Center for Environment and National Security

Tuna being cut in a fish market in Japan. Bluefin tuna is an integral part of sushi and sashimi. Image: WikiCommons

As a food staple that has captured the hearts of people everywhere, there is little doubt of the healthful and delicious qualities of fish as alow-fat, high-in-omegas alternative to red meat.  However, if rising consumer demand continues to be met unabated, it is clear that increased accountability is absolutely necessary to conserve dwindling fish stocks and the imminent economic collapse of the fishing industry.  Yet, it is not difficult to understand how overfishing has continued generally unabated over the last five decades.  When a single Bluefin tuna can go for over $100,000 in a Japanese fish market, the drive to meet those demands can be a strong motivator to limit restrictions.  The Chilean Sea Bass, Atlantic cod, haddock, various species of Marlins and even the Orange Roughy are also in danger due to increased demands on ocean fish in restaurants worldwide.  However, as the United States and a few other nations are demonstrating, there are viable solutions to prevent and possibly reverse potential devastation.

According to a study conducted by researchers at the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB), overfishing can lead to the economic collapse of the commercial fishing industry.  Their conclusion is that implementing catch-shares has the potential to rebuild fish stocks while protecting commercial and fishing from economic failure.  So as overfishing continues to meet increased demand, the long-term consequence for the industry as a whole is far grimmer. Unfortunately, economic profitability in the short-term tends to be the overriding factor preventing international organizations such as the United Nations (UN) and the Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) from effectively enforcing more policies that would protect both declining fish species and the fisheries.

Domestically, the US has recognized the necessity in conserving fish stocks both economically and environmentally within its own waters for several decades.  Passing the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act in 1976 officially claimed and recognized the sovereign rights of the US to manage fish and resources within the 200 miles of its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).  The Act also created eight Regional Fisheries Management Councils who create management plans for the fisheries within their jurisdiction.  In turn, RFMCs must abide by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) national guidelines for conservation.  Various amendments since 1976 have reflected growing concerns over the years regarding the rebuilding of overfished stocks as well as the management of highly migratory species of such fish as the Bluefin tuna.

In a recent lecture at the University of California, San Diego, Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Administrator for the NOAA,  reiterated the importance of sustaining ecosystems and discussed the NOAA’s newly enacted policy of “catch share.”  Although domestic RFMCs have been using forms of catch share in their management of regional fisheries since the 1990s, the NOAA policy effectively echoes its efficacy at a national level.  It was also studied and implemented within a year of inception, which indicates that given adequate resources, it is more than feasible to put such a program into place without too much difficulty.  Internationally, Australia, Iceland, and New Zealand have been using catch share as the only policy in their management of EEZs since the 1970s.  While this is a testament to the catch share program in striking a generally successful balance between fish stock rebuilding and preserving economic viability domestically, there is still significant difficulty in enforcing fishing regulations on a global level.

Alaskan purse seiner lifting a catch of herring to the deck. Image: NOAA

Following the US’ lead in the creation of RFMCs, the UN implemented the UN Fish Stocks Agreement of 1995 (FSA) which gave RFMOs responsibilities that mirror those of RFMCs but on an international scale.  Made up of individual nations who voluntarily participate as member states, there are approximately thirty different RFMOs that govern various species of fish, including the Bluefin tuna.    Unfortunately for the UN, perhaps due to the large scale on which RFMOs must regulate international policy, there are increased problems in successfully enforcing conservation policies.

In particular, a handful of individual nations have been vocal in reducing the effectiveness of international attempts to protect stocks.  France, Spain and other countries that greatly profit in the industry exert an unequal influence on fishing regulation, especially in the European Union (EU).  In 1995, the EU readily defended Spain and Portugal over an accusation of exceeding fishing quotas set forth by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) by Canada off the coast of Newfoundland. This accusation included proof of using illegal practices to catch turbot (black Halibut.) While they would eventually reach a settlement, it goes to show the lengths to which individual countries continue to ignore conservation efforts.  Spain alone has received over €2.7 billion from the EU which has gone to subsidize vessels recognized for overfishing, something which the EU admits as a failure on their part despite regularly making attempts to protect declining fish stocks.

While the UN has tried to do what it can in terms of setting forth more policies, it is clear that more accountability must occur in nations who fail to encourage their enforcement by commercial vessels. RFMOs who are responsible for implementing fishery management plans also need to reassess current fishing quotas to adequately account for the rebuilding of fish populations.  However, more countries must also choose to act.  Scientific observations of hugely declining fish stocks seem to go largely ignored, especially by the EU, as evidenced by the continual overfishing of Bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean.

Countries that regularly allow for the abuse of fishing regulations must reassess to what extent short-term gains are worth possible extinction of the very fish species that provide such significant profits. Research regarding overfishing and the need for greater conservation continue to provide grim forecasts, especially if perceptions about conservation equating to lower profit margins do not change.  One solution is for the UN and RFMOs to consider a comprehensive catch share program as implemented by the US, to protect the interests of prized fish species while making conservation a more attractive proposition to an industry in danger of disappearing with their stock.

– Alyssa Magat Crutchfield, Undergraduate Intern

** The views expressed in this article are purely personal and do not represent the Scripps Institution of Oceanography or the University of California San Diego. **