The End of the Line: Overfishing on video

Good video looking at EU overfishing and why we will be "fishless" by 2050.

A useful video for my "economics of fishery students".

http://www.babelgum.com/html/clip.php?clipId=3020495

.

Resources, population growth and conflict

The extent to which resources are the cause of political conflict has long been debated.

With increasing populations and decreasing natural resources exacerbated by climate change means the potential for future conflict increases every year.

Lester Brown over at Grist provides an history perspective much more eloquently than I could. Whilst I am probably on the more dismal side of the economics profession this article offers little hope for the future ;-)

When population growth and resource availability collide [Gristmill]

As land and water become scarce, competition for these vital resources intensifies within societies, particularly between the wealthy and those who are poor and dispossessed. The shrinkage of life-supporting resources per person that comes with population growth is threatening to drop the living standards of millions of people below the survival level, leading to potentially unmanageable social tensions.

Access to land is a prime source of social tension. Expanding world population has cut the grainland per person in half, from 0.23 hectares in 1950 to 0.10 hectares in 2007. One-tenth of a hectare is half of a building lot in an affluent U.S. suburb. This ongoing shrinkage of grainland per person makes it difficult for the world's farmers to feed the 70 million people added to world population each year. The shrinkage in cropland per person not only threatens livelihoods, but in largely subsistence societies, it also threatens survival itself. Tensions within communities begin to build as landholdings shrink below that needed for survival.

The Sahelian zone of Africa, with one of the world's fastest-growing populations, is an area of spreading conflict. In troubled Sudan, 2 million people have died and over 4 million have been displaced in the long-standing conflict of more than 20 years between the Muslim north and the Christian south. The more recent conflict in the Darfur region in western Sudan that began in 2003 illustrates the mounting tensions between two Muslim groups -- camel herders and subsistence farmers. Government troops are backing Arab militias, who are engaging in the wholesale slaughter of black Sudanese in an effort to drive them off their land, sending them into refugee camps in neighboring Chad. At least some 200,000 people have been killed in the conflict and another 250,000 have died of hunger and disease in the refugee camps.

The story of Darfur is that of the Sahel, the semiarid region of grassland and dryland farming that stretches across Africa from Senegal in the west to Somalia in the east. In the northern Sahel, grassland is turning to desert, forcing herders southward into the farming areas. Declining rainfall and overgrazing are combining to destroy the grasslands.

Well before the rainfall decline the seeds for the conflict were being sown as Sudan's population climbed from 9 million in 1950 to 39 million in 2007, more than a fourfold rise. Meanwhile, the cattle population increased from fewer than 7 million to 40 million, an increase of nearly sixfold. The number of sheep and goats together increased from fewer than 14 million to 113 million, an eightfold increase. No grasslands can survive such rapid continuous growth in livestock populations.

In Nigeria, where 148 million people are crammed into an area not much larger than Texas, overgrazing and overplowing are converting grassland and cropland into desert, putting farmers and herders in a war for survival. Unfortunately, the division between herders and farmers is also often the division between Muslims and Christians. The competition for land, amplified by religious differences and combined with a large number of frustrated young men with guns, has created a volatile and violent situation where finally, in mid-2004, the government imposed emergency rule.

Rwanda has become a classic case study in how mounting population pressure can translate into political tension, conflict, and social tragedy. James Gasana, who was Rwanda's Minister of Agriculture and Environment in 1990-92, warned in 1990 that without "profound transformations in its agriculture, [Rwanda] will not be capable of feeding adequately its population under the present growth rate." Although the country's demographers projected major future gains in population, Gasana said that he did not see how Rwanda would reach 10 million inhabitants without social disorder "unless important progress in agriculture, as well as other sectors of the economy, were achieved."

In 1950, Rwanda's population was 2.4 million. By 1993, it had tripled to 7.5 million, making it the most densely populated country in Africa. As population grew, so did the demand for firewood. By 1991, the demand was more than double the sustainable yield of local forests. As trees disappeared, straw and other crop residues were used for cooking fuel. With less organic matter in the soil, land fertility declined.

As the health of the land deteriorated, so did that of the people dependent on it. Eventually there was simply not enough food to go around. A quiet desperation developed. Like a drought-afflicted countryside, it could be ignited with a single match. That ignition came with the crash of a plane on April 6, 1994, shot down as it approached the capital Kigali, killing President Juvenal Habyarimana. The crash unleashed an organized attack by Hutus, leading to an estimated 800,000 deaths of Tutsis and moderate Hutus in 100 days.

Many other African countries, largely rural in nature, are on a demographic track similar to Rwanda's. Tanzania's population of 40 million in 2007 is projected to increase to 85 million by 2050. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the population is projected to triple from 63 million to 187 million.

Africa is not alone. In India, tension between Hindus and Muslims is never far below the surface. As each successive generation further subdivides already small plots, pressure on the land is intense. The pressure on water resources is even greater. With India's population projected to grow from 1.2 billion in 2007 to 1.7 billion in 2050, a collision between rising human numbers and shrinking water supplies seems inevitable. The risk is that India could face social conflicts that would dwarf those in Rwanda. The relationship between population and natural systems is a national security issue, one that can spawn conflicts along geographic, tribal, ethnic, or religious lines.

Disagreements over the allocation of water among countries that share river systems is a common source of international political conflict, especially where populations are outgrowing the flow of the river. Nowhere is this potential conflict more stark than among Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia in the Nile River valley. Agriculture in Egypt, where it rarely rains, is wholly dependent on water from the Nile. Egypt now gets the lion's share of the Nile's water, but its population of 75 million is projected to reach 121 million by 2050, thus greatly expanding the demand for grain and water. Sudan, whose 39 million people also depend heavily on food produced with Nile water, is expected to have 73 million by 2050. And the number of Ethiopians, in the country that controls 85 percent of the river's headwaters, is projected to expand from 83 million to 183 million.

Since there is already little water left in the Nile when it reaches the Mediterranean, if either Sudan or Ethiopia takes more water, then Egypt will get less, making it increasingly difficult to feed an additional 46 million people. Although there is an existing water rights agreement among the three countries, Ethiopia receives only a minuscule share of water. Given its aspirations for a better life, and with the Nile being one of its few natural resources, Ethiopia will undoubtedly want to take more.

In the Aral Sea basin in Central Asia, there is an uneasy arrangement among five countries over the sharing of the two rivers, the Amu Darya and the Syr Darya, that drain into the sea. The demand for water in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan already exceeds the flow of the two rivers by 25 percent. Turkmenistan, which is upstream on the Amu Darya, is planning to develop another half-million hectares of irrigated agriculture. Racked by insurgencies, the region lacks the cooperation needed to manage its scarce water resources. Geographer Sarah O'Hara of the University of Nottingham who studies the region's water problems, says, "We talk about the developing world and the developed world, but this is the deteriorating world."

