Overfishing AFF

Inherency

No CS NowThe United States has no comprehensive policy to end overfishing- despite the success of catch share programs in other countries, fishery management is outdated in the states.DAVID FESTA, DIANE REGAS, and JUDSON BOOMHOWER in 2013, Festa is director, Diane Regas is managing director, and Judson Boomhower is a fellow of the Oceans Program at Environmental Defense in Washington, DC, Sharing the Catch, Conserving the Fish, Issues in Science and Technology, http://issues.org/24-2/festa/

To end the urgent problem of overfishing, we need a new approach in which fishermen are given a share in—

and take responsibility for— a fishery’s total allowable catch. The mid-1990s were tough times to be a Pacific rockfish fisherman on the West Coast of the United States or a groundfish fisherman in Canada’s British Columbia. Fish populations in both regions were on the decline. Fishermen were working harder for smaller catches and smaller paydays, and talk of even stricter catch limits and fewer days at sea

haunted the docks. Environmentalists and the public were almost as distressed. Today, British Columbia’s groundfish stocks are at healthy levels and fishermen enjoy profitable businesses and fish throughout the year, whereas U.S. stakeholders continue to battle over how to restore still-depleted rockfish populations and fishing seasons remain limited to a few weeks or months a year. Why the difference? Veterans of fish fights in both countries legitimately point to complicated

factors, but the key reason for these disparate outcomes is policy . In 1997, Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans changed complex rules constraining how fishing was to be practiced (rules, the agency had hoped, that would indirectly achieve

conservation goals) and instead held fishermen directly and individually accountable for meeting a vital conservation target: ensuring that fish catches stay within scientifically determined levels. That is, fishermen were given a “share” of the total allowable catch and given the flexibility and the accountability for meeting it . As a

result, groundfish stocks rebounded and so did the fishermen. Meanwhile, fishery managers in the western United States have yet to make this key transition. Consequently, comparatively little rockfish recovery has

happened off of Washington, Oregon, and California, and the fishermen have been left with declining profits. Many other ocean fisheries in the United States continue to operate in the same away as the Pacific rockfish fishery. But federal and

state fishery managers can end the inherent incentive to overfish that is created by exclusive reliance on indirect measures such as limiting how and when fishermen can work. Better systems of management that change fishermen’s behavior by giving them a share in, and responsibility for, the fishery’s take—called “catch share” programs—are the best way to end the urgent problem of overfishing in the United States. There is an increasing interest in catch shares across the country. In 2002, the legal moratorium on some types of catch share programs was lifted. In 2006, Congress took the further step of enacting new rules to guide implementation of catch shares, and now six of the eight federal regions are working to develop catch share programs. The Bush administration has also taken some

actions in support of the programs. These steps are positive, but more needs to be done. We believe that all U.S. fishery management plans must examine whether catch share programs can end overfishing faster and with less collateral damage to the environment and to fishermen that the management plans in place today.

Poor USfg management and regulation nowCurrent Federal Government management fails – a new approach is needSafina 13, Safina, Carl, founding president of the Blue Ocean Institute and writes extensively on the changing oceans. "A Future for U.S. Fisheries." Issues in Science and Technology. University of Texas at Dallas, 27 Nov. 2013. http://issues.org/25-4/safina-4/ Web. 01 July 2014. CS

Current policies have slowed but not stopped the depletion of fish stocks. A new approach based on restoration is needed. For the fishing industry in the United States, and for the fishery resources on which the industry depends,

there is good news and bad news. Bad news still predominates, as many commercial fishers and their communities have suffered severe financial distress and many fish stocks have declined considerably in numbers. Poor management by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which regulates the fishing industry,

and some poor choices by many fishers have contributed to the problems. But there are some bright spots, small and scattered,

that suggest that improvements are possible. Starting with the bad news, the federal government’s fisheries management remains primitive, simplistic, and, in important cases, ineffectual, despite a fund of knowledge and conceptual tools that could be applied. In many regions—New England and the Pacific Northwest, among others—failed management costs more than the receipts from fisheries. This does not suggest that management should be given up as a lost cause, leaving the industry in a free-for-all, although this strategy might, in fact, be cheaper and not much less effective.

Overfishing is devastating fish stocks, the fishing industry has little to no regulation nowMosbergen in 2013(If We Keep Overfishing, There May Soon Be No Fish Left, The Huffington Post, By Dominique Mosbergen, 12/06/2013 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/06/overfishing-video_n_4393946.html)

A powerful video about how overfishing is decimating our oceans reminds us this week to pause and think twice about the seafood we eat.

Created by European environmental coalition OCEAN2012, the video explains that since the advent of large-scale industrial fishing in the 1950s, stocks of large fish -- such as tuna, swordfish, cod and flounder -- are believed to have fallen by as much as 90 percent worldwide. If overfishing continues, some scientists warn that a collapse of all types of fish species may happen in less than 50 years. Governments and consumers have been

complicit in this wildly unsustainable industry, the video asserts -- and it's time that we all collectively take responsibility for the harm we've caused marine ecosystems. After first going viral on YouTube last year, the OCEAN2012 video has experienced a surge in interest yet again this week after being shared by Upworthy. Renewed interest in the short film is proof that this issue remains as pressing today as it's ever been. (Story continues below.) fish This infographic, created by OCEAN2012, shows how catches of Bluefin tuna, Atlantic salmon and cod have been plummeting over the last few decades as fish populations collapse. (To see an enlarged version of this

graphic, click here.) "The fish don't stand a chance," Greenpeace writes on its website about overfishing. "More often than not, the fishing industry is given access to fish stocks before the impact of their fishing can be assessed, and regulation of the fishing industry is, in any case, woefully inadequate." According to environmental group Food and Water Watch, Atlantic cod, Atlantic flatfish (like halibut, flounder and sole), as well as Atlantic salmon, orange roughy and bluefin tuna are some

of the worst fish to consume due to their over-harvested, dwindling populations. Overfishing has caused the stock of bluefin tuna in the Pacific, for instance, to plummet by a whopping 96.4 percent, per a 2013 study on the fish. On the flip side, Food and Water Watch says that fish like yellowtail snapper, black cod, Atlantic mackerel and pole- or troll-caught Alaskan salmon, Pacific albacore tuna or mahi-mahi are better, more sustainable choices for your next meal. (The organization's "Smart Seafood Guide" offers even more ideas for conscientious consumers.)

Overfishing

Overfishing = inefficient practiceOverfishing is caused by inefficient practices Zhou et al. 14“Ending overfishing while catching more fish” Shijie Zhou, Anthony DM Smith & E Eric Knudsen Published via Fish and Fisheries. Accessed through Wiley Online Library ( Zhou works at CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research and Wealth from Oceans Flagship Smith at CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research and Wealth from Oceans Flagship Knudsen at Sustainable Fisheries Foundation)

High fishing intensity has been identified repeatedly as the single foremost culprit causing global overfishing (e.g. Worm et al. 2009; Watson et al. 2012). However, the low overall fishing mortality rate at an ecosystem level and a limited

proportion of overfished stocks suggest that fishing pressure alone is only a part of the problem. Rather, the root of the problem is selectively harvesting only certain target groups from the ecosystem, whether by species, stock, size or sex (Zhou et al. 2010). In fact, by definition, what is common among the three types of overfishing, recruitment, growth, and ecological overfishing (see Murawski 2000), is selectively catching too many fish of a certain type, size or sex, either within a species or a community. In developed countries, this problem is largely driven by commercial fisheries that often strive for a short-term (years to decades) economic profit rather than for sustainable food security (Sethi et al. 2010).

Must act nowWe will be the generation that kills all the fish, action must be takenHari ’09 Johann Hari, environmentalist, 6/5/09, Johann Hari: Could we be the generation that runs out of fish?, The Independent, http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-could-we-be-the-generation-that-runs-out-of-fish-1697247.html, accessed: 7/1/14 GA

In the babbling Babel of 24/7 news – where elections, bailouts and beheadings blur into one long shriek – the slow-motion stories that will define our age are often lost. An extraordinary documentary released next week, The End of the Line, forces us to stop, and see. Its story is

stark. In my parents' lifetime, we have killed 90 per cent of the world's fish. In my lifetime, we will finish off the rest – unless we change our ways, fast. We are on course to be the people who wiped fish from the earth. The story begins in the sleepy Canadian resort of Newfoundland. It was the global capital of cod, a fishing town where the scaly

creatures of the sea were so abundant they could be caught with your hands. But in the 1980s, something strange happened. The catches started to wane. The fish grew smaller. And then, in 1991, they disappeared. It turned out the cod had been hoovered out of the sea at such a rapid rate that they couldn't reproduce themselves. But the postscript is spookier still. The Canadian government banned any attempts at fishing there, on the assumption that the few remaining fish would slowly repopulate the

waters. But 15 years on, they haven't. The population was so destroyed that it could never recover. A growing number of scientists are warning that we could all be living in Newfoundland soon . Professor Boris Worm of

Dalhousie University published a detailed study in the prestigious peer-reviewed journal Nature saying that at the current rate, all global fish populations will have collapsed by 2048. He says: "This isn't some horror scenario, it's a real possibility. It's not rocket science if we're depleting species after species. It's a finite resource. We'll reach a point where we run out." The species in the frontline is bluefin tuna, the pinnacle of the evolutionary chain for fish. This little creature can swim at 50mph, and accelerate faster than the swishest sports car. It has even developed warm blood. Yet every year, a third of the remaining population is ripped from the seas and slapped onto our plates. Soon, it will be gone. All over the world, from the Bay of Bengal to Lake Victoria to the shores of South America, I have heard fishermen say their catches are shrinking, in size and in number. Industrial-scale fishing only began in the 1950s. By the standards of the news cycle, this is slow – but by the standards of the planet or of settled fishing communities, this is a click of the fingers. The effects of the new industrial fishing are uniform. Professor Ransom Myers found that whenever the vast industrial trawlers

are sent in, it takes just 15 years to reduce the fish population to a 10% shadow of its former self. This process of trawlering is an oceanic weapon of mass destruction, ripping up everything in its path . Charles Clover, who wrote the book on which the documentary is based, has a good analogy for it. Imagine a band of hunters stringing a mile of net between two massive all-terrain vehicles and dragging it at speed across the plains of Africa. Imagine it scooping up everything in its way: lions

and cheetahs and hippos and wild dogs. The net has a massive metal roller attached to its leading edge, smashing down every tree that gets in its way. And in the end, when the hunters open up the net, they pick out the choicest creatures and dump the squashed remains in the sun as carrion for the vultures. But we need fish. Our brains don't form properly without their fatty Omega-3 acids. So why do our governments allow this process of destruction to continue? Why do they actively encourage it, with $14bn of subsidies for fishermen to keep on trawling every year? A small number of people are making a lot of short-term profit out of this destruction – and they are using this cash to ensure they can carry on hunting, down to the last fish. In 1992, an attempt to get the bluefin tuna listed as an endangered species was scuppered by the US and Japanese governments at the urging of the tuna lobby – who happen to give large campaign donations to all parties. A similar corruption has eaten into European politics. Add to this the fact that fishermen are a determined and demanding constituency with an equally short-term agenda. They demand the maximum quotas today – even if that means no quotas tomorrow. Our societies are structured to put these short-term cries for money for a few ahead of the long-term needs of us all. A small determined group with hard cash almost always beats a diffuse group with good intentions – until they get angry and fight back. Yet today,

ordinary people in rich countries are being insulated from the fish crisis. As we exhaust our own fish stocks, our corporations are sailing out across the world to steal them from the poor. Today, there are armadas of industrial European and American fishing boats across the coast of West Africa, leaving the small fishermen who live on its coasts to starve. Professor Daniel Pauly says: "It is like a hole burning through paper. As the hole expands, the edge is where

the fisheries concentrate, until there is nowhere left to go." We are not only stealing fish from Africans; we are stealing them from future generations. In the age of limits, we are hitting up against the capacity of the planet to

provide for us – yet we are reacting with blank denial. This story is unfolding, in one form or another, in the rainforests, the air, and in the planet's climate itself. It has left us at a strange crossroads. We will either be a despised generation who left behind a depleted husk-planet – or a heroic generation who, at five minutes to ecological midnight, turned back to the light. With fish, the solution is even simpler

and more straightforward than with the other ecological crises ensnaring us. The scientific experts say we need to follow two steps. First, expand the 0.6 per cent of the area of the world's oceans in which fishing is banned to 30 per cent. In these protected areas, fish can slowly recover. Second, in the remaining 70 per cent, impose strict quotas on fishermen and police it properly, as they do in Alaska, New Zealand and Iceland. The cost of this programme? $14bn a year – precisely the sum we currently spend on subsidising fishermen . At no extra cost, we could turn them from the rapists of the oceans into their guardians. Yet The End of the Line has one flaw – and it is one that riddles current environmental thought. It presents us with a great earth-altering crisis, and then says our primary response should be to change our own personal consumption habits. It urges people not to buy from Nobu, which shamefully still sells bluefin tuna, and to ask if the fish we buy is sustainably produced. It's like the end of An Inconvenient Truth, where the primary response Al Gore presses on us is to shop green and change our lightblubs. Of course this is valuable – but it is only an anemic and minor first step. It is rather like, in 1937, reacting to the rise of Nazism by urging people to make sure that they personally weren't killing any Jews or gays or Jehovah's Witnesses, or buying from any Nazi-owned companies. We needed collective action that would stop other people from killing these minorities – just as today we need collective action that prevents anyone from irreparably trashing the means of life. At the moment, many good people get anxious about environmental issues,

and hear the message that The Response is to scrub their own lifestyle clean. Yet individual voluntary action by a minority of nice people will not save the bluefin tuna, never mind the ecosystem. But if all these honourable people act together – by volunteering for, and donating to, organizations like Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and Plane Stupid – they can change the law, so everybody will be required to change their behaviour, not just a benevolent 10 per cent. It was just such determined minorities armed with the facts that spurred the fights against slavery, colonialism and fascism. When you respond as a consumer, you are weak; when you respond as a citizen, you are strong. The voice of millions of people can drown out the concentrated power of the fishing industry – and all the other industries with a vested interest in trashing

our planet – but not with the swipe of a credit card. The alternative to collective action today is catastrophe tomorrow.

As Charles Clover explains: "When the human population comes under pressure on land because of global warming, when we are running out of ways to feed ourselves, we [will] have just squandered one of the greatest resources on the planet – wild fish." The epitaph for the human species would turn out to have been scripted by Douglas Adams: so long, and thanks for all the fish.

90% of big fish have disappeared due to overfishing, the time to act is nowLevitt in 2013(Overfished and under-protected: Oceans on the brink of catastrophic collapse By Tom Levitt, for CNN March 27, 2013 http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/22/world/oceans-overfishing-climate-change/)

(CNN) -- As the human footprint has spread, the remaining wildernesses on our planet have retreated. However, dive just a few meters below the ocean surface and you will enter a world where humans very rarely venture. In many ways, it is the forgotten world on Earth. A ridiculous thought when you consider that oceans make up 90% of the living volume of the planet and are home to more than one million species, ranging from the largest animal on the planet -- the blue whale -- to one of the weirdest -- the blobfish. Remoteness, however, has not left the oceans and their inhabitants unaffected by humans, with overfishing, climate change and pollution destabilizing marine environments across the world.

Many marine scientists consider overfishing to be the greatest of these threats. The Census of Marine Life, a decade-long international survey of ocean life completed in 2010, estimated that 90% of the big fish had disappeared from the world's oceans, victims primarily of overfishing. "Anywhere you go and try to harvest fish with a trawl you are going to destroy any coral that lives there, and there is example after example of the damage that is done by trawlers Ron O'Dor, senior scientist on the Census of Marine Life Tens of thousands of bluefin tuna were caught every year in the North Sea in the 1930s and 1940s. Today, they have disappeared across the seas of Northern Europe. Halibut has suffered a similar fate, largely vanishing from the North Atlantic in the 19th century. Opinion: Probing the ocean's undiscovered depths In some cases, the collapse has spread to entire fisheries. The remaining fishing trawlers in the Irish Sea, for example, bring back nothing more than prawns and scallops, says marine biologist Callum Roberts, from the UK's York University. "Is a smear of protein the sort of marine environment we want or need? No, we need one with a variety of species, that is going to be more resistant to the conditions we can expect from climate change," Roberts said. The situation is even

worse in Southeast Asia. In Indonesia, people are now fishing for juvenile fish and protein that they can grind into fishmeal and use as feed for coastal prawn farms. "It's heading towards an end game ," laments Roberts. Trawling towards disaster One particular type of fishing, bottom-trawling, is blamed for some of the worst and unnecessary damage. It involves dropping a large net, around 60 meters-wide in some cases, into the sea and dragging it along with heavy weights from a trawler. Marine conservationists compare it to a bulldozer, with the nets pulled for as far as 20km, picking up turtles, coral and anything else in their path. The

bycatch, unwanted fish and other ocean life thrown back into the sea, can amount to as much as 90% of a trawl's total catch. Upwards of one million sea turtles were estimated to have been killed as by catch during the period 1990-2008, according to a report published in Conservation Letters in 2010, and many of the species are on the IUCN's list of threatened species. Campaigners, with the support of marine scientists, have repeatedly tried to persuade countries to agree to an international ban, arguing that the indiscriminate nature of bottom-trawling is causing irreversible damage to coral reefs and slow-growing fish species, which can take decades to reach maturity and are therefore slow to replenish their numbers. Opinion: Deep sea fishing is 'oceanocide' "It's akin to someone plowing up a wildflower meadow, just because they can," says Roberts. Others have compared it to the deforestation of tropical rainforests. Bottom-trawling's knock-on impacts are best illustrated by the plight of the deep-sea fish, the orange roughy (also known as slimeheads) whose populations have been reduced by more than 90%, according to marine scientists. Orange roughys are found on, or around, mineral-rich seamounts that often form coral and act as feeding and spawning hubs for a variety of marine life. "Anywhere you go and try to harvest fish with a trawl you are going to destroy any coral that lives there, and there is example after example of the damage that is done by trawlers," says Ron O'Dor, a senior scientist on the Census of Marine Life. "The disturbing truth is that humans are having unrecognized impacts on every part of the ocean, and there is much we have not seen that will disappear before we ever get a chance Ron O'Dor, marine biologist "If I ruled the world, they would be banned, they're just such a destructive method of catching fish. Fishermen have other methods, such as long-line, that cause far less damage. "The disturbing truth is that humans are having unrecognized impacts on every part of the ocean, and there is much we have not seen that will disappear before we ever get a chance," says O'Dor, who is also a professor of marine biology at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada. Acid test for marine species At the same time

fisheries and vital marine ecosystems like coral are being decimated, the oceans continue to provide vital services, absorbing up to one third of human carbon dioxide emissions while producing 50% of all the oxygen we breathe. Hi-res gallery: Extraordinary creatures of the Great Barrier Reef But absorbing increasing quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2) has come at a cost, increasing the acidity of the water. "The two worst things in my mind happening to oceans are global warming and ocean acidification," says O'Dor, "They're going to have terrible effects on coral reefs. Because of acidification essentially, the coral can't grow and it's going to dissolve away." The ocean has become 30% more acidic since the start of The Industrial Revolution in the 18th century and is predicted to be 150% more acidic by the end of this century, according to a UNESCO report published last year. "There's a coral reef off Norway that was discovered in 2007 and it's likely to be dead by 2020," says O'Dor. "The problem is that the acidification is worse near the Poles because low temperature water dissolves more acid. Starting from the Pole and working south these reefs are going to suffer extensively." Current estimates suggest 30% of coral reefs will be endangered by 2050, says O'Dor, because of the effects of ocean acidification

and global warming. Higher acidity also disrupts marine organisms' ability to grow, reproduce and respire. The Census of Marine Life reported that phytoplankton, the microscopic plants producing most of the oxygen from the oceans, have been declining by around 1% a year since 1900. "We need to fish less and in less destructive measures, waste less, pollute less and protect more Callum Roberts, Marine biologist The falling numbers of smaller, but lesser known species and plant life has significant impact further up the marine food chain. For example, seabirds which used to visit and breed on Spitsbergen -- a Norwegian island near the Arctic -- are being wiped out because of changes in their previously abundant food sources. Bringing law and order to ocean protection "There's a real lack of public and political awareness of these issues," says Alex Rogers, professor of conservation biology at the UK's Oxford University. "They're too big to understand in economic terms. We can put a value on the loss of fishing, but how can we put a value on oxygen production or the absorption of carbon dioxide?" he says. The problem is that most of the world's ocean is located outside of international law and legal control. Any attempts to implement rules and regulation come with the problem of

enforcement, says Rogers, who is also scientific director of the International Program on State of the Ocean (IPSO). Marine conservationists estimate that at least 30% of the oceans need to be covered by marine protected areas, where fishing and the newly emerging deep-sea mining of valuable minerals on the seabed, is banned or restricted. Callum Roberts, who helped form the first network of marine protected areas in the high seas in 2010, says on their own they are not enough. "I could sum it up as: we need to fish less and in less destructive measures, waste less, pollute less and protect more," says

Roberts. "This change of course will see us rebuild the abundance, variety and vitality of life in the sea which will give the oceans the resilience they need to weather the difficult times ahead. Without such action, our future is bleak."

.

Overfishing unsustainableOverfishing is unsustainable- we are on the brink of collapsing ocean ecosystems and running out of fishDAVID FESTA, DIANE REGAS, and JUDSON BOOMHOWER in 2013, Festa is director, Diane Regas is managing director, and Judson Boomhower is a fellow of the Oceans Program at Environmental Defense in Washington, DC, Sharing the Catch, Conserving the Fish, Issues in Science and Technology, http://issues.org/24-2/festa/

Even environmental experts are often surprised to learn the extent of the damage that overfishing already has caused in the oceans.

Overfishing is defined as fishing that unsustainably depletes fish stocks and nonfished species or that damages the

ocean environment. The term encompasses overexploitation of a target species, killing of nontargeted species

(bycatch), and habitat destruction in which important physical features of the ocean environment are damaged. Globally, 90% of large fish are already gone. During the past 40 years, as stocks have disappeared, bigger boats have gone farther and deeper to find new fish. This unsustainable fishing effort has extended to the furthest reaches of the globe and down the

food chain. The effects are being felt as people have less access to this important source of protein and as fish-consuming species such as seabirds and whales lose out in an intense competition with humans . The United States manages one of the largest ocean areas of any country, and the effects of overfishing in these waters are dramatic. Of 230 fish stocks (individual species or groups of related species) under federal management, 94 are known to be unsustainably exploited. For example, cod, long the staple of many diets and a main driver of North American exploration, are severely depleted. Atlantic halibut have been hunted to commercial extinction. Bocaccio, one of several highly depleted Pacific rockfish species, have been reduced to less than 10% of their historical population size in West Coast waters. Large predatory fish, including tuna, sharks, marlin, and swordfish, are largely gone. In the Gulf of Mexico, whitetip shark populations are at 1%

of what they were in the 1950s. Most of the several species of abalone in California have been harvested to near extinction. This mismanagement of fishery resources has resulted in boomand- bust cycles in individual fisheries and economic dislocation as catches collapse and regulations are tightened to protect stocks .

The world is running out of fish, current methods of fishing are unsustainableVince 12, Vince, Gaia. Gaia is a science writer and broadcaster who is particularly interested in how humans are transforming planet Earth and the impacts our changes are having on societies and on other species "How the World's Oceans Could Be Running out of Fish." BBC Future. Smart Planet, 21 Sept. 2012. http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120920-are-we-running-out-of-fish Web. 30 June 2014. CS

Global fish stocks are exploited or depleted to such an extent that without urgent measures we may be the last generation to catch food from the oceans. It has been some time since most humans lived as hunter-gatherers – with one

important exception. Fish are the last wild animal that we hunt in large numbers. And yet, we may be the last generation

to do so. Entire species of marine life will never be seen in the Anthropocene (the Age of Man), let alone tasted, if we do not curb our insatiable voracity for fish. Last year, global fish consumption hit a record high of 17 kg (37

pounds) per person per year, even though global fish stocks have continued to decline. On average, people eat four times as much fish now than they did in 1950. Around 85% of global fish stocks are over-exploited, depleted, fully exploited or in recovery from exploitation. Only this week, a report suggested there may be fewer than 100 cod over the age of 13 years in the North Sea between the United Kingdom and Scandinavia. The figure is still

under dispute, but it’s a worrying sign that we could be losing fish old enough to create offspring that replenish populations. Large areas of seabed in the Mediterranean and North Sea now resemble a desert – the seas have been expunged of fish using increasingly efficient methods such as bottom trawling. And now, these heavily subsidised

industrial fleets are cleaning up tropical oceans too. One-quarter of the EU catch is now made outside European waters,

much of it in previously rich West African seas, where each trawler can scoop up hundreds of thousands of kilos of fish in a day. All West African fisheries are now over-exploited, coastal fisheries have declined 50% in the past 30 years, according to the UN Food

and Agriculture Organisation. Catches in the tropics are expected to decline a further 40% by 2050, and yet some 400 million people in Africa and Southeast Asia rely on fish caught (mainly through artisanal fishing) to provide their protein and minerals. With climate change expected to impact agricultural production, people are going to rely more than ever on fish for their nutritional needs. The policy of subsidising vast fishing fleets to catch ever-diminishing stocks is unsustainable. In Spain, for example, one in three fish landed is paid for by subsidy. Governments, concerned with keeping jobs alive in the fishing industry in the short-term, are essentially paying people to extinguish their own long-term job prospects – not to mention the effect on the next generation of fishermen. Artisanal fishing catches half the world’s fish, yet it provides 90% of the sector’s jobs.

Fish populations are on the brink of extinction – unsustainable fishing methods are changing ecological communitiesBennett 12, Bennett, Dashiel, Reporter. "We're Going to Run Out of Fish." The Wire. The Atlantic Monthly Group, 21 Mar. 2012. http://www.thewire.com/global/2012/05/were-going-run-out-fish/52581/ Web. 01 July 2014. CS

As you can see, the amount of fish we harvest each year has skyrocketed (from 19 million tons to 87 million tons), but with improved techniques and increased production we're now in danger of depleting fish stocks all around globe. Some major commercial fish, like the bluefin tuna are being pushed to the brink of extinction and many others are near "collapse," which means a catch dropping to less than 10 percent of peak catch.

We're eating them faster than they can replace themselves and our propensity to harvest fish at the top of the food chains, trickles down to affect the entire ecosystem of our water. From the report: Targeted fishing of top predators has changed whole ecological communities, with increasing abundance of smaller marine animals at lower trophic levels as a consequence of the larger species being removed .

This in turn has an impact on the growth of algae and coral health. The overall theme of the report is that we're burning through our food resources at an unsustainable rate. (The WWF says we're consuming the equivalent of one and a half Earths every year.) The good news is that it isn't too late to reverse the trend, without cutting out fishing and eating fish altogether. The bad news is that attempts to place strict quotas on

fisherman have been undermined by lobbying efforts and a lack of international consensus. No one wants to slow the speed with which we harvest the oceans, but if we're not careful, the oceans will do that job for us.

Overfishing = Eco-collapseOverfishing is a serious threat to ocean ecosystems, 70% of fisheries are being exploited DUJS in 2012(The Threats of Overfishing: Consequences at the Commercial Level by DUJS March 11, 2012 Dartmouth Undergraduate Journal of Science http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/winter-2012/the-threats-of-overfishing-consequences-at-the-commercial-level)

According to marine ecologists, overfishing is the greatest threat to ocean ecosystems today (1). Overfishing occurs because fish are captured at a faster rate than they can reproduce (2). Advanced fishing technology and an increased demand for fish

have led to overfishing, causing several marine species to become extinct or endangered as a result (3, 4). In the long-term, overfishing can have a devastating impact on ocean communities as it destabilizes the food chain and destroys the natural habitats of many aquatic species (2). In the past, fishing was more sustainable because fishermen could not access every location and because they had a limited capacity for fish aboard their vessels. Today, however, small trawlers and fishing boats have been replaced by giant factory ships that can capture and process extremely large amounts of prey at a given time (2). These ships use sonar instruments and global positioning systems (GPS) to rapidly locate large schools of fish (1). Fishing lines are deployed with thousands of large hooks that can reach areas up to 120 kilometers deep. The trawling vessels and machines can even reach depths of 170 kilometers and can store an extraordinarily large volume of fish. Each year, these huge trawling ships comb an area twice the size of the United States. They use massive nets 50 meters wide with the capacity to pull the weight of a medium-sized plane (2). They also have several plants for processing and packing fish, large freezing systems, fishmeal processing plants, and powerful engines that can carry this enormous fishing gear around the ocean. Because these ships have all the equipment necessary to freeze and tin fish, they only need to return to their base once they are full. Even when the ships are filled, however, the fish are often transferred to refrigerated vessels in the middle of the ocean and are processed for consumption later (4). As such, industrial fishing has expanded considerably and fishermen can now explore new shores and deeper waters to

keep up with the increased demand for seafood. In fact, it has been reported by the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) that over 70 percent of the world’s fisheries are either ‘fully exploited’, ‘over exploited’ or ‘significantly depleted’ (5). The annual total global catch of fish is 124 million metric tons, which is equivalent in weight to 378 Empire State Buildings (2). Fishing gear is often non-selective in the fish it targets. For example, any fish that are too big to get through the mesh of a net are captured. Therefore, overfishing does not only threaten the species of fish that is targeted for food, but also many non-target species. As a result, these other species, including marine mammals and seabirds, are accidentally caught in the fishing gear

and killed (6). For example, for every ton of prawn caught, three tons of other fish are killed and thrown away.

