Sustainability and the Overfishing Crisis

Julian Pozzi and Michael Puleo

ENVL Planning and Policy

Professor Moscovici

November 28, 2010

 The exponential growth of the human population and the subsequent growth
in resource demand have led the world into a critically unbalanced state. Changes in
our habitually wasteful and greedy tendencies are imperative for future progress
and success. Humans are undeniably the most intellectually gifted species, yet in
conjunction with this quality, we have developed an adverse trait of self-indulgence
and the egotistical belief that we are independent from nature. One might attribute
this arrogant perspective to Social Darwinism, which drives us to overachieve as a
species, ignorant of the repercussions that may hinder future success. Indeed, long-
term success is unattainable without sustainable interactions with our
surroundings; despite this, we continue along a parasitic pathway towards self-
destruction. One such example of this is our rapid depletion of our ocean fisheries.
Changes in our technology, climate, human population, and wealth are a few of the
contributing factors to this global crisis. Yet as conditions worsen, humans are
simultaneously becoming more and more aware about the consequences of non-
sustainable lifestyles. We have for a long time held onto the assumption that fish in
the sea are an inexhaustible resource. More recently however, depleted stocks and
increasing competition for fish have led to a reexamination of this belief and a
search for more ways to manage marine fisheries. The challenge in this endeavor
has been to maintain fisheries at sustainable levels, with due regard to productivity,
employment and the many lives relying on this threatened industry. The resolution
to change our habitually flawed exploitation of the ocean fisheries through
international cooperation, laws, research, and education, will determine the overall
success of a sustainable fishing industry.

Signs of an environmental revolution are beginning to stir as the

consequences of the past agricultural and industrial revolutions are being realized.
One realization revolves around the need for global collaboration and cooperation
in limiting overfishing and the subsequent decay of our ocean fisheries. Although
local laws and regulations are imperative for preserving local and endemic fish
populations, it is arguably more important that international laws be implemented.
Because humans have separated into various societies throughout the world, such
things as laws and regulations are not universally equal. While a given vicinity
might allow a certain practice to occur, another may ordain it as illegal within its
distinct set of laws. While some international laws have been implemented, the
need for additional regulations is imperative in dealing with current trends in fish
consumption and fishery depletion.

The Law of the Sea treaty, an agreement resulting during the third United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), represents one of the greatest
progressive movements towards international cooperation in global fishery
management. While largely focusing on international borders in regards to
resource rights and territorial waters, the Law of the Sea treaty was essentially
aimed at the preservation of resources, especially concerning ocean fisheries. The
UNCLOS meetings, of which there have been three thus far, first commenced in
1956, then in 1960, and most recently in 1973. Under the third United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea, which concluded in 1982, the international
recognition and acceptance of a 200-mile exclusive economic zone (fig. 1) was
imparted. An exclusive economic zone, or EEZ, represents an area expanding 200
nautical miles from coastal states’ shorelines, providing them with the rights of all
marine resources found within their particular zone (Weber, 2002, p.67). The
significance of EEZ’s lies in the individual incentives that are bestowed upon each
individual coastal state. The economic motivations included with ones EEZ
effectively create an impetus for sustainable utilization. The significance of EEZ’s
becomes further significant through the consideration of other international
agreements, especially those enacted through the Law of the Sea convention.

Figure 1. Exclusive economic zones of the world (Ministry of Fisheries, 2008)

Under the third convention, UNCLOS III, was the introduction of the United
Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA). Officially recognized as ‘The United
Nations Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation
and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks’, the
agreement was adopted in 1995 and in November of 2001 finally gained the 60
state/entity signatures required for its enforcement on December 11th, 2001. The
UNFSA acts as an extension to the words implied in the Law of the Sea Treaty, which
asserts that each State is “obliged to adopt, or cooperate with other States in
adopting, measures to manage and conserve living resources” (United Nations
Agreement, 2010, p.1). The UNFSA represents “a major international effort to
improve fisheries governance, resource recovery, and sustainable development of
international fisheries” (Meltzer, 2010, p.121). The agreement promotes the
protection of some of the oceans most vulnerable fish species, including species
most susceptible to weak management plans and often those that the market is
especially demanding of. The United Nations website states, “The Agreement
elaborates on the fundamental principle, established in the Convention, that States
should cooperate to ensure conservation and promote the objective of the optimum
utilization of fisheries resources both within and beyond the exclusive economic
zone” (United Nations Convention, 2010, p.1). Despite the promises that global
collaboration and agreements such as these entail, success is ultimately dependant
on the stringency to which each state abides by the agreements made.