-----

Ocean Economics - 16 page Economist special

On return from a too long Christmas break ;-) 2009 kicks off with essential reading from the Economist.

In this weeks edition there is a 16 page special on the economics of the Oceans. There are a number of different stories and although they only scratch the surface they are impressively doom-laden.

Each story explains how how trouble we are in each from a slightly different direction from dead-zones to overfishing to the switching off of the great ocean conveyor.

Considering that the global economy is in meltdown it is all the more impressive that the economist is willing to devote 16 pages to environmental economic issues.

Troubled waters [Economist]

All of us have in our veins the exact same percentage of salt in our blood that exists in the ocean...And when we go back to the sea...we are going back from whence we came. John Kennedy

HUMAN beings no longer thrive under the water from which their ancestors emerged, but their relationship with the sea remains close. Over half the world’s people live within 100 kilometres (62 miles) of the coast; a tenth are within 10km. On land at least, the sea delights the senses and excites the imagination. The sight and smell of the sea inspire courage and adventure, fear and romance. Though the waves may be rippling or mountainous, the waters angry or calm, the ocean itself is eternal. Its moods pass. Its tides keep to a rhythm. It is unchanging.

Or so it has long seemed. Appearances deceive, though. Large parts of the sea may indeed remain unchanged, but in others, especially in the surface and coastal waters where 90% of marine life is to be found, the impact of man’s activities is increasingly plain. This should hardly be a surprise. Man has changed the landscape and the atmosphere. It would be odd if the seas, which he has for centuries used for food, for transport, for dumping rubbish and, more recently, for recreation, had not also been affected.

The evidence abounds. The fish that once seemed an inexhaustible source of food are now almost everywhere in decline: 90% of large predatory fish (the big ones such as tuna, swordfish and sharks) have gone, according to some scientists. In estuaries and coastal waters, 85% of the large whales have disappeared, and nearly 60% of the small ones. Many of the smaller fish are also in decline. Indeed, most familiar sea creatures, from albatrosses to walruses, from seals to oysters, have suffered huge losses.

All this has happened fairly recently. Cod have been caught off Nova Scotia for centuries, but their systematic slaughter began only after 1852; in terms of their biomass (the aggregate mass of the species), they are now 96% depleted. The killing of turtles in the Caribbean (99% down) started in the 1700s. The hunting of sharks in the Gulf of Mexico (45-99%, depending on the variety) got going only in the 1950s.

The habitats of many of these creatures have also been affected by man’s activities. Cod live in the bottom layer of the ocean. Trawlermen in pursuit of these and other groundfish like pollock and haddock drag steel weights and rollers as well as nets behind their boats, devastating huge areas of the sea floor as they go. In the Gulf of Mexico, trawlers ply back and forth year in year out, hauling vast nets that scarify the seabed and allow no time for plant and animal life to recover. Off New England, off west Africa, in the Sea of Okhotsk north of Japan, off Sri Lanka, wherever fish can still be found, it is much the same story.

Coral reefs, whose profusion of life and diversity of ecosystems make them the rainforests of the sea, have suffered most of all. Once home to prolific concentrations of big fish, they have attracted human hunters prepared to use any means, even dynamite, to kill their prey. Perhaps only 5% of coral reefs can now be considered pristine, a quarter have been lost and all are vulnerable to global warming.

A hotter atmosphere has several effects on the sea. First, it means higher average temperatures for surface waters. One consequence for coral reefs is that the symbiosis between the corals and algae that constitute a living reef is breaking down. As temperatures rise, the algae leave or are expelled, the corals take on a bleached, white appearance and may then die.

Hotter water, slimier slime

Warming also has consequences for ice: it melts. Melting sea ice affects ecosystems and currents. It does not affect sea levels, because floating ice is already displacing water of a weight equal to its own. But melting glaciers and ice sheets on land are bringing quantities of fresh water into the sea, whose level has been rising at an average of nearly 2 millimetres a year for over 40 years, and the pace is getting faster. Recent studies suggest that the sea level may well rise by a total of 80 centimetres this century, though the figure could plausibly be as much as 2 metres.

The burning over the past 100 years or so of fossil fuels that took half a billion years to form has suddenly, in geological terms, put an enormous amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. About a third of this CO2 is taken up by the sea, where it forms carbonic acid. The plants and animals that have evolved over time to thrive in slightly alkaline surface waters—their pH is around 8.3—are now having to adapt to a 30% increase in the acidity of their surroundings. Some will no doubt flourish, but if the trend continues, as it will for at least some decades, clams, mussels, conches and all creatures that grow shells made of calcium carbonate will struggle. So will corals, especially those whose skeletons are composed of aragonite, a particularly unstable form of calcium carbonate.

Man’s interference does not stop with CO2. Knowingly and deliberately, he throws plenty of rubbish into the sea, everything from sewage to rubber tyres and from plastic packaging to toxic waste. Inadvertently, he also lets flame retardants, bunker oil and heavy metals seep into the mighty ocean, and often invasive species too. Much of the harm done by such pollutants is invisible to the eye: it shows up only in the analysis of dead polar bears or in tuna served in New York sushi bars.

Increasingly, though, swimmers, sailors and even those who monitor the sea with the help of satellites are encountering highly visible algal blooms known as red tides. These have always occurred naturally, but they have increased in frequency, number and size in recent years, notably since man-made nitrogen fertilisers came into widespread use in the 1950s. When rainwater contaminated with these fertilisers and other nutrients reaches the sea, as it does where the Mississippi runs into the Gulf of Mexico, an explosion of toxic algae and bacteria takes place, killing fish, absorbing almost all the oxygen and leaving a microbially dominated ecosystem, often based on a carpet of slime.

Each of these phenomena would be bad enough on its own, but all appear to be linked, usually synergistically. Slaughter one species in the food web and you set off a chain of alterations above or below. Thus the near extinction of sea otters in the northern Pacific led to a proliferation of sea urchins, which then laid waste an entire kelp forest that had hitherto sustained its own ecosystem. If acidification kills tiny sea snails known as pteropods, as it is likely to, the Pacific salmon that feed upon these planktonic creatures may also die. Then other fish may move in, preventing the salmon from coming back, just as other species did when cod were all but fished out in Georges Bank, off New England.

