and Europe.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bfmyw-3yys