State of fisheries

• Are the sea's resources unlimited ?
  No, and the figures are incontestable. According to the FAO (SOFIA, 2008), 52% of stocks (of the 200 most consumed species) are fully exploited, leaving no room for further expansion, 19% are overexploited and 8% are depleted. This means that the proportion of stocks for which the maximum wild capture potential has been reached or exceeded stands at 79%. Only 20% of stocks are considered as «moderately exploited&», although unfortunately this percentage is falling constantly ; it stood at 40% in 1974 and at 23% in 2005. Lastly, 1% of stocks are recovering from depletion.
   


• Why are there fewer fish in the sea ?
  Believing the sea’s resources to be unlimited, we have allowed the unlimited expansion of fishing. But contrary to commonly used terminology, fishing is not a form of production, it is the « extraction» of a natural resource from a given geographical area. Sadly, it is because we have been unaware of this simple reality that the state of fisheries resources around the globe is now such a cause for concern. We have fished excessively and badly and we have done so for too long. Moreover, over the last 50 years fishing technologies have vastly improved. Fishing vessels are bigger and more effecient and location techniques are increasingly effective. Modern fishing technologies mean that, for a fish, there is now nowhere to hide.
  
  To summarise, fishery resources are like an investment, which, every year, yields interest. The challenge is to protect this investment and to rebuild it when necessary, so that we can fish sustainably, i.e. spending, over the long term, only the interest.
   
• Could a species such as cod or blue fin tuna become extinct ?
  The extinction of a species of fish such as cod or blue fin tuna is possible but highly unlikely. There will always remain several thousand individuals, which should ensure the survival of the species. Caution is nonetheless required because one thing is clear, even massive fish stocks can suddenly collapse under the pressure of overfishing. The fish we know as the Mediterranean Bluefin Tuna (Thunnus thynnus) faces such a risk today. And rapid stock depletion has occurred in the past. It happened to Cod, which were once fished off the Grand Banks off Newfoundland. In this region, where fishing had begun almost century earlier with the « terre neuvas » (Newfoundland fishermen), up to 800,000 tonnes of Cod was fished during the 1970s. Stocks collapsed, and on an unprecedented scale, leading to a total fishing moratorium being put in place in 1992 and until fish stocks recovered significantly. Tens of thousands lost their livelihoods. Today, 17 years later, there has still been no recovery.
  
  Worse still, other species of fish, of virtually no economic value, appear to have moved into the ecological niche left vacant by the Cod. This infamous case ought to serve as an example for fisheries management around the world. Admittedly, however, despite this calamitous lesson, we still cannot rule out the collapse of a number of other major fisheries stocks.
   
• For how long have we been overfishing ?
  Instances of « overfishing » have been chronicled for centuries. For most of this time they remained localised around areas where human populations had settled. But with the emergence of fishing fleets and preservation techniques, fishing began to expand, to become the globalised industry it is today. The pace of its expansion has been driven by increasing demand, which is driven by rising population levels. From 1950 to the 1980s world fish production doubled from some 40 million, to around 80 million tonnes. Since then, fish « production » has peaked, and has even been showing signs of falling. Yet over the same period, from 1950 to today, the world’s population has gone from some 2.5 billion individuals to nearly 7 billion. There will be some 9 billion in 2050, yet nature can only provide what it produces naturally, not more.
   
• How do we know we are overfishing ?
  Scientists working in the field of fisheries and marine sciences conduct research to carefully monitor the state of health of commercially exploited fish populations, which are known as “stocks”.  A reduction in the average size of fish from such a population is one indicator of overfishing. And resource depletion, in other words, a reduction in the quantities fished for the same fishing effort, is another. Of course these are indicators, not definitive proof. Scientists are constantly monitoring and checking such indicators so it is on the basis of taking regular measurements, which are checked and rechecked, that it is possible to conclude that a stock is being overfished.
  
  Marine sciences face, however, a number of difficulties. There is much we don’t understand about marine ecology and research teams are not given the resources they need to carry out their research in what is a challenging environment.
  
  Another problem is that some of the species that are fished, are not strictly speaking, “stocks”. This is the case in the Mediterranean, where fish species are more « mixed » and fisheries management is, consequently, more difficult.
   
• What is being done to avoid the overexploitation of fish stocks ?
  The problem is that we have been exploiting fish stocks for a long time and more often than not measures are only taken after it has become clear that the health of a stock has become a cause for concern.
  
  For certain stocks, especially in the North-East Atlantic, the North and Baltic Seas, and also for certain species, a total allowable catch (TAC) has been set.  The total allowable catch is the maximum catch that a particular stock can support. This limit then determines the quotas or quantities of fish that can be fished by country, by fishery or potentially by individual vessels. In regions such as the Mediterranean or the Black Sea, fishing is managed by limiting the fishing effort.
  
  Other measures include the minimum landing size, which is usually based on the size of a fish at sexual maturity. The aim here is to enable any particular fish to reproduce at least once. Unfortunately, in the same way as for quotas, there are both “biological” minimum sizes, which take into account the reproductive criterion mentioned above, and “political” ones, which take little account of scientific opinion in order to meet short term economic goals.
  
  This said, it is worth noting that more and more fishermen are independently adopting more and more stringent practices (landing sizes greater than those set by regulations for example) in order to preserve marine resources and at the same time protect their own livelihoods over the short, medium and long-terms. Better product marketing may also help with fishery resource management: less is fished but nothing is wasted. Product care is also important. Produce could be better preserved on-board, keeping it fresh and increasing its value to the customer.
   
• Will there always be fish in the sea ?
  Yes, probably. The question is knowing which ones, how many, and of what size. If overfishing continues individual fish will no longer live long enough to reproduce. This may explain the collapse of certain fish stocks occurring today, but the real danger is probably that overfishing alters ecosystem equilibria. The disappearance of ‘large’ predator fish for example opens up an ecological niche for other species to enter. The once hunted thus become the new hunters – even hunting the original predators no longer able to grow to full size. Moreover, the original predator’s population base can be decimated by the new predator, which is often much smaller, and sometimes of no commercial value.
  
  If large fish continue to be caught at the same rate as today, the ocean of tomorrow will be inhabited by small fish, crabs and jellyfish. Marine ecosystems will be profoundly disrupted and exploitable fisheries stocks will be wiped out, or almost. And such a nightmare scenario would have repercussions for other marine ecosystems, including the disappearance of coral reefs, for example. There would be a sort of domino effect the contours and limits of which we cannot predict because the consequences of overfishing on the food chain are so poorly understood, and rarely taken into consideration.
   
• There are thought to be enormous quantities of krill, why not fish them ?
  The nutritional value of Krill is highly debatable but this is not the main problem. If we were to fish krill we would be fishing the lowest link in the entire ocean food chain, on which all marine ecosystems depend, not only whales, but also small fish (which are eaten by larger ones or by birds, sea-lions, dolphins and of course by humans). We would be endangering the entire chain. So plans to fish krill pose a serious threat to the ocean’s main ecosystems, as well as, ultimately, to our own food supply.