In 1995, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
instituted The Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries; a volitional agreement
that designated a multitude of sustainable fishing approaches in an attempt to shape
the ethical and logical decisions of participating states. The Code of Conduct follows
the guidelines of the precautionary principle, which uses the most current scientific
knowledge as a means of avoiding potential consequences. “Management according
to the precautionary approach exercises prudent foresight to avoid unacceptable or
undesirable situations, taking into account that changes in fisheries systems are
only slowly reversible, difficult to control, not well understood, and subject to
change in the environment and human values”(Charles, 2001, p.216). Although the
Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries is merely a set of non-binding guidelines,
it represents a significant attempt at cultivating global values and has set the stage
for the installment of future policies.

One might postulate how anthropogenic processes could have possibly led to
the depletion of some of the largest fisheries worldwide. One method of answering
this is through the explanation of the Tragedy of the Commons (fig. 2. “Trajedy of
the commons structure for fishing” (Powell, 2005, p.1)), a predicament that dictates
how rational decisions, based off of individual gains, can induce the depletion of an
entire resource. First coined in 1968 by ecologist Garrett Hardin in the journal
Science, Hardin used it to
describe humans as
“egotistically calculating actors
who bring a common-pool
resource to extinction if they
are not subjected to social
arrangements which imply
coercion of some sort”
(Honneland, 2000, p.19). Such
innate narcissistic tendencies
necessitate the
implementation of law and
order in the sustainment of
our most universally available
resources. Such is true for our
ocean fisheries, which, despite
past beliefs as a seemingly
boundless resource is, more
recently, proving to be finite.
Long before Hardin’s Tragedy
of the Commons, man had
foreseen the consequences of
such trends. The great philosopher Aristotle recognized this some 2000 years ago,
explaining how “that which is common to the greatest number has the least care
bestowed upon it. Everyone thinks chiefly of his own, hardly at all of the common
interest” (Honneland, 2000, p.22). Only now are such words truly becoming
relevant; with current or soon to be wars over previously ‘common’ resources
including oil, land, and water, the need for reform has never been so great.

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act was the

first time Congress had authorized a national program for the conservation and
management of fishery resources. The act was originally the Fishery Conservation
and Management Act of 1976 and the act’s primary policy goal was to establish U.S.
federal authority to non-U.S. vessels within 200 miles of the U.S. coast. The act
created eight regional fishery management councils that construct a national
management plan which all vessels fishing within the 200-mile zone must abide by.
These councils are overseen by the National Fisheries Service and work to control
both the inputs into and the outputs from fisheries.

Input controls are the original tools of fishery management. These

management tools are intended to decrease either the number of people fishing or
the effectiveness of fishing in both commercial and sport fisheries. These controls
comprise of restrictions on gear, vessels, area fished, time fished, or numbers of
people fishing. Input controls can also be in the form of licenses, but these controls
do not directly manage the amount of catch. In a report named Sharing the Fish the
National Research Council states, “input controls generally lead to inefficient
outcomes. They clearly lead to more variable yield than output controls. Fishermen
may be able to substitute unrestricted inputs for restricted inputs, thereby
maintaining catch levels above those anticipated under the restricted input”
(National Research Council, 1999).

Gear restrictions are an excellent example of input controls that are an

indirect means of limiting the exploitation of fish stocks. Gear restrictions can
regulate the type of gear, amount of gear, or the use of gear. Two examples of these
regulations on the type of gear are mesh size for trawl that can lead to the escape of
small fish and limits on the spacing of hooks on longline gear, which results in less
catch per line used. Examples of the regulations of the amount of gear include the
number of traps, the amount of longlines in a set, or the length and width of gillnets.
Disallowing certain gear such as trawl gear in the Main lobster fishery is a specific
example of regulating the use of gear given by the National Research Council in
Sharing the Fish (National Research Council, 1999, p.116).

Gear restrictions actually result in fleets enhancing their yield by improving

upon the vessels and adding crewmembers because they are in a race to catch as
much fish, as fast as they can. Gear restrictions do show direct decreases in catch,
but they have an indirect effect by making the harvest of fisheries more efficient
because they simply replace the restricted input with an unrestricted input
(National Research Council, 1999, p.116). While fleets improve upon their vessels to
make up for the restrictions on gear, vessel restrictions must be implemented as
well. These restrictions place limits on the type, size, or power of vessels used by
particular fishermen. Still, these restrictions on vessels lead to indirect and
imperfect means of reducing fishing as vessels enhance the inputs that are not yet
controlled. For example, if restrictions for the length of vessels are established,
increases in the width of their vessel can subsequently be made. Restrictions on
gear and vessels are only effective in delaying fishermen from investing in
mechanisms that will help maximize their harvest of fish. More efficient methods of
fishing are, however, eventually developed.