Whereas misfortunes that came singly might not prove fatal, those that come in combination often prove overwhelming. The few coral reefs that remain pristine seem able to cope with the warming and acidification that none can escape, but most of the reefs that have also suffered overfishing or pollution have succumbed to bleaching or even death. Biodiversity comes with interdependence, and the shocks administered by mankind in recent decades have been so numerous and so severe that the natural balance of marine life is everywhere disturbed.

Are these changes reversible? Most scientists believe that fisheries, for instance, could be restored to health with the right policies, properly enforced. But many of the changes are speeding up, not slowing down. Some, such as the acidification of the seas, will continue for years to come simply because of events already in train or past. And some, such as the melting of the Arctic ice cap, may be close to the point at which an abrupt, and perhaps irreversible, series of happenings is set in motion.

It is clear, in any event, that man must change his ways. Humans could afford to treat the sea as an infinite resource when they were relatively few in number, capable of only rather inefficient exploitation of the vasty deep and without as yet a taste for fossil fuels. A world of 6.7 billion souls, set to become 9 billion by 2050, can no longer do so. The possibility of widespread catastrophe is simply too great.

.

Illegal fishing and stock depletion

In my recent lecture on the economics of fisheries I touched on the problem of enforcement of regulations and the prevalence of illegal fishing. Today, Brussels issued a statement regarding the extent of illegal fishing.

Any regulation has to be simple and easy to enforce. Two characteristics conspicuous by their absence in the current regulatory framework.

EU Proposes Penalties To Combat Illegal Fishing [PlanetArk]

BRUSSELS - Europe's fisheries chief proposed toughening EU rules on Friday to crack down on illegal fishing, largely blamed for depleting fish stocks, by using a penalty point system similar to that for driving offences.

European Union Fisheries Commissioner Joe Borg, who has often complained that existing controls are inadequate, proposed tightening up controls on inspections, monitoring and traceability requirements for the fishing industry.

Many species of fish in European waters, especially cod, haddock and hake, been severely depleted by years of overfishing and some are at risk of disappearing entirely.

Under the new points system, if a certain number of offences are racked up over three years -- for example, if trawlers use small-mesh nets to trap extra fish, or fish in closed seasons -- holders of fishing permits would lose their right to fish in EU waters, after suspension periods of six and then 12 months.

"Control and enforcement should be the cornerstone of the Common Fisheries Policy. Instead, it is our Achilles' heel," Borg told a news conference, adding that a 'collective failure' to implement the rules made a mockery of EU fishing controls.

The current system, dating back to 1993 and amended more than a dozen times, was inefficient, expensive and too complex, he said -- and it was now time to ensure that 'those who break the rules do not reap the profits of their illegal actions'.

Despite spending 400 million euros ($500 million) a year on fishing controls, the EU still has unreliable data on fish catches, the EU Commission says.

EU fisheries ministers will have to agree to the new measures before they can enter into force.

The points system would apply to the fishing vessel, and to the crew's master and officers. Offences would be collated in a points register in the ship's home country.

The new rules would apply to EU vessels even if they fish outside European waters. They would also cover non-EU vessels within the European Union. However, any existing bilateral arrangements would take precedence.

Borg also proposed making it compulsory for EU countries to inspect fish landings, processing, transport and marketing, as well as to monitor criteria such as a vessel's fishing capacity and its engine power.

If a country breaks the rules, its EU subsidies could be cut or suspended, annual catch quotas reduced and even fishing forbidden in its waters, Borg said.

Under Borg's proposal, EU inspectors could check vessels outside their national waters, and officials from one country could inspect the ships of another. Under current rules, each country may only inspect its own fishing fleet.

.

Economics of Fisheries

With perfect timing, Earth Portal have published an article on the economics of fisheries. A topic we are now covering in Econ211 this week.

Economics of fisheries [Earth Portal]

Fishing in open seas is a typical illustration of a situation where the tragedy of the commons is likely to occur. All the conditions described by Hardin are met in this case: an unrestricted number of users, unfettered by any limits on their access, extract an increasing share of a resource until natural resources are severely depleted, sometimes to the point of no return. Fishers tend to have little incentive to practice conservation, for they know that if they do not catch the available fish, someone else probably will. Without limits in place, fishers try to catch as many fish as they possibly can.

The following graph from the article above shows clearly how catch size has shrunk as fleet size has grown. A greater tragedy of the commons is not hard to imagine unless a solution can be found.



The rest of the article goes on to describe the problem and various proposed solutions.

Citation
Harris, Jonathan and Anne-Marie Codur (Lead Authors); Global Development and Environment Institute (Content Partner); Tom Tietenberg (Topic Editor). 2008. "Economics of fisheries." In: Encyclopedia of Earth. Eds. Cutler J. Cleveland (Washington, D.C.: Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment). [First published in the Encyclopedia of Earth October 23, 2006; Last revised November 7, 2008; Retrieved November 9, 2008].

.

Alaska's fishermen kicked in the Pollocks

Over fishing of Atlantic pollock will cause a run on fish fingers and imitation crab sticks (yum....) according to Greenpeace.

Given that we are currently witnessing the end of capitalism I particularly like the way that Greenpeace manage to weave in pollock stocks and the financial crisis. They don't miss a trick.

"Just as the financial institutions on Wall Street collapsed due to poor oversight and mismanagement, the pollock fishery is on the fast-track to collapse as well," Greenpeace said.

Fast food fish dishes are the staple of primary children everywhere and the McDonald's fish burger is even seen as a vaguely healthy option although this is lessened by the large coke and fries that often accompany said burger.

Alaska Pollock Fishery Near Collapse - Greenpeace [PlanetArk]

WASHINGTON - Stocks of Alaska pollock, a staple of the US fast food industry, have shrunk 50 percent from last year to record low levels and put the world's largest food fishery on the brink of collapse, environmental group Greenpeace said on Friday.

Taina Honkalehto, a research fishery biologist with the US National Marine Fisheries Service, said pollock biomass in US waters was down to 940,000 tons from 1.8 million tons last year.

Pollock is used in McDonald's fish sandwiches, frozen fish sticks, fish and chips and imitation crabmeat. It also helps feed fur seals, whales and the endangered Steller sea lions.

Pollock stocks have been unable to reproduce quickly enough to recover from yearly catch of 1 million tons, environmentalists say.

"Just as the financial institutions on Wall Street collapsed due to poor oversight and mismanagement, the pollock fishery is on the fast-track to collapse as well," Greenpeace said.

A collapse of the fishery would have hurt Alaska's commercial fishermen and coastal communities that depend on the sea for income.

"Economic pressures to keep on fishing at such high levels have overwhelmed common sense," said Jeremy Jackson, director of the Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, in a statement.

Jackson recommended a "far more precautionary, ecosystem-based approach" to fisheries management.

