Doug S Butterworth

MARAM (Marine Resource Assessment and Management Group)Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics

University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7701, South Africa

“THE END OF THE

LINE” :HOW SOUND IS THE SCIENCE?

OUTLINEI. Terminology

II. Bluefin Tuna

III. 90% of Large Predatory Fish Gone?

IV. Collapse of Fisheries by 2048?

V. Current World and South African Situation

VI. The “MPA Solution”

VII. Science, Advocacy and Ethics

VIII. In Summary

I. TERMINOLOGY SUSTAINABLE YIELD vs ABUNDANCE

0 30-40% 100%Fisheries management target

BMSY

B

SY

BMSY

PRISTINE

0

MSY

TERMINOLOGY FISHERIES:

0 20

50

100

OVER EXPLOITED

FULLY EXPLOITED

UNDER EXPLOITED

BMS

Y B

CONTRADICTION?

IUCN RED LIST:

IUCN fishing intended as flag waver based on crude analysis NOT definitive assessment of status

NO

0 20

50

70

CRITICALLY ENDANGERED

ENDANGERED VULNERABLE

B

II. BLUEFIN TUNA

North Pacific Bluefin Tuna

Southern Bluefin Tuna

North Atlantic Bluefin TunaTwo populations: West ; East +

Mediterranean

NORTH ATLANTIC BLUEFIN TUNA

Regional Fisheries Management Organisation:

ICCAT

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas

International Commission for Catching All the Tunas

NORTH ATLANTIC BLUEFIN CATCH DISTRIBUTION

ICCAT AND EASTERN BLUEFIN

MID 1990’s to MID 2000’s

Development of farming

Complete loss of control in the Mediterranean

Increasing uncertainty about size of catch

Continued cynical attitude to science from EU

EAST ATLANTIC & MEDITERRANEAN

BLUEFIN CATCHES

EAST ATLANTIC BLUEFIN RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

2009 ICCAT Meeting:TAC reduced to 13 500 tons

100% observer coverage of farmsEffort (season length) restrictions

2010 CITES:Proposal to list Atlantic bluefin

Fails: “Leave it to ICCAT”

CAN ICCAT DELIVER?

2010 ICCAT ASSESSMENT EAST ATLANTIC BLUEFIN CATCH RATES (CPUE)

2010 ICCAT ASSESSMENT EAST ATLANTIC BLUEFIN SPAWNER BIOMASS

2010 ICCAT ASSESSMENT EAST ATLANTIC & MEDITERRANEAN BLUEFIN

CATCH

2010 ICCAT ASSESSMENT

Marked recent catch reductionBelievable?

A new EU?

Increased biomass estimates and improved trends

Maintenance of 13 500 ton TAC should see rebuilding to BMSY by 2022 (MSY = 50 000 tons)

Green listing?

III. 90% OF LARGE PREDATORY FISH GONE?

Myers and Worm: Nature 423 (2003) 280-283

Global ocean has lost more than 90% of large predatory fishes

Primarily based on Japanese tuna longline data

Five substantial rebuttal papers Hampton, Maunder, Polacheck, Sibert,

Walters

90% OF LARGE FISH GONE? PACIFIC YELLOWFIN & BIGEYE TUNA CPUE &

CATCHES

90% OF LARGE FISH GONE?

Analysis no longer has any credence in the fisheries science community

The End of the Line (Jeff Hutchings, Daniel Pauly):

“Whether it’s 95% or 70% is rather irrelevant; these are still dramatic declines”

BUT: 70% decline is close to BMSY target ??!!

ISSF – TUNA STATUS INTERNATIONAL SEAFOOD SUSTAINABILITY

FOUNDATIONSTATUS OF WORLD TUNA RESOURCES

Jeff Hutchings et al.: Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 67 (2010) 1205-1210

WORLDWIDE: Pelagic Demersal

HIGH SEAS

TRENDS RELATIVE TO BMSY

IV. COLLAPSE OF FISHERIES BY 2048?

Worm et al.: Science 314 (2006) 787-790

Project all fisheries collapsed by 2048“Collapse” – catch below 10% of

maximum

Based on catch, not abundance data

Eleven substantial rebuttal papers Branch, Briggs, de Mutsert, Hilborn

(x3), Holker, Jaenike, Longhurst, Murawski, Wilberg

TREVOR BRANCH: TRENDS IN “COLLAPSED”

FISHERIES

2048 PREDICTION

COLLAPSE OF FISHERIES BY 2048?

WWF (Argus, 22 October 2010) re “The End of the Line”:

“Never before have our marine resources been as degraded and overfished as they are today”

Worm, Hilborn et al.: Science 325 (2009) 578-585Average exploitation rate recently declined in 5 of 10 ecosystems

For 7 of these systems, rate is lower than required to achieve BMSY

Iceland, US Northeast, Newfoundland, S Australia, East Bering Sea, California, New Zealand

The 2048 prediction has long been without any credence in the fisheries science community

V. CURRENT WORLD AND SOUTH AFRICAN

SITUATION FAO 2010 CLASSIFICATION OF FISH

STOCKS

Underexploited 2%Moderately exploited 18%

72%Fully exploited 52%Overexploited 19%Recovering from depletion 1%

28%Depleted 8%

CURRENT WORLD SITUATION

Worm, Hilborn et al. (2009) database (255 stocks)