Those in the trade refer to this practice of inadvertent catching of other species as bycatch (4). The FAO has pointed out that about 25 percent of the world’s captured fish end up thrown overboard because they are caught unintentionally, are illegal market species, or are of inferior quality and size. Many of the fish caught this way include endangered and over exploited species, 95 percent of which are eventually thrown away (2). Bycatch is not just limited to just unwanted fish, but rather affects all types of marine life, including whales, dolphins, porpoises, fur seals, albatrosses, and turtles. For example, tuna fisheries are indirectly responsible for the deaths of an estimated one million sharks annually due to bycatch. Small cetaceans, such as dolphins and porpoises, are also targets of bycatch as they are often caught in fishing nets. In fact, hundreds of dolphin corpses are washed up on the beaches of Europe every year, bringing attention to the growing scale of this problem (6). Many modern fishing methods are also irreversibly destructive. For example, bottom trawling, a technique that uses extremely wide nets armed with heavy metal rollers, can crush everything in the path of the gear, destroying fragile corals, smashing rock formations, and killing several tons of fish and

animals as bycatch (7). As such, these practices can wreak havoc on delicate marine ecosystems. Not surprisingly, it has been reported that industrial fishing takes between only 10 and 15 years to wipe out a tenth of whichever species it targets (2). In fact, several marine species have already been fished to commercial extinction, and this number is rapidly increasing (1). One of the reasons for this is that the regulation of fishing vessels and the fishing industry is universally inadequate. Roughly two-thirds of the ocean is free of laws and fishing vessels only follow the laws ratified by their country of origin. However, most fishing countries have not ratified any international convention to protect the sea or marine life (2). Moreover, fishing factory ships and companies are given access to fisheries before the long–term impact of their fishing practices is understood (1). Today, the number of fish caught worldwide is actually shrinking as the fishing industry is in decline from many years of overfishing (2). The year 1988 was the first time in human history that global wild fish catches dropped and they have continued to fall ever since. In European waters, four out of every five known fish stocks are already beyond safe biological limits (7). Illegal and unreported fishing have also contributed a great deal to the depletion of the oceans and continues to be a serious problem. A new study conducted by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) found that 5 out of the 8 tuna species are at risk of extinction (8). All three species of

bluefin tuna, for example, are threatened with extinction and are at a population that makes their recovery practically irreversible (2). The IUCN has also reported that freshwater fish are among the most endangered species, with more than a third facing extinction. Not surprisingly, among those at the greatest risk are species like the Mekong giant catfish, the freshwater stingray, and the European eel, which are used to make some of the most expensive caviars. The Mekong giant catfish is the closest to extinction, with as few as 250 left. Overfishing has reduced the numbers of Mekong freshwater stingray by over 50 percent in Southeast Asia and has reduced the giant Mekong salmon carp population by over 90 percent (9). As previously mentioned, shark populations have also been greatly affected by overfishing. There are already more than 135 species of shark on the IUCN’s list of endangered animals and more are being added each year. For example, the number of scalloped hammerhead shark has decreased by 99% over the past 30 years. Other species recently added to the endangered list include the smooth hammerhead, shortfin mako, common thresher, big-eye thresher, silky, tiger, bull, and dusky (10). Besides being caught as bycatch, sharks are now also being targeted by commercial fishermen for their fins which can fetch a substantial price on the Asian food market. Sharks are particularly vulnerable to exploitation because they have long life spans, are exceptionally slow to mature (taking as long as 16 years in some cases), and are relatively unprolific breeders (11). Recent reports suggest that over fishing has caused a 90% decline in shark populations across the world’s oceans and up to 99% along the US east coast, which are some of the best managed waters in the world. Because sharks are at the top of the food chain, a decline in their numbers has devastating consequences on marine ecosystems (10). Overfishing impacts not just the particular species that is exploited, but also damages other species of fish and disrupts local ecosystems. The stability of ecological communities depends largely on the interactions between predators and prey (12). Thereby, the balance of the food chain is disturbed when certain species are removed. As a result, many ocean species are disappearing and losing their habitats. The evolutionary process of marine species is also being altered, causing cycles of premature reproduction and relative decreases in the size of fish across generations. As predators diminish, the populations of smaller fish escalate because they were previously the food source of the bigger fish. In addition, the disappearance of these species affects many other species, like seabirds and sea mammals, which are vulnerable to the lack of food (2). A recent study found that overfishing is also decreasing the genetic diversity of fish worldwide. Diversity is projected to be reduced further if overfishing continues at the same rate (13). This has serious effects on nutrient recycling in marine ecosystems because fish species vary widely in their rates of nitrogen and phosphorus excretion. As such, altering fish communities creates divergent nutrient recycling patterns and disrupts the functioning of the ecosystem. Recently conducted studies in lakes affected by overfishing show that loss of species contributes to a decline in nutrient recycling

and destabilizes the ecosystem (14). While it is often overlooked for other environmental issues, overfishing has historically caused more ecological extinction than any other human influence on coastal ecosystems, including water pollution (5). Unfortunately, due to a lack of data, the extent of this damage has only recently been recognized (15). Given that fishing is a food source for millions of people, attempting to solve the problem of overfishing not easy, especially for developing countries. Nevertheless, scientists and the UN Committee for Sustainable Development have called for a restoration of depleted fisheries and

continue to stress the importance of stricter fishing regulations in oceans and inland waters (5). Sustainable fishing will be a necessary goal in counterbalancing depletion in fisheries and re–stabilizing coastal ecosystems.

Overfishing is the biggest environmental crisis facing ocean ecosystems- it threatens entire collapse in the short termDAVID FESTA, DIANE REGAS, and JUDSON BOOMHOWER in 2013, Festa is director, Diane Regas is managing director, and Judson Boomhower is a fellow of the Oceans Program at Environmental Defense in Washington, DC, Sharing the Catch, Conserving the Fish, Issues in Science and Technology, http://issues.org/24-2/festa/

Additionally, overfishing has broad ecosystem impacts. For example, bottom trawling, in which boats drag gear and nets along the seafloor, can damage deepwater corals, sponges, and other features important for commercial and noncommercial species. Some types of fishing gear also cause very high bycatch, including juvenile fish and threatened or endangered animals such as whales, sea turtles, and seabirds. Large-scale biomass removals by fishermen can have unpredictable effects on ocean food chains. Ecological research suggests that kelp forest food chains have been totally changed by fishing. Two major blue ribbon commissions, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission, concluded that the United States faces an ocean crisis. And although climate change is a serious threat to future ocean productivity , overfishing has had a bigger impact . The United Nations–mandated Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, the most thorough look at Earth’s ecosystems ever, concluded that overfishing is “ having the most widespread and the dominant direct impact on food provisioning services, which will affect future generations.”

Overfishing disrupts ecosystems and causes overgrowth of hazardous speciesSchei and Vidas in 2011

(Peter Johan and Davor, “The World Ocean in Globalisation : Climate Change, Sustainable Fisheries, Biodiversity, Shipping, Regional Issues”, Leiden : Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. 2011, EBSCO)

In terms of ecosystem effects, heavy fishing pressures act to simplify marine ecosystems so that they become dominated by small fishes, squid, jellyfish, and microbes.’7 Bottom-fishing impacts can reduce once structurally-complex habitat to featureless muddy bottom.’ The loss of structural and genetic diversity impairs the ability of marine communities to adapt to changing conditions, making them more vulnerable to environment al stresses and climate change. q ¡ leavy fishing is of course not the only pressure that marine

ecosystems are experiencing, but the synergistic impacts of overfishing in combination with other stressors are increasingly severe. The explosion of jellyfish populations now plaguing beaches in many parts of the world, for example. reflects a combination of severe overfishing of natural predators like tuna, sharks and swordfish; rising sea temperatures,

caused mainly by global warming; and pollution that has depleted oxygen levels in coastal shallows.20 Jellyfish blooms are a health

hazard to beachgoers and fishermen. But, as noted by Dr. Josep-María Gill, a leading jellyfish expert in Spain, ‘the big problem is not

on the beach. It’s what’s happening in the seas.’ It is widely recognised that the status quo is no longer acceptable. But

so far, only limited progress has been made, primarily with respect to the impacts of deep-sea bottom fishing on vulnerable seabed ecosystems. This progress is the direct result of global frustration crystallised in the 2006 United

Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution on sustainable fisheries (61/105) which called for immediate action by states and

RFMOs to either manage deep-sea fisheries to prevent significant adverse impacts on deep-sea biodiversity (vulnerable marine ecosystems), or not allow them to proceed. A UNGA review of progress in 2009 resulted in a call for acceler ated efforts and a further review in September 2011. While it remains to be seen how effectively this resolution is implemented, it has, together with the global scrutiny accompanying it, served to stimulate progress. Nevertheless, more is needed to confront the problems that face high seas fisheries in the 21 st

century. We need: — to find innovative ways to safeguard ocean health and resilience; — to improve our management institutions; — to eradicate IIJU fishing; and — to harness modem technologies to serve the common good.

Overfishing causes ecological extinction and is a catalyst for other ecosystem collapseJackson 1(Jeremy B.C., Kirby, Michael X., Berger, Wolfgang H., Bjorndal, Karen A., Botsford, Louis W., Bourque, Bruce J., Bradbury, Roger H., Cooke, Richard, Earlandson, Jon, Estes, James A., Hughes, Terence P., Kidwell, Susan, Lange, Carina B., Lenihan, Hunter S., Pandolfi, John M., Peterson, Charles H., Steneck, Robert S., Tegner, Mia J., Warner, Robert R, “HISTORICAL OVERFISHING AND THE RECENT COLLAPSE OF COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS”, Ecology Through Time, Vol. 293, Issue 5530, EBSCO)

Ecological extinction caused by overfishing precedes art other pervasive human disturbance to coastal ecosystems, including pollution, degradation of water quality, and anthropogenic climate change. Historical

abundances of large consumer species were fantastically large in comparison with recent observations. Paleoecological, archaeological, and historical data show that time lags of decades to centuries occurred between the onset of overfishing and consequent changes in ecological communities, because unfished species of similar trophic level assumed the ecological roles of overfished species until they too were overfished or died of epidemic diseases related to overcrowding. Retrospective data not only help to clarify underlying causes and rates of ecological change, but they also demonstrate achievable goats for restoration and management of coastal ecosystems that could not even be contemplated based on the limited perspective of recent observations atone.Few modern ecological studies take into account the former natural abundances of large marine vertebrates. There are dozens of places in the Caribbean named after large sea turtles whose adult populations now number in the tens of thousands rather than the tens of millions of a few centuries ago (1, 2). Whales, manatees, dugongs, sea cows, monk seals, crocodiles, codfish, jewfish, swordfish, sharks, and rays are other large marine vertebrates that are now functionally or entirely extinct in most coastal ecosystems (3-10). Place names for oysters, pearls, and conches conjure up other ecological ghosts of marine invertebrates that were once

so abundant as to pose hazards to navigation (11), but are witnessed now only by massive garbage heaps of empty shells.

Such ghosts represent a far more profound problem for ecological understanding and management than currently realized. Evidence from retrospective records strongly suggests that major structural and functional changes due to overfishing (12) occurred worldwide in coastal marine ecosystems over many centuries. Severe overfishing drives species to ecological extinction because overfished populations no longer interact significantly with other species in the community (5). Overfishing and ecological extinction predate and precondition modern ecological investigations and the collapse of marine ecosystems in recent times , raising the possibility that many more marine ecosystems may be vulnerable to collapse in the near future.

Current fishing practices have the potential to destroy the ocean’s ecosystems through overfishingDartmouth 2012 (Dartmouth Undergraduate Journal of Science, Peer reviewed articles from Dartmouth’s undergraduates, The Threats of Overfishing: Consequences at the Commercial Level, March 17, 2012, http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/winter-2012/the-threats-of-overfishing-consequences-at-the-commercial-level#.U7IP9r-vt69, SM)

According to marine ecologists, overfishing is the greatest threat to ocean ecosystems today . Overfishing occurs because fish are captured at a faster rate than they can reproduce. Advanced fishing technology and an increased demand for fish have

led to overfishing, causing several marine species to become extinct or endangered as a result. In the long-term, overfishing can have a devastating impact on ocean communities as it destabilizes the food chain and destroys the natural habitats of many aquatic species.¶ In the past, fishing was more sustainable because fishermen could not access every location and because they had a limited capacity for fish aboard their vessels. Today, however, small trawlers and fishing boats have been replaced by giant factory ships that can capture and process extremely large amounts of prey at a given time. These ships use sonar instruments and global positioning systems (GPS) to rapidly locate large schools of fish . Fishing lines are deployed with thousands of large hooks that can reach areas up to 120 kilometers deep. The trawling vessels and machines can even reach depths of 170 kilometers and can

store an extraordinarily large volume of fish. Each year, these huge trawling ships comb an area twice the size of the United States. They use massive nets 50 meters wide with the capacity to pull the weight of a medium-sized plane. They also have several plants for processing and packing fish, large freezing systems, fishmeal processing plants, and powerful engines that can carry this enormous fishing gear around the ocean. Because these ships have all the equipment necessary to freeze and tin fish, they only need to return to their base once they are full. Even when the ships are filled, however, the fish are often transferred to refrigerated vessels in the middle of the ocean and are processed for consumption later. As such, industrial fishing has expanded considerably and fishermen can now explore new shores and deeper waters to keep up with the increased demand for seafood. In fact, it has been reported by the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) that over 70 percent of the world’s fisheries are either ‘fully exploited’, ‘over exploited’ or ‘significantly depleted’. The annual total global catch of fish is 124 million metric tons, which is equivalent in weight to 378 Empire

State Buildings .¶ Fishing gear is often non-selective in the fish it targets. For example, any fish that are too big to get through the mesh of a net are captured. Therefore, overfishing does not only threaten the species of fish that is targeted for food, but also many non-target species. As a result, these other species, including marine mammals and seabirds, are accidentally caught in the fishing gear

and killed. For example, for every ton of prawn caught, three tons of other fish are killed and thrown away.

Those in the trade refer to this practice of inadvertent catching of other species as bycatch . The FAO has pointed out that about 25 percent of the world’s captured fish end up thrown overboard because they are caught unintentionally, are illegal market species, or are of inferior quality and size. Many of the fish caught this way include endangered and over exploited species, 95 percent

of which are eventually thrown away. Bycatch is not just limited to just unwanted fish, but rather affects all types of marine life, including whales, dolphins, porpoises, fur seals, albatrosses, and turtles. For example, tuna fisheries are indirectly responsible for the deaths of an estimated one million sharks annually due to bycatch. Small cetaceans, such as dolphins and porpoises, are also targets of bycatch as they are often caught in fishing nets. In fact, hundreds of dolphin corpses are washed up on the beaches of Europe every

year, bringing attention to the growing scale of this problem.¶ Many modern fishing methods are also irreversibly destructive. For example, bottom trawling, a technique that uses extremely wide nets armed with heavy

metal rollers, can crush everything in the path of the gear, destroying fragile corals, smashing rock formations, and killing several tons of fish and animals as bycatch. As such, these practices can wreak havoc on delicate marine ecosystems.¶ Not surprisingly, it has been reported that industrial fishing takes between only 10 and 15 years to wipe out a tenth of whichever species it targets. In fact, several marine species have already been fished to commercial extinction, and this number is rapidly increasing. One of the reasons for this is that the regulation of fishing vessels and the fishing industry is universally inadequate. Roughly two-thirds of the ocean is free of laws and fishing vessels only follow the laws ratified by their country of origin. However, most fishing countries have not ratified any international convention to protect the sea or marine life. Moreover, fishing factory ships and companies are given access

to fisheries before the long–term impact of their fishing practices is understood…¶ While it is often overlooked for other environmental issues, overfishing has historically caused more ecological extinction than any other human influence on coastal ecosystems, including water pollution. Unfortunately, due to a lack of data, the extent of this damage has only recently been recognized.¶ Given that fishing is a food source for millions of people, attempting to solve the problem of overfishing not easy, especially for developing countries. Nevertheless, scientists and the UN Committee for Sustainable Development have called for a restoration of depleted fisheries and continue to stress the importance of stricter fishing regulations in oceans and inland waters. Sustainable fishing will be a necessary goal in counterbalancing depletion in fisheries and re–stabilizing coastal ecosystems.

Overfishing risks full ecological catastrophe and the end of fish suppliesRenton ’08 (Alex, ecologist and writer for the Observer, 5/10/08, How the world's oceans are running out of fish, The Observer, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/may/11/fishing.food, accessed: 7/1/14 GA)

The future of our seas has never been more precarious. Ninety years of industrial-scale overfishing has brought us to the brink of an ecological catastrophe and deprived millions of their livelihoods . As scientific guidelines are ignored and catches become ever bigger, Alex Renton tells why the international community has failed to act It is early morning in Barcelona's La Boqueria market and the fish stallholders are setting out their wares. Mounds of pink and grey glisten down the dim alleys - shoppers and tourists peering at the fins and tentacles. It is not like any fish shop in Britain - some stalls sell five different species of squid and cuttlefish, half a dozen types of shrimp and prawn, 10 different cuts of salt cod. It is a fish eater's haven in the heart of a city that eats and sells

more fish than anywhere else in Europe. Anyone who cares about where their fish come from - and this should mean anyone who wants to go on eating them - should take two tools when they visit the fishmonger. One is the handy guidance provided by the Marine Conservation Society, Fish to Avoid and Fish to Eat (the latter is still the longer); the other is a ruler. My ruler is the type handed out to commercial fishermen by the international advisory body, Incofish, and has pictures of key species with marks indicating when they can be considered mature (and, thus, OK to catch). So I set about lining up my ruler against the La Boqueria fish, starting with the mackerel (should be 34cm), the plaice (39cm) and the redfish (45cm). All turn out to be mere babies. The mackerel is half the designated length. A glance around the stalls shows 10 or more species on the MCS's Avoid list, including hake, swordfish, monkfish, bluefin tuna and, of course, cod. I don't spend much time doing this because the Catalan fishmongers don't like my ruler - or me. They don't want to talk about why they are selling tiny hake (one of Europe's most endangered species) and why not a single fish in the market has any 'sustainable' labelling. One old lady asks me what I'm after. 'I want to know why the Spanish are eating so many undersized fish from populations that are running out,' I say. 'It's simple,' she says. 'We like fish and small fish taste better.' Is anyone not aware that wild fish are in deep trouble? That three-quarters of commercially caught species are over-exploited or

exploited to their maximum? Do they not know that industrial fishing is so inefficient that a third of the catch, some 32 million tonnes a year, is thrown away? For every ocean prawn you eat, fish weighing 10-20 times as much have been thrown overboard. These figures all come from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO),

which also claims that, of all the world's natural resources, fish are being depleted the fastest. With even the most abundant commercial species, we eat smaller and smaller fish every year - we eat the babies before they can breed. Callum Roberts, professor of marine conservation at York University, predicts that by 2050 we will only be able to meet the fish protein needs of half the world population: all that will be left for the unlucky half may be, as he puts it, 'jellyfish and slime'. Ninety years of industrial-scale exploitation of fish has, he and most scientists agree, led to 'ecological meltdown'. Whole biological food chains have been destroyed. Many of those fish you can see in such glorious abundance in Spanish markets - and on our own supermarket shelves - come not from European seas but from the coasts of the continents of the poor: Africa, South America and parts of Asia

Timeframe- 2048/2050Overfishing is on the rise, threatening ecological collapse of ocean resources by 2050BAI Yang and WANG Ling in 2014 College of Law, Shandong University of Technology, Zibo 255049, China, Legal Substance and Prospects of a Fishery Quota, Management System, J. Resour. Ecol. 2014 5 (1) 091-096, EBSCO

Overfishing means that fishing effort is beyond a reasonable level so as to cause fish degradation, catch quality decline, cost increases, poverty and other consequences. It can be reflected by over-investment on fishing boats, fishing nets and other fishing equipment and extension of fishing operation time, that is, too many fishing boats catch too few fishes (Li and Chen 2009). In accordance with statistics, fishing effort has climbed for decades due to competitive overfishing worldwide. Marine fishery catch output increased from 18.5 million tons in 1952 to 89 million tons in 1989, up more than 400%. Annual fish catch has fallen year by year and shows no sign of recovery . According to the latest FAO report, global marine fishing output reached 81.9 million tons in 2006, the third lowest output since 1994 (FAO 2008). As pointed out by the Global Environment Outlook Report, global fishery resources available for commercial fishing may be depleted before 2050 if no practical means of protection are taken (UNEP 2008). Humans must take a practical management approach to deal with such a severe ecological and overfishing crisis and this has indeed become a top priority .

Must stop overfishing now or we face a global fishery collapse by 2050Si 14 (Geoffrey, undergraduate student at Northeastern University, currently working for the United Nations, First Committee (Disarmament). As a research fellow at the Geneva office of the United Nations he researched and wrote an article on the current state of oceans, “THE PLAGUE OF OVERFISHING: GLOBAL FISHERIES PREDICTED TO COLLAPSE BY 2050”, Diplomatic Courier, June 27, 2014, http://www.diplomaticourier.com/news/topics/environment/2248-the-plague-of-overfishing-global-fisheries-predicted-to-collapse-by-2050)

The fishing industry is a billion dollar enterprise that provides livelihood and survival for billions of people.

According to a 2012 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the fishing industry is worth over $200 billion and products of this industry provide 3 billion people over 20 percent of their total protein consumed. Without question, this is an invaluable industry that affects people worldwide. However, trends do not look favorable for the longevity of the industry, with some experts warning that fisheries globally can collapse as early as 2050. With so many problems plaguing our oceans, overfishing threatens to destroy many species and has already done irreparable damage to species like the Bluefin Tuna, Swordfish, and Sturgeon. These species fall under the “large predatory fish” (LPF) category, a group that has been over 90 percent overfished. Large predatory fish are highly sought after, given the high price they fetch; the prospect of making large profit led to nonstop

fishing of these species, robbing them the time necessary to breed and repopulate. It is not only the LPF that are being

overfished. Fishing fleets per country greatly outnumber the demand. For example, the UK, with over 6000 ships, has one of the largest fishing fleets in the European Union (EU). However, 2012 data shows the UK having a 5 percent increase in the total amount of

product landed, yet with a 7 percent decrease in value. This proves that an increase in the number of fishing vessels does not translate to an increase in the catch they wish to land. Furthermore, the increase in fishing fleets means another unfortunate consequence: by-catch. By-catch is simply defined as “the unwanted fish and other marine creatures caught during commercial fishing for a different species,” and is a major problem plaguing the current fishing industry. Fishing fleets go out to sea with specific goals in mind, aware that only certain species will return them a profit. Thus, they only keep the fish that will net them the greatest profit and dispose of any other species that might be caught by accident. By-catch, according to experts, can comprise of anywhere from 8 to 25 percent of global catch. These animals tossed overboard can range from turtles

to sharks and inedible fish, though some edible fish that do not fit the catch criteria are also tossed back. This practice is not only

extremely wasteful, but destroys certain species that have long reproductive cycles. Along with overfishing, fishing practices, like bottom trawling, have destroyed the sea beds. The UN Secretary General has already warned

about the implications of this practice, citing that over 95 percent of the damage done to ocean ecosystems is a result of bottom trawling. Changing the practices and mentalities of those involved in the fishing industry must happen if humanity is to have any hope of securing thriving life in the oceans, since current trends reveal a future where the fishing industry has collapsed. The future of our oceans depends on new international treaties, overseen by relevant agencies like the UNEP and FAO, to reverse the decline of our oceans. These treaties can place limits on catches, mandate lower by-catch and ban to bottom trawling.

2048 is the Brink – fish species are collapsing because of terrible fishing habitsEilperin 6, Eilperin, Juliet. Washington Post Staff Writer "World's Fish Supply Running Out, Researchers Warn."Washington Post. The Washington Post, 03 Nov. 2006. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/02/AR2006110200913.html Web. 01 July 2014. CS

An international group of ecologists and economists warned yesterday that the world will run out of seafood by 2048 if steep declines in marine species continue at current rates, based on a four-year study of catch data and the

effects of fisheries collapses. The paper, published in the journal Science, concludes that overfishing, pollution and other environmental factors are wiping out important species around the globe , hampering the ocean's ability to produce seafood, filter nutrients and resist the spread of disease. "We really see the end of the line now," said lead

author Boris Worm, a marine biologist at Canada's Dalhousie University. "It's within our lifetime. Our children will see a world without seafood if we don't change things." The 14 researchers from Canada, Panama, Sweden, Britain and the United

States spent four years analyzing fish populations, catch records and ocean ecosystems to reach their conclusion. They found that by 2003 --

the last year for which data on global commercial fish catches are available -- 29 percent of all fished species had collapsed,

meaning they are now at least 90 percent below their historic maximum catch levels. The rate of population collapses

has accelerated in recent years. As of 1980, just 13.5 percent of fished species had collapsed, even though fishing vessels were

pursuing 1,736 fewer species then. Today, the fishing industry harvests 7,784 species commercially. "It's like hitting the gas pedal and holding it down at a constant level," Worm said in a telephone interview. "The rate accelerates over time."

The world is less than 40 years away from being fishless – putting over 1 billion people at risk of losing their only source of proteinStryker 10, Stryker, X. X Stryker is also the proprietor of the currently-dormant poll analysis. "The Oceans Will Run Out Of Fish In 40 Years." Delaware Liberal. AFP, 18 May 2010. http://www.delawareliberal.net/2010/05/18/the-oceans-will-run-out-of-fish-in-40-years/ Web. 01 July 2014. CS

The world faces the nightmare possibility of fishless oceans by 2050 unless fishing fleets are slashed and stocks

allowed to recover, UN experts warned. “If the various estimates we have received… come true, then we are in the situation where 40 years down the line we, effectively, are out of fish,” Pavan Sukhdev, head of the UN Environment

Program’s green economy initiative, told journalists in New York. Keep in mind, this report is based solely on overfishing estimates. They are not calculating the affect of man-made pollution such as the Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone, which was the size of Massachusetts in 2008, before the BP spill, which by the way is vomiting 3000 barrels of oxygen-depleting natural gas for every 1 barrel of oil. Or the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which is larger than Texas and will soon be larger than the continental US. There’s an Atlantic

Garbage Patch, too. And let’s not forget the looming threat of Ocean Acidification. Environmental experts are mindful of the failure this March to push through a worldwide ban on trade in bluefin tuna , one of the many species said to be headed for extinction. Powerful lobbying from Japan and other tuna-consuming countries defeated the proposal at the

CITES conference on endangered species in Doha. Without leadership, we will hurdle over the cliff. The United States must become a global leader on the environment, because no one else will do it for us. According to the UN,

30 percent of fish stocks have already collapsed, meaning they yield less than 10 percent of their former potential, while virtually all fisheries risk running out of commercially viable catches by 2050 . Currently only a quarter of fish stocks — mostly the cheaper, less desirable species — are considered to be in healthy numbers. The main scourge, the UNEP report says, are government subsidies encouraging ever bigger fishing fleets chasing ever fewer fish, with little attempt made to allow the fish populations to recover . The annual 27 billion dollars in government subsidies to fishing, mostly in rich countries, is “perverse,” Sukhdev said, since the entire value of fish caught is only 85 billion dollars. As a result, fishing fleet capacity is “50 to 60 percent” higher than it should be, Sukhdev said. Now there’s a solution even conservatives could love – cutting government subsidies to private industries. Of course, the article also notes that

approximately 1 billion people, mostly poor, eat fish as their primary source of protein , and hundreds of millions of jobs are at stake. This is why the solution to our environmental problems must necessarily be

intertwined with addressing poverty and unemployment. Clearly, though, allocating 27 billion dollars to produce 85 billion

dollars worth of fish that are teetering on the brink is a waste of resources. Creating marine preservation areas to allow female fish to grow to full size, thereby hugely increasing their fertility, is one vital solution , the report says.

Another is restructuring the fishing fleets to favor smaller boats that — once fish stocks recover — would be able to land bigger catches. “What is scarce here is fish,” Sukhdev said, “not the stock of fishing capacity.” I should mention that

the article also does not cover what would happen to marine ecosystems if commercial fishing stocks disappear. Presumably it would also threaten sharks and whales, as well as marine birds, mammals, and reptiles. Do you want to live in a world without fish? “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

Overfishing is a severe problem, projections show depletion by 2048Painter 2014 (Sally Painter, Published author and freelance writer, Environmental Issues with Fishing, 2014, http://greenliving.lovetoknow.com/environmental-issues/environmental-issues-fishing, SM)

Environmental Warning Issued¶ According to the November 2006 journal issue of Science, the single biggest threat to seafood and fish species around the world is bad fishing practices. The journal reports that, according to leading marine biologists, if fishing practices are changed, the world's fish and seafood resources will be depleted by the year 2048.¶ Fishing practices have come under scrutiny and determined to be responsible for much of the fish species depletion and degradation of ocean beds . These harmful fishing

techniques and practices include:¶ Bottom Trawling: Trawling along the ocean floor is done with a net. According to a 2005 report submitted to the United Nations Millennium Project, one run of bottom trawling is responsible for the destruction of five to 25 percent of the seabed life.¶ By-Catch: Unintended fish get snared in fishing nets. This fishing byproduct is best illustrated by the tuna fishing industry and the by-catching of dolphins. Those concerned by this method of fishing protest by purchasing only dolphin-free tuna, meaning that no dolphins were caught, killed and discarded in the tuna fishing process.¶ Coral Reef

Destruction: Coral reefs, the highest biodiversity examples of marine ecosystems, have been destroyed through overfishing methods.¶ Destruction of Food Webs: One of the worst environmental impacts is when a specific fish species is targeted for harvesting due to high demand. Harvesting large populations of certain species creates an imbalance in the natural prey/predator food chain of marine life. Dynamite and cyanide fishing: These two techniques are illegal in much of the world, but some countries still practice these methods. It's obvious that these techniques leave irreparable damage to the ocean floor and marine eco-systems.¶ Fishing Gear: The use

of environmentally-harmful fishing gear destroys countless ocean beds.¶ Overfishing: The unregulated amount of fish caught during a season created a fishing industry that was determined to catch as many fish as possible as quickly as possible. This resulted in overfishing and a tremendous amount of dead fish waste.¶ One possible

solution to the environmental issues created by fishing is marine conservation. There are several steps being taken in an effort to protect and

preserve the marine eco-systems through good fishing practices and methods.¶ Catch Shares¶ LAPP (Limited Access Privilege Programs) and ITQ (Individual Transferable Quotas) also known as catch shares is a fishing system designed to ensure each fisherman has a

share of the season's catch. This regional allotment is known as TAC (Total Allowable Catch). LAPP attempts to control how much fish is harvested in the hope of conservation of the fish population.¶ Like all allotment systems, most fishermen can sell or buy shares to increase their profits beyond their original allotment. The LAPP systems attempt to eliminate excessive waste, create better fishing practices and allow fishermen to see a higher profit. The LAPP systems removed the competitive nature of seasonal fishing and the urgency for catching as many fish as possible, often resulting in large amounts of dead fish that had to be disposed. Another benefit has

been the reduction in the number of fishing boats and destructive gear. By putting the LAPPs in place, the fishing industry believes it

has found a way to make fishing a sustainable industry. While there are decided industry issues surrounding the implementation of LAPPs among the fishermen, the side benefit of an improvement in the ocean and sea environs remains controversial.