Greenpeace has called for the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to cut the catch in half for pollock when it meets in December to set limits for 2009.

The 2008 catch limit was set at 1 million tons last December, a 28 percent cut from the 2007 limit.

"We are on the cusp of one of the largest fishery collapses in history," said John Hocevar, Greenpeace's oceans campaign director. "It may still be possible to prevent disaster."

The group also advised that fishing on spawning populations be suspended and marine reserves be created to protect pollock habitats as the fishery has seen poor juvenile survival rates for several years. (Reporting by Jasmin Melvin; Editing by Marguerita Choy)

.

EU fisheries update

Ahead of the start of the academic term there is a timely reminder of the state of EU fisheries with quote busting and illegal catches still prevalent.

EU Fisheries Policy Not Working, Needs Review [PlanetArk]

BRUSSELS - EU regulators on Wednesday called for a full-scale review of EU fisheries policy, saying current rules were doing little to curb overfishing, quota busting and other illegal fishing practices.

EU fisheries policy was last reformed in 2002 and is due for review by 2012 at the latest. While much had improved since 2002 -- much stricter controls on illegal fishing, for example -- there were many shortcomings, the European Commission said.

Short-term decision-making coupled with irresponsible behaviour by certain parts of the fishing industry in the European Union had penalised those fishermen acting for the common good, it said.

The result was a vicious circle that undermined both the ecological balance of the oceans and the economic profitability of the fisheries sector, it said in a statement.

Many species -- cod and hake, for example -- are depleted in certain EU waters due to years of chronic overfishing, exacerbated by poor controls and fines that, until recently, were not set high enough to deter lawbreakers.

"In its current form, the CFP (Common Fisheries Policy) does not encourage responsible behaviour by either fishermen or politicians," EU Fisheries Commissioner Joe Borg said.

"The management tools we use reward narrow-minded, short-term decision-making, which has now undermined the sustainability of our fisheries," he said in the statement.

In May, the Commission signalled all was not well in the fisheries sector when it issued a policy statement changing the basis for calculating its proposed fish catch volumes for 2009 and said 88 percent of EU fish stocks were overexploited.

That huge number compared with 80 percent at the same stage last year and a global average of just 25 percent, it said. The stocks situation was "alarming" and bold action was needed.

Europe's share of fish products from domestic resources had also fallen from 75 percent in the early 1970s to 40 percent now as it depended more and more on imports, it said.

Scientists say that unless fishing is curbed, or in some cases stopped altogether, many species in EU waters risk extinction. Cod is a prime example, especially in the North Sea and off the west coast of Scotland.

But the Commission usually shies from proposing outright fishing bans or a "zero catch", fearful of the economic impact it would have on small coastal communities that depend on fishing for their livelihood.

In any case, if the Commission does suggest quota cuts, they usually get diluted down by EU ministers who have to agree the final numbers before the next year's quotas enter into force. (Editing by Sami Aboudi)

.

Whales - profitable and delicious

As economists it is essential to understand both sides of the story. This frank interview with celebrity whaler Kristjan Loftsson is enlightening.

Apart from Greenpeace and other green groups the other problem will killing and selling whales is that whale meat rots quickly thus limiting the distance one can catch said whale.

"Whales rot very quickly after they have been shot, so there is a limit how far you can go out and you have to bring it back as quickly as possible," he said.

"No-one wants to buy stinking meat."

Here are some other interesting quotes:

What's the Fuss? Whales Tasty, Profitable - Whaler [PlanetArk]

SANTIAGO - Reviled by conservationists, Icelandic whale meat exporter Kristjan Loftsson is unapologetic, saying anti-whaling groups and nations are neurotic and that whale meat is highly profitable -- and delicious.

../

"Those who speak loudest, the UK and US, Australia, they used to whale before but they couldn't manage their whales, so everything is gone. So they have no interest in this any more," Loftsson told Reuters in an interview.

"This is our meat in the ocean. But in Australia and New Zealand, they walk and farm on land," he added. "They are hypocrites. This is not about the whales, it's about politics."

Loftsson started out as a cook's assistant aboard a whale catcher aged 13 in 1956, and now runs a company that has four 50-metre (164-ft) whaling vessels.

He caught seven fin whales in 2006, which weigh around 40 tonnes on average each, and is hoping Iceland's government will raise its national quota to a total of around 35O whales -- around the number his company's catch averaged per year between 1948 and 1985.

FEEDING JAPAN

../

Loftsson says he is resuming exports to Japan, where whale meat is a delicacy offered in restaurants and sold on supermarket shelves. Choice whale meat cuts can retail at US$50 to $100 a kilo (2.2 lb) in Japan.

../

"It tastes just like any ordinary, very good red meat. You can eat some of it raw. Depending on which loin (cut) of the whale, whale meat is most like tuna," he added.

../

"We were just sitting there," he said. "That's Icelandic politics. There are too many chickens in Iceland's politics, they don't have any guts."

../

And aside from dodging the likes of Greenpeace and other anti-whaling enforcers like maritime conservation guerrillas Sea Shepherd Conservation International on the high seas, the biggest challenge he faces as a whaler?

"Whales rot very quickly after they have been shot, so there is a limit how far you can go out and you have to bring it back as quickly as possible," he said.

"No-one wants to buy stinking meat."

.

Bluefin given a lifeline instead of a fishingline

As part of our economics of fisheries series comes news that the Bluefin tuna might live to fight another day but how many more is hard to predict.

The economics are as always fascinating. What happens when demand increases and the supply falls, of course the price increases - in this case tripling in a year where a SINGLE fish can cost $100,000. Now, what happens when the price rises so dramatically? More fisherman try and catch the remaining few fish. Obviously the fisherman will weigh up the costs of trying to catch the last few fish (fuel, time, opportunity cost etc.) against the price but as long as the price continues to rise this quickly it is not a great time to be a tuna.

This is a classic tragedy of the commons disaster unfolding before our eyes.

EU to Ban Med Bluefin Tuna Fishing From Next Week [PlanetArk]

BRUSSELS - EU fisheries regulators have banned trawling for bluefin tuna from next week in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean to stop overfishing of a species that is approaching stock collapse, the EU executive said on Friday.

Bluefin tuna is prized by sushi lovers and its numbers have fallen due to overfishing by countries hunting it in those waters -- Cyprus, France, Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal and Spain.

Last year, their combined national fleets caused the EU to exceed its international catch quota by 25 percent. Scientists say bluefin tuna may die out if fishing is not restricted.

But the incentive to catch bluefin tuna remains strong, particularly in June, when around 85 percent of the fish are caught. Since last year, market prices for the delicacy have roughly tripled: in Japan a single fish can cost up to US$100,000.

