Some Pollyannas believe that aquaculture, or fish farming, can ensure the health of stocks without government action--a notion supposedly buttressed by FAO statistics showing such rapid growth in aquaculture that more than 40 percent of all “seafood” consumed now comes from farms. The problem with this argument is that China reports about 68 percent of the world’s aquaculture production, and the FAO, which has been burned by inflated Chinese statistics before, expresses doubt about its stated production and growth rates. Outside of China--where most farmed fish are freshwater vegetarians, such as carp--aquaculture produces predominately carnivorous marine fish, like salmon, which are fed not only vegetal ingredients, but also fishmeal and fish oil, which are obtained by grinding up herring, mackerel, and sardines caught by “reduction fisheries.” Carnivore farming, which requires three to four pounds of smaller fish to produce one pound of a larger one, thus robs Peter to pay Paul. Aquaculture in the West produces a luxury product in global terms. To expect aquaculture to ensure that fish remain available--or, at least, to expect carnivore farming to solve the problem posed by diminishing catches from fisheries--would be akin to expecting that Enzo Ferrari’s cars can solve gridlock in Los Angeles.
Others believe that fish populations can be rebuilt through consumer awareness campaigns that encourage buyers to make prudent choices. One such approach is to label seafood from fisheries deemed sustainable. In Europe, for example, consumers can look for the logo of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), a nonprofit started by the World Wildlife Fund and Unilever, which has a large fish-trading division. At first, the MSC certified only small-scale fisheries, but lately, it has given its seal of approval to large, controversial companies. Indeed, it has begun to measure its success by the percentage of the world catch that it certifies. Encouraged by a Walton Foundation grant and Wal-Mart’s goal of selling only certified fish, the MSC is actually considering certifying reduction fisheries, with the consequence that Wal-Mart, for example, will be able to sell farmed salmon shining with the ersatz glow of sustainability. (Given the devastating pollution, diseases, and parasite infestations that have plagued salmon farms in Chile, Canada, and other countries, this “Wal-Mart strategy” will, in the long term, make the MSC complicit to a giant scam.)
The other market-based initiative, prevalent in the United States, distributes wallet-size cards designed to steer consumers toward fish that the group issuing the cards deems to have been caught sustainably. Their success is considerable if measured by the millions of cards given away, for example, by the Monterey Bay Aquarium, but assessing the impact on the fisheries is difficult. For one thing, the multitude of such cards leads to contradictions and confusion, as the same fish are assessed differently by different organizations. For example, ahi tuna is rated as “safe,” “questionable,” and “avoid” on the wallet cards issued by three U.S. nonprofits. A bigger issue, however, is that these cards generate only “horizontal” pressure--that is, a group of restaurant-goers might chide each other for ordering the cod filet or might ask the overworked student who served them where the fish came from, but this pressure does not reach wholesalers, fleet operators, or supermarket chains. “Vertical” pressure exerted by environmental NGOs on such decision-makers is far more effective. But, if that’s true, why not directly pressure the government and legislators, since they are the ones who regulate the fisheries?
The truth is that governments are the only entities that can prevent the end of fish. For one thing, once freed from their allegiance to the fishing-industrial complex, they are the ones with the research infrastructure capable of prudently managing fisheries. For another, it is they who provide the billions of dollars in annual subsidies that allow the fisheries to persist despite the lousy economics of the industry. Reducing these subsidies would allow fish populations to rebuild, and nearly all fisheries scientists agree that the billions of dollars in harmful, capacityenhancing subsidies must be phased out. Finally, only governments can zone the marine environment, identifying certain areas where fishing will be tolerated and others where it will not. In fact, all maritime countries will have to regulate their exclusive economic zones (the 200-mile boundary areas established by the U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty within which a nation has the sole right to fish). The United States has the largest exclusive economic zone in the world, and it has taken important first steps in protecting its resources, notably in the northwest Hawaiian islands. Creating, or re-creating, un-fished areas within which fish populations can regenerate is the only opportunity we have to repair the damage done to them.
There is no need for an end to fish, or to fishing for that matter. But there is an urgent need for governments to free themselves from the fishing-industrial complex and its Ponzi scheme, to stop subsidizing the fishing-industrial complex and awarding it fishing rights, when it should in fact pay for the privilege to fish. If we can do this, then we will have fish forever.
Daniel Pauly is a professor at the Fisheries Centre of the University of British Columbia and the principal investigator of its Sea Around Us Project.
Intellectual rigor. Honest reporting. Influential analysis. Don't miss another issue of the magazine considered "required reading" by the world's top decision-makers. Subscribe today.
COMMENTS (5)
I thought you were talking about Stanley of course. Is it better or worse that you weren't?
The fishing-industrial-complex.