Ocean fish stocks could collapse by mid-century, the time to act is now Plumer in 2013(Just how badly are we overfishing the oceans? By Brad Plumer October 29, 2013 The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/29/just-how-badly-are-we-overfishing-the-ocean/0/)

Humans now have the technology to find and catch every last fish on the planet. Trawl nets, drift nets, longlines, GPS, sonar... As a result,

fishing operations have expanded to virtually all corners of the ocean over the past century . Atlantic coast fisheries are still trying to limit overfishing of menhaden with traditional catch limits. (Sarah L. Voisin/The Washington Post) Atlantic coast fisheries are still trying to limit overfishing of menhaden with traditional catch limits. (Sarah L. Voisin/The Washington Post) That, in turn, has put a strain on fish populations. The world's marine fisheries peaked in the 1990s, when the global catch was higher than it is today.* And the populations of key commercial species like bluefin tuna and cod have dwindled, in some cases falling more than 90 percent. So just how badly are we overfishing the oceans? Are fish populations going to keep shrinking each year — or could they recover? Those are surprisingly

contentious questions, and there seem to be a couple of schools of thought here. The pessimistic view, famously expressed by fisheries expert Daniel Pauly, is that we may be facing "The End of Fish." One especially dire 2006 study in Science warned that many commercial ocean fish stocks were on pace to “collapse” by mid-century — at which point they would produce less than 10 percent of their peak catch . Then it's time to eat jellyfish. Other experts have countered that this view is far too alarmist.** A number of countries have worked hard to improve their fisheries management over the years, including Iceland, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. "The U.S. is actually a big success story in rebuilding fish stocks," Ray Hilborn, a marine biologist at the University of Washington, told me last year. Overfishing isn't inevitable. We can fix it. Both sides make valid points — but the gloomy view is hard to dismiss. That's the argument of a new paper in Marine Pollution Bulletin by Tony Pitcher and William Cheung of the University of British Columbia that weighs in on this broader debate. They conclude that some fisheries around the world are indeed improving, though these appear to be a minority for now. "Several deeper analyses of the status of the majority of world

fisheries confirm the previous dismal picture," they conclude. "Serious depletions are the norm world-wide, management quality is poor, catch per effort is still declining." The decline of fisheries One reason the debate about overfishing is so contentious is that it's hard to get a precise read on the state of the world's marine fisheries. (The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization tries its best in this annual report.) Ideally, we'd have in-depth stock assessments for the entire world, but those are difficult, expensive, and fairly rare. So, in their paper, Pitcher and Cheung review a number of recent studies that use indirect measurements instead. For example, they note

that recent analyses of fish catches suggest that about 58 percent of the world's fish stocks have now collapsed or are overexploited: History of the status of world fish stocks from the FAO catch database 1950–2008, using a catch-only

algorithm revised to meet earlier objections (Martell and Froese, 2012). Collapsed and overfished populations comprise almost 60% of world’s fisheries. The proportion of developing stocks is decreasing and the fraction of rebuilding stocks is constant and small (about 1%), both signals that, in converse, might be a beacon of hope (Redrawn from Martell and Froese (2012)). History of the status of world fish stocks from the FAO catch database 1950–2008, using a catch-only algorithm revised to meet earlier objections. It's important to note that this is only one estimate — and a disputed one at that. A 2011 study in Conservation Biology by Trevor Branch et. al., by contrast, estimated that only 7 to 13 percent of stocks were collapsed and 28 to 33 percent "overexploited."*** Focusing on catches can be a tricky metric for judging the state of fisheries (it can be hard, for instance, to track changes in fishing practices over time that might bias the results). So the authors consider a variety of other metrics, too. One example: The amount of effort that fishermen have put into catching fish has increased significantly in the past three decades, as measured by engine power and days that fishermen spend at sea. But the amount of fish actually caught has nevertheless stagnated since the 1990s: Global changes in reported fisheries catch (Sea Around US Project), nominal effort (from Anticamara et al. (2011)) and estimated effective effort (assuming an annual increase in fishing efficiency, based on Pauly and Palomares (2010)). Global changes in reported fisheries catch (Sea Around US Project), nominal effort (from Anticamara et al. (2011)) and estimated effective effort (assuming an annual increase in fishing efficiency, based on Pauly

and Palomares (2010)). "Given the increase in global fishing effort, the lack of increase in global fisheries catch in the last decade and the fact that most productive areas have now been exploited by fisheries," Pitcher and Cheung note, it's quite possible that "global exploited fish stocks are likely to be in a decreasing trend." Could fisheries recover? That all said, there are also some reasons for optimism. In 2009, ecologist Boris Worm and his colleagues took a look at more than 350 detailed fish stock assessments and found that many fisheries in North America and

Europe were actually recovering. In the United States, annual catch limits and market-based permit programs have helped some fish populations rebound. The real question is whether these success stories are the exception rather than the rule. Pitcher and Cheung argue that the fish stocks analyzed in that 2009 paper make up just 16 percent of the global catch — and are mostly confined to well-managed fisheries in richer countries. By contrast, more than 80 percent of the world's fish are caught in the rest of the world, in places like Asia and Africa. While data here is patchier, many of the nations in these regions are far less likely to follow the U.N.'s Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, and evidence suggests that "serious depletions are the norm" here: Correlation of compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (on a scale of zero to ten) with the UN Human Development Index for 53 countries, representing 95% of the world fish catch. Correlation of compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (on a scale of zero to ten) with the UN Human Development Index for 53 countries, representing 95% of the world fish catch. "It all depends where you look," Pitcher said in an interview. "There are a few places where fisheries are doing better: The U.S., Australia, Canada, Norway. But those are relatively rare. In most places, the evidence suggests that things are getting worse." Given that the United States imports 91 percent of its seafood, that's an important caveat. In theory, the rest of the world could adopt stricter measures to make their fisheries more sustainable, such as catch limits, careful marine planning, and a crackdown on illicit fishing. Boris Worm and Trevor Branch have suggested that particular attention should be paid to "fishing-conservation hotspots" around the world — regions that depend heavily on fishing livelihoods and have lots of biodiversity but are nonetheless badly managed. Yet many low-income countries still lack the resources to monitor their fisheries. And even richer nations struggle to enforce the laws they have: In Europe, regulators have consistently set lax fishing quotas — in part due to lobbying from the fishing industry. ("Europe is not one of the places that's doing well," says Pitcher, "with a few exceptions like Norway.") Meanwhile,

as climate change and ocean acidification disrupt ecosystems in unpredictable ways, regulating fisheries properly may become even more difficult. "Attempts to remedy the situation need to be urgent, focused, innovative, and global," the paper concludes. But that's harder than it sounds.

Bio-D

General Destructive PracticesOverfishing threatens biodiversity – fish can’t reproduce and the ocean ecosystems are being tampered with causing them to changeHauge et al. 9, Hauge, Kjellrun H., Belinda Cleewood, and Douglas C. Wilson. jellrun Hiis Hauge, Institute of Marine Research, Bergen, Norway; Douglas Clyde Wilson, Senior Researcher and Research Director at Innovative Fisheries Management, Aalborg University; Belinda Cleeland, project officer, IRGC. "Fisheries Depletion and Collapse." (n.d.): n. pag. IRGC. International Risk Governance Council, 2009. http://irgc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Fisheries_Depletion_full_case_study_web.pdf Web. 1 July 2014. CS

Overfishing poses serious risks as the loss of marine biological diversity can have serious consequences for the stability of marine and coastal ecosystems. Biological extinction from a directed fishing effort is extremely rare because economic extinction (i.e., the fish becoming too rare to fish profitably) usually happens well before biological extinction. However, overexploitation of the target fish population can lead it to become depleted to the point where it cannot recover because the depletion of the fish stock often involves other ecological changes. Fishing can also change trophic relationships through changing the relative abundance of predators, prey, and competitors as well as the genetic make-up of populations [ICES 2006].

Research on the Scotian Shelf in Canada has documented a vast general change in the ecosystem that seems to have been driven by the removal of a huge number of fish [Choi et al. 2004] and resulted in the emergence of a completely different set of dominant species, mainly invertebrates. The failure of the Northern cod stock to recover following its depletion (in spite of a sustained fishing moratorium) can be explained by overfishing, the effect of which was amplified by environmental changes, which altered the ecosystem structure [Frank et al., 2005]. Similar conclusions can be drawn in the cases of the Black Sea [Daskalov, et al., 2007] and the Baltic Sea [Möllmann et al., 2008], and Daan et al. [2005]

discuss whether the changes in the North Sea fish community were caused by overfishing . Other suggested effects of overfishing are evolutionary effects [Jørgensen et al., 2007] and changes in fish behaviour, for example migration patterns, due to loss of

learning from older fish, which have basically beenremoved from the population [Fernö et al., 2006]. Overfishing may also further amplify any effects brought about by global warming on the ocean environment, the structure of its ecosystems and of invasive species. Loss of biological diversity and changes in ecosystem stability can also result from bycatch of non-target species. Bycatch2 , especially in mixed fisheries that target several stocks, is perhaps the single greatest fisheries management challenge. The problems of catching undersized fish can also be a great problem. For example, even when the depleted North Sea cod stock manages to produce abundant offspring, the majority is discarded at a very early age and only a small percentage of the cod manage to reach maturity to produce more offspring [ICES, 2008]. Bycatch problems extend to marine mammals, sea turtles, seabirds and sharks. Fishing activities can also damage marine habitats. Some types of fishing, intensive trawling in particular, cause damage to the sea bed and may reduce the number of marine fauna living in the deep seas or in the benthic zone (sediment and sub-surface layers of sea-beds)

by between 20- 80% [Nellemann et al., 2008:10].

Industry practices like trawling, cyanide, dynamite, and ghost fishing are environmentally destructive and cause irreparable damage to local ecosystems.WWF No Date (World Wide Fund for Nature, “Fishing problems: Destructive fishing practices”, http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/blue_planet/problems/problems_fishing/destructive_fishing/, Date Accessed: 063014)

Many fishing practices are extremely destructive to delicate habitats - particularly vital fish breeding grounds like coral

reefs and seagrass meadows. For example: Bottom trawling: Industrial trawlers once avoided coral reefs and other rocky regions of the ocean floor because their nets would snag and tear. But the introduction of rockhopper trawls in the 1980s changed this. These trawls are fitted with large rubber tires or rollers that allow the net to pass easily over any rough surface. The largest, with heavy rollers over 75cm in diameter, are very powerful, capable of moving boulders weighing 25 tonnes. Now, most of the ocean floor can be trawled down to a depth of

2,000m. These trawls - whose use is now widespread - are extremely damaging. In an experiment off Alaska, 55% of cold-water coral damaged by one pass of a trawl had not recovered a year later. Scars up to 4km long have been found in the reefs of the north-east Atlantic

Ocean. And in heavily fished areas around coral seamounts off southern Australia, 90% of the surfaces where coral used to grow are now bare rock. When covered with marine life, these seabed areas provide habitat for juvenile fish and other species. Like removing forest, removing this cover decreases the area available for marine species to live and thrive in. Cyanide fishing: In this technique, fishers squirt sodium cyanide into the water to stun fish without killing them, making them easy to catch. Cyanide fishing on coral reefs began in the 1960s to supply the international aquarium trade. But since the early 1980s, a much bigger, more profitable business has emerged: supplying live reef fish for the restaurants of Hong Kong, Singapore, and, increasingly, mainland China. Some 20,000 tonnes of live fish are eaten annually in the restaurants of Hong Kong -

and for every live fish caught using cyanide, a square metre of their coral reef home is killed . Dynamite fishing: In this technique, dynamite or other explosives are set off under water. The dead fish floating to the surface are

then simply scooped up. The explosives completely destroy the underwater environment, leaving it as rubble. Dynamite fishing has contributed to massive destruction of, for example, Southeast Asian coral reefs over the past 20

years. Ghost fishing: Ghost fishing occurs when fishing gear is lost or abandoned at sea. The gear can continue to catch fish, dolphins, whales, turtles, and other creatures as it drifts through the water and after it becomes snagged on the seabed. When driftnets were used on the High Seas, an estimated 1,000km of ghost nets were released each year into the North Pacific Ocean alone. Although the

current contribution of ghost fishing to bycatch is unknown, it is likely to have a large impact. One survey estimated that a quarter of the rubbish on the bottom of the North Sea is fishing nets, while fishers speak of a dolphin and turtle graveyard among the nets that drape the cliffs of Cape Wessell, Northern Australia.

Popular fishing methods devastate non-target species and attempt to exploit new resources at the expense of undiscovered marine life and habitats.Sielen, 2013 (ALAN B. SIELEN is Senior Fellow for International Environmental Policy at the Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. He was Deputy Assistant Administrator for International Activities at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from 1995 to 2001. “The Devolution of the Seas”, Foreign Affairs, 00157120, Nov/Dec2013, Vol. 92, Issue 6, EBSCOHost, Date Accessed: 063014)

The Consequences of Oceanic Destruction TEACH A MAN TO FISH-THEN WHAT? Another cause of the oceans' decline is that humans are simply killing and eating too many fish. A frequently cited 2003 study in the journal Nature by the marine biologists Ransom Myers and Boris Worm found that the number of large fish -- both open-ocean species, such as tuna, swordfish, and marlin, and large groundfish, such as cod, halibut, and flounder -- had declined by 90 percent since 1950. The finding provoked controversy among some scientists and fishery managers. But subsequent studies have confirmed that fish populations have indeed fallen dramatically. In fact, if one looks back further than 1950, the 90 percent figure turns out to be conservative. As historical ecologists have shown, we are far removed from the days when Christopher Columbus reported seeing large numbers of sea turtles migrating off the coast of the New World, when 15-foot sturgeon bursting with caviar leaped from the waters of the Chesapeake Bay, when George Washington's Continental army could avoid starvation by feasting on swarms of shad swimming upriver to spawn, when dense oyster beds nearly blocked the mouth of the Hudson River, and when the early-twentieth-century American adventure writer Zane Grey marveled at the enormous swordfish, tuna, wahoo, and grouper he found in the Gulf of California. Today, the human appetite has nearly wiped those populations out. It's no wonder that stocks of large predator fish are rapidly dwindling when one considers the fact that one bluefin tuna can go for hundreds of thousands of dollars at market in Japan. High prices -- in January 2013, a 489-pound Pacific bluefin tuna sold for $1.7 million at auction in Tokyo -- make it profitable to employ airplanes and helicopters to scan the ocean for the fish that remain; against such technologies, marine animals don't stand a chance. Nor are big fish the only ones that are threatened. In area after area, once the long-lived predatory species, such as tuna and swordfish, disappear, fishing fleets move on to smaller, plankton-eating fish, such as sardines, anchovy, and herring. The overexploitation of smaller fish deprives the larger wild fish that remain of their

food; aquatic mammals and sea birds, such as ospreys and eagles, also go hungry. Marine scientists refer to this sequential process as fishing down the food chain. The problem is not just that we eat too much seafood; it's also how we catch it. Modern industrial fishing fleets drag lines with thousands of hooks miles behind a vessel, and industrial trawlers on the high seas drop nets thousands of feet below the sea's surface. In the process, many untargeted species, including sea turtles, dolphins, whales, and large sea birds

(such as albatross) get accidentally captured or entangled. Millions of tons of unwanted sea life is killed or injured in commercial fishing operations each year; indeed, as much as a third of what fishermen pull out of the waters was never meant to be harvested. Some of the most destructive fisheries discard 80 to 90 percent of what they bring in. In the Gulf of Mexico, for example, for every pound of shrimp caught by a trawler, over three pounds of marine life is thrown away. As the oceans decline and the demand for their products rises, marine and freshwater aquaculture may look like a tempting solution. After all, since we raise livestock on land for food, why not farm fish at sea? Fish farming

is growing faster than any other form of food production, and today, the majority of commercially sold fish in the world and half of U.S. seafood imports come from aquaculture. Done right, fish farming can be environmentally acceptable . But the impact of aquaculture varies widely depending on the species raised,

methods used, and location, and several factors make healthy and sustainable production difficult. Many farmed fish rely heavily on processed wild fish for food, which eliminates the fish-conservation benefits of aquaculture. Farmed fish can also escape into rivers and oceans and endanger wild populations by transmitting diseases or parasites or by competing with native species for feeding and spawning grounds. Open-net pens also pollute, sending fish waste, pesticides, antibiotics, uneaten food, diseases, and parasites flowing directly into the surrounding waters. DESTROYING THE EARTH'S FINAL FRONTIER Yet another factor driving the decline of the oceans is the destruction of the habitats that have allowed spectacular marine life to thrive for millennia. Residential and commercial development have laid waste to once-wild coastal areas. In particular, humans are eliminating coastal

marshes, which serve as feeding grounds and nurseries for fish and other wildlife, filter out pollutants, and fortify coasts against storms and erosion. Hidden from view but no less worrying is the wholesale destruction of deep-ocean habitats . For fishermen seeking ever more elusive prey, the depths of the seas have become the earth's final frontier. There, submerged mountain chains called seamounts -- numbering in the tens of thousands and mostly uncharted -- have proved especially desirable targets. Some rise from the sea floor to heights approaching that of Mount Rainier, in Washington State. The steep slopes, ridges, and tops of seamounts in the South Pacific and

elsewhere are home to a rich variety of marine life, including large pools of undiscovered species . Today, fishing vessels drag huge nets outfitted with steel plates and heavy rollers across the sea floor and over underwater mountains, more than a mile deep, destroying everything in their path. As industrial trawlers bulldoze their way along, the surfaces of seamounts are reduced to sand, bare rock, and rubble. Deep cold-water corals, some older than the California redwoods, are being obliterated. In the process, an unknown number of species from these unique islands of biological diversity -- which might harbor new medicines or other important information -- are being driven extinct before humans even get a chance to study them. Relatively new problems present additional challenges. Invasive species, such as lionfish, zebra mussels, and Pacific jellyfish, are disrupting coastal ecosystems and in some cases have caused the collapse of entire fisheries. Noise from sonar used by military systems and other sources can have devastating effects on whales, dolphins, and other marine life. Large vessels speeding through busy shipping lanes are also killing whales. Finally, melting Arctic ice creates new environmental hazards, as wildlife habitats disappear, mining becomes easier, and shipping routes expand.

Many common fishing practices hurt the fragile ecosystems by choosing profit over the ecosystemsOcean Focus 2011 (Ocean Focus, organization advocating for the protection of marine life, “Harmful Fishing Practices”, 2011, http://oceanfocus.org/focus-areas/fisheries-management/harmfull-fishing-practices/, SM)

Bottom trawling used to have a more limited effect, as trawlers were unable to operate in areas where their nets would snag and tear, such as

reefs. However, since the 1980s, trawl nets have been fitted with rubber tyres or rollers, which allow them to move over rough surfaces and therefore exploit more environments. The two boards on either side of the mouth of some nets, known as otter boards, can be extremely heavy and plough deep furrows through the sea bed. Causing even more damage than

otter boards is a method known as a beam trawl, that has chains disturbing sediment twice as deep. The largest trawl nets can have a mouth over 100m wide and can be 0.5km long, something which has developed as boats have become powerful enough to pull them. Ghost fishing is the term for the damage caused by lost fishing gear, which is often made of non-biodegradable synthetic fibres. Although not actually a fishing practice in itself, it’s the end-result of a variety of different practices. The damage

caused by ghost fishing is difficult to measure, but thousands of kilometres of nets are lost every year; often catching

seabirds if they remain near the surface. Nets can become snagged on the bottom and fill up with catch, or drift through the water, still trapping marine life. Ghost fishing only stops if the net is destroyed by storms and swells, or it washed ashore. Pots (box shaped traps filled with bait usually used to attract crabs or lobster), are often made of more durable materials than nets and if lost, can continue to operate almost indefinitely as scavengers are attracted to them; continually providing fresh bait in a cycle of consumption and decay.¶ Hand

collection by scuba divers should be the most selective method to a target species, particularly if it takes place on a small scale. But in recent

years, divers have been causing significant damage to vulnerable ecosystems by using two techniques: dynamite and cyanide. Fishermen use mining explosives and armaments to create an explosion in deep water, known as blast-fishing.

The shockwave created kills most fish in a 50m radius or more, most of which are not even collected by the fishermen. The explosions cause irreversible damage to reefs, as they are reduced to rubble, resulting in a marked reduction in biodiversity. Blast-fishing is most prevalent in Southeast Asia.¶ Cyanide fishing has also grown markedly over the last 30 years, to satisfy the demand for live fish both for the aquarium trade and human consumption. This is also most common in Southeast Asia to meet the growing demand from Singapore, Hong Kong and more recently, mainland China. The cyanide only

stuns the fish, so they can be removed and will recover, at least temporarily, if placed in clean water. Cyanide damages coral and for every fish caught using this method, a square metre of coral is destroyed. ¶ Many people cite the world demand for seafood and fish as the real culprit for destroying coral reefs, wetlands and ocean beds, but other environmentalist blame the methods and practices of the fishing industry . These practices have devastated the ocean floor eco-systems in many places so that marine and aquatic life can no longer be sustained.¶ ¶ Modifying and Changing Fishing Methods¶ In order to lessen the impact of commercial fishing and overfishing that reaches beyond the ocean floor and into entire aquatic eco-systems, a global conservation effort is needed.

By catchBycatch destroys biodiversity, collapses ecosystems, and causes extinction cascadesGilman 2011

(Eric L., Sustainable Fisheries Partnership, Honolulu, USA and Hawaii Pacific University, Honolulu, USA, “Bycatch governance and best practice mitigation technology in global tuna fisheries”, Marine Policy, Volume 35, Issue 5, September 2011, Pages 590–609, EBSCO)

Bycatch may contain a variety of species, from marine megafauna to lower trophic-level species, critical for the maintenance of the structure and functioning of marine ecosystems, and the continued provision of marine ecosystem services. Vulnerable species groups subject to bycatch include seabirds, sea turtles, marine mammals, elasmobranchs (sharks, skates, and rays) and other fish species. Populations of these

species are particularly vulnerable to overexploitation of older age classes, can decline over short temporal scales (decades and

shorter), and are slow to recover from large declines due to their K-selected life-history strategy, characterized by long life spans, slow growth, delayed sexual maturity, low fecundity, and low natural mortality rates of older individuals [5], [10], [11], [12], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22] and [23]. Discarded catch, offal from processing fish at sea,

and discarded and lost bait all raise an ecological concern due to changes in the foraging behavior and natural

diet of marine species, for instance, by scavenging seabirds, marine mammals, sharks, and benthic species, and may also cause localized

anoxia of the seabed [1], [11], [14], [18] and [24]. Fishing mortality from bycatch also contributes to the broader issue of

overexploitation [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30] and [31], currently the largest driver of change and loss of global marine biodiversity [32]. Primarily species with a K-selected life-history strategy, endemics with restricted ranges, and species with sporadic

recruitment are at risk; however, even highly fecund species and those with broad distributions can be unsustainably exploited [16], [18], [28], [33], [34] and [35]. Marine capture fisheries have reduced the abundance of affected populations, and in some ecosystems have fished down food webs as targeted species have gradually been

from declining mean trophic levels [16], [18] and [27]. Fisheries overexploitation also reduces the availability of natural prey to

marine mammals, seabirds, sea turtles and elasmobranchs, through direct removal of prey species and trophic

cascades [16], [18], [27], [28], [36], [38], [39], [40] and [41], compounding the direct adverse effects of bycatch fishing mortality.

Marine fisheries have altered marine biodiversity, from genetic diversity to ecosystem integrity, in complex ways

that are not completely understood. For example, despite international obligations to maximize fisheries selectivity, concentrating bycatch and target fishing mortality on a narrow subset of an ecosystem's components can reduce genetic diversity [18] and [37]. As a result of fishing gear selecting for large individuals and species, marine capture fishing has altered the distribution of fish sizes, fish mature earlier and at a smaller size, causing reduced reproductive potential, where the proportion of large species and large, fast-growing individuals has declined, which may have caused irreversible changes in the gene pool, altering the evolutionary

characteristics of populations [18], [28], [36], [37], [38], [39] and [40]. Bycatch mortality of phylogenetically distinct species is another mechanism for reducing genetic diversity, where the loss of entire higher taxonomic groups and evolutionary lineages from marine fisheries and other anthropogenic stressors could alter the evolutionary processes of affected coastal and marine

ecosystems [18] and [37]. Unsustainable bycatch fishing mortality of keystone and foundation species that play critical roles in regulating an ecosystem's processes and structure can cause extinction cascades, alter trophic interactions, simplify food webs, and change ecosystem structure and functioning, including reduced ecosystem resistance and resilience to environmental fluctuations, and possibly exceeding tipping points, where permanent regime shifts occur, or otherwise causing slowly reversible change [18], [28], [36], [37], [38], [39] and [40].

Bycatch is wasteful and threatens food securityGilman 2011

(Eric L., Sustainable Fisheries Partnership, Honolulu, USA and Hawaii Pacific University, Honolulu, USA, “Bycatch governance and best practice mitigation technology in global tuna fisheries”, Marine Policy, Volume 35, Issue 5, September 2011, Pages 590–609, EBSCO)

Unsustainable levels of bycatch also have negative socioeconomic consequences for fishing communities, as an incidental catch is an important income source and contribution to food supply in some fisheries and countries [6] and [42]. Overexploitation of incidental species, including bycatch of juveniles of a

commercial species, can cause growth and recruitment overfishing, adversely affect future catch levels, and result in allocation issues

between fisheries [5], [15] and [43]. Furthermore, discarded bycatch raises a social issue over waste, representing a threat to the long-term capacity to provide food and a source of livelihood [8] and [42]. Despite international

obligations [1], [2], [3] and [4], from 1992 to 2001, an average of 7.3 million tons of fish were annually discarded, representing 8% of the world catch [8]. There have been substantial reductions in discard levels in recent years, in part, due to an increased retention as new markets for previously discarded species and sizes have developed, but also from an increased gear selectivity [8] and [15].

Trawling and long line fishing

General--Hurts SpeciesTrawling causes reduction in fish population faster than other fishing practicesHiddink et. al 11

“Could our fisheries be more productive? Indirect negative effects of bottom trawl fisheries on Fish Condition” Journal of Applied Ecology, Jan G. Hiddink*, Andrew F. Johnson, Rachel Kingham and Hilmar Hinz 2011, 48, 1441–1449 accessed 6/30/14 via Wiley Online Library

Our results provide partial support for the hypothesis that bottom trawling negatively affects the fitness of benthivorous fish by reducing the availability of food. The condition of benthivorous plaice was negatively related to trawling frequency, and this could be explained by a reduction in the production of infauna. Density-dependent effects such as competition could not have played a role in generating this relationship as plaice had the worst condition at the stations where they were least abundant and therefore where competition for food resources was expected to be the lowest. The hypothesized positive effect of low trawling frequencies (<2 year)1 on the abundance of the food for plaice or the condition of plaice (Hiddink, Rijnsdorp & Piet 2008) could not be detected in this study because only one of the stations covered this range of trawling intensities. This hypothesis therefore remains untested. The condition of benthivorous dab however was not related to trawling frequency or infaunal production and does therefore not support our hypotheses. The relationship between trawling and condition for the piscivorous whiting provides a ‘control treatment’ that takes account of any other effects bottom trawling may have on fish condition that are not related to food availability. As hypothesized, no effect of bottomtrawling on the condition of whiting was detected. The lack of an effect of trawling on dab may be explained by its diet composition, as dab has a highly opportunistic feeding strategy making it more adaptable to habitat and ecosystem change compared with other species (Hinz, Kro¨ ncke & Ehrich 2005). Dab might be able to feed and maintain its condition regardless of changes in benthic community structure, while more selective benthic feeders such as plaice might not be able to compensate for the loss of particular prey types. In addition, dab is known to scavenge more extensively than plaice and whiting on dead and dying invertebrates in trawled areas (Groenewold

& Fonds 2000). This means that the food availability for dab is likely to be less strongly affected by bottom trawls than for plaice. Bottom trawling reduced the abundance of the fish at the same time as reducing food production . The ramifications for the fish depend on the relationship between the amount of prey available and the demand on the reduced food supply by the remaining fish. Energetically, it is likely to be more costly to forage in low-

production compared with high-production patches. In areas of low benthos, fish will have to spend more time searching for prey (e.g. Charnov 1976), and therefore, lowering their intake rates while increasing energy expenditure. This means that if bottom trawling leads to a decrease in the carrying capacity for benthos of the ecosystem , fish production is likely to drop, even if the amount of food per fish stays equal. Furthermore, fish numbers decrease linearly with fishing effort, but benthic invertebrate production has been shown in previous studies to drop very sharply even at low levels of bottom trawling (Hiddink et al. 2006). Fish numbers may not always decrease linearly with fishing effort because catchability can depend on fish density, but this effect tends to lead to a faster depletion of prey than of the fish. This means that both the amount of food production per fish and the food intake per fish is likely to decrease as a result of bottom trawling .