Bluefin tuna are known for their huge size, power and speed. Maximum weights recorded are in excess of 600 kg.

As of June 16, vessels flying the flags of Cyprus, France, Greece, Italy and Malta will be prohibited from fishing for bluefin tuna in either Mediterranean or eastern Atlantic waters. A similar ban goes into force for Spain on June 23. It was not immediately clear if or when Portugal would be subject to a ban.

The bans apply to vessels that use a "purse seine", a type of net that floats the top of a long wall of netting on the surface while its bottom is held weighted under the water.

The European Commission, the EU executive, regulates fishing quotas for member states and also negotiates international fisheries agreements on their behalf.

"The Commission is determined to use all necessary means to prevent a recurrence of the substantial overfishing seen in 2007," it said in a statement.

"Last year, overfishing was largely driven by the industrial purse seine sector of the fleet, which takes more than 70 percent of the total catch."

France's Agriculture Ministry said minister Michel Barnier had expressed his objection to the decision to the EU and called for a meeting of an expert committee to help clarify the use of quotas in the countries concerned.

Environment group WWF was unimpressed with the later date for Spain's ban and said the poor state of stocks should have prevented trawling this year altogether.

"Overfishing and massive illegal catches threaten the survival of bluefin tuna. Fishing should be banned indefinitely at least during June, the key spawning month for Mediterranean bluefin tuna," Aaron McLoughlin, head of WWF's European Marine Programme, said in a statement.

Commission experts say the EU's fishing capacity is so large and bluefin tuna trawling activity so concentrated in June that the EU quota can be exhausted in just two days of fishing. (Additional reporting by Tamora Vidaillet in Paris; Editing by Alison Williams)

.

Economic Risks From Species Loss

Ahead of a UN conference on biodiversity in Bonn, Germany in 10 days time, the standard pre-conference press release hits the streets.

As an economist the whole bio-diversity loss argument is not as simple as you might think. If some obscure mammal, bird on insect dies out in Brazil due to de-forestation what is the economic cost to you and me? Arguably nothing expect the extraordinary long odds that one of these species held the key to the cure for cancer of some equally scary disease and the "love of variety" argument where we gain utility from seeing said insets or birds in real life or more likely on television. This has to weighed against the economic reasons for the original loss - in this case deforestation which occurred in the first place due to the economic necessity of local people who are just trying to survive.

The fishery issue is slightly different and is what is alluded to in this article. Clearly if fish stocks fall below a certain level it will impact on the food resources for millions. This is already happening but is less about bio-diversity and more about over fishing.

Germany Warns Of Economic Risks From Species Loss [PlanetArk]

BERLIN - Nations must act to slow extinction rates, German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel said on Thursday, arguing the loss of species threatened food supplies for billions of people.

../

Gabriel, due to open the Bonn summit, pointed to marine life as an example.

"If we don't do anything, there won't be any more commercial fishing by 2050. Imagine what that means for the world's food supplies," Gabriel said, noting several billion people rely on protein from fish to survive.

UN experts say human activity, including the emission of greenhouse gases, threatens to cause the worst spate of extinctions on earth since the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. Some experts say three species disappear every hour.

.

These "Dam" Externalities get everywhere

Despite my poor attempt at a play on words in the title (there must be a better one), the "economics of dams" is something that interesting me for some reason.

I just can't help thinking that the knock on effects of dams are never fully included (either upstream or downstream) in any cost benefit analysis.

Today's PlanetArk post on the effect of Chinese built dams in Cambodia articulate my initial fears more eloquently. The title of the article is misleading. These are Chinese built dams but are located in Cambodia.

The main loss will be felt by those perpetual losers in these matters, the "indigenous communities", followed closely by the always "rare" wildlife (turtles in this case and some migrating fish) plus an ark load of other big beasts.

Chinese Dams Threaten Cambodia's Forests, Farmers [PlanetArk]

../

Faced with a rapidly growing but power-starved economy, Prime Minister Hun Sen has decided the rivers flowing from one of the few elevated spots in a relentlessly flat country should become its battery pack.

With this in mind, in the last two years he has agreed to at least four Chinese-funded hydropower projects as part of a $3 billion scheme to boost output from a measly 300 MW today to 1,000 MW in a decade, enough to power a small city.

The indigenous communities who have lived off the forests in the Cardamoms since the dawn of time appear to be the ones who will be paying the biggest price.

../

WAR ON BLACKOUTS

Few people argue that Cambodia's 14 million people need more power.

After decades of war and upheaval, including the Khmer Rouge "Killing Fields" of the 1970s, the economy has finally taken off, growing at nearly 10 percent a year.

But its antiquated, mainly diesel-fuelled power plants can meet only 75 percent of demand, meaning frequent blackouts and unit prices around twice those of neighbouring Thailand and Vietnam -- both factors inhibiting faster expansion.

With the closer ties Hun Sen has cultivated with Beijing in the last five years, Chinese cash and dam-building expertise has become a logical solution to what is one of the inevitable pains of breakneck growth.

"Chinese investment in hydropower is so important for Cambodia's development," Foreign Minister Hor Namhong said in January after meeting with his Chinese counterpart Yang Jiechi.

But critics maintain that much of the planning is taking place with scant regard for the long-term impact on the environment in a country where (80) percent of people still rely on agriculture for their livelihoods.

"Poorly conceived and developed hydro-power projects could needlessly and irreparably damage Cambodia's river system with serious consequences," said Carl Middleton of the US-based International Rivers Network.

MUDDY WATERS

The Chinese embassy in Phnom Penh denied Beijing was taking any short-cuts in dam construction in Cambodia -- part of a massive aid package designed to ensure a compliant friend in the region.

"They comply with environmental standards and are approved by the Cambodian government," said a Chinese diplomat who did not wish to be named. "We just want to help Cambodia as much as we can."

But the Chay Areng project hardly appears to be a model of transparency.

The deal was signed in late 2006 with China Southern Power Grid Co (CSG), one of China's two grid operators, to build a 260 MW plant at an estimated cost of $200 million and with a completion date of 2015.

With no prior consultation, the first villagers knew of the project was when Chinese engineers turned up this year to start working on feasibility studies -- details of which CSG and the government are reluctant to discuss.

Environmentalists who have conducted their own studies say the dam's lake will cover 110 sq km (42 sq miles) and displace thousands of indigenous people in nine villages.

More than 200 animal species, including elephants, sun bears, leopards and the endangered Siamese crocodile, would be affected upstream, said Sam Chanthy, head of the NGO Forum, a foreign-funded non-governmental organisation in Phnom Penh.