Ike missed that one. But back then there were probably a lot more fish though.
At last count there were 392 additional "industrial complexes" around the world. We know this because Goldman Sachs set them all up with Henry Kissinger, Tim Geithner and Barack Obama. The Evil Barack Obama. Not the Good one who goes out dancing with Michelle and tucks the kids in each night.
Sigh. Big, huge, gigantic corporations still own the world, don't they? Though luckily not necessarily in that order.
Not to worry about "the jig" though. There are lots more of them to take its place. Lik ... view full comment
I thought you were talking about Stanley of course. Is it better or worse that you weren't?
The fishing-industrial-complex.
Ike missed that one. But back then there were probably a lot more fish though.
At last count there were 392 additional "industrial complexes" around the world. We know this because Goldman Sachs set them all up with Henry Kissinger, Tim Geithner and Barack Obama. The Evil Barack Obama. Not the Good one who goes out dancing with Michelle and tucks the kids in each night.
Sigh. Big, huge, gigantic corporations still own the world, don't they? Though luckily not necessarily in that order.
Not to worry about "the jig" though. There are lots more of them to take its place. Like, for instance, food grain-industrial-complex. And the water-industial-complex that Bilderberg is setting up with the IMF and the World Bank. I see a Time cover down the road. Not as memorable as Beck's and Palin's, perhaps, but insiders like us know how much more important it will be. Sponsered by ADM, I'm sure.
Farmed fish may or may not take up the slack. Who relly knows, right? But with any luck Animal Planet is already in production with Sardine Wars, Crab Wars and Krill Wars. You know, adter all the whales are gone.
george
Honestly using Bernie Madeoff as an analogy and comparison point to this global problem really trivializes this issue, and demonstrates the authors lack of understanding for the scope of what he's writing about. Also more emphasis should be placed on the effective pollution in the decline of global fisheries. Information going back to the 1950s I believe estimated that fishery production could easily sustain global population increases well into the end of this century. Studies from the 70s and 80s warned us about the damage that widespread pollution was having on the base resources that these fisheries rely on. Unfortunately those warnings went largely ignored by governments around the wo ... view full comment
Honestly using Bernie Madeoff as an analogy and comparison point to this global problem really trivializes this issue, and demonstrates the authors lack of understanding for the scope of what he's writing about. Also more emphasis should be placed on the effective pollution in the decline of global fisheries. Information going back to the 1950s I believe estimated that fishery production could easily sustain global population increases well into the end of this century. Studies from the 70s and 80s warned us about the damage that widespread pollution was having on the base resources that these fisheries rely on. Unfortunately those warnings went largely ignored by governments around the world including the US government, the Japanese, the Russians, the Chinese etc.
Now with the combined forces of massive overfishing and massive pollution increases, we've got a real problem on our hands, a problem that we're going to have to deal with over the next 25 years, or we will be looking at the collapse of our oceans as viable ecosystems, and if the oceans die, we all die, it's that simple. We'll be talking about human starvation and land-based ecosystem collapses, the like of which has never been seen. We won't have to wait for global warming to wipe us out, we kill the oceans, and we kill ourselves in very short order. And not buying fish from the weasels who run Whole Foods Market or not eating sushi, ain't going to solve this problem. It's going to take a global effort, first to stop the never-ending flow of land-based pollution into our oceans, the scale of which has never really been fully measured or accounted for, next tight controls on fishing volumes worldwide will have to be placed, until the various fisheries have had a chance to recover. These measures must be taken over the next 10 years to avoid catastrophe.
I agre with AaronBBrown that the Ponzi Scheme analogy is weak and trivializes the issue. I also agree that the pollution angle is noticiably absent.
It really is a good piece and pulls together some important considerations. How do you divy up an ocean? If you don't have fish in your piece, and you can't go to the next, what do you do?
With the cool fishing shows on Discovery Channel, America really wants to hear this story. I think he could do a weekly show on Discover and really build his case.
It really looks like we might have to take a year or two off fishing to let the ocean replenish itself. That would devastate huge communities. But it would be better than the battles that would o ... view full comment
I agre with AaronBBrown that the Ponzi Scheme analogy is weak and trivializes the issue. I also agree that the pollution angle is noticiably absent.
It really is a good piece and pulls together some important considerations. How do you divy up an ocean? If you don't have fish in your piece, and you can't go to the next, what do you do?
With the cool fishing shows on Discovery Channel, America really wants to hear this story. I think he could do a weekly show on Discover and really build his case.
It really looks like we might have to take a year or two off fishing to let the ocean replenish itself. That would devastate huge communities. But it would be better than the battles that would occur when the hunger breaks out and there is nothing we can do.