Bottom Trawling devastates marine ecosystems and endangers the species thereLighthouse Foundation ‘07 ("Destructive Fishing Practices and Bycatch." - Ocean Threats. Lighthouse Foundation, n.d. Web. 13 Jun. 2007. http://www.slowfood.com/slowfish/pagine/eng/pagina.lasso?-id_pg=43)

Destructive Fishing Practices and Bycatch¶ ¶ As fish stocks decrease, fishing methods become increasingly extreme.¶ ¶ Destructive fishing practices devastate the marine environment and include bottom trawling, bycatch, the use of poison and explosives and ghost fishing.¶ ¶ When fishing techniques have been universally recognized as destructive, the only solution is to ban them. Anyone continuing to use these techniques must be severely punished. National legislations have identified and banned many of these practices. However, the temptation to break the law is very high both for factory ships on the hunt for huge profits and small-scale

fishermen facing reduced fish stocks.¶ ¶ Clearly, the larger and better-equipped the boats, the more devastating the impact of illegal fishing techniques. ¶ ¶ One of the most harmful techniques is bottom trawling, an industrial method which uses enormous nets weighed down with

heavy ballast which are dragged along the sea floor, raking up or crushing everything in their way, from fish to ancient coral. ¶ ¶ Many species, including those at risk of extinction, are accidentally caught and then thrown back into the sea, often already dead. These collateral losses, known as discards, can reach up to 80% or even 90% of the total catch.¶ ¶ Large areas of the seabed, the habitat where fish find food and shelter, are crushed and flattened. The biggest nets used for

bottom trawling have a mouth the size of a rugby pitch and leave scars on the seabed more than 4 kilometers long. The damage caused to the ecosystem can be permanent. Bottom trawling also churns up sediment (sometimes toxic), creating turbid water inhospitable to life. This type of fishing obliterates the natural environmental features where marine animals would normally live, rest and hide.¶ ¶ Often used by industrial boats in the high seas, sometimes regulated in territorial waters, this practice, accused of having contributed heavily to overfishing, is a striking illustration of the lack of global fisheries management.¶ ¶ Seabed ecosystems are characterized by exceptional biodiversity. Over the last 25 years, scientific studies have identified very rich marine environments at depths greater than 400 meters, down to 2,000 meters and more. Despite almost complete darkness, strong pressure and very weak currents, a huge number of species can be found in these deep waters.¶ ¶ Living in extreme conditions, deep-water fish grow very slowly

and have a long life expectancy and a late reproductive age. As a result, they are particularly vulnerable to disturbances in their environment. At-risk marine ecosystems are not only in the high seas; bottom trawling on underwater mountains and the steep continental slopes on the edge of the shelf can also cause serious damage.¶ ¶ The scientific community and many NGOs are calling for an international moratorium to protect the seabed from bottom trawling, but government efforts to support this have so far been minimal . ¶ ¶ By catch¶ ¶ One of the most shocking aspects of ocean pillaging.¶ ¶ Bycatch refers to all the forms of marine life caught unintentionally while catching other fish. Bycatch can include the wrong size of the target species, other species that are not eaten or for which there is no market and banned or endangered species such as certain birds, turtles and marine mammals. Some fish are discarded because the fishing boat is not licensed to bring them to land, because there is no space on the boat or because the captain has decided not to catch that species. The great proportion of bycatch, millions of tons each year, is thrown back into the sea dead or wounded. ¶ ¶ A recent WWF report estimates that by catch represents 40% of global marine catches, and that in many cases the fish discarded are juveniles. It is easy to grasp what dramatic consequences such devastation has on the ability of a species to reproduce and regenerate stocks.¶ ¶ Beyond the pressure on marine species, bycatch represents amonstrous waste of food, for both humans and marine predators.¶ ¶ Experts emphasize that while industrial fishing boats throw millions of tons of undesired fish back in the sea each year, artisanal fishing discards are very small.¶ ¶ Poison and Explosives¶ ¶ The use of poison to kill or stun fish is very common, in both fresh and salt water, including coastal lagoons and coral reefs. Cyanide fishing, for example, is used on the now-devastated reefs of the Philippines – where an estimated 65 tons of cyanide are poured into the sea each year – and those in eastern Indonesia and other western Pacific countries.¶ ¶ In many places the use of poison to catch fish is a traditional technique, but negative effects have multiplied since plant-based substances were replaced by chemical poisons. These kill all the organisms in the ecosystem, including the corals forming the reef. ¶ ¶ The use of explosives for blast fishing has also been around for centuries and is on the increase. Explosions can produce very large craters, devastating between 10 and 20 square meters of the sea floor. They kill not only the target fish, but all the other surrounding fauna and flora. In coral reefs, reconstruction of the damaged habitats can take decades.¶ ¶ Explosives are easily and cheaply purchased and often come from the mining or building industries. In many regions, explosives are extracted from old munitions from past wars or current conflicts. Elsewhere, fishermen buy them through the illegal arms trade.¶ ¶ Ghost Fishing¶ ¶ Ghost fishing is the result of nets and other fishing materials that are accidentally or intentionally abandoned in the sea. These nets continue to senselessly trap fish and shellfish and even large marine mammals, which die of exhaustion or suffocation after struggling to get to the surface to breathe. The problem of abandoned or lost equipment has been amplified by increased fishing activity and the introduction of nets and line made from long-lasting synthetic material. ¶

Long line fishing threatens many speciesOvetz 2006

(Robert, Professor Robert Ovetz from College of Marin: Kentfield Kentfield, CA. and Sea Turtle Restoration Project, “The bottom line: An investigation of the economic, cultural and social costs of industrial longline fishing in the Pacific and the benefits of sustainable use marine protected areas”, Marine Policy Volume 30, Issue 6, November 2006, Pages 809–820, EBSCO)

Pelagic longline fishing in the Pacific is a highly unselective fishing technique that uses monofilament lines at the shallow surface of the high seas stretching as much as 60 US miles with as many as thousands of baited hooks. These large vessels originate from a number of countries including the US, Japan, Taiwan, Spain and other

Asian and Latin American countries and primarily export their catch to the US, Japan and the European Union. Targeting highly migratory predatory fish species including tuna and swordfish, industrial longlines also catch or kill as many as 4.4 million sea turtles, billfish, sharks, marine mammals and seabirds [2] and [3].2

Sea turtles I/LLong line fishing will cause sea turtles to go extinctOvetz 2006

(Robert, Professor Robert Ovetz from College of Marin: Kentfield Kentfield, CA. and Sea Turtle Restoration Project, “The bottom line: An investigation of the economic, cultural and social costs of industrial longline fishing in the Pacific and the benefits of sustainable use marine protected areas”, Marine Policy Volume 30, Issue 6, November 2006, Pages 809–820, EBSCO)

Most threatened by industrial longline fishing are leatherback sea turtles which migrate thousands of miles across the

Pacific to lay their eggs, feed and reproduce. According to recent scientific reports, the number of nesting female Pacific

leatherback sea turtles has declined by 95% since 1980 and is expected to go extinct within the next 5–30 years unless efforts are taken to reverse their decline [4], [5] and [6]. One of the largest threats to their survival is pelagic industrial longline fishing. Leatherback sea turtles get hooked on longlines and often drown before the line is reeled and the sea turtle can be released.

Sharks I/LLong line fishing is responsible for the huge population declines of sharks and other large predatory fish speciesOvetz 2006

(Robert, Professor Robert Ovetz from College of Marin: Kentfield Kentfield, CA. and Sea Turtle Restoration Project, “The bottom line: An investigation of the economic, cultural and social costs of industrial longline fishing in the Pacific and the benefits of sustainable use marine protected areas”, Marine Policy Volume 30, Issue 6, November 2006, Pages 809–820, EBSCO)

Longlines are also one of the main threats to the survival of sharks and billfish. Recent studies have documented the rapid decline of large predatory fish species such as billfish, sharks and tuna . In the Pacific,

the biomass of large predatory fish caught by longline fishing, for example, has declined by 90% since 1950 [7]. Earlier this year, the US warned that albacore and bigeye tuna, also caught with longlines, are being overfished in the Pacific. The problem is not

restricted to the Pacific. A recent report has found that industrial longline fishing has contributed to the decline of oceanic whitetip and silky shark species by 90–99% in the Gulf of Mexico [8]. Another scientific study showed that in the Atlantic “large predatory fish biomass today is only about 10% of pre-industrial levels [9].”

Seabirds I/LSea birds, especially albatross, are being killed off by longline fishingOvetz 2006

(Robert, Professor Robert Ovetz from College of Marin: Kentfield Kentfield, CA. and Sea Turtle Restoration Project, “The bottom line: An investigation of the economic, cultural and social costs of industrial longline fishing in the Pacific and the benefits of sustainable use marine protected areas”, Marine Policy Volume 30, Issue 6, November 2006, Pages 809–820, EBSCO)

Longlines are also a significant threat to species of seabirds that are often caught on longline hooks on the high seas.

Reports have documented that longline fishing is one of the main threats to the survival of the highly endangered Black-footed albatross in the Pacific. The latest estimates indicate that between 5000 and 13,800 Black-

footed Albatross (1.9–5% of the population) are killed each year by industrial longline fishers with additional birds killed by

other types of fishing and pollution [10] and [11].3 According to a recent report, 19 of the 21 species of albatross are now considered globally threatened with the remainder classified as near threatened [12]. Longlines are the most significant threat to these species’ survival.

SolvencyCatch shares solve for detrimental long line fishingLevy 2010

(Sharon, freelance science writer and author of Once and Future Giants: What Ice Age Extinctions Tell Us about the Fate of Earth's Largest Animals, “Catch Shares Management”, BioScience, Vol. 60, No. 10 (November 2010), pp. 780-785, Jstor)

The Alaskan halibut fishery in the early 1990s was an intense, adrenaline-soaked sprint. Fishing was permitted during just a few 24-hour windows. Two thousand boats might race to sea at once, each crew working madly to land a full year's catch in a day.

Boats were overloaded with fish, and lives were lost: Nine workers drowned during derby fishing in Alaska during 1991 and 1992. In their hurry, fishers damaged creatures they were not targeting and lost much of their long-line gear , leaving thousands of baited hooks on the seafloor that imperiled halibut and other fish after the season had ended. When the catch was landed, the market was flooded with a year's worth of halibut at once, reducing its value. Then, in 1995, regulators abruptly ended the race for Alaskan halibut. The season expanded to months instead of days, and the value of the catch rose as fishers landed a steady supply of fresh halibut. Fishing

accidents and fatalities dropped sharply. All of this was accomplished using a management system called individual transferable quotas (ITQs), a form of catch shares management under which individual fishers or associations

are given rights to a set percentage of the total catch.

Individual quotas stop long line fishing practicesHalter 2010

(Reese, recipient of the Presidents Distinguished Service Award from Humboldt State University for his inimitable leadership in conservation biology, an Outstanding Environmental Awareness Achievement Award Special to The StarPhoenix, “Oceans require conservation plan”, The Star Phoenix (Saskatoon, Saskatchewan), March 26, 2010 Friday, Lexis nexis)

As a result, all known commercial deep-sea fish populations have fallen to around 20 per cent of the 1970s levels. One of the most prized and rare fish left on the globe is the bluefin tuna. It accelerates faster than a Ferrari and warms its blood through an

ingenious heat exchange system. Eastern Atlantic bluefin is an endangered species and western Atlantic bluefin is worse off; it's listed as

critically endangered. The FAO estimates that there are about 1,556 long-line fishing vessels of a freezing

capacity larger than 90 tonnes catching tuna around the world. At 3.6 million tonnes of tuna harvested annually, the populations are all set to crash. Conserving the oceans' resources are clearly the only way forward in

this century. An innovative, sustainable approach to harvesting fish in Iceland and elsewhere is that of individual transferable quotas that enable boats to own shares of an overall quota determined by scientists .

Individual quotas will deal with long line fishing and trawlingRICHMAN and BUTLER 93

(JOE and MARK, Professor & Eminent Scholar; Department of Biological Sciences at Old Dominion University, “How the East Coast fishery is being dragged down EAST COAST"It is crucial that we review the way fish are caught - by towing nets (dragging) or using lines baited with many hooks (longlining). By not addressing the issue in a frank and public manner, we will only prolong the collapse of Canada's groundfishery”, The Globe and Mail (Canada), April 13, 1993 Tuesday, Lexis nexis)

HOW have we been catching Canadian groundfish? The dominant methods are dragging (towing a net) and longlining (a long line of baited hooks). Over the past four decades, draggers have been taking an increasing proportion of the catch. Their reported landings are now 70 per cent of the total. Let's go to sea and observe the impact of these two gear types on the now much-depleted

stocks. Out on Brown's Bank, a once-prime fishing ground off Nova Scotia, the dragger tows a funnel-shaped net with its heavy doors and rollers plowing and bouncing across the bottom. Marine organisms are damaged and killed, while a stream of sediment flows down-current. After a couple of hours of coffee and skippers' talk on the VHF radio,

the net is hauled aboard and dumped. It is put out again and the culling begins. The undersized fish and "trash" (non-commercial species) go over the side dead. If the crew is highgrading, good but cheaper species follow them over the rail. The dragger searches out schools of fish with its sounder (fish finder) before setting its gear. Often its net doesn't even go in the water until the skipper "sees" a good bunch of fish. Thus, because it does not waste time and effort towing its net futilely, it can operate at a profit even while it further damages the dangerously low stocks. Dragging those trawl doors through the mud and over the rocks burns a lot of imported fuel, but the trip is still a moneymaker. NOT far away, on another boat, a "longline" is passing through a chute and over the stern. The thousands of hooks attached to this line are baited with baitfish caught by Maritimers. After the anchor is set it's time for a mug-up. One or two hours rest and the hauling begins. The few fish that are caught are now mostly small; "steakers" are scarce. Some "junk," such as dogfish, go over the side. "Can't make money this way any more, maybe it's time to quit." Longlining is a passive technology: The gear is set on likely bottom (good fish habitat, whether or not there are fish), relying on the fish to approach it and take the bait. As one study concluded, "The longliner fleet could be left essentially unregulated, since it is not economical for it to overfish the stock." Therefore, much costly enforcement can be avoided. There are other benefits as well, such as improved product quality and more long-term jobs. Longlining groundfish makes bottom-line sense for the fish, the fishers and the taxpayer. It is the best way to land fishsticks on North American tables. Conclusion: Our groundfish draggers should be converted to longliners. Unfortunately, that's not what we're doing. FOR some time now, at the urging of certain economists and corporate promoters, the Fisheries Minister and his advisers have been implementing a strategy to privatize Canada's marine resources. They define the

overfishing by the draggers as an overcapacity problem, and say the institution of an individual transferable quota (ITQ) system will deal with this problem. ITQs are a radical change for fisheries management. Traditionally, an overall quota is set for a stock and it is competitively fished. Under the ITQ system, each boat is assigned a piece of the overall quota which it can fish, sell or rent. The idea is that quota pieces will be combined, to eliminate many players and ensure that the ones left will be profitable. Nice theory

Coral ReefsCoral reefs are disappearing because of overfishingRiegl et al 2009

(Bernhard Riegl { National Coral Reef Institute, Nova Southeastern University, Dania, Florida, USA}, Andy Bruckner { Khaled Bin Sultan Living Oceans Foundation, Landover, Maryland, USA}, Steve L. Coles{Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA}, Philip Renaud{Khaled Bin Sultan Living Oceans Foundation, Landover, Maryland, USA} and Richard E. Dodge{ National Coral Reef Institute, Nova Southeastern University, Dania, Florida, USA}, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Volume 1162, The Year in Ecology and Conservation Biology 2009 pages 136–186, 21 APR 2009, “Coral Reefs”, EBSCO)

Overfishing and Destructive Fishing Overfishing has been well documented as a root cause of coral-reef decline (Jackson 1997; Jackson et al. 2001). Hughes (1994) saw overfishing of grazing fish (primarily parrot fishes) as a reason for a phase shift away from corals and toward fleshy macroalgae when the other major grazer, Diadema antillarum, was wiped out by a disease. It is unfortunate that

coral reefs are often by necessity a primary target for fisheries since they are in truth not very productive fisheries systems (Hatcher 1997; McClanahan 2006). While algae production can be as high as in agricultural systems, the high internal demand for this production reduces the amount available for human consumption via fisheries to a mere 1%. Oceanic upwelling systems produce more than 50

times the fish biomass per unit algae as coral reefs do (McClanahan 2006). Not surprisingly, coral reefs are rapidly overfished when a hungry populace depends on them as protein source. Overfishing is a primary threat to about 60% of

Caribbean coral reefs (Wilkinson 2006), but this is probably a conservative number. Almost all regions that are well studied report some degree of overfishing (Ballantine et al. 2008; Jokiel 2008; Rogers et al. 2008). The situation is similar in the

Pacific, with significant overfishing reported from American Samoa (Birkeland et al. 2008) Guam and the Marianas

(Richmond et al. 2008), the main Hawaiian islands, and in most other island and coastal nations. In U.S. jurisdiction, only the northwestern Hawaiian islands and the Pacific Remote Islands Area report near-pristine fish populations (Birkeland et al. 2008; Grigg et al.

2008). However, even there, some targeted species have collapsed and not regenerated yet, like the overharvest of pearl oysters on Pearl and Hermes Atoll in the early 1900s (Grigg et al. 2008). To combat overfishing, Australia declared 33% of its Great Barrier Reef Marine Park no-take areas (Day et al. 2003; Fernandez et al. 2005). This is the world's biggest no-take area, and it has already shown

success by increasing fish populations. Overfishing is nothing new, since human–coral reef interactions date back at least 35,000 years (Pollnac 2007). While some consider the effects of early, preindustrial human exploitation mostly benign (Johannes 1978, 1981), others believe

impacts to have been deleterious (Kirch and Hunt 1997) and potentially even responsible for the long-term degradation that eventually led to the deteriorated state of many of today's coral reefs (Jackson 1997; Jackson et al. 2001; Diamond 2005). Fitzpatrick and Donaldson (2007) provide evidence that coral-reef exploitation in Palau has over the past few thousand years led to declines in the numbers of finfish and mollusks. In the Palauan Rock Islands, as a clear sign of fishing pressure over 1400 years, the proportion of snappers and emperors found in middens declined, as did the overall size of all consumed fish (Masse et al. 2006). Signs of overharvesting in prehistoric times exist for giant clams (Tridacna sp. and Hippopus hippopus) as well as the humped conch (Strombus gibberulus). The list of overexploited species in prehistoric times is long and very similar to those of today (Fitzpatrick and Donaldson 2007). Also in the Caribbean, clear evidence of overexpoitation of coral-reef fishes exists at several Ceramic Age sites (LeFebvre 2007). The archaeological signs are a decrease in the size of exploited coral-reef

species and an increase in the use of inshore and pelagic species over time (Wing 2001). Once overfished, resources may take a long time to regenerate, particularly if fishing pressure is maintained. Overfishing in the Marianas dates back to the Japanese period (1914–1944) and may have been influential in molding the current nearshore coral-reef community

structure (Richmond et al. 2008). To compound the problem, Guam witnessed a further 70% reduction in coastal fisheries catch from 1985 to 1996. In response, no-take areas were established, that originally met with strong local opposition, but when finally enforced rapidly led to increases in fish stocks inside the reserves (Richmond et al. 2008), demonstrating again the efficacy of protected areas for fisheries management (Fig. 15).

Seabirds

Kills sea birdsOverfishing practices threaten seabird populationsSchei and Vidas in 2011

(Peter Johan and Davor, “The World Ocean in Globalisation : Climate Change, Sustainable Fisheries, Biodiversity, Shipping, Regional Issues”, Leiden : Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. 2011, EBSCO)

Many seabird populations are declining rapidly and are threatened with extinction. They face a wide range of

threats, both on land and at sea. At sea, the most pervasive threat is from longline, trawl and gill-net fisheries which accidentally take seabirds as bycatch. BirdLife International estimates that, worldwide, fisheries kill over 300,000 seabirds every year — including 100,000 albatrosses, which, as a group, are among the most threatened in the world. Many of the bird species adversely affected by fishing, especially albatrosses and petrels, spend most of their lives away from the breeding colonies, travelling vast distances across the ocean and, in so doing, encountering a diverse range of fleets and fisheries governance. The protection of these birds therefore calls for global solutions and international cooperation.

Overfishing kill lots of seabirds through bycatch and bottom trawlingBull 2007

(Leigh S., “Reducing seabird bycatch in longline, trawl and gillnet fisheries”, Fish & Fisheries. Mar2007, Vol. 8 Issue 1, p31-56. 26p., EBSCO)

Seabirds such as atbatrosses and petrels are long- lived, monogamous, have delayed maturity, high aluli survival, a long breeding life, and

relatively low reproductive rates IWarham 1990: Brooke 2004). As a result of these factors. seabird populations can only Increase

slowly under highly favour able enviromnental conditions unless they are at carrying capacity) IFurness 2003). Therefore, any additional factors increasing the rate of adult mortality will have a strong negative impact on population dynamics and the species as a whole (Tasker et al. 2000). Seabirds spend their rime on land and at sea, and as such are subject to

anthropogenic Impacts In both environments. It Is perhaps. therefore, not surprising that nearly half of the world’s 125 petrel species and 16 of the 21 albatross species are classified as threatened third Life International 2(X)O). In New Zealand alone. Robertson et al. (2003) IdentIfied at least 50 bird species which breed only In New Zealand. or have part of their breeding

populations there, that have been recorded In tlsherv Interactions worldwide. The Impact of bycatch events caused by longline fisheries received much international attention following Brothers’ 11991) estimate that 44 000 albatrosses were killed annually In the Southern Ocean by the Japanese tuna longline fishery alone. Tasker

et al. 2(XX)) estimated that over 250,000 seabirds may have been killed In the Southern Ocean Patagonian toothfish

lDissosiÅchus ¿Jegi rwi des. Notothenlidae) fishery between 1996 and 1999. In the salmon gillnet fishery in Prince WIIham

Sound (Alaska). Wynne et aL (1991 I estimated that 1486 seabirds were killed In nets in 1990. SullIvan et aL (2006) estimated

>1500 seabirds. predominantly black-browed albatross I Tlmaiasnzrdme nmeiaswpimrmis. Dlomedeldae). were killed by finfish

trawlers operating In the Falkland Islands during 157 days of observer coverage in 200212003. These provide only a few examples of the levels of bycatch rates that have been recorded within the diflèrent fisheries. Incidental mortality through interactions with fisheries operations has in most cases simply been implied with the global declines of some species (CroxaLl et aL 1990: Brothers 1991: Welmerskirch et cd. 1997. 1999: L.ewison and Crowder 2003). A number of factors contribute to the problematic task of directly relating fisheries interactions with seabird population trends. First, obtaining an accurate measure of seabird bycatch is difficult because: estimates are generally based on a small number of observations and subsequently scaled to the total effort of a fishery: degrees of observer coverage I and experience) vary between and within fisheries:

inability to quantll’ the bycatch rates in illegal. unregulated and unreported fisheries: and seabird capture estimates from counts of the number of birds hauled aboard are generally an underestimate of those interacting with fishing

gear (Brothers 199 1: Gales et aL 1998: Gilman et al. 2(X)7). Secondly. It is difficult to determine the degree of impact that these bycatch events have on seabird populations In relation to other causes of mortalIty (e.g. predation. pollution. harvesting, disturbance and oceanographic pertubatlons) (Tasker et al. 2000: Lewison et al. 2005). Finally, life—history parameters are essential to assess the impact of mortalities on a population level: however, data such as accurate estimates of

population sL do not exist for most seabird species I Wlenecke and Robertson 2002). Nevertheless, a growing number of studies assessing the Impact of fisheries bycatch on seabird populations have shown a negative effect on the growth and survival of the population (Tuck et cd. 2001: Baker and Wise 2005: Niel and Lebreton 2005). Furthermore. Tuck et cd. (2001) found that behavioural differences (spatial dynamics and life history) between wandering albatross (Dlornedtu exidans. L)iomedeldae) populations were implicated In their response to interactions with fisheries. Determlnlng the individual circumstances that lead to seabird mortalities In a fishery Is essential to desermine how future deaths can be prevented iBrothers t cd. 1999: Hache 20031. Seablrds interact

differently with fisheries depending on the type of fishery and the gear used, For example. In longline fisheries. seabirds may become entangled on the line or caught on hooks. predominantly during line setting, and subsequently drown (Brothers et aL

1999). Vêth respect to trawl fisher ies. seabirds often collide with the net monitoring (net sonde cable and trawl warps. or

birds become tangled in the net (whilst attempting to feed) when it Is at the surface during setting and hauling (Welmerskìrch et tl. 2(XXi Barton 2002: Whenecke and Robertson 2002: 1 looper et cd. 2003). In gillnet fisheries. seablrds are most often caught in the nets when diving for prey (Melvin et aI. 1999). Even within each of these lL%herles longiine. trawl and glllnet). there are other factors influencing the degree of seabird interactions. including: fishing practice, configuration of gear (pelagic or demersal). weather conditions and the seabird aemblage present (Gihuan et al. 200S).

Fishing practices pose a significant threat to seabird populationsPolidoro et al 2011

(Beth A., UCN Species Programme/Conservation International Global Marine Species Assessment, Biological Sciences, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Cristiane T. Elfes, IUCN Species Programme/Conservation International, Biodiversity Assessment Unit, Jonnell C. Sanciangco, UCN Species Programme/Conservation International Global Marine Species Assessment, Biological Sciences, Old Dominion University, Helen Pippard, IUCN Regional Office for Oceania, Kent E. Carpenter, IUCN Species Programme/Conservation International Global Marine Species Assessment, Biological Sciences, Old Dominion University, “Conservation Status ofMarine Biodiversity in Oceania: An Analysis of Marine Species on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.”, Journal of Marine Biology. 2011, Vol. 2011, p1-14. 14p. 1 Chart, 4 Maps, p 6-7, EBSCO)

Twenty-three percent (11 of 47 species) of all sea birds in Oceania are in threatened categories. Major threats to seabirds across the globe include mortality in long-line fisheries and gill-nets , oil spills, and the impact of invasive species such as rodents and cats at breeding colonies. Additional threats to breeding sites of seabirds are habitat loss and degradation from coastal development, logging, and pollution 1591. In Nauru and Tonga, seabirds have traditionally been caught for food, but it is unclear whether this constitutes a

threat (601. Some sea bird species are vulnerable to by-catch, usually in longline fisheries in the Oceania region. The most common species caught are albatrosses, petrels. shearwaters, and fulmars (611. Many of these occur only in passage through Oceania

and are typically more abundant in temperate areas. However, for those species that are endemic, even infrequent fisheries-related mortality may have a significant effect on populations (61j. Very little information is available on the numbers and species of sea birds that are by-caught (62). Globally, albatrosses are one of the most threatened families of birds, and both species found in Oceania are listed as Vulnerable. Five of the six Oceania endemic sea birds Little White Tern (Gygis microrhyn cha). White-throated Storm Petrel (Nesofregetta fuliginosa), Fiji Petrel (Psei,dobulweria macgillivrayi), Henderson Petrel (Pterodrorna atrata), Collared Petrel (Pterodronia brevipes), and the Hawaiian Petrel (Pierodrorna sandwichensis) are in threatened or Near Threatened categories. These species have restricted ranges and their nesting sites are threatened by introduced species such as rats, pigs. mongoose, and feral cats. The Fiji petrel, listed as Critically Endangered, is the most threatened sea bird in the region, with the remaining population estimated to be less than 50 individuals [63).