Downstream, the delicate ecosystem of the flooded forest, home to some of the world's rarest turtle species as well as hundreds of types of migratory fish, would also be hit by disruptions to water flow, he said.

"It won't take long for these invaluable assets to disappear when the dam is built," said Eng Polo, of wildlife group Conservation International.

.

Open-Access Losses and Delay in the Assignment of Property Rights

A new NBER working paper by Gary Libecap examines open-access and the depletion of natural resources. The paper is theoretcal but does include some empirical examples that includes fisheries and non-renewable resources.

Open-Access Losses and Delay in the Assignment of Property Rights

Author

Gary D. Libecap (University of California, Santa Barbara)

Abstract

Even though formal property rights are the theoretical response to open access involving natural and environmental resources, they typically are adopted late after considerable waste has been endured. Instead, the usual response in local, national, and international settings is to rely upon uniform rules and standards as a means of constraining behavior. While providing some relief, these do not close the externality and excessive exploitation along unregulated margins continues. As external costs and resource values rise, there finally is a resort to property rights of some type. Transfers and other concessions to address distributional concerns affect the ability of the rights arrangement to mitigate open-access losses. This paper outlines the reasons why this pattern exists and presents three empirical examples of overfishing, over extraction from oil and gas reservoirs, and excessive air pollution to illustrate the main points.

.

"Post of the day" for fisheries

Spending hours a day reading about the over exploitation of fish means I apologise if there is a excess of fishy stories.

This is a good one though - UK chefs to stop serving over exploited fish. Will there be anything on the menu?

UK Chefs and Greenpeace Bid to Save Threatened Fish

LONDON - Leading British chefs will join forces with environment group Greenpeace on Wednesday in a campaign to push restaurants to serve up only species of fish that have not been over exploited

Greenpeace goes straight for the jugular:

"No one wants to see some of our fishy favourites disappear from dinner plates. But, unless we only use seafood that has been caught in a sustainable manner, then this is a situation we could see very soon," said Sarah Shoraka from Greenpeace.

Wefinsih with the standard dig at China for the Chinese wanting to eat enough to survive:

It noted that fish consumption in China had increased demand 10-fold since 1961 and that fish now supplied 30 percent of demand for protein in Asia against six percent globally.

.

Tragedy of the Commons and Fisheries: An empirical study

Although it is too late for my 211 students and their assessed work, I have just come across an excellent working paper by Stephanie McWhinnie.

The title of the paper is:

The Tragedy of the Commons in International Fisheries: An Empirical Examination[PDF]

Historically, all capture fisheries have proven hard to manage; internationally shared stocks face an additional impediment to effective management. Previous fisheries studies estimate gains from cooperation for particular species or locations, but evidence is lacking on the wider effect that international sharing has in relation to other variables that affect stock status. This paper is an attempt to shed a broader light on the effect of sharing by identifying whether shared fish stocks are systematically more exploited. I compile exploitation status, biological and economic data into a unique two-period panel of more than two-hundred fish stocks from around the globe with which I test the theoretical implications of sharing. The empirical results from ordered category estimation suggest that shared stocks are indeed more prone to overexploitation.

.

Disastrous environmental, economic and human consequences of often illegal industrial fishing

A long title taken from yesterday's NYTimes article. I post this as I am in the middle of marking 140 2000 words essays on the economics of fisheries so to read something that is not related to my lecture notes is a relief.

Amusing to see the US giving the EU and others an environmental kicking for once. Is this justified?

Until All the Fish Are Gone [NYtimes]

Scientists have been warning for years that overfishing is degrading the health of the oceans and destroying the fish species on which much of humanity depends for jobs and food. Even so, it would be hard to frame the problem more dramatically than two recent articles in The Times detailing the disastrous environmental, economic and human consequences of often illegal industrial fishing.

Sharon LaFraniere showed how mechanized fishing fleets from the European Union and nations like China and Russia — usually with the complicity of local governments — have nearly picked clean the oceans off Senegal and other northwest African countries. This has ruined coastal economies and added to the surge of suddenly unemployed migrants who brave the high seas in wooden boats seeking a new life in Europe, where they are often not welcome.

The second article, by Elisabeth Rosenthal, focused on Europe’s insatiable appetite for fish — it is now the world’s largest consumer. Having overfished its own waters of popular species like tuna, swordfish and cod, Europe now imports 60 percent of what it consumes. Of that, up to half is contraband, fish caught and shipped in violation of government quotas and treaties.

The industry, meanwhile, is organized to evade serious regulation. Big factory ships from places like Europe, China, Korea and Japan stay at sea for years at a time — fueling, changing crews, unloading their catch on refrigerated vessels. The catch then enters European markets through the Canary Islands and other ports where inspection is minimal. After that, retailers and consumers neither ask nor care where the fish came from, or whether, years from now, there will be any fish at all.

From time to time, international bodies try to do something to slow overfishing. The United Nations banned huge drift nets in the 1990s, and recently asked its members to halt bottom trawling, a particularly ruthless form of industrial fishing, on the high seas. Last fall, the European Union banned fishing for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean, where bluefin have been decimated.

The institution with the most potential leverage is the World Trade Organization. Most of the world’s fishing fleets receive heavy government subsidies for boat building, equipment and fuel, America’s fleet less so than others. Without these subsidies, which amount to about $35 billion annually, fleets would shrink in size and many destructive practices like bottom trawling would become uneconomic.

The W.T.O. has never had a reputation for environmental zeal. But knowing that healthy fisheries are important to world trade and development, the group has begun negotiating new trade rules aimed at reducing subsidies. It produced a promising draft in late November, but there is no fixed schedule for a final agreement.

The world needs such an agreement, and soon. Many fish species may soon be so depleted that they will no longer be able to reproduce themselves. As 125 of the world’s most respected scientists warned in a letter to the W.T.O. last year, the world is at a crossroads. One road leads to tremendously diminished marine life. The other leads to oceans again teeming with abundance. The W.T.O. can help choose the right one.

.

Illegal fishing and Europe's unquenched appetite

New York Times does illegal fishing under the "empty seas" by-line.

Europe’s Appetite for Seafood Propels Illegal Trade

Fish is now the most traded animal commodity on the planet, with about 100 million tons of wild and farmed fish sold each year. Europe has suddenly become the world’s largest market for fish, worth more than 14 billion euros, or about $22 billion a year. Europe’s appetite has grown as its native fish stocks have shrunk so that Europe now needs to import 60 percent of fish sold in the region, according to the European Union.

