Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Hooray for Humankind!

  • Nov. 2nd, 2006 at 6:13 PM
City of Lost Children
'Only 50 years left' for sea fish
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website

There will be virtually nothing left to fish from the seas by the middle of the century if current trends continue, according to a major scientific study.

Stocks have collapsed in nearly one-third of sea fisheries, and the rate of decline is accelerating.

Writing in the journal Science, the international team of researchers says fishery decline is closely tied to a broader loss of marine biodiversity.

But a greater use of protected areas could safeguard existing stocks.

"The way we use the oceans is that we hope and assume there will always be another species to exploit after we've completely gone through the last one," said research leader Boris Worm, from Dalhousie University in Canada.

"What we're highlighting is there is a finite number of stocks; we have gone through one-third, and we are going to get through the rest," he told the BBC News website.

Steve Palumbi, from Stanford University in California, one of the other scientists on the project, added: "Unless we fundamentally change the way we manage all the ocean species together, as working ecosystems, then this century is the last century of wild seafood."

This is a vast piece of research, incorporating scientists from many institutions in Europe and the Americas, and drawing on four distinctly different kinds of data.

Catch records from the open sea give a picture of declining fish stocks.

In 2003, 29% of open sea fisheries were in a state of collapse, defined as a decline to less than 10% of their original yield.

Bigger vessels, better nets, and new technology for spotting fish are not bringing the world's fleets bigger returns - in fact, the global catch fell by 13% between 1994 and 2003.

Historical records from coastal zones in North America, Europe and Australia also show declining yields, in step with declining species diversity; these are yields not just of fish, but of other kinds of seafood too.

Zones of biodiversity loss also tended to see more beach closures, more blooms of potentially harmful algae, and more coastal flooding.

Experiments performed in small, relatively contained ecosystems show that reductions in diversity tend to bring reductions in the size and robustness of local fish stocks. This implies that loss of biodiversity is driving the declines in fish stocks seen in the large-scale studies.

The final part of the jigsaw is data from areas where fishing has been banned or heavily restricted.

These show that protection brings back biodiversity within the zone, and restores populations of fish just outside.

"The image I use to explain why biodiversity is so important is that marine life is a bit like a house of cards," said Dr Worm.

"All parts of it are integral to the structure; if you remove parts, particularly at the bottom, it's detrimental to everything on top and threatens the whole structure.

"And we're learning that in the oceans, species are very strongly linked to each other - probably more so than on land."

What the study does not do is attribute damage to individual activities such as over-fishing, pollution or habitat loss; instead it paints a picture of the cumulative harm done across the board.

Even so, a key implication of the research is that more of the oceans should be protected.

But the extent of protection is not the only issue, according to Carl Gustaf Lundin, head of the global marine programme at IUCN, the World Conservation Union.

"The benefits of marine-protected areas are quite clear in a few cases; there's no doubt that protecting areas leads to a lot more fish and larger fish, and less vulnerability," he said.

"But you also have to have good management of marine parks and good management of fisheries. Clearly, fishing should not wreck the ecosystem, bottom trawling being a good example of something which does wreck the ecosystem."

But, he said, the concept of protecting fish stocks by protecting biodiversity does make sense.

"This is a good compelling case; we should protect biodiversity, and it does pay off even in simple monetary terms through fisheries yield."

Protecting stocks demands the political will to act on scientific advice - something which Boris Worm finds lacking in Europe, where politicians have ignored recommendations to halt the iconic North Sea cod fishery year after year.

Without a ban, scientists fear the North Sea stocks could follow the Grand Banks cod of eastern Canada into apparently terminal decline.

"I'm just amazed, it's very irrational," he said.

"You have scientific consensus and nothing moves. It's a sad example; and what happened in Canada should be such a warning, because now it's collapsed it's not coming back."

1. Experiments show that reducing the diversity of an ecosystem lowers the abundance of fish
2. Historical records show extensive loss of biodiversity along coasts since 1800, with the collapse of about 40% of species. About one-third of once viable coastal fisheries are now useless
3. Catch records from the open ocean show widespread decline of fisheries since 1950 with the rate of decline increasing. In 2003, 29% of fisheries were collapsed. Biodiverse regions' stocks fare better
4. Marine reserves and no-catch zones bring an average 23% improvement in biodiversity and an increase in fish stocks around the protected area


Story from BBC NEWS:

Published: 2006/11/02 19:01:25 GMT



shannonsays wrote:
Nov. 3rd, 2006 03:14 am (UTC)
karzender wrote:
Nov. 3rd, 2006 12:50 pm (UTC)
Remember, too, that the world food supply is going to run out in, oh, about 1930. We've secretly been eating plastic for 66 years.

Not that I'm not in favor of destroying seafood (which I once read accounts for 1% of our global food supply), but anytime I see an apocalyptic prediction like this, I take it with a grain of salt.
king_cool_paul wrote:
Nov. 3rd, 2006 04:41 pm (UTC)
I take everything that I read with as much salt as I can, but I do like to toss these things out as a general reminder that humankind, as a species, is more or less fucked in the long term because we just can't get our heads around the idea of sustainability.

If you have a bowl of M&Ms and you take two out for every one you put back in, eventually you're going to run out of M&Ms. Seems fairly simple to me, but then again I work with people who are adamant in their belief that we'll never run out of oil (nor, for that matter, does the burning of that oil cause global warming, which is just a crazy theory).

karzender wrote:
Nov. 3rd, 2006 05:38 pm (UTC)
My M&M's aren't swimming upstream to spawn every year either and replenishing their number -- unless that's where those cute M&M minis come from.

It's a good analogy for oil, though, which, last I checked, doesn't replicate nearly as quickly.
king_cool_paul wrote:
Nov. 3rd, 2006 05:50 pm (UTC)
They have M&M minis?

I'm so out of touch.

Latest Month

June 2008

Think On It

If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want yourself to be happy, practice compassion.

- The Dalai Lama
Powered by LiveJournal.com