Impact

Less birds means decrease pollination, causes biodiversity extinction

Rockets 6 (Rusty, Head writer for Scienceagogo.com, January 20, http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/pollinators.shtml)

Biologists who have just concluded analyzing years of detailed and painstaking observations of flora and fauna have released alarming findings concerning the likely future of biodiversity on our planet. The findings show a widespread decrease in pollinators such as birds, bees and flies, which means that plants in species-dense areas are not getting enough pollen to reproduce. The study’s team leaders, Jana Vamosi, Susan Mazer and Tiffany Knight,

believe that if the current state of affairs continues in species-rich hotspots, plant extinctions are

unavoidable . The researchers proffer a number of possible reasons for the current parlous state of biodiverse hotspots, but as yet they

are still unsure as to whether this is a recent phenomenon or whether they are simply witnessing something that has been occurring for millions of years; a situation that reflects the lack of existing knowledge in this area. Vamosi, Mazer, Knight performed an exhaustive global analysis of more than 1,000 pollination studies that included 166 different plant species. Their study, appearing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that plants suffer lower pollination and reproductive success in areas where there is considerable plant diversity. The analysis shows that ecosystems with the greatest number of species - including the jungles of South America and Southeast Asia and the rich shrub land of South Africa - have bigger deficits in pollination compared to the less-diverse ecosystems of North America, Europe and Australia. "This is truly a synthetic work," said Susan Mazer, a professor of biology at the University of California, Santa Barbara. "Our detection of global patterns required the simultaneous analysis of many studies conducted independently by plant ecologists all over the world." Mazer said their meta-study analyzed 482 field experiments on 241 flowering plant species conducted since 1981. The work took several years to complete and all continents except Antarctica are represented. "This analysis can tell us things about ecological processes at the global scale that individual studies are not designed to tell us," she said, noting that the synthesis could not have been done 25 years ago because few careful field studies of this type had yet been conducted. A typical field study compared plants that were naturally pollinated to those to which pollen was added by hand. If the plants that received human intervention showed increased fruit, then it was clear that the naturally pollinated flowers were not getting enough pollen to achieve maximum fruit production. "If pollinators are doing a good job, you wouldn't expect a treatment effect," Knight said. "But for some of our plants we saw a huge treatment effect. We saw that a lot of the plants

are incredibly pollen-limited.” For some plant species, this reduction in fruit and seed production caused through lack of pollination could drive them towards extinction. The team found this pattern to be especially true for species that rely heavily on pollinators to assist with outcrossing (seeding a flower’s stamen with pollen sourced from another flower of the same species) for reproduction, because individuals of the same species tend to be separated by large distances when species diversity is high. This separation means that pollinators have to fly long distances to deliver pollen, and when they do arrive, they may deliver lots of unusable pollen from other

plant species. Not being able to outcross means that extinctions are a real likelihood . While it is possible for plants to self-pollinate (selfing), this alone does not progress or strengthen the species, as, like any other living organism, a plant needs genetic variation in order for the species to survive as a whole. In short, selfing does not deliver the genetic variation that may increase the fitness of a plant’s progeny. The new study does not bode well for life globally, as many of the so-called biodiverse hotspots are home to many valuable organic

compounds, used for medicines and other applications. "Biodiversity hotspots, such as tropical rainforests, are a global resource – they are home to many of the known plants used for medicine and may be a source for future cures, and they absorb huge amounts of carbon dioxide and generate volumes of clean oxygen .

Our research suggests that plants in these areas are also very fragile. They already suffer from low pollen receipt, and future perturbations of the habitat may exacerbate the situation," said Knight. That’s a scenario that would not

auger well for human progress, but Knight’s comment also implies another explanation for this drastic state of affairs. It seems

that we humans like to shoot ourselves in the foot every so often, as many of the biodiverse hotspots also happen to be areas where habitat is being destroyed either directly or indirectly through human intervention. "Pollinators are on the decline globally because of habitat loss and destruction, pesticide use, invasive species, and extinction of vertebrates," said co-researcher Tia-Lynn Ashman. "The concern is that we are losing habitat really rapidly globally, especially in tropical areas, and losing pollinators there as well," added Knight.

MammalsFishing hurts marine mammal populationsGales et al 2003

(Nick, Mark Hindell, Roger Kirkwood, “Marine Mammals : Fisheries, Tourism and Management Issues”, Collingwood, Vic : Eurospan. 2003, EBSCO)

The situation described by Oppian represents but one of several potential conflicts between marine mammals and fisheries.

For convenience, these conflicts are usually divided into two categories: operational conflicts and ecological conflicts

(Anonymous 198 la; bvignc 1982; Ferd 2002; see Table 3). Operational conflicts involve physical encounters between

marine mammals and fishing gear, broadly defined. They arise, for example, when marine mammals damage fishing gear or aquaculture facilities, and when the damage fish caught in the gear or cause the fish to escape (either from

fishing gear or from aquaculture facilities). resulting ultimately in economic losses to commercial enterprises They also arise when marine mammals are taken incidentally in commercial fisheries resulting in their injury or death (X’oodley and Lavigne 1993; Perrin # al 1994) or become entangled in discarded fishing gear. including ‘ghost’ nets (Gui land 1986; Laist ‘tal 1999). Those conflicts that are perceived to damage fisheries or aquaculture facilities typically result in calls for culling the marine mammal population(s)

involved (Table 3). Those that potentially harm marine mammals do not, and will not he discussed further in this chapter. Ecological conflicts include those that arise because of predation by marine mammals on commercially important fish stocks or their prey. While attention has tended to focus on the potential defects of marine mammals on commercial fisheries (Fcrtl

2002), there is another side to this coin: the potential effects of commercial fisheries on marine mammals, particularly endangered species (Northridge 2002). Such suspected interactions have been a source of conflict. for example, in the case of the endangered Steller sea lion, Eumetopias jubatus. in western Alaska (National Research Council 1996;

National Marine Fisheries Service 2000); and of the Hawaiian monk seal, M. schauinclondi. in the North-western Hawaiian Island

chain (Lavigne 1999; US District Court 2000). In both cases, concern has been expressed that commercial fisheries are contributing to the decline, or pre venting the recovery, of depleted marine mammal populations . [šur once again, the latter conflicts do not result in calls for culling marine mammals, so they will not be discussed further here. The effects of

ecological conflicts involving predation (or competition) may be either ‘direct’ (e.g. marine mammals eat commercially

important fish stocks, or a commercial fishery’ reduces the availability of an important marine mammal prey species) or ‘indirect’ (e.g. marine mammals eat the prey of commercially important fish stocks or commercial fisheries reduce the availability of food for marine mammal prey).

Fishing practices are the primary threat to marine mammal populationsPolidoro et al 2011

(Beth A., UCN Species Programme/Conservation International Global Marine Species Assessment, Biological Sciences, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Cristiane T. Elfes, IUCN Species Programme/Conservation International, Biodiversity Assessment Unit, Jonnell C. Sanciangco, UCN Species Programme/Conservation International Global Marine Species Assessment, Biological Sciences, Old Dominion University, Helen Pippard, IUCN Regional Office for Oceania, Kent E. Carpenter, IUCN Species Programme/Conservation International Global Marine Species Assessment, Biological Sciences, Old Dominion University, “Conservation Status ofMarine Biodiversity in Oceania: An Analysis of Marine Species on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.”, Journal of Marine Biology. 2011, Vol. 2011, p1-14. 14p. 1 Chart, 4 Maps, p 6-7, EBSCO)

Almost one-fifth of marine mammals present in Oceania are in threatened categories, and over 50% (19 of 36 species) of marine mammals in Oceania are listed as Data Deficient, again because threats to many of these pelagic and/or highly migratory species cannot

be adequately quantified 1281. No marine mammals are known to be endemic to Oceania, and major threats to these species are global or

historic. The primary threats to marine mammals in Oceania and around the globe are accidental mortality through entanglement in fishing gear, the effects of noise pollution from military and seismic sonar, or boat strikes 128, 511. In many regions, including Oceania. manne mammals are also threatened by habitat loss from coastal development,

loss of prey or other food sources due to poor fisheries management, and historical or current effects of hunting [34). Hunting of large whales does not occur in the region, and countries including Cook Islands, Fiji, French Polynesia, Samoa and Niue have declared whale sanctuaries (521. However. several Pacific Island countries have recently joined the International Whaling Commission and voted with Japan in favor of commercial whaling. Dolphin hunts have occurred traditionally throughout Oceania, and still remain in the Solomon Islands where they are thought to be contributing to population declines [53, 54]. Dugongs, Dugong dugon, are also traditionally hunted in many areas for their meat, bones, and skin [55, 56]. Although there are no estimates of the numbers of dugong caught, the species is likely very vulnerable

to hunting and other human impacts due to its restricted coastal habitat, dependence on sea grasses, and low reproductive rates [571. The most threatened marine mammal in Oceania is the Hawaiian monk seal , Monachus schauinslandi, listed as Critically Endangered. Mortality rates from birth to maturity of monk seals in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands are very high, and disproportionally impact juveniles. Causes of mortality are thought to include food limitation, predation on suckling

and recently weaned pups. and entanglement in marine debris. There are currently less than 600 mature individuals of this

species, and declines are expected to continue into the near future despite the species being primarily found within the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands National Marine Monument [581.

Fish-Mid-trophicOverfished species are especially key to marine ecosystems because they are typically mid-trophic speciesFrederiksen et al 2006

(Morten, Martin Edwards, Anthony J. Richardson, Nicholas C. Halliday, Sarah Wanless, “From plankton to top predators: bottom-up control of a marine food web across four trophic levels.”, Journal of Animal Ecology. Nov2006, Vol. 75 Issue 6, p1259-1268. 10p. 1 Chart, 3 Graphs, 1 Map, EBSCO)

Many marine ecosystems are dominated by a few abundant mid-trophic species. usually pelagic schooling fish, with higher diversity at lower and higher trophic levels (Rice 1995). Such species channel energy and nutrients from plank tonic primary and secondary producers to top predators. and thus play an important role in regulating ecosystem dynamics. One of the species occupying this trophic position in the North Sea is

the lesser sandeel (Anunod vies nlcirinus R.aitt hereafter sanded), which feeds on zooplankton (mainly copepods)(Reay

19X6)and is a key prey of predatory fish, marine mammals and seabirds Greenstreet, McMillan & Armstrong 199g: Homes & Bergstad 1999: Adlerstein & Welleman 2000: Furness 2002). In particular. the large breeding populations of seabirds in the NW North Sea (East coast of Scotland) depend extensively on sandeels (Wanless. Harris & Greenstreet 199g: Furness & Tasker 2000). Since the 1970s. sandeels have been among the dominant mid-trophic pelagic fish in the North Sea. Because of their specific habitat requirements sandeels have a patchy distribution and exhibit strong population structure within the North Sea (Pedersen. [.ewv & Wright 1999). Starting in the I950s. a

Large industrial fishery for fishmeal and tìshoil developed. which in the I980s and I990s was the largest single-species fishery in the region with landings in some years exceeding I million tonnes (Furness 1999). There are several indications

that sandeels have been less abundant in the North Sea in the last few years than previously. In 2004 seabirds in this area experienced the worst breeding season on record. linked probably to a lack of suitable food. i.e. sandeels (Harris et aL 2004: Mayor e, aL 2005). Similarly, in 2003 and 2004. landings from the industrial sanded fishery were less than 50% of the average, indicating repeated recruitment failure since 2001 (ICES 2004). In July 2005 the fishery was suspended following greatly reduced land ings. and only a limited fishery effort has been allowed initially in 2006 (Anonymous 2005).

Sharks

Sharks are often killed as by-catchPolidoro et al 2011

(Beth A., UCN Species Programme/Conservation International Global Marine Species Assessment, Biological Sciences, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Cristiane T. Elfes, IUCN Species Programme/Conservation International, Biodiversity Assessment Unit, Jonnell C. Sanciangco, UCN Species Programme/Conservation International Global Marine Species Assessment, Biological Sciences, Old Dominion University, Helen Pippard, IUCN Regional Office for Oceania, Kent E. Carpenter, IUCN Species Programme/Conservation International Global Marine Species Assessment, Biological Sciences, Old Dominion University, “Conservation Status ofMarine Biodiversity in Oceania: An Analysis of Marine Species on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.”, Journal of Marine Biology. 2011, Vol. 2011, p1-14. 14p. 1 Chart, 4 Maps, p 6-7, EBSCO)

Approximately one-fourth of all sharks and batoids found in Oceania are in threatened categories. Like sea turtles, the threats to the majority of these species occur

globally, and only 10 of the 97 species of sharks and rays present in Oceania are endemic to the region. The primary threat to sharks and rays

(batoids) is their capture in nets from both targeted and accidental catch. Most shark species grow slowly, mature late, produce few young, and have low rates of population increase, making them highly vulnerable to depletion with a low capacity for recovery from over- exploitation [321. Shark fisheries have proliferated around the world during recent decades, in response to increasing demand for shark products and as traditional fisheries come under stronger management. Millions of sharks are caught each year for their fins which are used to make the Asian delicacy shark fin soup 1341. Many subsistence and small-scale fisheries for sharks occur in the Oceania region. Typically, the meat is used for domestic consumption and the teeth and jaws are sold as curios in the tourist industry [471; however, catches are

poorly documented. Sharks are also commonly taken in the Oceania region as by-catch of commercial tuna and other pelagic long-line or purse seine fisheries, which retain primarily shark fins for the international trade [47—491. The two most threatened shark and ray species found in Oceania, Harrison’s Deepsea Dog fish (Centrophorus harrissoni) and the Narrowsnout Sawfish (Pristis zijsron). both listed as Critically Endangered, have ranges primarily outside of the region, but with records from a few locations within Oceania including New Caledonia and Approximately 25% (19 of 75 species) of sharks and 80% (4 of 5 species) of chirnacras are listed as Data Deficient. For many shark species, little is known about their reproductive biology

and quantitative data is lacking on the impact of fisheries on their populations. For example, approximately 50% of the estimated global catch of

chondrichthyans is taken as by-catch which does not appear in official fishery statistics and is rarely managed 1501. Most chirnaeras are not well-studied, as they are primarily deep-water species that occur in temperate waters. For the few species that are thought to occur in Oceania, little is known about their distribution, reproduction, or the potential impact of fishing activities on their populations. Fiji.

Sea Turtles

Sea turtles are endangered by overfishingPolidoro et al 2011

(Beth A., UCN Species Programme/Conservation International Global Marine Species Assessment, Biological Sciences, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Cristiane T. Elfes, IUCN Species Programme/Conservation International, Biodiversity Assessment Unit, Jonnell C. Sanciangco, UCN Species Programme/Conservation International Global Marine Species Assessment, Biological Sciences, Old Dominion University, Helen Pippard, IUCN Regional Office for Oceania, Kent E. Carpenter, IUCN Species Programme/Conservation International Global Marine Species Assessment, Biological Sciences, Old Dominion University, “Conservation Status ofMarine Biodiversity in Oceania: An Analysis of Marine Species on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.”, Journal of Marine Biology. 2011, Vol. 2011, p1-14. 14p. 1 Chart, 4 Maps, p 6-7, EBSCO)

3.2. Highly Migratory and Wide-Ranging Specks. Comprehensive assessments were completed for all sea turtles, sharks and rays, marine

mammals, and sea birds in the region. Among these, sea turtles have the highest pro.- portion of threatened species of any group, with all five of the species present in Oceania, Loggerhead (Careno careno), Green (Chelonia mydas), Leatherback (Derrnoclielys

coriacea), Hawksbill (Eretrnochelys itnbricata), and Olive Ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea), listed in threatened categories. Threats to all sea turtle species occur globally and at all stages of their life cycle. Marine turtles lay their eggs on beaches, which are subject to threats such as coastal development and sand mining. The eggs and hatchlings are threatened by pollution and predation by introduced predators such as pigs and dogs, as well as collection by humans. Sea turtles have traditionally been used in the Pacific Island for their meat and eggs, their shells used for decoration, fishing lures and hooks, and for sale and opportunistic by-catch by fishers targeting

shellfish and sea cucumbers [40—431. At sea, marine turtles are faced with threats from targeted capture in small-scale

subsistence fisheries, by-catch by long-line and trawling activities, entanglement in marine debris, and boat strikes. Their life history characteristics, particularly late sexual maturity and long juvenile stage, combined with the many

threats from human activities in the sea and on land contribute to their high risk of extinction [34J. In addition, global climate change is now considered to be a serious, if not entirely understood, threat that is contributing to the loss of nesting beaches [441. possibly skewed sex ratios L41,and loss of foraging grounds [46].

Bio-D I/L

Overfishing is collapsing ecosystems and biodiversity loss can come without warningRoss 14

“Overfishing Causes Ecosystems To ‘Unravel,’ Fish Populations Can’t Recover After ‘Tipping Points’ Reached” By Philip Ross, International Business Times, on January 14 2014 accessed 6/30/14 at http://www.ibtimes.com/overfishing-causes-ecosystems-unravel-fish-populations-cant-recover-after-tipping-points-reached. (Ross holds an M.A. in Journalism from New York University and a B.A. in International Development Studies from the University of California, Los Angeles.)

As improvements in technology and large-scale fishing methods have made commercial fishing more efficient, faster and more profitable, fish

populations around the world have suffered. Starting in the early 1800s, humans have harvested several species of fish to the brink of extinction. Overfishing is an ecological disaster that affects entire ecosystems, and a new study

highlights this point in bright, neon color.¶ Researchers in the U.S. analyzed fisheries data from around the globe, examining the cumulative effect that occurs when overfishing depletes a particular population. The results of their investigation, described in a paper published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in December,

underscore the effect that eliminating one species has on the ecosystem as a whole. When one fish is no longer there, the entire ecosystem changes, researchers contend, and once that “tipping point” has been reached, the species can no longer bounce back.¶ “You don’t realize how interdependent species are until it all unravels,” Felicia Coleman, director of the Florida State University Coastal and Marine Laboratory and a co-author on the study, said in a statement.¶ The authors noted one particular example of ecosystem collapse that occurred off the coast of Namibia in southwest Africa. In the 1970s, the northern Benguela ecosystem completely changed as stocks of anchovy and sardines plummeted. With anchovy and sardines on the way out, bearded goby and jellyfish stepped in to take their place. Which animals suffered the most? It was actually the populations of African penguins and Cape gannets that bore the brunt of overfishing in the region. The birds couldn’t survive on goby and jellyfish, and as a result, their numbers declined by 77 percent and 94 percent, respectively.¶ "When you put all these examples together, you realize there really is something important going on in the world's ecosystems," Joseph Travis, a biological science professor at

Florida State University and one of the study’s co-authors, said in a statement. "It's easy to write off one case study. But, when you string them all together as this paper does, I think you come away with a compelling case that tipping points are real, we've crossed them in many ecosystems, and we'll cross more of them unless we can get this problem under control."¶ Part of the problem, scientists say, is consumer ignorance about the fish they eat and where it comes from. Also, researchers warn that the fishing industry needs a massive overhaul, otherwise the world’s food supply will collapse.¶ “What we have today are multinational fleets of roving bandits that conduct serial depletions and move to more productive grounds,” Robert Steneck from the University of Maine and a co-author of the study told Quartz. “People in the U.S. are insulated from the reality of overfishing by seeing fish well stocked in

their grocery stores.”¶ “Overfishing and environmental change have triggered many severe and unexpected consequences,” the authors note in the study. “As existing communities have collapsed, new ones have become established, fundamentally transforming ecosystems to those that are often less productive for fisheries, more prone to cycles of booms and busts, and thus

less manageable.”¶ Researchers say a “lack of appreciation” on the part of fisheries and their management for the complexity of interspecies relationships is greatly affecting how we treat our world’s stocks of fish .¶

“Ecologists have come to understand that networks of interacting species exhibit nonlinear dynamics and feedback loops that can produce sudden and unexpected shifts,” they wrote. “We argue that fisheries science and management must follow this lead by developing a sharper focus on species interactions and how disrupting these interactions can push ecosystems in which fisheries are embedded past their tipping points.”¶ Fishing experts generally understand the effects overfishing have on

fish populations and ecosystems alike, but scientists say more research is needed. A 2006 study in the journal Science estimated that by 2048, all the world’s fisheries will have collapsed, if fishing rates remain unchanged.

Biodiversity in the deep sea is important to manage climate change, feed humanity, and make advances in science and technologyOliveira in 2012

(Jose Antonio Puppim de, Assistant Director and Senior Research Fellow at the United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies, “Green Economy and Good Governance for Sustainable Development : Opportunities, Promises and Concerns”, New York : United Nations University. 2012, p 221-224, EBSCO)

The importance of biodiversity in deep and open oceans The deep seabed and open oceans of the world that lie beyond the jurisdiction of individual countries were long considered remote, hostile and biologically barren. Although these areas have captured the imagination of explorers both past and present. the vast majority of the world’s population has not given them much thought, and their management and conservation have taken a back seat to more pressing day-to-day concerns. Hence, these arcas were viewed as a source of fish proteins and as routes for transporting commodities, cruise-ship tourism. military activities or the laying of underwater cables, all with practically no strings

attached. In fact, these and other human activities in the deep and open oceans,3 including oil and mineral exploration and

marine scientific research, were conducted with little attention to possible adverse impacts on the marine environment. Yet, recent research has shown that open oceans and deep seas not only are incredibly diverse biologically also are vital for our survival on Earth (Koslo4 2007). Our economies, be they global or local, and our

livelihoods and well-being are directly tied to the food resources, climate regulation and potential for scientific and technological innovation that are provided by the oceans. Without them, life as we know it would not be possible. Similarly, sustainable development will not be achievable without their improved management. Recent scientific studies have shown that biodiversity in the oceans provides numerous benefits to people. which include food resources, regulation of the Earth’s climate and cancer-curing medicines . Life in the deep sea has been found to play a fundamental role in global biogeochemical cycles. including nutrient regeneration and production of oxygen, as well as the maintenance of the Earth’s climate through the global carbon cycle

(Armstrong et al.. 2010: Riser and Johnson. 2008: Smith et al., 2009). An estimated 50 per cent of the carbon in the atmosphere that becomes bound or “sequestered” in natural systems is cycled into the seas and oceans. Not only do oceans represent the largest long-term sink for carbon but they also store and redistribute carbon dioxide (CO2). Same 93 per cent of the Earth’s CO2 is stored and cycled through the oceans (Armstrong et aL 2010). The value of fisheries to humankind has been

well documented. Ac cording to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, fish provides more than L5 billion people globally with almost 20 per cent of their average per capita intake of animal protein. The number doubles to 3 billion for those whom fish provides 15 percent of their animal protein intake. In 2007. total animal protein from fish was l8.3 per cent in developing countries and 20.1 per cent in low-income food-deficit countries (FAO. 2010). Fishing fleets have shifted to fishing further off shore and in deeper waters to meet global demand since the

1960s (Co chonat et al.. 2007: Morato et aL. 2006). The deep sea is a source of several important and lucrative commercial species, which include the orange roughy. roundnosc grenadier. redfish. oreos and blue ling. as well as shellfish, such as

crab and shrimp. A third of shark and ray species spend most of (heir life in the deep sea (Morato et aL. 2006). Important deep sea habitats. including cold water coral reefs and seamounts. are believed to be crucial in supporting fish populations (Armstrong et al., 2010). The value of the enormous biodiversity found in the deep seas is not yet well understood owing to our limited knowledge about

the full range of species that inhabit this remote part of the planet and the functioning of ecosystems there. Current estimates of species diversity range from 500.000 to 10 million species (Census of Marine Life. 2010; Koslow. 2007). with new species being continuously discovered. This potential for discovery of new species. genes and adaptations is of great interest to bio technology. Many deep sea organisms have adapted to life under extreme conditions (so-called

cxtrcmophilcs”), and thus have unusual molecular and metabolic adaptations. This is particularly true of bacteria found on and around hydrothermal vents, where toxic, high temperature conditions prevail, but also of bacteria found in the deep seabed, the water

column and polar environments (TÙrLey. 2000). Not surprisingly, the deep seas are considered to represent the largest reservoir of genetic resources, including some of major interest for commercial and industrial

applications. A recent study (Yooscph et al., 2007) reports the discovery of thousands of new genes and proteins in just a few litres of water, promising many potential new functions.

Bio-D ImpactDestruction of aquatic ecosystems leads to extinction

Craig 3 (Robin, Associate Professor of Law at Indiana, Winter, 34 McGeorge L. Review. 155)

Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they do for terrestrial ecosystems, but these arguments have thus far rarely been raised in political debates. For example, besides significant tourism values - the most economically valuable ecosystem service coral reefs provide, worldwide - coral reefs protect against storms and dampen other environmental fluctuations, services worth more than ten times the reefs’ value for food production. Waste treatment is another significant, non-extractive ecosystem

function that intact coral reef ecosystems provide. More generally, “ocean ecosystems play a major role in the global

geochemical cycling of all the elements that represent the basic building blocks of living organisms, carbon,

nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur, as well as other less abundant but necessary elements.” In a very real and direct sense,

therefore, human degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the planet’s ability to support life. Maintaining

biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of marine ecosystems. Current evidence shows that, in general, an ecosystem’s ability to keep functioning in the face of disturbance is strongly dependent on its biodiversity, “indicating that more diverse ecosystems are more stable.” Coral reef ecosystems are particularly dependent on their biodiversity. Most ecologists agree that the complexity of interactions and degree of interrelatedness among component species is higher on coral reefs than in any other marine environment. This implies that the ecosystem functioning that produces the most highly valued components is also complex and that many otherwise insignificant species have strong effects on sustaining the rest of the reef system. Thus, maintaining and restoring the biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical to maintaining and restoring the ecosystem services that they provide. Non-use biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated in the wake of marine disasters, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. Similar calculations could derive preservation values for marine wilderness. However, economic value, or economic value equivalents, should not be “the sole or even primary justification for conservation of ocean ecosystems. Ethical arguments also have considerable force and merit.” At the forefront of such arguments should be a recognition of how little we know about the sea - and about the actual effect of human activities on marine ecosystems. The United States has traditionally failed to protect marine ecosystems because it was difficult to detect anthropogenic harm to the oceans, but we now know that such harm is occurring - even though we are not completely sure about causation or about how to fix every problem. Ecosystems like the NWHI coral reef ecosystem should inspire lawmakers and policymakers to admit that most of the time we really do not know what we are doing to the sea and hence should be preserving marine wilderness whenever we can - especially when the United States has within its territory relatively pristine marine ecosystems that may be unique in the

world. We may not know much about the sea, but we do know this much: if we kill the ocean we kill ourselves, and we will take most of the biosphere with us. The Black Sea is almost dead, its once-complex and productive ecosystem almost entirely replaced by a monoculture of comb jellies, “starving out fish and dolphins, emptying fishermen’s nets, and converting the web of life into brainless, wraith-like blobs of jelly.” More importantly, the Black Sea is not necessarily unique. The Black Sea is a microcosm of what is happening to the ocean systems at large. The stresses piled up: overfishing, oil spills, industrial discharges, nutrient pollution, wetlands destruction, the introduction of an alien species. The sea weakened, slowly at first, then collapsed with shocking suddenness. The lessons of this tragedy should not be lost to the rest of us, because much of what happened here is being repeated all over the world. The ecological stresses imposed on the Black Sea were not unique to communism. Nor, sadly, was the failure of governments to respond to the emerging crisis. Oxygen-starved “dead zones” appear with increasing frequency off the coasts of major cities and major rivers, forcing marine animals to flee and killing all that cannot. Ethics as well as enlightened self-interest thus suggest that the United States should protect fully-functioning marine ecosystems wherever possible - even if a few fishers go out of business as a result

Biodiversity loss has impacts comparable to climate change and pollution at their worst, reduces plant growth and productivityErickson ’12 (Jim, professor of environmental studies at the University of Michigan, 5/2/12, Ecosystem effects of biodiversity loss could rival impacts of climate change, pollution, Michigan News, University of Michigan, http://ns.umich.edu/new/multimedia/slideshows/20366-ecosystem-effects-of-biodiversity-loss-could-rival-impacts-of-climate-change-pollution?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+umns-releases+(University+of+Michigan+News+Service+-+News+Releases), accessed: 7/1/14 GA)

Loss of biodiversity appears to impact ecosystems as much as climate change, pollution and other major forms of environmental stress, according to a new study from an international research team. The study is the first comprehensive effort to directly compare the impacts of biological diversity loss to the anticipated effects of a host of other human-caused environmental

changes. The results highlight the need for stronger local, national and international efforts to protect biodiversity and the benefits it provides,

according to the researchers, who are based at nine institutions in the United States, Canada and Sweden. "Loss of biological diversity due to species extinctions is going to have major impacts on our planet, and we better prepare ourselves to deal with them," said University of Michigan ecologist Bradley Cardinale, one of the authors. The study is scheduled for online publication in the journal Nature on May 2. "These extinctions may well rank as one of the top five drivers of global change," said Cardinale, an assistant professor at the

U-M School of Natural Resources and Environment and an assistant professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. Studies over the last two decades have demonstrated that more biologically diverse ecosystems are more productive. As a result, there has been growing concern that the very high rates of modern extinctions – due to habitat loss, overharvesting and other human-caused environmental changes – could reduce nature's ability to provide goods and services like food, clean water and a stable climate. But until now, it's been unclear how biodiversity losses stack up against other human-caused environmental changes that affect ecosystem health and productivity. "Some people have assumed that biodiversity effects are relatively minor compared to other environmental stressors," said biologist David Hooper of Western Washington University, the lead author of the Nature paper. "Our new

results show that future loss of species has the potential to reduce plant production just as much as global warming and pollution." In their study, Hooper and his colleagues used combined data from a large number of published studies to compare how various global environmental stressors affect two processes important in all ecosystems: plant growth and the decomposition of dead plants by bacteria and fungi. The new study involved the construction of a data base drawn from 192 peer-reviewed publications about experiments that manipulated species richness and examined the impact on ecosystem processes. The global synthesis by Hooper and his colleagues found that in areas where local species loss this century falls within the lower range of projections (loss of 1 to 20 percent of plant species), negligible impacts on ecosystem plant growth will result, and changes in species richness will rank low relative to the impacts projected for other environmental changes. In ecosystems where species losses fall within intermediate projections (21 to 40 percent of species), however, species loss is expected to reduce plant growth by 5 to 10 percent, an effect that is comparable in magnitude to the expected impacts of climate warming and increased ultraviolet radiation due to stratospheric ozone loss. At higher levels of extinction (41 to 60 percent of species), the impacts of species loss ranked with those of many other major drivers of environmental change, such as ozone pollution, acid deposition on forests, and nutrient pollution. "Within the range of expected species losses, we saw average declines in plant growth that were as large as changes seen in experiments simulating several other major environmental changes caused by humans," Hooper said. "I think several of us working on this study were surprised by the comparative strength of those effects." The strength of the observed biodiversity effects suggests that policymakers searching for solutions to other pressing environmental problems should be aware of potential adverse effects on biodiversity, as well, the researchers said. Still to be determined is how diversity loss and other large-scale environmental changes will interact to alter ecosystems. "The biggest challenge looking forward is to predict the combined impacts of these environmental challenges to natural ecosystems and to society," said J. Emmett Duffy of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, a co-author of the paper. Authors of the Nature paper, in addition to Hooper, Cardinale and Duffy, are: E. Carol Adair of the University of Vermont and the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis; Jarrett E.K. Byrnes of the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis; Bruce Hungate of Northern Arizona University; Kristen Matulich of University of California Irvine; Andrew Gonzalez of McGill University; Lars Gamfeldt of the University of Gothenburg; and Mary O'Connor of the University of British Columbia and the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis. Funding for the study included grants from the National Science Foundation and the National Center for Ecological Analysis and

Synthesis. "This analysis establishes that reduced biodiversity affects ecosystems at levels comparable to those of global warming or air pollution," said Henry Gholz, program director in the National Science Foundation's Division of Environmental Biology, which funded the research.