Underexploited 24%Fully exploited 50%

Overexploited 14%Collapsed 12%

74%

26%

CURRENT SOUTH AFRICAN SITUATION

Worm, Hilborn et al. (2009) database: 255 stocks – 8 from South Africa

Underexploited 2Fully exploited 6Overexploited or Collapsed 0

Under: shallow-water hake, toothfish

Fully: anchovy, horse mackerel, deepwater hake, kingklip, sardine, south coast rock lobster

Not considered: abalone, sole, squid, west coast rock lobster, line fish

VI. THE “MPA SOLUTION”

The End of the Line:Abundance increases in Marine Protected

Areas

BUT Does this lead to greater productivity

and hence catches?Yes, insofar as near-sessile species “spill over” outside the MPA

Will MPAs prevent over-exploitation of mobile species?Hardly – fish become catchable once they move outside

THE “MPA SOLUTION”

INSHORE AREASPractical-enforcement approach to indirectly keep catches sustainable

OFFSHORE AREASGenerally little to offer mobile species from a sustainability standpoint Confound interpretation of data used for assessmentSpatio-temporal closures more effective for effort control if needed

VII. SCIENCE, ADVOCACY AND ETHICS

Special additional reasons for fisheries scientists’ concerns (raised hackles) about the 90% decline (Nature) and 2048 projection (Science) papers

Re 90% paper:“Widely rumoured” that a senior reviewer had rejected itSeeming reluctance of Nature to publish rebuttals

THE 90% PAPERTom Polacheck (Marine Policy 30 (2006) 470-482): Failure to address concerns of tuna scientists Claiming falsely that cited papers demonstrated a

consistency between apparently inconsistent data sets when they didn’t

Claiming discovery of already well known phenomena Implying those working in the field had tunnel

vision/emotional attachment to their work to undercut their potential criticism

Making emotive undocumented universal claims in publicity statements

Mark Maunder et al. letter to Nature :Publishing and promoting highly questionable science

without allowing timely critical review by qualified people ... does science a disservice

Nature : Acknowledged wide-spread criticism by experts in the field, but declined to publish the letter

Polacheck : Nature appeared to divorce itself from responsibility for accuracy and general validity of conclusions of an article once published

THE 2048 PAPERSeattle Times report

(http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003340489_seafood03m.html)

The author sent a note to colleagues (and the Seattle Times by mistake) saying “... that the projection could act as a ‘news hook’ to get people’s attention ...”

Mike Beck (in The Nature Conservancy’s Science Chronicles Jan 2007)

“F “ in high school statistics

Represents targeted advocacy by some journals and authors. Polarisation, rather than needed co-operation with fishing interests, fuelled by one-sided papers in Science and Nature

Mike Sissenwine (in Environmental Conservation 34 (2007) 90-91)

Aggressive public promotion of science is fine and legitimate provided rigour and accuracy are not sacrificed.

The people whom fisheries scientists seek to influence deserve to know whether they are reading or hearing objective science or advocacy.

Proposed that fisheries scientists be governed by codes of conduct, standard practices, certification and licensing, well beyond journal peer review, similar to internal governance within other professions interacting with lay-people such as doctors, engineers and lawyers.

VIII. IN SUMMARY

The End of the Line:Sound science?

In part, but certainly not throughout

Up to date?No

Balanced?Certainly not

But interpret it for what it intends to be –

advocacy

IN SUMMARY The End of the Line

Local sponsors: WWF, Investec, Pick n PayLaudable objective to promote sustainability

BUT Questionable PublicityInvestec: “A world without fish .... around 2048”

“90% of all large fish fished out” (citing WWF)

Promoting false information is counter-productive towards influencing the fishing industry

Why aren’t these companies who want to do “the right thing” better informed?Lack of due diligence on their part?

ORA failure of mainstream science to communicate effectively?

IN SUMMARY

The End of the Line – Three Steps

Ask before you buy – eat only sustainable seafood

Join the campaign for MPAs and responsible fishing

Tell politicians – respect the science and cut the fishing effort

IN SUMMARY

The End of the Line – Step One

Ask before you buy – eat only sustainable seafood

YES BUT

Be aware of the source of the advice as to sustainability

e.g. Special interest groups - some systems mark ANY trawl caught fish red

Hilborn: Trawling provides 7% of meat and fish consumption worldwide

Replace that fish by meat production through grazing: requires area five times the size of remaining rain forest

Which is more environmentally friendly: fishing or meat production?

IN SUMMARY

The End of the Line – Step Two

Join the campaign for MPAs and responsible fishing

MPAs are neither a panacea nor sufficientMike Beck (in The Nature Conservancy’s Science Chronicles Jan 2007)

The few solutions that are offered are simplistic, e.g. ‘lets stop fishing in certain areas’

The concept is being heavily oversoldRequire cogent scientific rationale before implementing any specific proposal

IN SUMMARY

The End of the Line – Step Three

Tell politicians – respect the science and cut the fishing effort

YES! YES! YES!

THIS IS WHAT REALLY MATTERS!

90% of the world’s fisheries problems will be rapidly solved by ensuring respect for sound scientific advice on catches, and reducing available fishing effort to the corresponding level needed

Thank you for your attentionAcknowledgements for assistance with presentation information/development and preparation:

Trevor Branch (Univ. Washington)Ray Hilborn (Univ.

Washington)Laurie Kell (ICCAT)Mark Maunder (IATTC)Andrea MüllerVictor Restrepo (ISSF)William Robinson