Input controls only slow the fishing industry from the inevitable expansion of
their technology and size. Output controls directly limit catch by setting a total
allowable catch for fisheries. The total allowable catch is equal to or less than the
allowable biological catch, which is an estimate determined by the National Marine
Fisheries Service (National Research Council, 1999, p.3). Once the total allowable
catch is met, fishing comes to an end. This is all achieved by documenting the total
catch by vessels through dockside sampling and observations at sea. The total
allowable catch is divided into quotas. Quotas set individual total allowable catch
and are owned by individual fishermen, vessels, and fleets. The quotas are set so
that their sum equals the total allowable catch of a specific fishery (National
Research Council, 1999, p.120). By establishing tradable rights to harvest a share of
fish from the total allowable catch, the ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ or lack of property
rights is avoided. These shares or quotas give value to the stock of the fish,
providing an incentive for fishermen to sustain the fisheries. Further motivation
results from the decreased need for fishermen to expand their vessel size and invest
in expensive technologies (Grafton et. al., 2010, p.573). Individual transferable
quotas bring a much-needed organization to the fishing industry.

Aquaculture is a debatable alternative from harvesting fish from the sea.

Simply put, aquaculture is the farm raising of aquatic life. In the article Aquaculture:
Satisfying the Global Appetite, Tibbetts (2001) claims aquaculture is the fastest-
growing food production system worldwide and it is believed that thirty years from
now it will supply the largest food source of aquatic life for humans (p. 318). Just
from 1984 to 1999 its production expanded from 7 to 33 million metric tons (Fig. 3).
As of 2001 it made up one third of the total food-fish supply (Tibbetts, 2001, 218).

Figure 3. Foodfish supplies by capture fisheries and aquaculture (Tidwell and Allan, 2007, p.1)
 Aquaculture can be divided into two categories. The first category is low
value fish farming, which is the farming of fish that feed low in the ecological food
chain and that are raised in ponds for local consumption. This is very popular in
East Asia and parts of South America. A popular fish used is carp (Fig. 4), which
makes up the majority of species used in aquaculture.

Figure 4. Proportion of species used in aquaculture (Tidwell and Allan, 2007, p.1)

There are many different species of carp that play different roles within the
ecosystem of the pond. The second type of aquaculture is the raising of high value
seafood. These tend to be predatory species like shrimp and salmon. These
aquacultures help greatly in stimulating the economy of developing countries
(Tibbetts, 2001, p.320). There are, however, problems that come with these
aquacultures. One major problem is that mangrove forests are cleared for the
development of shrimp farms. This causes erosion problems when tropical storms
hit and the clearing causes severe ecological damage as many species and
ecosystems depend on the mangrove forests (Tibbetts, 2001, p.321).

Additionally, there are many problems that surround the shrimp farms.
Water pollution occurs with the crowding of too many fish farms in one area. This is
simply a case of neglect by uneducated or uninformed farmers that have poor
wastewater removal practices. These farmers are actually polluting the very water
that they use for the farms themselves. Many farms have been found dumping the
wastewater from the farms into estuaries. It is a common practice to remove 20
percent of each pond’s water each day to help in reducing the stress on the shrimp.
They then proceed to collect water from the same estuary to refill the ponds. As
wastewater is removed, some young shrimp are carried with it, which tend to be
shrimp that are sick. These sick shrimp end up back in the pond continuing the
spread of the virus because when they die the remaining shrimp feed on the
remnants. Birds feeding on dead shrimp that float atop the ponds also spread the
disease. The birds then fly to other farms and defecate in the pond, spreading the
virus once more. Disease mainly originates from stress because there are too many
animals in too small of ponds (Tibbetts, 2001, 322). In Sustainable Aquaculture,
Bardach (1997) mentions;

“More aquaculture can only have more deleterious effects on the

environment if its development is undertaken without attention to
ecological and socioeconomic consequences. Present concerns
about sustainability do, however, suggest that aquaculture can
now develop in a more responsible manner compared with the
last decades of its rapid worldwide growth” (Bardach, 1997, p.97).