Bio D is important to keep the ecosystems that humans depend on functioningLefroy 08 (E. C., “Biodiversity : Integrating Conservation and Production: Case Studies From Australian Farms, Forests and Fisheries”, Collingwood, Vic : CSIRO Publishing. 2008, EBSCO)

Here is another reality. There are some ideologically driven sceptics (such as Julian Simon of the University of Maryland), but those who actually

do the science estimate that extinctions are occurring in the range of 17 000 species per year (Edward Wilson’s

mathematically derived 1988 estimate; Wilson 1988) to a mind-boggling estimate of an annual loss of 150 000 species (Diamond

1992). Richard I.eakey (with Roger Lewin) argues that even if we take a lower figure in this range, e.g. 30000 species per year,

that is an extinction rate 120 000 times higher than the ‘normal’ or ‘background’ extinction rate, which the fossil record establishes at ‘an average of one every four years’ (Leakey & Lewin 1996). The problem is largely one of habitat loss. By the mid-1990s, 80 000 square miles of forest were falling each year (40—50% higher than a mere decade previously), with the result that only about 10% of the original tropical forest cover is still in place. By 2050 that will be reduced to a ‘tiny remnant’ (Leakey & Lewin 1996).

If these trends continue, they conclude, the world stands to lose something like 50% of all species. Does this matter?

Conservation biologists have always assumed that it does, and much of the burgeoning corpus of scientific literature in this area begins from this starting-point, assum ing it to be self-evident and beyond a need for defending. The literature of popular science is another matter; here, spirited explanations of the need to maintain biodiversity are much more easily located. For example, in his widely read 2005 book, Collapse: how societies choose to fail or survive, Jared Diamond notes that it is one thing to argue for the future of embattled species that are large and charismatic but much more difficult to generate a critical mass of support for the defence of species that fall below the radar of public regard. He articulates an archetypal response: “WhO cares? Do you really care less for humans than for some lousy useless little fish or weed, like the

snail darter or Furbish lousewort?’ He answers the rhetorical question thus: This response misses the point that the entire natural world is made up of wild species providing for us free with services that can be very expensive, and in sorne cases

impossible, for us to supply ourselves. Elimination of lots of lousy little species regularly causes big harmful consequences for humans, just as does randomly knocking out many of the lousy little rivets holding together an airplane. Here is the same argument, put by Edward O. Wilson in his popular 1998 book. Consilience: Why do we need so many species anyway ... especially since the majority are bugs, weeds and fungi? Ir is easy ro Issm iss the creepy—crawlies of the world, forgetting that less than a

century ago ... native birds and mammals around the world were treated with the some callous indifference. Now the value of the little things in the natural world has become compellingly clear. Recent experimental studies on whole ecosystems

support what ecologists have long suspected: The more species that live in an ecosystem. the higher its productivity and the greater its ability to withstand drought and other kinds of environmental stress. Since we depend on functioning ecosystems to cleanse our water, enrich our soil, and create the very air we breathe, biodiversity is clearly not something to discard carelessly.

Biodiversity risks full ecosystem collapse- it means no species in the food chain can adapt and surviveA. S. MacDougall, K. S. McCann, G. Gellner, and R. Turkington 13 (“Diversity loss with persistent human disturbance increases vulnerability to ecosystem collapse”, Nature. 2/7/2013, Vol. 494 Issue 7435, p86-89, EBSCO)

Long-term and persistent human disturbances have simultaneously altered the stability and diversity of ecological systems, with disturbances directly reducing functional attributes such as invasion resistance while eliminating the buffering effects of high species diversity’. Theory predicts that this combination of

environmental change and diversity loss increases the risk of abrupt and potentially irreversible ecosystem collapse’, but long-term empirical evidence from natural systems is lacking. Here we demonstrate this relationship in a degraded but species-rich pyrogenic grassland in which the combined effects of fire suppression invasion and trophic collapse have created a species-poor grassland that Is highly productive, resilient to yearly climatic fluctuations, and resistant to invasion but vulnerable to rapid

collapse after the re-Introduction o4’ fire. We initially show how human disturbance has created a negative relationship between diversity and function, contrary to theoretical predictions. Fire prevention since the mId-nineteenth century Is associated with the loss of plant species but it has stabilized high-yield annual production and invasion resistance, comparable to a managed high-yield low-diversity agricultural system. In managing for fire suppression, however, a hidden vulnerability to sudden environmental change emetEes that Is explained by the elimination of the buffering effects of high species diversity. With the re-introduction of fire, grasslands only persist In areas with remnant concentrations of native species, In which a range of rare and mostly functionally redundant plants proliferate after burning

and prevent extensive invasion Including a rapid conversion towards woodland. This research shows how biodiversity can be crucial for ecosystem stability despite appearing functionally insignificant beforehand, a relationship probably applicable to many ecosystems given the globally prevalent combination of Intensive long-term land management and species loss.

Biodiversity critical to prevent species loss—no adaptationA. S. MacDougall, K. S. McCann, G. Gellner, and R. Turkington 13 (“Diversity loss with persistent human disturbance increases vulnerability to ecosystem collapse”, Nature. 2/7/2013, Vol. 494 Issue 7435, p86-89, Ebsco)

Biodiversity can stabilize ecological systems by functional complementarity with different species thriving under different conditions thereby buffering the effects of environmental change’ . Despite an often

demonstrated positive correlation between diversity and stability, however, the generality of this relationship remains unclear in natural

systems, especially in those under persistent anthropogenic influences”. Human land management is often persistent, by intentional (for example, fire suppression and overfishing) or inadvertent (for example, nitrogen pollution) disturbances that homogenize both resident diversity and environmental condition. Persistent disturbances obscure diversity—stability relationships because they can affect ecosystem function independently of diversity

as when overgrazing directly decreases production and provides opportunities for invasion’. Because persistent disturbances can also drive species loss, false positives may arise between diversity and ecosystem function, in which reductions in diversity and function

are correlated but have weak mechanistic connections. The homogenizing effect of human activity on environmental conditions and diversity may also increase the risk of abrupt and potentially irreversible changes after disturbance pulses. even when systems appear stable beforehand’. The question of whether simpler systems are more or less resistant to disturbance has characterized diversity stability research for decade.° Recent research typically supports the latter model, but data are often derived (rom shorter-term studies in constructed experimental communities4. It is unclear, however, whether these stability-regulating mechanisms operate in a similar manner in environmentally heterogeneous natural systems, and whether all mea sures of stability respond similarly in different environmental contexts (for example, the presence or absence of disturbance). The stabilization of functional attributes after abrupt disturbances is assumed to derive from the asynchronous population-level responses of disturbance- resistant species which

maintain function at the aggregate community level as disturbance-sensitive species falters. Yet in persistently managed systems characterized by the loss of environmental variability and diversity, species that are well-adapted to previous environmental conditions have often become rare or extinct. These declines may have Little functional significance as long as the existing conditions of persistent management are maintaine&4. However, this may create a hidden vulnerability to abrupt environmental change, analogous to reduced gene tic diversity limiting the capacity for adaptive responses in populations.

Fish are becoming scarce due to overfishing, threatening biodiversityNuttall ’14 (Nick Nuttall, head of UNEP, Overfishing: a threat to marine biodiversity, UNEP, http://www.un.org/events/tenstories/06/story.asp?storyID=800, accessed: 7/1/14 GA)

Fishing is central to the livelihood and food security of 200 million people, especially in the developing world, while one of five people on this planet depends on fish as the primary source of protein . According to UN agencies, aquaculture - the farming and stocking of aquatic organisms including fish, molluscs, crustaceans and aquatic plants - is growing more rapidly than all other animal food producing sectors. But amid facts and figures about aquaculture's soaring worldwide production rates,

other, more sobering, statistics reveal that global main marine fish stocks are in jeopardy, increasingly pressured by overfishing and environmental degradation. “Overfishing cannot continue,” warned Nitin Desai,

Secretary General of the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development, which took place in Johannesburg. “The depletion of fisheries poses a major threat to the food supply of millions of people.” The Johannesburg Plan of Implementation calls for the establishment of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), which many experts believe may hold the key to conserving and boosting fish stocks. Yet, according to the UN Environment Programme’s (UNEP) World Conservation Monitoring

Centre, in Cambridge, UK, less than one per cent of the world’s oceans and seas are currently in MPAs. The magnitude of the problem of overfishing is often overlooked, given the competing claims of deforestation, desertification, energy resource exploitation and other biodiversity depletion dilemmas. The rapid growth in demand for fish and fish products

is leading to fish prices increasing faster than prices of meat. As a result, fisheries investments have become more attractive to both entrepreneurs and governments, much to the detriment of small-scale fishing and fishing communities all over the world. In the last decade, in the north Atlantic region, commercial fish populations of cod,

hake, haddock and flounder have fallen by as much as 95%, prompting calls for urgent measures. Some are even

recommending zero catches to allow for regeneration of stocks, much to the ire of the fishing industry. According to a Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimate, over 70% of the world’s fish species are either fully exploited or

depleted. The dramatic increase of destructive fishing techniques worldwide destroys marine mammals and entire ecosystems. FAO reports that illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing worldwide appears to be increasing as fishermen seek to avoid stricter rules in many places in

response to shrinking catches and declining fish stocks. Few, if any, developing countries and only a limited number of developed ones are on track to put into effect by this year the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Unreported and Unregulated Fishing . Despite that fact that each region has its Regional Sea Conventions, and some 108 governments and the European Commission have adopted the UNEP Global Programme of Action for the

Protection of the Marine Environment from Land based Activities, oceans are cleared at twice the rate of forests. The Johannesburg forum stressed the importance of restoring depleted fisheries and acknowledged that sustainable fishing requires partnerships by and between governments, fishermen, communities and industry. It urged countries to ratify the Convention on the Law of the Sea and other instruments that promote maritime safety and protect the environment from marine pollution and environmental damage by ships. Only a multilateral approach can counterbalance the rate of depletion of the world’s fisheries which has increased more than four times in the past 40 years.

Food Security

UQ

General-no food security nowBillons of people still lack food securityNational Research Council 2012

(A private, nonprofit institutions that provide expert advice on some of the most pressing challenges facing the nation and the world chartered by congress in 1863, “A Sustainability Challenge : Food Security for All: Report of Two Workshops”, Washington, D.C. : National Academies Press. 2012, p132, EBSCO)

Although we may not know the numbers of food insecure and malnourished with a high degree of accuracy, it appears safe to characterize the current state of food and nutrition insecurity as follows : Many developing countries are currently experiencing a nutrition transition. Lifestyles are becoming more urban and sedentary, with foods and drinks being more energy-dense and diets containing more processed foods, sugars, fats and animal products (Pinstrup-Andersen, 2010). The result is

a triple burden of malnutrition: one part of the population is still undernourished; many also suffer from deficits of specific nutrients, in particular micronutrients; and others are overweight. Close to a billion people are chronically undernourished.

While subject to possible estimation errors, the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) indicator of 850 million undernourished persons in 2005/2007 seems to be a realistic order of magnitude. First, the estimate is still lower than the number of absolutely poor (people living on less than $1.25 per day), which the World Bank estimated at 1.4 billion in 2005 (Ravallion, 201

1). Secondly, FAO’s estimates are compiled using rather low rates of intra national inequality of food availability. Many household consumption surveys show significantly higher coefficients of variation. More than 2 billion people are suffering from various forms of micronutrient deficiency. This estimate is again likely to be conservative as many people are deficient in more than one nutrient . Almost 30 percent of children under five in developing countries are underweight. Underweight is a summary indicator combining acute and persistent causes of child malnutrition. The prevalence is high but has declined during the last decade, in particular in Asia and the Pacific (UNICEF).

Malnutrition is directly or indirectly associated with almost half of the 9 million child deaths per year worldwide, with

the highest rates in Sub-Saharan Africa. According to WHO, 1.5 billion adults are overweight. Nearly 43 million children under five were overweight in 2010 (WHO. 2011). 65 percent of the world’s population live in countries where overweight and obesity kills more

people than underweight (Uauy, 2011). These numbers underscore the fact that action is needed to fight undernourishment as

well as overnourishment. Unless decisive action is taken, the number of hungry may continue to increase with rising food prices and market volatility. Agricultural supply growth ¡s not enough to bring hunger down (FAO, 2009). What matters is that the modalities of supply growth benefit the poor (agriculture for development’) (World Bank, 2007).

Link

Overfishing = no food securityOver fishing is contributing to the food crisis and will lead to starvationUnited Nations, No Date(The United Nations, Chapter IV the Global Food Crisis http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/rwss/docs/2011/chapter4.pdf)

Other medium- and long-term factors have also contributed to the current food crisis. The growing demand for meat among those households newly able to afford it has increased the use of food crops to feed livestock. Total meat supply in the world has quadrupled from 71 million tons in 1961 to 284 million tons in 2007 (Magdoff, 2008). Past overfishing is also reducing the supply of fish, an important source of animal protein for many countries, as higher prices for fish further burden the poor. The problem of overfishing is acute for both marine and freshwater fishing, and the growth of fish-farming has proven to be problematic for both ecological and nutritional reasons. There has been relatively limited progress towards resolving the very complex issues involved.

Overfishing threatens food security for generations to comeHauge et al. 9, Hauge, Kjellrun H., Belinda Cleewood, and Douglas C. Wilson. jellrun Hiis Hauge, Institute of Marine Research, Bergen, Norway; Douglas Clyde Wilson, Senior Researcher and Research Director at Innovative Fisheries Management, Aalborg University; Belinda Cleeland, project officer, IRGC. "Fisheries Depletion and Collapse." (n.d.): n. pag. IRGC. International Risk Governance Council, 2009. http://irgc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Fisheries_Depletion_full_case_study_web.pdf Web. 1 July 2014. CS

Fish provide more than 20% of the animal protein consumed by 2.6 billion people in developing countries (up to 50% for some nations) and is an important source of micronutrients, essential fatty acids, proteins and minerals. Due to this nutritional importance of fish for so many people, a large-scale collapse of fisheries or a significant increase in the price of fish products (likely to be the result of smaller catches) could seriously affect the nutritional status and the food security of many populations [World Bank 2005:6]. Overfishing does not only reduce the source of food today. If overfishing and other negative human impacts on the oceans continue, ecosystems can be driven to irreversible states of decline and this may affect the food supply for future generations.

Unregulated fishing leads to food insecurity, regulations needed to sustain lifeWWF, No Date(A Big Step Forward in the Global Fight Against Illegal Fishing, World Wildlife Foundation https://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/overfishing)

Overfishing occurs when more fish are caught than the population can replace through natural reproduction. Gathering as many fish as possible may seem like a profitable practice, but overfishing has serious consequences. The results not only affect the balance of life in the oceans, but also the social and economic well-being of the coastal communities who depend on fish for their way of life. Billions of people rely on fish for protein, and fishing is the principal livelihood for millions of people around the world. For centuries, our seas and oceans have been considered a limitless bounty of food. However, increasing fishing efforts over the last 50 years as well as unsustainable

fishing practices are pushing many fish stocks to the point of collapse. More than 85 percent of the world's fisheries have been pushed to or beyond their biological limits and are in need of strict management plans to restore them. Several important commercial fish populations (such as Atlantic bluefin tuna) have declined to the point where their survival as a species is threatened. Target fishing of top predators, such as tuna and groupers, is changing

marine communities, which lead to an abundance of smaller marine species, such as sardines and anchovies. Many fishers are aware of the need to safeguard fish populations and the marine environment, however illegal fishing and other regulatory problems still exist. WWF works with stakeholders to reform fisheries management globally, focusing on sustainable practices that conserve ecosystems, but also sustain

livelihoods and ensure food security. CAUSES Industrial Fisheries© AFMA LACK OF PROTECTED AREAS Just 1.6% of the world's oceans have been declared as marine protected areas (MPAs), and 90% of existing MPAs are open to fishing. MPAs are important because they protect habitats such as coral reefs from destructive fishing practices. No-take zones allow

depleted fish populations to recover and provide refuge for endangered species such as marine turtles. Protected areas allow stressed reefs the ability to recover from climate change impacts, such as bleaching. These benefits translate to improved food security for people who rely on the ocean for their daily sustenance and livelihoods. Overfishing, coral reefs OPEN ACCESS FISHERIES A main problem of overfishing is the “open access” nature of fisheries. Because there are no or few property rights there is a lack of incentive for fishermen to leave fish in the water. POOR FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Overfishing, tuna A lack of management oversight, government regulations, and traceability of fishing activities has long been a problem in the fishing industry. Current rules and regulations are not strong enough to limit fishing capacity to a sustainable level. This is particularly the case for the high seas, where there are few international fishing regulations, and those that exist are not always implemented or enforced. Many fisheries management bodies are not able to adequately incorporate scientific advice on fish quotas, and customs agencies and retailers cannot always ensure that the fish entering their country is caught legally and in a sustainable way. ILLEGAL FISHING One key dimension of the overfishing crisis is illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing. It occurs across all types of fisheries, within national and international waters, and small scale to large industrialized operations. Illegal fishing accounts for an estimated 20% of the world’s catch and as much as 50% in some fisheries. The costs of illegal fishing are significant, with the value of pirate fish products estimated at between $10-23.5 billion annually. SUBSIDIES Many governments still continue to subsidize their fleets, allowing unprofitable operations to subsist, and overfishing to occur. Today’s worldwide fishing fleet is estimated to be up to two and a half times the capacity needed to catch what we actually need.

Fish Key to Food SecurityFish are key to food security, most nutritional and widespreadSubasinghe ’13 (Rohana, Senior Aquaculture Officer, Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, FAO, 7/19/13, OCF: Fish and Food

Security, International Conservation Caucus Foundation, http://iccfoundation.us/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=499:fish-and-food-security&catid=73:briefings-2013&Itemid=81, accessed: 7/1/14 GA)

To feed a world of 9 billion people in 2050, agricultural output, originating from crops, livestock and fisheries, including aquaculture, must increase by over 60%, and there is a consensus among the scientific community that foods derived from aquatic resources have a significant role to play across the food supply and value chain. Meeting this target is a formidable challenge for the international community considering that an alarming number of people, mostly in developing countries, still suffer from hunger and poverty. Producing, processing and distributing the current global supply of 128 million tonnes of food fish provide direct and indirect employment to over 50 million people worldwide, and

create livelihood for over 200 million more. Fish contributes about 16% to the world’s animal protein intake, and is the main source of animal protein along with essential micronutrients and fatty acids for three billion people. Since the contribution of capture fisheries to global food fish supplies has leveled off, the supply gap in food fish has been bridged by the growth in aquaculture production. Aquaculture now shares 47% of the global food fish supply, a 13% increase over the past decade. It continues to be the fastest growing food production sector in the world at nearly 6.5% a year. However, trends reveal a gradually decreasing growth rate that could, by 2030, dip to around 4%. The increased population and expanding economies will exert a strong pressure on the

world’s aquatic ecosystems. Since people tend to consume more fish as their incomes grow, per capita fish consumption in many countries is expected to increase. Recent estimates indicate that an additional supply of nearly 50 mt

of fish will be required to feed the growing and increasingly affluent world population by 2030. To meet this demand aquaculture would have to grow 5.6% annually. Despite having achieved good progress in terms of expansion, intensification and diversification, global aquaculture has not grown evenly around the world . The Asia-Pacific region continues to dominate the aquaculture sector, with China alone contributing 62.3% of global production. The sector needs to pay particular attention to most countries in the sub-Saharan Africa, Asia and the Pacific, Central and Eastern Europe and North Africa regions, which are relatively under-developed in terms of human and technical resources, as compared with advanced countries in Europe and North America. There are also marked intraregional and inter-regional and country variations in a number of areas, such as production level, species

composition, farming systems and producer profile. Those variations accordingly have also given rise to a set of key issues and challenges

that need to be proactively addressed in order to achieve the aquaculture sector’s goal of sustainable and equitable development. A number of global reviews have noted the significance of access to natural resources (land, water, feed, seed and energy); enhancement of capacities and institutional development in the areas of policies, strategies, plans and legislation; access to financial resources, especially to small farmers; and food safety and bio-security risks as major aquaculture development constraining factors. The magnitude and diversity of the aquaculture sector issues and challenges call for a concerted global partnerships effort by the relevant partners to effectively and efficiently channel their technical and financial resources to support prioritized global, regional, and national initiatives.

Overfishing hurts communities/people

StatisticsOverfishing will lead to a food crisis; one in five people depend on fish Nuttall 2011 (Nick Nuttall, head of Media Services, United Nations Environment Programme, “Overfishing: a Threat to Marine Biodiversity”, 2011, http://www.un.org/events/tenstories/06/story.asp?storyID=800)

Fishing is central to the livelihood and food security of 200 million people, especially in the developing world, while one of five people on this planet depends on fish as the primary source of protein . According to UN agencies, aquaculture - the farming and stocking of aquatic organisms including fish, molluscs, crustaceans and aquatic plants - is growing more rapidly than all other animal food producing sectors. But amid facts and figures about aquaculture's soaring worldwide production rates,

other, more sobering, statistics reveal that global main marine fish stocks are in jeopardy, increasingly pressured by overfishing and environmental degradation.¶ “Overfishing cannot continue,” warned Nitin Desai, Secretary General of the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development, which took place in Johannesburg. “The depletion of fisheries poses a major threat to the food supply of millions of people.” The Johannesburg Plan of Implementation calls for the establishment of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), which many experts believe may hold the key to conserving and boosting fish stocks. Yet, according to the UN Environment Programme’s (UNEP) World Conservation Monitoring Centre, in Cambridge, UK, less than one per cent of the world’s oceans and seas are currently in MPAs.¶

The magnitude of the problem of overfishing is often overlooked, given the competing claims of deforestation, desertification, energy resource exploitation and other biodiversity depletion dilemmas. The rapid growth in demand for fish and fish products is leading to fish prices increasing faster than prices of meat. As a result, fisheries investments have become more attractive to both

entrepreneurs and governments, much to the detriment of small-scale fishing and fishing communities all over the world. In the last decade, in the north Atlantic region, commercial fish populations of cod, hake, haddock and flounder have fallen by as much as 95%, prompting calls for urgent measures. Some are even recommending zero catches to allow for regeneration of stocks, much to the ire of the fishing industry.¶ According to a Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimate, over 70% of the world’s fish species are either fully exploited or depleted. The dramatic increase of destructive fishing techniques worldwide destroys marine mammals and entire ecosystems. FAO reports that illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing worldwide appears to be increasing as fishermen seek to avoid stricter rules in many places in response to shrinking catches and declining fish stocks. Few, if any, developing countries and only a limited number of developed ones are on track to put into effect by this year the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Unreported and Unregulated Fishing. Despite that fact that each region has its Regional Sea Conventions, and some 108 governments and the European Commission have adopted the UNEP Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land based Activities, oceans are cleared at twice the rate of forests.¶

Overfishing is a problem that needs to be solved, one billion people depend on fish for survival FOC 2012 (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, has the lead federal role in managing Canada’s fisheries and safeguarding its waters, “Overfishing and Food Security”, June 8, 2012, http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/international/media/bk_food-eng.htm) The impact of global overfishing is typically measured in environmental and economic terms, but often overlooked is the threat depleted fish stocks pose to the millions of people around the world who depend on fish for food.¶ According to the World Resources Institute, about 1 billion people – largely in developing countries – rely on fish as their primary animal protein source. Fish is highly nutritious, and it serves as a valuable supplement in diets lacking essential vitamins and minerals.¶ During much of the last half-century, the growth in demand for animal

protein was satisfied in part by the rising output of oceanic fisheries. Between 1950 and 1990, the oceanic fish catch increased roughly fivefold, from 19 million to 85 million tonnes. During this period, seafood consumption per person nearly doubled, climbing from 8 to 15 kilograms.[1]¶ Unfortunately, the human appetite for seafood is outgrowing the sustainable yield of oceanic fisheries.

Today, more than 70 per cent of the world’s fisheries are either fully exploited or depleted. Production levels in many fishing nations have fallen to historically low levels, confirming that some fish stocks are in a fragile state.¶ Global investments in aquaculture are seen as one way to help bridge the growing demand for fish and seafood. While this may also help contribute to food security, it is only part of the solution. Action is still needed to create sustainable fish stocks in the high seas.¶ One of the major factors contributing to the current predicament of global fisheries is illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. Illegal fishing undermines efforts to conserve

and manage fish stocks. This situation leads to the loss of both short and long-term social and economic opportunities, and to negative effects on food security.¶ IUU fishing is especially problematic for developing nations. These States can lose tens of millions of dollars to illegal fishing, and may not have the governance structures in place to ensure proper fisheries management. [2]¶ The world's oceans, lakes and rivers are harvested largely by artisanal fishers. Their catches provide essential nourishment for poor communities, not only in Africa and Asia, but also in many parts of Latin America and islands in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Of the 30 countries most dependent on fish as a protein source, all but four are in the developing world.[3]¶ The rapid growth in demand for fish and fish products, in combination with shrinking supply, is leading to significant increases in fish prices. As a result, fisheries investments have become more attractive to both entrepreneurs and governments. This is to the detriment of small-scale fishing and fishing communities all over the world. Developing countries are also taking a growing share of the international trade in fish and fishery products. This may have both benefits and drawbacks. While the exports provide valuable foreign exchange, the diversion of fish and fish products from local communities and developing regions can deprive needy people of a traditionally cheap, but highly nutritious food. ¶ The Government of Canada recognizes the threat that both overfishing and IUU fishing pose to global food security. These issues were specifically addressed in the Ministerial Declaration of the St. John’s Conference on the Governance of High Seas Fisheries and the United Nations Fish Agreement and the Bali Plan of Action. In these international commitments, concrete measures were outlined to: strengthen regional fisheries management organizations to help ensure sustainable fisheries; and assist developing nations in

implementing relevant agreements, instruments and tools for the conservation and management of fish stocks.¶ Sustainable fish stocks are needed as a significant and renewable source of healthy food for large parts of the world’s population. Continued sustainable use provides for increased food security on a global basis.

Overfishing hurts developing countriesOver fishing and other destructive practices hurts poor communities and developing countries—food security is put at riskSilva 14 (Kristian, Brisbane Times Journalist, “Over-fishing damages tropics, international report says”, Brisbane Times, http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/overfishing-damages-tropics-international-report-says-20140610-zs2gr.html, Date accessed 6/30/14)

Excessive fishing in the world’s tropical areas could eventually put the lives of poorer communities at risk, according to a soon-to-be released international report. The State Of The Tropics report, compiled by 10 international institutions including Queensland’s James Cook University, has found habitat degradation and environmental change could reduce fisheries productivity in the region by up to 50 per cent . The area defined as “The Tropics” is essentially the band of countries around the equator - taking in northern Australia,

Southeast Asia, India, most of Africa, Central America and parts of South America. Forty per cent of the world’s population occupies the area that is home to 80 per cent of the world’s biodiversity , according to the researchers. “The impact of persistent over-fishing has had long-term impacts on the productivity of marine ecosystems, notably in areas where poverty overshadows environmental concerns, and where unregulated and illegal fishing is prevalent,” they wrote. The researchers say proper management of wild marine stocks is a “critical issue” for small communities, which would face “significant food and human security implications” if the local fishing trade collapsed. They found that the marine catch in the topics rose to 32 million tonnes in 2012, accounting for 42 per cent of global fishing that year. This was an increase of about 30 million tonnes on the region’s marine catch in 1950. However fishing in the rest of the world is declining, with figures showing the marine catch dropped from 59 million tonnes in 1988 to 45

million in 2010. A combination of small operators and large commercial fisheries were to blame for the tropics’ plight, the researchers said, along with “destructive” fishing practices including bottom trawlers, dynamite and poison. The full report will be launched on June 29 by well-respected Burmese politician Aung San Suu Kyi.

Fish are critical to the food security of developing countries—illegal and overfishing are contributing to a global 70% fish depletionFisheries and Oceans Canada No Date (“Overfishing and Food Security”, http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/international/media/bk_food-eng.htm)

The impact of global overfi shing is typically measured in environmental and economic terms, but often overlooked is the threat depleted fish stocks pose to the millions of people around the world who depend on fish for food.