Daniel Pauly has been busy looking at the plight of the oceans for quite some time. He is not only an insightful scientist, he spends a fair amount having the fun of throwing out coy images to see what will hook our attention to the reality of the oceans being destroyed in clear sight before our very eyes.
The Madoff/Ponzi scheme analog is of value if we grasp the core of the intention. Like any such scheme the victims have to be complicit in allowing the victimization to happen. So often the victims of Ponzi schemes know at some level that what is being put forth is not fully true.
The realities of the food system, for which seafood is no different, is that there are voices in this republic g ... view full comment
Daniel Pauly has been busy looking at the plight of the oceans for quite some time. He is not only an insightful scientist, he spends a fair amount having the fun of throwing out coy images to see what will hook our attention to the reality of the oceans being destroyed in clear sight before our very eyes.
The Madoff/Ponzi scheme analog is of value if we grasp the core of the intention. Like any such scheme the victims have to be complicit in allowing the victimization to happen. So often the victims of Ponzi schemes know at some level that what is being put forth is not fully true.
The realities of the food system, for which seafood is no different, is that there are voices in this republic gradually coming to see the considerable extent to which what we have allowed to continue as being called food, is simply not fully true. We have bought into the so-called convenience of allowing our food system to fall into the hands of huge, disconnected, and therefore hard to locate industrial production operations. The fishing-industrial complex articulated by Dan Pauly is another example of the same issues we’ve seen in poultry, beef, pork and other over-sized, inhumane systems of food production. We have seen these systems lay waste our lands, our waterways, or air and now the largest ecosystems upon which all earthlings are interdependent, the seas.
When the common consumer begins to get a glimpse of the extent of the destruction and ecosystem compromises inherent in current commodity practices, it is so very easy to become overwhelmed. This sense of overwhelm is often unwittingly the result of even NGO agencies science reports of devastatingly negative systems being destroyed at overwhelming rates. It is a hard line to walk: they ring the alarm loudly to bring us to our senses. Yet, the siren rings too often and too loudly, so the state of overwhelm drifts into ennui, victimization, and visions of “don’t such industries rule the world anyhow”; and, so, passivity is the result.
Scale is key, size matters. And, the jury is now so in—industrial scale food production systems are not the way for those living on this planet to go. Now, we need to take a cue from the film “Network”: I want you all to go the window, through it open and scream “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore”. After that it is important to take real action. Access to action that is meaningful is what we must find in order to make a difference.
CleanFish® is a company trying to make a difference in real marketplace terms. We are betting that co-producers will take action and use the market forces to accelerate real change; at market speeds.
As size is key, we put our reliance on more ecologically responsible, more resilient artisanal practices of both wild and cultivated fisheries. We do see aquaculture as one of the responses to the need before us, to give the oceans a rest. Natural systems can and will rebound only if they are not continually raped and pillaged by Neanderthal gear of yesteryear, and industrial floating plants so massive it is not possible for anyone on board to not realize it is shamefully wrong and criminal to carry out their work and even call it fishing.
Intense networks of artisanal fisheries, and those committed to practices that will respect nature is being sought and supported by the CleanFish Alliance of chefs, distributors, and seafood producers. All the work we do is designed to turn the tide away from passivity and call on seafood lovers to claim their ground as co-producers together with fisheries doing responsible and ethical practices…and willing to do more if they could be met by co-producers who would tell their chefs, schools, restaurants, and markets that they want to make a difference in their purchase of the seafood they love. We need co-producers who truly want to actively vote with their forks for a more hopeful future. And, as Dan Pauly exhorts, we can and must also vote toward government actions on behalf of the natural resources in the care of the world governments of every region.
Collective awareness matched by individual actions of stewardship is something we can all do. Vote as often as you can. Yes, on the ballot! Yes, on the boats and docks! And, yes on farms! And, yes, at the tables of community centers, diners, cafeterias, gourmet restaurants, dormitories, and homes all over the land-- with your fork! Do not let the tyranny of big industrial production and big market trade pseudoreactions take away your will to act. Your vote counts, fork by fork; it counts. The industrial food machine wants to make you feel like passive victims while they continue to chew up and lay waste the planet’s resources.
Thanks Daniel Pauly for continuing your efforts to wake us up. Now that you are awake—go vote… everywhere you can.
Tim o’Shea, co-Founder, CleanFish
Pauly wants to auction off fishing rights to the highest bidder, and that seems unlikely to be "artisanal fisheries" such as CleanFish. Those fleets of underutilized big commercial boats will win out. Owning rights to fish is no different than a farmer owning the rights to the crops off his land.
Pauly wants to auction off fishing rights to the highest bidder, and that seems unlikely to be "artisanal fisheries" such as CleanFish. Those fleets of underutilized big commercial boats will win out. Owning rights to fish is no different than a farmer owning the rights to the crops off his land.