In 1994, seafood may have peaked. According to an analysis of 64 large marine ecosystems, which provide 83 percent of the world's seafood catch, global fishing yields have declined by 10.6 million metric tons since that year. And if that trend is not reversed, total collapse of all world fisheries should hit around 2048. "Unless we fundamentally change the way we manage all the oceans species together, as working ecosystems, then this century is the last century of wild seafood," notes marine biologist Stephen Palumbi of Stanford University.
Marine biologist Boris Worm of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, gathered a team of 14 ecologists and economists, including Palumbi, to analyze global trends in fisheries. In addition to data from the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization stretching back to 1950, the researchers examined 32 controlled experiments in various marine ecosystems, observations from 48 marine protected areas, and historical data on 12 coastal fisheries for the last 1,000 years. The latter study shows that among commercially important species alone, 91 percent have seen their abundance halved, 38 percent have nearly disappeared and 7 percent have gone extinct with most of this reduction happening since 1800. "We see an accelerating decline in coastal species over the last 1,000 years, resulting in the loss of biological filter capacity, nursery habitats and healthy fisheries," notes team member Heike Latze, also of Dalhousie.
And across all scales, from very small controlled studies of marine plots to those of entire ocean basins, maintaining biodiversity--the number of extant species across all forms of marine life--appeared key to preserving fisheries, water filtering and other so-called ecosystem services, though the correlation is not entirely clear. "Species are important not only for providing direct benefits in terms of fisheries but also providing natural infrastructure that supports fisheries," explains team member Emmett Duffy of the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences. "Even the bugs and weeds make clear, measurable contributions to productive ecosystems."
Although the trend is grim, the study of protected areas offers some hope that marine ecosystems can rebound, according to the paper presenting the analysis in the November 3 issue of Science. The 48 studied showed an overall increase of 23 percent in species diversity and a fourfold increase in available catch. "It's not a miracle. It's something that is do-able, it's just something that requires a big chunk of political will to do it," Worm observes. "We have a 1,000-, probably 10,000-year habit of taking the oceans for granted and moving from one species to the next, or replacing it with a technological fix like aquaculture. To me, the major roadblock is we have to change our perception of what the ocean is." Should we fail, we may lose the ocean's bounty entirely.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=overfishing-could-take-se
I see this overfishing as a perfect example of the Tragedy of the Commons; the shared resources of the fish in the sea, and the lack of ownership, fail to promote sustainable fishing practices, as those fish resources are a common good, which are rivalrous and non-excludable.
By privatizing the oceans (not socializing through the state), fishing markets would have motivation to maintain individual fishing grounds or regions, as overfishing would give advantage to those who build sustainable areas which provide continued supply of fish over the long term. Those grounds which reduce supplies would see income decline, while those with higher levels of fish supply would see income maintained, and their fishing rights to those areas become prime property, which could also trade on a market just as housing does.
Property that is owned in common tends to get overused. Environmental resources that are owned in common tend to get spoiled. For most of human history, we did not know how to avoid this problem. We degraded the environment and drove many species of game and fish into extinction.
Imagine a world where someone owned the ocean and charged fishermen for the right to take squid. The fishermen demand squid on behalf of those who want to eat it. If the price that fishermen must pay is very high, they will have to charge restaurants a higher price for the squid to break even. Restaurants will in turn have to charge a higher price, so fewer diners will buy squid. If fishermen have to pay a higher price for squid they take from the ocean, they will take only as many as they will be able to profitably resell.
Reprinted from The Economist; Virtue rewarded, Thursday, January 17, 2002
I see that as a obvious easy choice to sustain the fish supply through the application of free market principles like property rights (specifically privatization). Maintaining the oceans as a common good have only encouraged the usage of those resources to be depleted at ever-increasing rates as time goes on, as the only market encouragement fishermen have is to harvest more than their competition to stay competitive, which is not sustainable when the resource is finite.
Some regions require fishing to keep population levels down, such as some bass in lakes and rivers, but most ocean populations require self-control, or market economics, to help regulate the industry.
