The FAO & World Bank have produced a report on the state of global fisheries.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice" /><o
> </o>
The Sunken Billions: The Economic Justification for<o></o>
Fisheries Reform<o></o>
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTARD/Resources/336681-1215724937571/SunkenBillionsAdvanceWebEd.pdf
<o> </o>
Understandably, given the World Bank?s co-authorship, much of it concerns the economic consequences of running a vast global resource into the ground. While I am not particularly interested in the economics they are obviously based on the underlying treatment of the global fish stocks and the political and legal environment under which this abomination has developed ? these do interest me. I realise, of course, the importance of displaying the consequences of mismanagement in economic turns as they are the primary coin of the politicians who hold the keys to rectifying the mess.
<o> </o>
Some of the key points.
<o> </o>
The report is based on 1974 data as an reference point, as it marks the start of FOA systematic collection of compatible national data. Values are in $US and adjusted for inflation.
<o> </o>
75% of the worlds commercial fisheries are being over exploited ? the other 25% are in species with low economic value.
i.e. pretty well any fish species that humans like to eat are being over fished.
<o> </o>
Optimal management of commercial fish stocks would net a further $50 billion p.a. and over the last 3 decades the cumulative loss is > $2 trillion. As an indication of the scale of the $50 billion shortfall the marine catch in 1974 was estimated at just under $80 billion. These figures are for landed fish prices and do not include down stream service like processing and retailing. (Downstream jobs are estimated as 3 for each fisherman).
<o> </o>
Half of the commercial fishing fleet could be scraped without reducing catches. Subsidies to the fishing industry have exacerbated the problem, the report estimates fuel subsides alone are running at $4.2 ? 8.5 billion p.a.
<o> </o>
?At the global level, on average each ton of fish landed required nearly half a ton of fuel. In value terms, production of a ton of fish worth $918 required $282 worth of fuel or 31 percent of the output value in 2004.?
<o> </o>
About 160 million people are estimated to be employed by fishing, fish farming and their down stream industries.
<o> </o>
In 1980 aquaculture tonnage was about 5% of marine, now it is about 75%.
<o> </o>
Per capita fish consumption is about 16.5Kg p.a.
<o> </o>
<o> </o>
The numbers paint a dire picture but also hide much of the problem. The falling fish stocks have caused a patchwork of legislation ostensibly aimed at stabilising stocks but many have exacerbated the problem. Quota systems for individual species, which seems sensible, lead to fishermen ? having met there allowance for a valuable species like cod ? continuing to fish for other species and dumping tonnes of cod as a by-catch they could not land. Attempts to limit catch by limiting days at sea have lead to investment in the latest hi-technology fish finders and boats which, coupled with efficiencies in trawler design, have lead to the unnecessarily large fleet. The relatively static tonnage landed over the last few years hides the fact that the individual fish are smaller and much of it is in low value species destined to be used as meal in animal fodder or fish farming. These are often the small low value fish that are one level below the popular commercial fish in the food chain. A large portion of the increase in farmed fish has been in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comffice:smarttags" /><st1lace>SE Asia</st1lace> and <st1:country-region><st1lace>China</st1lace></st1:country-region> in particular. As regulars at FT are probably aware some of the techniques used to achieve this growth ? like the combined poultry/pig/fish farming system ? harbour significant potential for pathogen development.
<o> </o>
JJ<o></o>
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice" /><o> </o>The Sunken Billions: The Economic Justification for<o
></o>Fisheries Reform<o
></o>http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTARD/Resources/336681-1215724937571/SunkenBillionsAdvanceWebEd.pdf
<o
> </o>Understandably, given the World Bank?s co-authorship, much of it concerns the economic consequences of running a vast global resource into the ground. While I am not particularly interested in the economics they are obviously based on the underlying treatment of the global fish stocks and the political and legal environment under which this abomination has developed ? these do interest me. I realise, of course, the importance of displaying the consequences of mismanagement in economic turns as they are the primary coin of the politicians who hold the keys to rectifying the mess.
<o
> </o>Some of the key points.
<o
> </o>The report is based on 1974 data as an reference point, as it marks the start of FOA systematic collection of compatible national data. Values are in $US and adjusted for inflation.
<o
> </o>75% of the worlds commercial fisheries are being over exploited ? the other 25% are in species with low economic value.
i.e. pretty well any fish species that humans like to eat are being over fished.
<o
> </o>Optimal management of commercial fish stocks would net a further $50 billion p.a. and over the last 3 decades the cumulative loss is > $2 trillion. As an indication of the scale of the $50 billion shortfall the marine catch in 1974 was estimated at just under $80 billion. These figures are for landed fish prices and do not include down stream service like processing and retailing. (Downstream jobs are estimated as 3 for each fisherman).
<o
> </o>Half of the commercial fishing fleet could be scraped without reducing catches. Subsidies to the fishing industry have exacerbated the problem, the report estimates fuel subsides alone are running at $4.2 ? 8.5 billion p.a.
<o
> </o>?At the global level, on average each ton of fish landed required nearly half a ton of fuel. In value terms, production of a ton of fish worth $918 required $282 worth of fuel or 31 percent of the output value in 2004.?
<o
> </o>About 160 million people are estimated to be employed by fishing, fish farming and their down stream industries.
<o
> </o>In 1980 aquaculture tonnage was about 5% of marine, now it is about 75%.
<o
> </o>Per capita fish consumption is about 16.5Kg p.a.
<o
> </o><o
> </o>The numbers paint a dire picture but also hide much of the problem. The falling fish stocks have caused a patchwork of legislation ostensibly aimed at stabilising stocks but many have exacerbated the problem. Quota systems for individual species, which seems sensible, lead to fishermen ? having met there allowance for a valuable species like cod ? continuing to fish for other species and dumping tonnes of cod as a by-catch they could not land. Attempts to limit catch by limiting days at sea have lead to investment in the latest hi-technology fish finders and boats which, coupled with efficiencies in trawler design, have lead to the unnecessarily large fleet. The relatively static tonnage landed over the last few years hides the fact that the individual fish are smaller and much of it is in low value species destined to be used as meal in animal fodder or fish farming. These are often the small low value fish that are one level below the popular commercial fish in the food chain. A large portion of the increase in farmed fish has been in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
ffice:smarttags" /><st1lace>SE Asia</st1lace> and <st1:country-region><st1lace>China</st1lace></st1:country-region> in particular. As regulars at FT are probably aware some of the techniques used to achieve this growth ? like the combined poultry/pig/fish farming system ? harbour significant potential for pathogen development.<o
> </o>JJ<o
></o>