According to the World Resources Institute, about 1 billion people – largely in developing countries – rely on fish as their primary animal protein source. Fish is highly nutritious, and it serves as a valuable supplement in diets lacking essential vitamins and minerals. During much of the last half-century, the growth in demand for animal protein was satisfied in part by the rising output of oceanic fisheries. Between 1950 and 1990, the oceanic fish catch increased roughly fivefold, from 19 million to 85 million tonnes. During this

period, seafood consumption per person nearly doubled, climbing from 8 to 15 kilograms.[1] Unfortunately, the human appetite for seafood is outgrowing the sustainable yield of oceanic fisheries. Today, more than 70 per cent of the world’s fisheries are either fully exploited or depleted. Production levels in many fishing nations have fallen to historically low levels, confirming that some fish stocks are in a fragile state. Global investments in aquaculture are seen as one way to help bridge the growing demand for fish and seafood. While this may also help contribute to food security, it is only part of the solution. Action is still needed to create sustainable fish stocks in the high seas. One of the major factors contributing to the current predicament of global fisheries is illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. Illegal fishing undermines efforts to conserve and manage fish stocks. This

situation leads to the loss of both short and long-term social and economic opportunities, and to negative effects on food security. IUU fishing is especially problematic for developing nations. These States can

lose tens of millions of dollars to illegal fishing, and may not have the governance structures in place to ensure proper fisheries management. [2] The world's oceans, lakes and rivers are harvested largely by artisanal fishers. Their catches provide essential nourishment for poor communities, not only in Africa and Asia, but also in many parts of Latin America and islands in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Of the 30

countries most dependent on fish as a protein source, all but four are in the developing world.[3] The rapid growth in demand for fish and fish products, in combination with shrinking supply, is leading to significant increases in fish prices. As a result, fisheries investments have become more attractive to both entrepreneurs and governments. This is to the detriment of small-scale fishing and fishing communities all over the world . Developing countries are also taking a growing share of the international trade in fish and fishery products. This may have both benefits and

drawbacks. While the exports provide valuable foreign exchange, the diversion of fish and fish products from local communities and developing regions can deprive needy people of a traditionally cheap, but highly nutritious food. [4] The Government of Canada recognizes the threat that both overfishing and IUU fishing pose to global food security. These issues were specifically addressed in the Ministerial Declaration of the St. John’s Conference on the Governance of High Seas Fisheries and the United Nations Fish Agreement and the Bali Plan of Action. In these international commitments, concrete measures were outlined to: strengthen regional fisheries management organizations to help ensure sustainable fisheries; and assist developing nations in implementing relevant

agreements, instruments and tools for the conservation and management of fish stocks. Sustainable fish stocks are needed as a significant and renewable source of healthy food for large parts of the world’s population . Continued

sustainable use provides for increased food security on a global basis.

Overfishing hurts coastal communitiesOverfishing prevents people in coastal nations from having food securityJones, 2013 <Elizabeth jones, student at philidelphia university, “The Environmental and Socioeconomic Effects of Overfishing Due to the Globalization of the Seafood Industry”, Philadelphia University, http://www.philau.edu/collegestudies/Documents/Elizabeth%20Jones.pdf>

The commercial exploitation of global fisheries has resulted in the unequal distribution of marine resources, especially for poor people in developing nations who rely on seafood as a primary source of protein and livelihood. As affluent nations increasingly demand high- value fish, fisheries have become privatized, making it difficult for

people in developing nations to compete with global commercial fishing fleets (Greenberg). As a result, issues of food scarcity and loss of employment will continue to affect the 2.6 billion people that live in coastal communities and developing nations that greatly depend on fish to survive (Hauge, et al. 1). With the globalization of the fishing industry, overfishing has become a prominent food security issue that affects people on every continent, and requires multilateral cooperation and

compliance in order to secure the livelihood of millions and prevent the collapse of the fishing industry. If this current trend continues, experts agree that the viscous cycle of overfishing will undoubtedly result in the collapse of ecosystems and economies on a global scale. As world consumption of marine resources continues to rise, so do dire predictions for the future of the world’s oceans and those who rely on them for survival . As the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) publicized, “Once considered inexhaustible, our oceans are now in a state of global crisis as more and more

people compete for fewer and fewer fish” (“The State” 10). Although experts disagree on the extent of decline, it is estimated that 53 percent of the world’s marine fishery resources have been completely depleted or fished to the maximum sustainable level, while 32 percent is currently being overfished, depleted, or recovering from depletion (“Fisheries and Aquaculture”). Every year more than 170 billion pounds of wild fish and shellfish are caught in the oceans, which is roughly three times the weight of every man, woman, and child in the United States (Greenberg). The Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Bank warn that the current rate of exploitation will result in increased pressure on seafood in the future (“The State” 8).

Currently, fish provides about 1.5 billion people with 20 percent of their animal protein, and provides another 3 billion people with at least 15 percent of such protein (“The State” 3). However, as the demand for seafood increases, so will the price. This will result in billions of people unable to afford seafood due to increasing demand in wealthy nations, and vast commercial fleets that will out-compete local subsistence fishermen. The world catch is already unstable and unequally divided among the nations of the world, and will only be exacerbated as fish stocks are decimated.

Bio-d I/LBiodiversity is key to food security, provides the best food optionsCBD ’13 (Convention on Biological Diversity, UNEP, July 2013, Biodiversity for Food Security and Nutrition: Biodiversity is key to sustainable, efficient, resilient and nutritious food production, http://www.cbd.int/doc/newsletters/development/news-dev-2015-2013-07-en.pdf, accessed: 7/1/14 GA)

The world population is expected to reach nine billion by 2050. In terms of food availability, global food production will need to rise by about

60%. Food production depends largely on biodiversity and on the services provided by ecosystems. We would not have the thousands and thousands of different crop varieties and animal breeds without the rich genetic pool of the species they originated from. Natural resource degradation, including the loss of biodiversity and the erosion of genetic diversity, is one of the major problems in food production today. Biological diversity and the related ecosystem services are crucial to cope with changes and achieve food security for all. Addressing food security and biodiversity requires appropriate practices and adequate policies. Supporting the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, including through local knowledge and the traditional management practices associated with them, is necessary to enable farming systems to continue to evolve and meet future needs. It is therefore especially important to promote the key role farmers, pastoralists, forest dwellers and fisher-folk around the world play in the maintenance of biodiversity for food

and agriculture, and of the vital contribution biodiversity makes to their livelihoods. Conserving or restoring key elements of biodiversity for food and agriculture, for example soil biodiversity, supports the related ecosystem functions. Degradation of soils can be reversed to deliver multiple benefits, including improved nutrient and water management, soil

organic carbon content, natural pest and disease regulation and reduced soil erosion. This significantly increases the efficiency of the use of inputs (e.g. fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides), thereby simultaneously increasing food productivity, reducing off-farm impacts and increasing resilience to climate change.

Human Rights Scenario

Hunger is unethical/food is a human rightHunger is the most lethal form of violence—we have an ethical obligation to care for the well-being of society itself before the individualBoff ’12 (Leonardo, theologian and philosopher, 3/11/12, Hunger: An Ethical and Political Challenge, Agencia Latinoamerica de Informacion, http://alainet.org/active/59330&lang=pt%3Cfont%20color=, accessed: 7/2/14 GA)

Due to the economic contraction caused by the present financial crisis, the number of hungry people has jumped, according to FAO, from 860

million to 1.2 billion. This perverse fact presents an ethical and political challenge. How can we attend the vital needs of these millions and millions of persons? Historically, this has been a big challenge, because it has never been possible to fully satisfy the demand for food, be it for reasons of weather, soil fertility, or lack of social organization. Except for the first paleolithic era, when the population was small and the means of life were abundant, hunger has existed throughout all of history. Food distribution has almost always been unequal. The curse of hunger is not actually a technical problem. Techniques exist to produce with extraordinary efficacy. Food production exceeds the

growth of world population, but it is distributed badly. 20% of humanity uses 80% of the means of life: 80% of humanity must make do with only 20% of those means. This is where the injustice lies. This perverse situation is caused by humanity's lack of ethical sensitivity towards the other . It is as if we had totally forgotten our

ancestral origins, and the initial cooperation that enabled us to become humans. This deficit of humanity results from a type of society that favors the individual over society, that values private property more than solidarian co-participation, competition over cooperation: a society that gives more weight to values linked to masculinity (in men and women) such as rationality, power, and the use of force, than to the values linked to the feminine (also in both man and women), such as sensibility towards the

processes of life, caring, and the inclination towards cooperation. As it can be deduced, the current ethic is egotistical and excluding. It is not at the service of the lives of all, and their needed care, but at the service of certain individuals or groups, to the exclusion of others. At the root of the curse of hunger lies a basic inhumanity. If we do not strengthen the ethic of solidarity, the caring by some for others, there will be no way of overcoming it. It is important to consider that the human disaster of hunger is also a political one. Politics relates to the organization of society, the exercise of power, and the common good. For several centuries in the West, and now in a globalized manner, political power has been hostage to economic power, expressed in the capitalist form of production. Profits are not democratically shared to benefit everyone, but privatized by those who hold property, power, and knowledge; only secondarily for the benefit of others. That is why political power does not serve the common good, but creates inequalities that represent true social injustice, and now, on a worldwide basis. As a result, millions and millions of persons have only left-over crumbs that are not sufficient to fulfill vital necessities. Or they simply die from diseases related to hunger, mostly innocent children. If these values are not inverted, if the economy is not ruled by politics, politics not guided by ethics, and ethics not inspired by basic solidarity, it will be impossible to solve world hunger and poor nutrition. The piercing cries of millions of hungry people continuously rise to heaven, with no efficacious reply from anywhere to silence those cries. Finally, it must be recognized that hunger also results from the lack of understanding of the role of women in agriculture. According to an evaluation by FAO, women produce a large part of what is consumed in the world: from 80% – 98% in Sub-Saharan Africa; 50% – 80% in Asia, and 30% in East and Central Europe. There will be no food security without giving the women in agriculture more power to decide the destiny of life on the Earth. Women represent 60% of humanity. By their nature, women are more linked to life and its reproduction. It is absolutely unacceptable that due to the mere fact of being women, they are denied title to the land, access to credit, and to other cultural goods. Their reproductive rights are also not recognized, and they lack access to the technical knowledge necessary to improve food production. Absent such measures, Gandhi's critique still resonates:

«hunger is an insult; it degrades, dehumanizes and destroys the body and the spirit… if not the very soul; it is the most lethal form of violence that exists» .

Food is a human right that we have an ethical as well as a legal obligation to provideKracht ’98 (Uwe, author, The Right to Adequate Food, Hunger Notes, http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/global/foodashumrgt/kracht.htm, accessed: 7/2/14 GA)

At the surface level, the differences may appear subtle, but on reflection they emerge as fundamental (Kracht, 1997). They have both an ethical and juridical dimension. Basic needs approaches define "beneficiaries" and their needs. The approach is one of dependency in the sense that beneficiaries have no active claim to ensure that their needs will be met. And there is no binding obligation or duty for anybody to meet these

needs. As such, basic needs approaches have an element of charity. The fundamental difference in a human-rights approach is that it starts from the ethical position that all people are entitled to a certain standard in terms of material and spiritual well-being. This was most forcefully brought to the fore by the 1995 World Summit for Social

Development, which stated: "We Heads of State and Government are committed to a political, economic, ethical and spiritual vision for social development based on human dignity, human rights, equality, respect, peace, democracy, mutual responsibility... . " To this end we will create a framework for action to:...promote universal respect for, and observance and protection of, all human rights and freedoms for all, including the right to development; promote the effective exercise of rights and the discharge of responsibility at all levels of society... (United Nations,

1995, paragraphs 25, 26; emphasis added). A human rights approach thus removes the charity dimension inherent in basic needs strategies, however valuable this may be, and emphasizes rights and responsibilities. It recognizes beneficiaries as active subjects and claim-holders and establishes duties or obligations for those against whom a claim can be held (objects or duty-bearers ) to ensure that needs are met. That moves the focus to where it should be: development by people themselves, not for them. The concept of claim-holders and duty-bearers

introduces an important element of accountability. Increased accountability holds the key for improved effectiveness of action and as such offers the potential for added value flowing from the application of a rights-based approach. Implicit in the introduction of a rights dimension are also attitudinal aspects whose potential political impact should not be underestimated. A basic needs view of the problem of chronic hunger in the developing world may state that 80 percent of the population is

able to meet their food needs, while a rights position would have to emphasize that the right to food continues to be neglected or violated in the case of 20 percent of the developing countries’ population. Introduction of a rights approach would also have important implications for the analysis of food and nutrition problems and for policy and program planning. Conventional analysis of causal factors of identified problems would need to be complemented by a multifaceted role/responsibility analysis of obstacles confronting the realization of the right to adequate food, from the household up to the national and international levels. This would be the basis for determining who is to be held accountable for the existence of such obstacles and who would be responsible for their removal (Jonsson, 1997). In most states, the basis for the creation of a normative,

legal basis for the right to adequate food already exists, as states have already incorporated human rights in their national law at the constitutional and/or ordinary law level. Given this, a human rights framework means: Human rights are legally binding for states, not optional as in the case of recommendations from global summits and conferences. National law and policies need to be brought into agreement with what the state has agreed to internationally. This will recognize the state's limitations in providing such essential aspects of economic

human rights as employment, but also recognize the need, where appropriate, to increase the state's effective concern in these areas. By using a human rights entry point, the entire human rights framework is brought into play: civil and political rights as well as economic, social and cultural rights. Human rights require active and effective remedies, not necessarily by the use of courts, but any person or group whose rights are violated should have access to appropriate remedial measures, juridical or otherwise. Rights imply accountability, both domestic and international, and thus contribute to good governance. Under international covenants, states are obliged to submit periodic reports on the human rights measures they have taken. These reports are public and accessible, now accessible even on the Internet, and can be used to hold governments accountable for non-compliance with their obligations.

Food is a recognized human rightFAO 6 (“Food Security, Policy Brief, Issue 2, June 2006, Food and Agriculture Organization, ftp://ftp.fao.org/es/ESA/policybriefs/pb_02.pdf, PDF)

More recently, the ethical and human rights dimension of food security has come into focus. The Right to Food is not a new concept, and was first recognized in the UN Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 . In 1996, the formal adoption of the Right to Adequate Food marked a milestone achievement by World Food Summit

delegates. It pointed the way towards the possibility of a rights based approach to food security. Currently over 40 countries have the right to food enshrined in their constitution and FAO estimates that the right to food could be judicial in

some 54 countries (McClain-Nhlapo, 2004). In 2004, a set of voluntary guidelines supporting the progressive realization of the right to adequate food in the context of national food security were elaborated by an Intergovernmental Working Group under the auspices of the FAO Council.

Food is a human rightUDHR ’48 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December, 1948, http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml)

Article 25.¶ (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself

and of his family, including food , clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.¶ (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Dehum I/LViolations of human rights is dehumanizationEsmeir ‘6 (Esmeir, Samera LL.M., PhD, New York University Associate Professor teaching the intersection of legal and political thought, Middle Eastern history and colonial and post-colonial studies. "On Making Dehumanization Possible." Oct. 2006 http://urbanstudiesprogram.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/pages-from-esmeir-human.pdf)

Second, the transformation of humanity ¶ into a status conferred by the protective work ¶ of the law enables the renaming of human ¶ rights violations as practices of dehumanization. An analysis that articulates violent ¶ subjection and oppression in terms of dehumanization is more readily accepted when the ¶ declaration of a person’s

humanity is a matter ¶ of (juridical) status, which is conferred and ¶ recognized, and no longer a condition gained ¶ at birth. Put differently, it is difficult to perceive of the dehumanization of an oppressed ¶ person unless we first accept the idea that humanity can be taken away or given back. In ¶ our time the law, and human rights law more ¶ specifically, claims jurisdiction over the declaration of this status.

Impact—Dehum

Dehumanization places individuals outside of the moral scope of others, justifying all forms of atrocityMaiese ‘3 (Michelle Maiese, graduate student of Philosophy at the University of Colorado, Boulder and is a part of the research staff at the Conflict Research Consortium, in July 2003. http://www.beyondintractability.org/bi-essay/dehumanization)

Dehumanization is a psychological process whereby opponents view each other as less than human and thus not deserving of moral consideration. Jews in the eyes of Nazis and Tutsis in the eyes of Hutus (in

the Rwandan genocide) are but two examples. Protracted conflict strains relationships and makes it difficult for parties to recognize that they are part of a shared human community. Such conditions often lead to feelings of intense hatred and alienation among conflicting parties. The more severe the conflict, the more the psychological distance between groups

will widen. Eventually, this can result in moral exclusion. Those excluded are typically viewed as inferior, evil, or criminal.[1]¶ We typically think that all people have some basic human rights that should not be violated. Innocent people should not be murdered, raped, or tortured. Rather, international law suggests that they should be treated justly and fairly, with dignity and respect. They deserve to have their basic needs met, and to have some freedom to make autonomous decisions. In times of war, parties must take care to protect the lives of innocent civilians on the opposing side. Even those guilty of breaking the law should

receive a fair trial, and should not be subject to any sort of cruel or unusual punishment.¶ However, for individuals viewed as outside the scope of morality and justice, "the concepts of deserving basic needs and fair treatment do not apply and can seem irrelevant."[2] Any harm that befalls such individuals seems warranted, and perhaps even morally justified. Those excluded from the scope of morality are typically perceived as psychologically distant, expendable, and deserving of treatment that would not be acceptable for those included in one's moral community. Common criteria for exclusion include ideology, skin color, and cognitive capacity. We typically dehumanize those whom we perceive as a threat

to our well-being or values.[3]¶ Psychologically, it is necessary to categorize one's enemy as sub-human in order to legitimize increased violence or justify the violation of basic human rights. Moral exclusion reduces restraints against harming or exploiting certain groups of people. In severe cases, dehumanization makes the violation of generally accepted norms of behavior regarding one's fellow man seem reasonable, or even necessary.

Starvation causes aggressionStarvation induces psychological changes and can lead to uncontrollable outbreaks of aggressionFessler 2 (Dr. D M T Department of Anthropology, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90095–1553, USA, “The implications of starvation induced psychological changes for the ethical treatment of hunger strikers”, J Med Ethics 2003;29:243-247 doi:10.1136/jme.29.4.243, http://jme.bmj.com/content/29/4/243.full)

To date, the issue of starvation induced loss of competence in hunger strikers has been raised primarily with regard to late stages of the condition.66 There is reason to believe, however, that such a change can occur much earlier in the process, long before death is an imminent possibility . No systematic accounts have been published regarding psychological changes accompanying hunger striking. Nevertheless, potentially germane findings can be gleaned from reports of the consequences of drastic dietary constriction in contexts other than hunger striking. Studies of the effects of “crash” diets and

“therapeutic” starvation on clinically obese patients indicate that dramatic caloric restriction can result in an impairment of competence independent of the level of bodily energetic reserves . Investigators have noted that patients, often with no previous history of psychiatric disorder, may manifest megalomaniac and persecutory delusions, auditory hallucinations, somatisation, dissociation, suicidality, and confusion.67–70 These direct effects of fasting may explain cases such as the apparent dissociation experienced by one of the Irish hunger strikers,2 and the dramatic psychotic break suffered by a Cambodian hunger striker in Australia.71 While the above observations should alert the physician to the need to consider the question of competence throughout a hunger strike, they do not necessitate any fundamental changes in current orientations toward hunger strikers; indeed, the Malta declaration’s instruction to interview hunger strikers on a daily basis provides ample guarantee that sudden and marked

alterations in competence will be detected. Far more problematic, however, is the possibility that fasting may induce subtle changes in psychological functioning. In addition to overtly psychotic symptoms , some obese

patients undergoing “crash” dieting and “therapeutic” starvation manifest sudden personality changes involving hyperirritability and alarming levels of aggressivity.70,72,73 Importantly, the same changes have been observed in experimental starvation of normal subjects, and are also repeatedly reported in accounts of starvation due to disaster or war.74–76 Likewise, both aggressivity and anger attacks have recently been documented in association with anorexia nervosa.77,78 In addition to barely containable hostile urges, some experimental starvation subjects also exhibited dramatic increases in a wide variety of other impulse related phenomena, including impulsive buying, kleptomania, binge eating, self mutilation, and suicidality (note that, with the exception of those who engaged in binge eating, force of will sufficed to keep experimental starvation subjects from eating despite increases in impulsivity).74 Similar patterns of impulsive behaviour occur among underweight anorexics,79–82 a finding which, on the face of it, is surprising given that this population is typically described as extremely self controlled.83–87

Food deaths outnumber war deathsHunger-related deaths outnumber war deaths and are inevitable unless focus is shifted from national security to food security.Falcon and Naylor in 2005 (Walter P. and Rosamond L., Institute for International Studies, Stanford U, “Rethinking Food Security for the Twenty-First Century”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Proceedings 2005, v. 87, iss. 5, pp. 1113-27, Date accessed: 070214, EBSCOHost)

Grim as the conventional security data are, they pale in comparison to the food security situation. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO 2004b) estimates that 5 million children die from hunger-related causes per year. The World Health Organization and other sources put the total number of hunger-related deaths at about 8 million annually (Hunger Project). This estimate has large error bars, which arise from both definitional and empirical causes. What, for example, is the “cause” of death of a starving person, caught in a civil war, who ends up in a refugee camp, and then dies of measles?

Even if the official estimates are off by 20%, several things are clear. Food insecurity deaths outnumber war deaths by a factor of at least 5 to 1. As in the case of war casualties, food-related deaths are concentrated among civilians, especially women and children. About 20,000 persons per day die globally as a result of food insecurity, the majority in Africa and Asia. That number is approximately seven times the number killed in the 9/11 attack – and it happens every day. If forty fully loaded 747s were to crash on a daily basis, would the world take notice? And if the answer is yes, why is media coverage and concern so much more ambivalent with respect to the comparable havoc caused by hunger?

War Scenario

Food shortages cause warFood shortages lead to war—leaves developing countries devastatedCBS News 9 (“IMF Head: Food Shortages Can Spark War,” CBS News, http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-4026125.html, accessed 7/9/13)

The head of the International Monetary Fund warned Friday that soaring world food prices can have dire consequences, such as toppling governments and even triggering wars. Dominique Strauss-Kahn told

France's Europe-1 radio that the price rises that set off rioting in Haiti, Egypt and elsewhere were an "extremely serious" problem. "The planet must tackle it," he said. The IMF chief said the problem could also threaten democracies, even in countries where governments have done all they could to help the local population. Asked

whether the crisis could lead to wars, Strauss-Kahn responded that it was possible. "When the tension goes above and beyond putting democracy into question, there are risks of war," he said. "History is full of wars that started because of this kind of problem." Strauss-Kahn was appointed last year to head the IMF. He was a finance minister in the late 1990s in France. Also on Friday, French President Nicolas Sarkozy suggested a global partnership among financial institutions, governments and the private sector to tackle the reasons for rising food prices. He also said France is doubling its food aid budget

this year to about $95 million because 37 countries are experiencing "serious food crises." Globally, food prices have risen 40 percent since mid-2007. The increases hit poor people hardest, as food represents as much as 60-80 percent of consumer spending in developing nations, compared to about 10-20 percent in industrialized countries, the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization has said. The World Food Program blames soaring food prices on a convergence of rising energy costs, natural disasters linked to climate change, and competition for grain used to make bio-fuels like ethanol. Program spokesperson Benita Luescher told CBS News correspondent Michelle Miller, "What we're seeing is a perfect storm." Meanwhile, officials said Thursday that United Nations programs will distribute 8,000 tons of food and other help for Haitians in coming days as part of efforts to confront unrest over rising prices that set off recent rioting. U.N. spokeswoman Michele Montas said food provided by the World Food Program will focus on children, pregnant women and nursing mothers in the north, west and central regions of Haiti, the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere. Anger over surging food prices has threatened stability in the Caribbean nation, which has long been haunted by chronic hunger. Haitian lawmakers fired Prime Minister Jacques Edouard Alexis over the rioting. Mamadou Bah, spokesman for the U.N. country team in Haiti, said the 8,000 tons are available stock and will be distributed over the next two months starting Thursday. The U.N. Children's Fund will double its child feeding program to combat malnutrition and spend some $1.6 million on water and sanitation projects in the northwest and Artibonite regions, Montas said. Globally, food prices have risen 40 percent since mid-2007. Haiti is particularly affected because it imports nearly all of its food, including more than 80 percent of its rice. Once productive farmland has been abandoned as farmers struggle to grow crops in soil devastated by erosion, deforestation, flooding and tropical storms. Protests and looting in Port-au-Prince left at least seven dead last week, including a Nigerian officer in the 9,000-member U.N. peacekeeping force who was pulled from a car and killed Saturday. Three Sri Lankan peacekeepers were injured by gunfire early last week. Brazilian members of the U.N. peacekeeping force distributed 14 tons of rice, beans, sugar and cooking oil to 1,500 families in the capital's sprawling Cite Soleil slum Tuesday

Famine leads to war—action must be taken to prevent thisSachs 13 (Jeffrey, Director of Earth Institute, “UN/Sustainable Development & Climate Change”, http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/unifeed/2013/05/un-sustainable-development-climate-change)

American economist Jeffery Sachs said today (16 May) that 21 years after the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, "we haven't even begun to change direction" in addressing the challenges of climate change.¶ Sachs, who is the Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and Special Adviser to Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), said "no place escapes, I don't care how sophisticated, how rich, how clever you think you are, and they think they are pretty clever on Wall Street, just a mile from here, but they were under water a few months ago" after Hurricane Sandy.¶ The meeting, "Thematic Debate on Sustainable Development and Climate Change: Practical Solutions in the Energy-Water Nexus," was part of the commitments made by countries last year at the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), in which countries pledged to implement measures to integrate the three dimensions of sustainable development—namely economic, social, and environmental.¶ Sachs said "we had the hottest month in instrument history in the United States last summer, the hottest year in instrument record, the worst floods, the biggest droughts, and you think we talked about this? Almost not at all, because politics has found a way to keep it off the agenda, we are just happily drilling, fracking, and doing everything else, without taking into account reality."¶ The world renowned economist spoke about the devastating effects of droughts, including to

international peace and security. ¶ He said "all over the world draught leads to famine, leads to war" citing examples such as the

Horn of Africa, Yemen, Central Asia and the Sahel.¶ Sachs said "hungry people fall into violence, terrorists take over, demagogues, desperate people, that's what happens with drought and hunger, and we are going to have a lot more of this unless we start paying attention."¶ The gathering which featured a host of environment and energy Ministers, as well as a diverse mix of experts that included Sachs and Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and UN officials such as General Assembly President Vuk Jeremić.¶ Jeremić set the tone for the day-long discussion by telling the participants that scientists have confirmed some of the worst fears with the recent determination that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen above 400 parts per million for the first time in more than three million years.

Global food shortages cause war—empirical evidence from the food crisis in 2008Britt 11 (Robert Roy, Staff writer for Live Science, “Global Food Shortages Becomes Urgent as Planet Warms,

http://www.livescience.com/14447-global-food-shortage-urgent-climate-global-warming.html)

A growing global food shortage has caused prices to double in recent years , and a growing consensus of scientists

now blames climate change as one factor in an equation that includes a burgeoning population and increasingly scarce water supplies. More people around the planet are going hungry as a result. ¶ Even as prices have also risen in the United States, most residents may not grasp the scope and severity of the problem.¶ Americans toss about 40 percent of their food in the garbage, according to a 2009 study. In this country, food waste per person has increased 50 percent since 1974. ¶ Yet one in seven people go to bed hungry every night, according

to the United Nations World Food Program. Hunger kills more people than AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis combined. The problem is worst in developing countries. But the problem has implications beyond the borders of those poor countries. ¶ Saw it coming¶ Scientists have been predicting for years that a warmer planet coupled with increasing water demands could cause food shortages. A study in

2007, building on and confirming previous research, warned that climate change could help cause food shortages leading to war.

Other scientists have predicted that water shortages will fuel war.¶ The situation became acute in 2008 when food shortages helped fuel uprisings in several poorer countries. High food prices played a role in the ouster of the Haitian government that year. ¶ Meanwhile, a consensus had emerged that food prices would likely double by the year 2080. ¶ That projection has

been blown out of the water. Global food prices have spiked since the year 2000, mostly since 2006, with some key crops doubling.¶ "Food security" has emerged as a political buzzword in conversations about stability in the developing world. Three-fourths of the people in the least developed countries live on $2 per day. "Recent global food price hikes threatened to create a new food crisis in those nations, where the poorest people often spent three-quarters of their income on food," according to a recent statement from the United Nations. "Only through greater investment in sustainable agriculture — a long-neglected area — could those nations ensure both food security and competitiveness on the international markets." ¶ Urgency ignored¶ Today (June 5), The New York Times provided an extensive look at a world struggling to feed itself. After interviews with dozens of scientists, farmers and food industry experts, the article confirmed what many experts have been saying: World population growth is outpacing food production, particularly with the four crops that provide the bulk of the world's nutrition: wheat, rice, corn and soybeans.¶ As studies have shown previously, there's little land left to convert to farming, water supplies are drying up, and global warming is wreaking havoc on the growing seasons and contributing to weather extremes that destroy crops.¶ But the urgent global food shortage

problem is not being matched by urgent research efforts to improve the outlook in the future, the article concludes. ¶ "There is just such a tremendous disconnect, with people not understanding the highly dangerous situation we are in ," Marianne Banziger of the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center told the Times. ¶ International aid organizations and scientists have been sounding the alarm bell for years. In 2008, the World Food Program called the situation a "silent tsunami" of world hunger. ¶ The global population, just 3 billion in 1959, is now at 6.92 billion, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. With 4.2 people born every second, the population is projected to hit 9 billion by 2044. ¶ Meanwhile, a long-running, well-funded research effort that doubled global crop production more than once in the 20th Century — an effort called the Green Revolution — has stalled. Thinking the problem largely solved, research dollars were put elsewhere in recent decades. ¶ A report last month from the international aid organization Oxfam warned that global food prices will continue rising. With the world's poor spending about 75 percent of their income on food, the situation is expected to cause more to

go hungry and also to fuel dissent. ¶ "The food system must be transformed. By 2050, there will be 9 billion people on the planet and demand for food will have increased by 70 percent," wrote Robert Bailey, Oxfam's senior climate advisor. ¶ Sober reminder¶ Key conclusions in today's Times' article: ¶ Thanks to significant research dollars spent on developing new strains of key crops and better growing techniques, global food production outpaced population growth for much of the 20th century, leading to a decline in the percentage of people going hungry. However, grain production per capita has fallen since the mid-1980s. ¶ Climate change is, as predicted, contributing to extremes — floods, droughts, heat waves — and altering growing seasons, all contributing to crop failures. [While no single event can be tied to climate change, climate experts have long said a warmer planet will cause more extremes in temperatures, precipitation and storminess.] ¶ Science had long expected that increases in carbon dioxide would actually help crops. But that logic has proven faulty in

more recent studies. Though carbon dioxide is like fertilizer to plants, the well-documented CO2 increases since the Industrial Revolution — and higher levels predicted for the future — don't offset strains caused by heat, drought and flood. In short, scientists now say, heat kills. ¶ Increasing demand for drinking water is sucking acquirers dry faster than Nature can possibly replenish them, making water scarcer for farmers.

