The State of the Ocean and the impact of subsidies Daniel Pauly Sea Around Us project Fisheries Centre, UBC World Trade Organization Geneva, September 30, 2010
Fisheries landings, despite (or because of ) increasing fishing effort, have been declining since the late 1980s, a fact long hidden by massive over-reporting by China: (a) 90 El Niño events 85 80 Global catch (t 10 6 ) 75 70 65 60 55 El Niño event Uncorrected Corrected Corrected, no anchoveta 50 45 40 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Watson and Pauly (Nature), 2001.
In fact, the decline is even stronger if one considers discarded fish. This was generally overlooked when FAO s last estimate of discards (dot E; 7-8 million t) was released. 120 100 C Discarded fishes and invertebrates D Withdrawals (million t) 80 60 A B Other landed fishes and invertebrates E 40 20 Peruvian anchoveta 0 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Year Zeller and Pauly (Fish & Fisheries, 2005)
It is our overfishing which is the cause for these catch declines... Yellow: 0.0-3.0 log hpdays km -2 Red: 3.1-15.7 log hpdays km -2 Fishing effort (2000) Yellow: 1.0-2.4 log liters km -2 Red: 2.5-7.6 log liters km -2. Fuel (2000) Effort data from Gelchu (2006); fuel data adapted from Tyedmers et al. (2005)
General trends Predators only: in EEZs: Ecosystem biomass left in 2000: 87.7% Biomass left (%) Predator biomass left: 55.9%
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Predator biomass remaining (%): 100% 0%
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Predator biomass remaining (%): 100% 0%
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Predator biomass remaining (%): 100% 0%
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Predator biomass remaining (%): 100% 0%
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Predator biomass remaining (%): 100% 0%
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Predator biomass remaining (%): 100% 0%
Historically, the answer to depletions was moving on, e.g., to West Africa, which has long attracted distant water fleets from other continents Number of country access years by area, 1960-1969
which increased over the years, finally reaching the present, staggering levels. Number of country access years by area, 1990-1999
An example: catch intensity by Spain, 1950s t/km 2
Catch intensity by Spain, 2000-2004 t/km 2
Top: catch by EU fleets in 2000-2005; center: areas from which seafood is imported into the EU (same period); below: fraction of the total catch that goes to the EU. >60% 0%
Top: catch by the US in 2000-2005; center: areas from which seafood is imported into the US (same period); below: fraction of the total catch per area that goes to the US. >60% 0%
Top: catch by Japan in 2000-2005; center: areas from which seafood is imported into Japan (same period); below: fraction of the total catch per area that goes to Japan. >60% 0%
Result: in the 2000s, three markets (the EU, US and Japan) access much of the marine resources of the world ocean (scale is % of catch destined for one of these three markets; with red=100% and blue= 0%) Sustainable?
Back to basics: ecosystem fluxes move up trophic pyramids 4 Top predators Trophic level 3 2 Prey fish Zooplankton 10% 10% 1 Phytoplankton *.............. *.... *.. *. *.. *... *.. *. *. 10% and each species tends to have its own trophic level
Another ominous trend emerges when we compute the mean trophic level of world catches. This shows a global decline 3.6 3.5 North Atlantic Trophic level 3.4 Global coastal 3.3 3.2 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 Year 2000 Pauly et al. (Science, 1998)
For example in India Bhathal & Pauly (Fisheries Research, 2008)
In fact, fishing down is so widespread that the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) now uses mean trophic levels as an index of biodiversity, the Marine Trophic Index. Trophic level change (1950-2000) >1 0.5 to 1.0 no change /no data
And this means that fishing down is everywhere
We can see from space how trawlers stir up sediment Here: shrimp trawlers off the Texas Coast, Gulf of Mexico Photo courtesy of Dr. Kyle van Houten (Duke University)
Fisheries-induced induced release from predation on the adult (pelagic) form Fisheries-induced induced decline of competition for and predation on the benthic (sessile) form
Fisheries-induced induced release from predation on the adult (pelagic) form Fisheries-induced induced decline of competition for and predation on the benthic (sessile) form
The effect of all this is that jellyfish appear to increase almost everywhere...
An indeed, jellyfish are increasing almost everywhere Increase Stable/Variable Decrease
and since trawling and fishing down are likely to continue, enjoy your JBLT!
Consumers in the North have not noticed this, nor similar trends: while most seafood is traded between the EU, the USA and Northeast Asia, the South has so far met the shortfall in the North. Demeral Fishes Cod, saithe, plaice, redfish, haddock Pollock Flounder Cod Flatfish Hake Hake Hake Grenadier, snoek, seabream
Tuna and other large pelagic fishes (62% of exports) EEZ fished Importing country
The vicious circle of contemporary fisheries management is to a large extent driven by subsidies.
Now turning to subsidies TC 1 TR & TC ( $) MEY Max. rent MSY Bionomic equilibrium (BE) Total cost of fishing effort (TC) TR & TC ($) BE 1 BE 2 Cost-reducing subsidies TC 2 Total Revenue (TR) TR E 1 E 2 E 3 Fishing effort (E) E 3 E 4 Fishing effort (E) Let s assume a Gordon-Schaefer bioeconomic model How subsidies induce overfishing
Subsidy amounts in billion USD 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 Global subsidy comparisons Fuel Non fuel 0 World Bank Sumaila This study and Pauly (2006)
Subsidies come in different flavors Oceania Good s ubs idies Bad subsidies Ugly subsidies North Africa & Mediterranean Sub Saharan Africa North America Lat. America & Caribbean Europe Asia 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Subsidy amount (billion USD) Sumaila and Pauly (2006)
Tax exemption Market. & storage infrast. Fisheries R & D Boat construct. & renov. Fisheries mngt. Rural fisher communities Fuel subsidies Fisheries projects Fishing port develop. External public funds Internal public funds 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 Fig 4: Developing country subsidies (billion Developing country subsidies (billion USD)
Fuel subsidies are very important to certain fisheries (e.g., trawlers). Fuel prices are likely to increase, however (remember Summer 2008?), and cause big problems to industrial and distant-water fishing... Pauly et al. (Science, 2003)
This all lead, overall to a globally declining catch per person Sources: Watson & Pauly (2001, Nature 414:534 536) & U.S. Bureau of the Census (International database).
Summarizing: This graph, which compares smallscale with large-scale fisheries on a global basis, probably underestimates the role of small-scale fisheries, because official statistics underestimate their catch. We would achieve most stated aims of fisheries management plans (particularly with regards to jobs and sustainability) by getting rid of subsidies, which are directed mainly at industrial fisheries. FISHERY BENEFITS LARGE SCALE Number of fishers employed about ½ million SMALL SCALE over 12 millions Annual catch of marine fish for human consumption about 29 million tonnes about 24 million tonnes Capital cost of each job on fishing vessels $30,000 - $300,000 Annual catch of marine fish for industrial reduction to meal and oil, etc. about 22 million tonnes Annual fuel oil consumption Fish caught per tonne of fuel consumed $250 - $2,500 Almost none 14 19 million tonnes 1 3 million tonnes = 2 5 tonnes = 10 20 tonnes Fishers employed for each $1 million invested in fishing vessels 5-30 500 4,000 Fish and invertebrates discarded at sea 10-20 million tonnes Little
Acknowledgements Thanks to the Pew Charitable Trusts, Philadelphia; Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia; Members of the Sea Around Us project, and many others... visit us at www.seaaroundus.org