The solution to these problems facing the farmers of shrimp is easy to

practice but can be a little pricey. The removal of wastewater can be solved by using
fine mesh screens at the end of the pipe way leading to the dumpsites. This would
greatly reduce the amount of young sick shrimp escaping back into the waterways.
One other solution is buying young shrimp from hatcheries rather than catching
young shrimp straight from the ocean, which poses risk of capturing many sick
shrimp. These hatcheries use intense testing to check for disease in the shrimp they
raise and sell. Another way to prevent disease from entering the ponds is to
constantly run aerating paddle wheels. This mechanism reduces stress on the
shrimp by maintaining higher oxygen concentrations in the ponds. Through proper
education, shrimp farmers can choose proper sites with cleaner and more oxygen
concentrated waters, decrease numbers of shrimp in ponds, isolate and disinfect
contaminated ponds, dispose of dead shrimp and wastewater in sanitary ways, and
use young shrimp from reliable hatcheries which use strong testing to find viruses.
This will help farmers to find success in farming. Just as importantly they will
reduce the environmental burden that these farms are capable of putting on
wetland ecosystems (Tibbetts, 2001, 322).

The other problem with raising predatory fish is providing feed for the fish.
One fish in particular is salmon and salmon farms are growing at great rates as the
wild population is becoming endangered and the demand for salmon is still high.
Fishmeal and fish oil make up 50 to 70 percent of the farmed salmon diet. The
problem is the harvesting of fish to make the fish meal, which belittles the purpose
of using aquaculture to relieve the problem of over harvesting fish. About 30 million
tons of fish are caught to provide fishmeal (Tidwell and Allan, 1997, p.1). An
alternative solution that totally eliminates this problem is to just stick to farming
herbivorous fish and shellfish. Another possible solution is to maybe find alternative
feed for the carnivorous fish. Tibbetts (2001) claims, “Researchers are searching for
substitutes for high-quality fish protein in vegetable and grain products” (p. 323).
Authors Tidwell and Allan (2007), proposed an interesting solution in solving both
the problem of producing fish meal and the discarding of by-catch. They alleged,
“The demand for fish meal could potentially be met by improved use of by-catch
from wild capture fisheries. The amount of by-catch killed and discarded annually is
estimated to be between 18-40 million [tones]… approximately the total amount of
fish currently harvested for fish meal production...” (p.1)

Aquaculture will be an excellent solution for the problem of overfishing. As it

will relieve fisheries of over harvesting, it will also provide a stimulus to developing
nation’s economies. With further technology and education farmers can find more
sustainable ways to produce a large yield. Grafton et. al. (2010) agrees that
aquaculture is a reliable solution, as they claim, “…aquaculture has to provide
growth if the seafood sector is to be able to maintain or increase its global seafood
supply per capita. Fortunately, …[it]…seems well positioned to succeed in this
respect” (p.60).

Even with the implementation of a healthy aquaculture industry, along with

the many laws, regulations, agreements, incentives and treaties discussed in this
paper, further measures are needed to ensure the future health of our oceans
fisheries. The resolution to change our habitually flawed exploitation of this once
thought boundless entity, will determine our success in sustaining this finite
resource. The implementation of stricter international and local laws, better
aquaculture management, more in-depth and current research, and an overall
education of the global population on the repercussions of non-sustainable fishing
practices will set the stage for a much more promising future.
 Sources Cited

Bardach, J.E. (1997). Sustainable Agriculture.

Charles, A. T. (2001). Sustainable fishery systems. Oxford: Blackwell Science Ltd

Grafton, R.Q. & Hilborn, R. & Squires, D. & Tait, M & Williams, M. 2010. Marine
Fisheries Conservation and Management.

Honneland, G. (2000). Coercive and discursive compliance mechanisms in the

management of natural resources: a case study from the barents sea fisheries.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Meltzer, E. (2010). The quest for sustainable international fisheries. CABI.

Ministry of Fisheries. (Producer). (2008). Exclusive economic zones of the world.

[Web]. Retrieved from http://www.fish.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/AB33435D-66D6-
45D2-AA6A-0C1B2204FB21/0/hsWorld_EEZ.jpg

National Research Council. (1999). Sharing the Fish.

Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations, Division of Ocean Affairs and the Law of the
Sea. (2010). United nations convention on the law of the sea of 10 december 1982
overview and full text

Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations, Division of Ocean Affairs and the Law of the
Sea. (2010). The United Nations Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions
of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating
to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory
Fish Stocks (in force as from 11 December 2001)

Powell, B. (Producer). (2005). Tragedy of the commons structure for fishing. [Web].
Retrieved from
http://www.exponentialimprovement.com/cms/commonsfallacy.shtml

Tibbets, L. (2001). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Tidwell, J.H & Allan, G.L. (1997). The Relative Contributing and Ecological Impacts of
Aquaculture and Capture Fisheries.

Weber, M. L. (2002). From abundance to scarcity: a history of federal marine fisheries

policy. Washington: Island Press.