In Europe, the imbalance between supply and demand has led to a thriving illegal trade. Some 50 percent of the fish sold in the European Union originates in developing nations, and much of it is laundered like contraband, caught and shipped illegally beyond the limits of government quotas or treaties. The smuggling operation is well financed and sophisticated, carried out by large-scale mechanized fishing fleets able to sweep up more fish than ever, chasing threatened stocks from ocean to ocean.

The European Commission estimates that more than 1.1 billion euros in illegal seafood, or $1.6 billion worth, enters Europe each year. The World Wide Fund for Nature contends that up to half the fish sold in Europe are illegally caught or imported. While some of the so-called “pirate fishing” is carried out by non-Western vessels far afield, European ships are also guilty, some of them operating close to home. An estimated 40 percent of cod caught in the Baltic Sea are illegal, said Mireille Thom, a spokeswoman for Joe Borg, the European Union’s commissioner of fisheries and maritime affairs.

“We know that it’s much too easy to land illegal fish in European ports, and we are really eager to block their access to European markets,” Ms. Thom said.

../

If cost is an indication, fish are poised to become Europe’s most precious contraband. Prices have doubled and tripled in response to surging demand, scarcity and recent fishing quotas imposed by the European Union in a desperate effort to save native species. In London, a kilogram of lowly cod, the traditional ingredient of fish and chips, now costs up to £30, or close to $60, up from £6 four years ago.

One is not surprised that China gets a look in here somewhere.

Tracing where the fish come from is nearly impossible, many experts say. Groups like Greenpeace and the Environmental Justice Foundation have documented a range of egregious and illegal fishing practices off West Africa.

Huge boats, owned by companies in China, South Korea and Europe, fly flags of convenience from other nations. They stay at sea for years at a time, fishing, fueling, changing crews and unloading their catches to refrigerated boats at sea, making international monitoring extremely difficult.

Even when permits and treaties make the fishing legal, it is not always sustainable. Many fleets go well beyond the bounds of their agreements in any case, generally with total impunity, studies, including some by Greenpeace and Environmental Justice, show.

../

“There’s a big competition out there with foreign vessels, especially from China,” said Moshwood Kuku, a fishmonger at Afikala Afrikane, a stall that specializes in African fish at Billingsgate. “Locals can only fish the coast.”

Fish Quotas for 2008

With topical timing, the announcement of the new fisheries quotas comes at 2 weeks before the Econ211 essay on "The Economics of Fisheries" is due to be handed in.

'Fair' deal at fisheries summit [BBC]

Cuts in fishing days of 18% and 10% were agreed for Scotland's west coast and the North Sea respectively, with an 11% rise in the North Sea cod catch.

Crews will also be "given back" days at sea for helping conservation measures.

Representatives of the Scottish fishing industry were "cautiously optimistic" about the deal.

But Greenpeace said the EU was continuing policies that are dragging the seas "to a point of no return," while the WWF accused European ministers of having "gambled on the future" of cod stocks with the strategy.

There is economics and political economy all over this deal. Does it not appear a little short sighted to say that some countries "resisted" tighter controls because fish prices were going up. What do they expect if demand stays the same and supply falls due to over fishing. Just what do they expect to happen to the price of cod if it is overfished past the point of no return (Newfoundland know all about this)?

Then there is the incentives and motivation of your average fisheries minister. Are they looking out for the fish or the voters? Unemployed fisherman are able to lobby and protest far more effectively than your average haddock and certainly get more local and national press.

Some countries resisted moves towards tighter controls, citing the soaring price of fish.

Saskia Richartz, marine policy expert for Greenpeace, was furious with the new deal.

She said it "continues a three-decade long trend of ministerial incompetence that is dragging Europe's seas towards a point of no return.

"The fisheries ministers simply cannot be trusted and more than ever Europe's environment ministers need to be included in future negotiations," she added.

Other links:

I like this question:

Q&A: The 2008 EU fishing quotas [BBC]

If cod is so scarce, why is there no shortage of it in the shops?

Some 90% of the fish consumed in the UK comes from outside the EU, from Iceland, Greenland and the Faroe Islands. The fish stocks in these fisheries are healthier.

Mixed reaction to fisheries deal [BBC]

Fisheries: Fish Dumping "immoral" and FISH FACTS [Globalisation and the Environment]

and finally an interesting website (from a comment on the above story) with some interesting news items and intelligent and detailed analysis of the Scottish fisheries situation.

http://www.ssacn.org/

Fisheries: Fish Dumping "immoral" and FISH FACTS

As my Econ211 students "should" be in the middle of writing about fisheries as there term essay this news item is well timed.

The BBC have done a good job of covering the main issues. What is required is careful thought about the "economics" of the current quota system and how it has failed in light of the incentives of the average fisherman.

Is the solution to collapsing cod stocks really to ask for an increase in the quote size when stocks have only "marginally increased"?

For those writing an essay check the "options" tab on this article. FISH FACTS will also give you plenty of background material.

Dumping North Sea fish 'immoral'[BBC]

Fisheries Minister Jonathan Shaw has agreed that dumping thousands of tonnes of dead fish back into the sea because of EU fishing quotas is "immoral".

He said he supported the view of EU Fisheries Commissioner Joe Borg and would be pushing for quota increases.

The fishing industry has warned it faces ruin because fish caught after quotas are exceeded have to be dumped.

But environmentalists say quotas are necessary to protect stocks, and want to see a change in fishing practices.

40%-60% dumped

European Union quotas strictly limit the amount of fish that vessels can bring back to port, but there is no restriction on the amount of fish they actually catch.

BBC rural affairs correspondent Jeremy Cooke found that boats fishing in the "mixed fishery" of the North Sea often accidentally catch a species or size of fish which is above their quota and have to throw the "discard" back.

The EU estimates that between 40% and 60% of fish caught by trawlers in this area is dumped back into the sea.

Mr Borg - who is instrumental in setting the laws and limits - described such discarding of fish as "immoral" but said there was no clear solution.

"The problem is when we come to work out the details of how to eliminate discarding but at the same time have sustainable fisheries - that is the big problem."

Mr Shaw said it was an "absolute waste" to throw good quality fish back into the sea.

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme he would be pushing for an EU cod quota increase as well as looking at technological solutions, such as nets that would catch only certain kinds of fish.

"We have seen a recovery in cod in the North Sea in particular - now that is good news," he said.

"So that is why we will be pressing the commission at the annual round in December for an increase in cod and hopefully that will help the fishermen."

Trawler skipper Phil Walsh told BBC News he had landed all of the cod he was allowed by June this year.

Since then, he has been fishing for prawns and dumping prime whiting, haddock and cod, which would fetch as much as £13.50/kg on a supermarket shelf.

"I can't describe the feeling really," he said.

"It's your livelihood and you spend your life trying to catch it and then you have to throw it back over the side.

"It's an impossible situation and, unless it is sorted out soon, we will all be finished."

Marine protection

Many Scottish and English fishermen say they have seen a huge increase in the number of cod in the North Sea this year and now want an increase in the quota level for cod and other white fish they catch.

"I feel very bitter because we've been so long trying to protect the cod," said trawler skipper David Mell.

"[We've had] decommissioning, increased our mesh size, we've been through a lot of pain really.... [But] I thought I would never see the day that I had to throw adult cod overboard."

But environmentalists, who have for years been sounding the alarm bell over the decline of North Sea fish stocks, say now is not the time to increase the amount being caught.

They say quotas are essential to ensure spawning stocks are allowed to mature and to breed.

But, like the fishermen, activists such as the World Wildlife Fund's Helen McLachlan agree that throwing dead cod back into the water is not the answer.

Instead, she said, there must be a change in fishing practices.

"Nobody wants discards," she said.

"So let's not catch the fish in the first place.

"Let's avoid areas where there are going to be large spawning stocks of fish, let's avoid juveniles... let's use selective gear so [a fisherman can say], 'I will only catch prawns, I will not catch white fish'."

Oliver Knowles, a campaigner for Greenpeace, also believes quotas are not working for the UK's mixed fisheries.

He says the only answer is to stop fishing altogether in 40% of the world's oceans.

"Most importantly, I think you have got to create marine reserves. We don't have any proper protection for the marine environment.

"We are talking about a very large scale - about 40% - and Greenpeace isn't alone in calling for protected areas at around that size."

Japan and the Humpback whale round-up

In this blog we have tracked the behaviour of whaling activities and the political maneuverings of the pro-whaling countries (primarily Norway Iceland and Japan) and the huge amount of money spent on lobbying landlocked countries for support (see sidebar).

In every case the economic argument for the resumption of whaling is incredibly weak. The damage that adverse publicity has on the country in question, this time Japan, tends to far outweigh any cultural or economic benefits. It would be far cheaper for the Japanese government to pay the whalers vast amounts NOT to catch whales than to allow it to go ahead. The loss in profits by any public boycott of Japanese cars for example (which will surely happen) will more than outweigh any benefits.

Japan fleet sets off to hunt humpbacks [Yahoo news]

Save the whale. Again [Independent]

Japanese whalers hunt humpbacks [BBC]

.

Vanishing Fish in South-East Asia

Having just given a lecture on over fishing and the possible government policies (quotas, taxes, aquaculture) to address the problem it is timely that a new report has been released talking about the vanishing fish of south-east Asia.

This story reinforces the "open access" problem related to the "tragedy of the commons" argument.

In the lecture we even examined how fishing in the Philippines had followed the traditional growth curve - the data finished in the mid 1980s. What this article reveals is just how bad the problem has not got.

In the Gulf of Thailand, the density of fish had declined by 86 percent from 1961 to 1991, while between 1966 and 1994 the catch per hour in the Gulf by trawlers fell more than sevenfold.

In Vietnam, a new fishing power and a rising source of imports by Australia, the total catch between 1981 and 1999 only doubled despite a tripling of capacity of the fishing fleet -- a sure sign that fishing was reaching capacity, she said.

In the Gulf of Tonkin, where Vietnam shares resources with China, the record was even worse with fish catch per hour in 1997 only a quarter of that in 1985.

"In the Philippines, most marine fisheries were overexploited by the 1980s, with catch rates as low as 10 percent of rates when these areas were lightly fished," she said.

That is now a lot of effort to catch a much small number of fish. This means we are clearly past any profit maximising or maximum sustainable yield position and are clearly at the open access equilibrium where, if costs were to fall, could push the stocks of many fish to dangerously low levels. Finally, the article ends with a comment on just how difficult policy enforcement is.

Article below:

The report is from the Lowy Institute and the report can be downloaded from HERE.[1.3MB]

Southeast Asia's oceans are fast running out of fish, putting the livelihoods of up to 100 million people at risk, leading to more illegal incursions into Australia's northern fisheries and putting the future of shared stocks between Australia and Southeast Asia at grave risk. A new Lowy Institute Paper entitled 'Enmeshed: Australia and Southeast Asia's Fisheries' by Dr Meryl J. Williams looks at the sources of this depletion and what can be done regionally to address it before it becomes too late.

Media in Australia and Southeast Asia have responded to Meryl's paper with the original Reuters story being picked up in the Philippines and Thailand (and Pakistan) while Singapore's Straits Times also ran a story on the paper.

Fish Vanishing from Southeast Asian Oceans - Report [Planet Ark]

SYDNEY - Southeast Asia's oceans are fast running out of fish, putting the livelihoods of up to 100 million people at risk and increasing the need for governments to support the maintenance of fish stocks, an Australian expert said.

Fisheries in the region had expanded dramatically in recent decades and Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam and the Philippines were now in the top 12 fish producing countries in the world, Meryl Williams said in a paper for Australia's Lowy Institute.

"As the fourth largest country in world fish production, Indonesia is a fisheries giant. Yet ... Indonesian marine fisheries resources are close to fully exploited and a significant number in all areas are over-exploited," she said.

Williams, a former director general of the international WorldFish Center, said the number of fishers was still increasing in most Southeast Asian countries despite a trend since the 1980s to close frontiers due to territorial claims and overfishing.

In the Gulf of Thailand, the density of fish had declined by 86 percent from 1961 to 1991, while between 1966 and 1994 the catch per hour in the Gulf by trawlers fell more than sevenfold.

In Vietnam, a new fishing power and a rising source of imports by Australia, the total catch between 1981 and 1999 only doubled despite a tripling of capacity of the fishing fleet -- a sure sign that fishing was reaching capacity, she said.

In the Gulf of Tonkin, where Vietnam shares resources with China, the record was even worse with fish catch per hour in 1997 only a quarter of that in 1985.

"In the Philippines, most marine fisheries were overexploited by the 1980s, with catch rates as low as 10 percent of rates when these areas were lightly fished," she said.

Williams said Southeast Asian fisheries were serviced by a plethora of regional bodies and agreements, but few acted effectively on illegal fishing and shared stock management.

At the same time, illegal fishing was "dynamic, creative, clever and usually one step ahead of authorities".

A Southeast Asian government may issue a single fishing licence only to find it being used by four different boats, she said. In Indonesia, foreign fishing vessels, often Chinese in joint-ventures, operated on the "margins of legality" in a geographically vast archipelago.

Williams said Australia should step up collaboration with Southeast Asian countries to help manage fish stocks.

.