¶ The unrest sweeping the Arab world this year has also been linked, in part, to the rising cost of food. ¶ Action needed¶ Global experts see a bleak future if significant action is not taken soon, especially since research dollars can take years or decades to turn into more food on plates. ¶ "Climate change is expected to add another 10-20 percent to the total of hungry people by 2050," according to a United Nations World Food Program report issued last month. "By 2050 we can expect to have 24 million more malnourished children as a result of erratic weather – 21 percent more than without climate change." ¶ Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, recently said of people in the poorest nations: "They have no buffer. When prices go up, they go hungry. Women and children are the worst hit."¶ Scientists and analysts and governments largely agree on one thing: Food output needs to be doubled yet again if the world is to be fed in the near future, but given that fewer resources are being applied to crop research nowadays, "the last doubling is the hardest," one researcher told the Times. ¶ There is hope. Scientists in Japan are experimenting with growing food without dirt in sterile environments. Other efforts at genetically modified crops (GM) hold promise for higher production. And efforts are underway to engineer crops and methods to createanother

Green Revolution, particularly by developing crops that can withstand climate and weather extremes. ¶ Better distribution methods are also needed. About a third of all food produced each year is lost or wasted, according to the UN . ¶ The outlook also depends on how many mouths there are to feed. Nina Fedoroff, scienceand technology adviser to Condoleezza Rice in the Bush administration and subsequently to Hillary Clinton, said in 2009 that humans have exceeded the Earth's "limits of sustainability."¶ "We need to continue to decrease the growth rate of the global population; the planet can't support many more people," Fedoroff said.

SolvencySustainable fishing is key to food security, unsustainable practices hurt food security by reducing availabilityHanich ’14 (Dr. Quentin, PhD in Philosophy and Master’s degree in ecology, 6/18/14, SUSTAINABLE FISHING IS KEY TO FOOD SECURITY, University of Wollongong, http://media.uow.edu.au/news/UOW173294.html, accessed: 7/1/14 GA)

Unsustainable fishing practices in many developing nations have created a precarious situation and resources are shrinking at a time when climate change looks set to have a profound affect on our coastal and marine zones. researching fisheries governance as part of UOW’s Global Challenges Program, said Pacific islands are heavily dependent on fisheries for food security, as well as livelihoods and development, however, 75 per cent of coastal fisheries are expected to fall short of food needs by 2030 ., from UOW’s Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security, recently told ABC Rural that 60 per cent of the world's tuna comes from the Pacific. "Some of the world's biggest fishing boats from Spain, 500 feet long, for example, will fish for those tuna. When you manage that fishery you need to make it sustainable,” he said. In order to avert this catastrophic scenario and ensure the long-term viability of these nations, said it is critical that communities, industry and government collaborate to implement conservation and management mechanisms that promote economic

development, limit fishing effort to sustainable levels and protect important habitats. A major research initiative, which brings together the Global Challenges Program, World Fish and the Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security at UOW, aims to avert this catastrophic scenario by improving coastal fisheries management in the Pacific and provide a safeguard against declining food security. The four-year project will target priority communities in the Solomon Islands, Kiribati and Vanuatu and will work with the Secretariat of the Pacific Community to scale out the research findings to other countries in the region. The researchers will create a new framework for identifying food security threats in the Pacific, empowering local communities, and implementing a practical response to sustaining fishing practices and the impact of climate

change. F ood security is a truly global challenge and one that requires a coordinated response to achieve a realistic solution for islands in the Pacific. “It is critical that coastal communities can effectively manage and sustainably develop their fisheries in a region where fish provide 40 to 90 per cent of animal protein for coastal communities and are a key resource for food security, livelihoods, revenue and development,” he said. As the world’s population increases, and our reliance on coastal and marine environments show no sign of abating, overfishing and food security will place greater pressure on our oceans. While smaller island nations are the first line of defence, the potential impact on countries around the globe cannot be underestimated. It is a challenge that requires an international solution.

Fish are key to food security, most nutritional and widespreadSubasinghe ’13 (Rohana, Senior Aquaculture Officer, Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, FAO, 7/19/13, OCF: Fish and Food

Security, International Conservation Caucus Foundation, http://iccfoundation.us/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=499:fish-and-food-security&catid=73:briefings-2013&Itemid=81, accessed: 7/1/14 GA)

To feed a world of 9 billion people in 2050, agricultural output, originating from crops, livestock and fisheries, including aquaculture, must increase by over 60%, and there is a consensus among the scientific community that foods derived from aquatic resources have a significant role to play across the food supply and value chain. Meeting this target is a formidable challenge for the international community considering that an alarming number of people, mostly in developing countries, still suffer from hunger and poverty. Producing, processing and distributing the current global supply of 128 million tonnes of food fish provide direct and indirect employment to over 50 million people worldwide, and

create livelihood for over 200 million more. Fish contributes about 16% to the world’s animal protein intake, and is the main source of animal protein along with essential micronutrients and fatty acids for three billion people. Since the contribution of capture fisheries to global food fish supplies has leveled off, the supply gap in food fish has been bridged by the growth in aquaculture production. Aquaculture now shares 47% of the global food fish supply, a 13% increase over the past decade. It continues to be the fastest growing food production sector in the world at nearly 6.5% a year. However, trends reveal a gradually decreasing growth rate that could, by 2030, dip to around 4%. The increased population and expanding economies will exert a strong pressure on the

world’s aquatic ecosystems. Since people tend to consume more fish as their incomes grow, per capita fish consumption in many countries is expected to increase. Recent estimates indicate that an additional supply of nearly 50 mt

of fish will be required to feed the growing and increasingly affluent world population by 2030. To meet this demand aquaculture

would have to grow 5.6% annually. Despite having achieved good progress in terms of expansion, intensification and diversification, global aquaculture has not grown evenly around the world . The Asia-Pacific region continues to dominate the aquaculture sector, with China alone contributing 62.3% of global production. The sector needs to pay particular attention to most countries in the sub-Saharan Africa, Asia and the Pacific, Central and Eastern Europe and North Africa regions, which are relatively under-developed in terms of human and technical resources, as compared with advanced countries in Europe and North America. There are also marked intraregional and inter-regional and country variations in a number of areas, such as production level, species

composition, farming systems and producer profile. Those variations accordingly have also given rise to a set of key issues and challenges

that need to be proactively addressed in order to achieve the aquaculture sector’s goal of sustainable and equitable development. A number of global reviews have noted the significance of access to natural resources (land, water, feed, seed and energy); enhancement of capacities and institutional development in the areas of policies, strategies, plans and legislation; access to financial resources, especially to small farmers; and food safety and bio-security risks as major aquaculture development constraining factors. The magnitude and diversity of the aquaculture sector issues and challenges call for a concerted global partnerships effort by the relevant partners to effectively and efficiently channel their technical and financial resources to support prioritized global, regional, and national initiatives.

Fishing alleviates food insecurity by directly providing nutrition and indirectly providing jobs and economic developementNomura 5 (Ichiro, Assistant-Director General for Fisheries, “Many of the world's poorest people depend on fish”, FAO Newsroom, http://www.fao.org/NEWSROOM/en/news/2005/102911/index.html)

Over 852 million people on this planet don't have enough to eat. That certainly doesn't promote sustainable

development. Millions of medium- and small-scale fishers and fish farmers, often very poor, depend on fishing and aquaculture. For FAO, fishing and aquaculture are first and foremost about people earning a living and putting food on their tables, and we do

think it can be done sustainably. Fishing and fish farming contribute to food security in three main ways. They directly increase people's food supplies, providing highly nutritious animal protein and important micronutrients while doing so.

Fish food also "fill in the gaps" during times when other food is scarce. Finally, fishing and aquaculture provide jobs and income that people use to buy other foods Just over 100 million tonnes of fish are eaten world-wide each year, providing two and a half billion people with at least 20 percent of their average per capita animal protein intake. This contribution is even more important in developing countries, especially

small island states and in coastal regions, where frequently over 50% of people's animal protein comes from fish. In some of the most food-insecure places -- many parts of Asia and Africa, for instance -- fish protein is absolutely essential, accounting for a large share of an already-low level of animal protein consumption. Yes. By providing employment, fisheries and aquaculture alleviate poverty and help boost people's food security. Remember, around 97 percent of fishers are in developing countries. Fishing is especially important there. Also, in the absence of social security or

unemployment schemes, fishing can be an activity of last resort, a "safety net" provided by nature . Ironically, this characteristic of fisheries, which gives it particular value, can also, unfortunately, lead to excessive fishing and depletion of the resources. There is also the economic activity resulting indirectly from fisheries and aquaculture, which supports around 200 million people, we estimate. International trade in fish is creating a lot of jobs in related industries like processing or packing. Yes, it's quite extensive. The octopus carpaccio that you enjoy at a tapas bar near Barcelona could have been caught by a European union fishing vessel crewed by Ukrainians fishing off Mauritania, block-frozen there, and sold

through a fish market in Vigo on Spain's Atlantic Coast before arriving 'fresh from the sea' at your table. All in all, about 38 percent of all fish is traded internationally. The total world export value for fish and fish products is nearly US$60 billion! Significantly, the volume share of developing countries in fishery exports represents just over half, about

55 percent, of the total. That is a significant source of foreign currency earnings for poor countries. Net receipts of foreign exchange by developing countries through fish trade is now around US$17 billion a year, more than what they earn from exports of tea, rice, coffee together . But here again, there is a risk that the higher income possible via exporting fish potentially could reduce local fish supplies and possible

create incentives for over-fishing. There is both an opportunity and a risk -- which is why responsible management is so important

Aquaculture is key to food security, provides jobs and nutritionLehane ’13 (Sinead, FDI research analyst, 8/27/13, Fish for the Future: Aquaculture and Food Security, Future Directions International, http://www.futuredirections.org.au/publications/food-and-water-crises/1269-fish-for-the-future-aquaculture-and-food-security.html, accessed: 7/1/14 GA)

According to the FAO, over one billion people worldwide rely on fish as their primary source of animal protein . Around the world, average annual fish consumption is 16.1 kg per capita. In South-East Asia most major species of fish produced are primarily

for local consumption, with Thailand and Vietnam deriving over a third of their fish production from aquaculture. In the last 30 years, animal protein consumption per capita in developing countries has more than doubled , as a direct result of technology advancement in aquaculture. Those living in poverty and in lower socio-economic households are unable to access sufficient nutritional food to ensure their health and wellbeing. Often the food produced or purchased consists of cereals or low-cost staple ingredients;

budgets are unable to stretch to include meat or fruit and vegetables. Fish, particularly produced through aquaculture, is commonly cheaper than other animal meat. It also contains much higher protein levels, as well as other important minerals and vitamins. As a means of providing greater nutrition for many poorer households, increased availability of fish can mean better health and a more diverse diet . Indirectly, commercial aquaculture leads to increased food security by providing opportunities for employment and income generation for local communities. More than 500 million people in developing states reportedly depend on fisheries and aquaculture for their livelihood. As a majority of aquaculture production occurs in developing states, a rise in income leads to an increase in

food purchasing power and, more importantly, diversification. The consumption of non-staple foods, including fish and vegetables, has a positive correlation with income growth, supporting food security and greater nutritional content in diets.

Economy

Internal Links

RevenueOverfishing costs the food industry up to 36 billion dollars in lost revenueREUTERS, 2010 <”World pays high price for overfishing, studies say”, Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/14/us-overfishing-idUSTRE68D4J020100914>

Decades of overfishing have deprived the food industry of billions of dollars in revenue and the world of fish that could have helped feed undernourished countries, according to a series of studies released on Tuesday. The

Canadian, U.S. and British researchers behind the studies also said that overfishing is often the result of government subsidies that would have been better spent conserving fish stocks. Fisheries contribute $225 billion to $240 billion to the world economy annually, but if fishing practices were more sustainable, that amount would be up to $36 billion higher , according to the four papers published in the Journal of Bioeconomics. The researchers said the data demonstrate that the reasons for protecting world's ocean fish stocks from unsustainable

fishing are more than just biological. "Maintaining healthy fisheries makes good economic sense, while overfishing is clearly bad business," said Rashid Sumaila, an economist at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, who led the research. The researchers estimated that from 1950 to 2004, 36 to 53 percent of the fish stocks in more than half the exclusive economic zones in the world's oceans were overfished, with up to 10 million tonnes of fish catch now lost.

The fishing industry is a critical economic sector—helps bolster the market in rural areas, provides jobs, and brings in $100 billion yearly in revenue from trade Allison 11 (Edward H, Principal Scientist Policy, Economics and Social Sciences The WorldFish Center Penang, Malaysia, “Aquaculture, Fisheries, Poverty and Food Security”, The WorldFish Center, http://www.worldfishcenter.org/resource_centre/WF_2971.pdf, PDF)

Over half a billion people (workers and dependents) are wholly or partly supported by fisheries, aquaculture and related industries, 95 percent of them in developing countries, with increases in aquaculture likely. Employment in fisheries is likely to stabilize or decrease due to combinations of labour substitution by technological change and management measures to reduce over-capacity in the sector. There is little direct quantitative evidence of the size of growth-multiplier effects from fisheries and aquaculture development, although there is strong qualitative evidence that the fishery sector boosts the amount of cash in circulation in rural areas, fostering market-driven development. Aquaculture and related processing industries provide new economic opportunities, particularly for female employment. Trade in fish is worth around US$ 100 billion a year, and the export of higher-cost species from developing to developed countries, and import of lower-cost (but often higher nutritional value) fish by developing countries generates a positive trade balance. The fishery and aquaculture sector contributes more than 10 per cent of GDP in some major fish-producing countries, including Mauritania and Vietnam. Contributions to GDP from the sector are complicated by variable methods of calculation. Typically they are based on the sale-value of fishery production, but do not include revenues from access agreements for other countries to access fishery resources, and license fees paid by domestic fleets.

Overfishing costs the food industry up to 36 billion dollars in lost revenueREUTERS, 2010 <”World pays high price for overfishing, studies say”, Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/14/us-overfishing-idUSTRE68D4J020100914>

Decades of overfishing have deprived the food industry of billions of dollars in revenue and the world of fish that could have helped feed undernourished countries, according to a series of studies released on

Tuesday. The Canadian, U.S. and British researchers behind the studies also said that overfishing is often the result of government subsidies that would have been better spent conserving fish stocks. Fisheries contribute $225 billion to $240 billion to the world economy annually, but if fishing practices were more sustainable, that amount would be up to $36 billion higher , according to the four papers published in the Journal of Bioeconomics. The researchers said the data demonstrate that the reasons for protecting world's ocean fish stocks from unsustainable fishing are more than just biological. "Maintaining healthy fisheries makes good economic sense, while overfishing is clearly bad business," said Rashid Sumaila, an economist at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, who led the research. The researchers estimated that from 1950 to 2004, 36 to 53 percent of the fish stocks in more than half the exclusive economic zones in the world's oceans were overfished, with up to 10 million tonnes of fish catch now lost.

JobsThe fishing industry employs millions, over fishing threatens jobsFAO ’11 (Fish Consumption Reaches All-time High February 8, 2011. Food and Agriculture Organization. http://blueocean.org/2011/02/fish-consumption-reaches-all-time-high/)The FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), an autonomous agency within the United Nations, is a forum where nations convene to debate and develop policies regarding farming, fishing, and aquaculture. On January 31st, they issued their most recent report regarding global fish consumption. The report included some facts and figures that got my attention and I wanted to share them with you.¶ The headline of the report reads “Fish consumption reaches all-time high.” This news did not surprise me in and of itself, but the hard

data was still impressive: the global average per person fish consumption was 17 kgs, “supplying over three billion people with at least 15% of their average animal protein intake.” (In the U.S., however, the percentage is much less.) This represents an overall increase, due in large part to the growing production of seafood via aquaculture. Indeed, the supply of fish raised on farms is about to surpass the amount caught in the wild. If that’s not the definition of a tipping point, then I don’t know what is.

Needless to say, this means that it’s more important than ever to be aware of the environmental impact of different fish-farming methods, consume it judiciously, and to advocate for best practices. ¶ Given the enormous size of the global seafood industry – fish is the most traded commodity in the world – how many

people depend on it for their livelihood? According to the report, 45 million work in the seafood industry directly, another 180 million indirectly (i.e., processors, transporters, etc.), and if you include the workers’ families, a full 540 million people depend on some aspect of catching, farming, processing, or distributing fish for their economic wellbeing – in other words, eight percent of the world’s population.¶ The report included some sobering news: “The overall percentage of exploited, depleted or recovering fish stocks in the world’s oceans has not dropped and is

estimated to be slightly higher than in 2006. About 32 percent of the world fish stocks are estimated to be overexploited, depleted or recovering and need to be urgently rebuilt…”¶ On a more optimistic note, “15 percent of the stock groups monitored by FAO were estimated to be underexploited (three percent) or moderately exploited (12 percent) and therefore able to produce more than their current catches.” Unfortunately, however, this proportion is steadily decreasing over time.¶ The FAO reported that they examined efforts to control “illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.” One approach is to use trade measures to block the entry of fish that has been caught illegally.

The fishing industry brings in billions of dollars to the US economy and creates millions of jobsThe Billfish Foundation 13, Working worldwide to advance the conservation of Billfish & associated species to improve the health of oceans & economies. "Fisheries Economics of the United States Report Released - The Billfish Foundation." The Billfish Foundation. The Billfish Foundation, 14 Mar. 2013. http://www.billfish.org/news/fisheries-economics-of-the-united-states-report-released/ Web. 01 July 2014. CS

Jobs The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has released the annual edition of Fisheries Economics of the United

States for 2011, highlighting the economic impact of both recreational and commercial fishing. In 2011, 11 million recreational anglers took 70 million saltwater fishing trips and generated $70 billion in sales impacts, $32 billion in value added impacts, and supported over 455,000 jobs nationally. Taking a further look at the expenditures of U.S.

anglers in 2011, a total of $4.5 billion in angler expenditures were related specifically to fishing trips with $2 billion of this for private boat-based fishing trips. Shore-based fishing trips generated $1.5 billion and for-hire-based fishing trips brought in $1 billion. The angler expenditures on fishing-related equipment for 2011

totaled over $22 billion with most related to boat expenses ($11 billion). Other major expenditures incurred by anglers

included vehicle expenses ($4.1 billion), fishing tackle ($3.8 billion) and second home expenses ($2.1 billion). This is great news for the recreational fishing industry because of the rise seen between 2010 and 2011, especially in the Southeast

portion of the United States (South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Regions) where recreational fishing is economically important and a large driver of tourism. In 2011, around 70% of all recreational fishing jobs in the US were occupied by fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Regions. Recreational Fishing in these two regions generated $15.9 billion in fishing trip and durable equipment expenditures with $6.1 billion and $9.8 billion in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions respectively. In 2011, 5.5 million of the 12 million saltwater anglers nationally fished in the Southeast United with 2.3 million anglers fishing in the South Atlantic region and 3.2 million anglers fishing in Gulf of Mexico region. Anglers in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico took 20 million trips and 23 million fishing trips in 2011, respectively. The large importance of the recreational fishing industry in these regions demonstrates the importance of the fisheries and the further need for conservation efforts to ensure that fishing opportunities are available for future generations . The Billfish

Foundation knows the importance of socioeconomic studies for the recreational fishing industry and has successfully used socioeconomic studies to further conservation and influence governments to place greater importance on their recreational fishing industries. Only with an increased knowledge of the socioeconomic impacts of anglers around the world can a unified voice be created for anglers to demonstrate their importance as an industry that needs to be recognized.

The fishing industry is critical to 828,000 jobs and brings in $48 billion to the American economyASA 13, The American Sportfishing Association (ASA) is the sportfishing industry’s trade association committed to representing the interests of the entire sportfishing community. American Sportfishing Association. "Sportfishing In America." Leading the Way for Sportfishing’s Future SPORTFISHING (2013): 2. ASA. American Sportfishing Association, Jan. 2013. Web. 1 July 2014. CS

DRIVE PAST ANY LAKE, river or beach and odds are you will see people, even entire families, gathered along the shore or in boats fishing.

Fishing is, after all, one of America’s most enduring pastimes; something in which people of all ages can participate and an activity that millions of families and friends enjoy each year as a way to have fun together and spend time in the outdoors. But fishing is more than just the thrill of the catch or a peaceful – and

sometimes adventurous – escape. It’s the foundation of an industry that supports more than 800,000 jobs involved in the manufacture, sale or provision of angling products and services , such as hotels, tackle retailers,

boat builders, restaurants and more. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and

Wildlife-Associated Recreation identifies fishing as one of the most popular outdoor recreational activities in the United States. As many as 33 million people aged 16 or older participate in the activity, and spend $48 billion annually on equipment, licenses, trips and other fishing-related items or events. These funds help create and support more than 828,000 jobs in the United States at a time when many industries are still coping with a challenging economic climate. In some rural areas, the dollars brought in through recreational fishing help support entire communities.

US fishing industry supported 2 million jobs and generated 185 billion in sales in 2006NOAA 9 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association 1/6/09 “New Economic Report Finds Commercial and Recreational Saltwater Fishing Generated More Than Two Million Jobs” http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090105_nmfseconomics.html)

U.S. commercial and recreational saltwater fishing generated more than $185 billion in sales and supported more than two million jobs in 2006, according to a new economic report released by NOAA’s Fisheries Service. The

commercial fishing industry — harvesters, seafood processors and dealers, seafood wholesalers and seafood retailers —

generated $103 billion in sales, $44 billion in income and supported 1.5 million jobs in 2006, the most recent year included in the report, Fisheries Economics of the United States 2006, which covers 1997 to 2006. Recreational fishing generated $82 billion in sales, $24 billion in income, and supported 534,000 jobs in 2006. “The report documents clearly that managing fisheries sustainably is

good for the environment and the economy,” said Jim Balsiger, NOAA acting assistant administrator for NOAA’s Fisheries Service. “Fishing helps create a substantial number of jobs around the nation.”

Competetiveness

Without sustainable and secure fishing the United States is at risk of losing out to other countries – hurting our economy and decreasing competitivenessCoast Guard No Date, United States Coast Guard. "Protecting America's Fisheries." (n.d.): n. pag. United States Coast Guard. United States Federal Goverment. http://www.uscg.mil/history/articles/Fisheries.pdf Web. 1 July 2014. CS

The fisheries resources of the world were once thought to be limitless. It is now all too obvious that these resources are finite and in jeopardy. To protect these valuable resources, prudent management and enforcement action is necessary. In the future, the United States can anticipate increased foreign fishing vessel incursions into the Exclusive Economic Zone. This could have serious economic consequences for the United States.

Protecting and preserving our living marine resources has become a matter of national security. The Coast Guard is the only federal agency capable of projecting a U.S. law-enforcement presence throughout the Exclusive Economic Zone and in key areas of the high seas.

TourismCoastal tourism is a large source of capital in the United StatesNOAA ‘14 (Tourism and Recreation, NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program. March 16, 2014 http://coral reef.noaa.gov/ aboutcorals/values/tourismrecreation/)

In 2000–2001, the artificial and natural reefs off the four-county area of southeast Florida (Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade and Monroe counties) supported almost 28 million person-days of recreational diving, fishing and viewing activities.

These activities generated about $4.4 billion in local sales, almost $2 billion in local income, and 70,400 full and part-time jobs. In that same time frame, when visitors to those reefs in these four counties were polled, they were willing to spend between $23 million and $64 million (values varied by county) per year to maintain the natural coral reefs in the county. These reefs also had an asset value of $8.5 billion. [g]Coral reef- and mangrove-associated tourism contributed an estimated $150 million–$196 million to the national economy in 2007, representing between 12 and 15 percent of Belize’s gross domestic product. Tourists spent an estimated $150 to $196 million on accommodation, reef recreation, and other expenses; they spent $30–$37 million on sport fishing and diving alone. Additional

indirect economic impacts, including locally manufactured materials that support the industry, contribute another $26–$69 million a year. etc.). [h] Healthy coral ecosystems support local businesses and economies, as well as provide jobs through tourism and recreation. Every year, millions of scuba divers and snorkelers visit coral reefs to enjoy their abundant sea life. Even more tourists visit the beaches protected by these reefs. Local economies receive billions of dollars from these visitors to reef regions through diving tours, recreational fishing trips, hotels, restaurants, and other businesses based near reef ecosystems. One estimate places the total global value of coral-reef based recreation and tourism at $9.6 billion of the total global net benefit of coral reefs. For example, in the US, reef-related recreation and tourism account for an estimated $364 million in added value to Hawai`i's economy each year and its nearshore reefs annually contribute nearly $1 billion in gross revenues for the state. [b] Caribbean countries, which attract millions of visitors annually to their beaches and reefs, derive, on average, half of their gross domestic product from the tourism industry. [c] In Southeast Asia, it is estimated that each square kilometer of healthy reef (in areas with tourism potential) has a potential net benefit of $23,100 to $270,000. [d]Diving is one of the key components of reef tourism and recreation; divers generally look for high-quality coral reef habitats (as indicated by live coral coverage), coral and fish diversity, and water clarity. As a result, half of all diving in the Caribbean occurs within the region's marine protected areas, although these reefs represent a small fraction (about 20 percent) of all reefs within the region. Divers in the region have indicated a willingness to pay an average of an additional $25 per diver per year to keep the Caribbean coral reefs healthy. [e] One estimate predicts a loss of growth in the Caribbean dive industry of between 2 and 5 percent by 2015 due to reef degradation, which would result in a region-wide loss of annual net benefits of between $100 and $300 million. [e] Despite their great economic and recreational value, coral reefs are threatened by a number of factors. Recreation and tourism are "high value" industries that are especially sensitive to reef condition, and thus

particularly vulnerable to degradation. [f] Once coral reefs are damaged, they are less able to support the many creatures that make their home on the reef and in turn lose value as a destination for tourists. Reef degradation has a direct economic impact on people whose livelihoods rely on reef tourism.

Econ Decline Scenario

Fishing key to EconSustaining fisheries is vitally important to the US economy, despite recent reforms more needs to be done to prevent over fishingNOAA ‘13(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Status of Stocks 2013 Annual Report to Congress on the Status of U.S. Fisheries http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/fisheries_eco/status_of_fisheries/archive/2013/status_of_stocks_2013_web.pdf)

National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA Fisheries is pleased to present the 2013 Report on the Status of U.S. Fisheries, pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). This year’s report highlights the continued progress that, collectively, NOAA Fisheries, the Regional Fishery Management Councils, and our stakeholders have made to end overfishing and fully rebuild our nation’s fish stocks. In 2013, seven stocks came off the overfishing list and four stocks are no longer listed as overfished. Additionally, recent assessments show two stocks have rebuilt—bringing the total number of stocks rebuilt since 2000 to 34. These results demonstrate the strength of the U.S. science- based management model under the MSA and the importance of ending overfishing as the key to addressing past overfishing problems. While new stocks have been added to both the overfishing and overfished lists this year, the status of many of these stocks was previously unknown. Managers now have the status information they need to develop plans to end overfishing and rebuild these

stocks. Sustainable management of our fish stocks is critically important to the nation’s economy. Commercial fishing supports fishermen and fishing communities and provides Americans with a local source of healthy food. Recreational fishing is an important social activity for individuals and families, and is a critical economic contributor to local communities and regional economies. Combined, U.S. commercial and recreational saltwater fishing generated more than $199 billion in sales and supported 1.7 million jobs in 2012. Subsistence fishing provides an essential, culturally significant food source for many people. By ending

overfishing and rebuilding stocks, we are strengthening the value of fisheries to the economy, our communities, and marine ecosystems. To sustain this progress, we must continue to ensure solid, science-based determinations of stock status and better linkages to biological, socioeconomic, and ecosystem conditions. With the support of the Councils, commercial and recreational fishermen, states, and all of our other partners, we will strive to manage U.S. fisheries for the benefit of the nation. Of the 478 stocks and stock complexes managed in federal fishery management plans, we have information to make overfishing status determinations for 300 (63 percent) and overfished status determinations for 230 (48 percent). Of those stocks that contribute approximately 90 percent of total fishery landings, the overfishing status is known for 85 percent and overfished status is known for 79 percent. Details on all our managed stocks are available online at: www.nmfs.noaa. gov/sfa/fisheries_eco/status_of_fisheries. Ending Overfishing Through Annual Catch Limits In 2007, Congress enacted a requirement to use annual catch limits (ACL) to end and prevent overfishing. All federal fisheries, including stocks currently listed as experiencing overfishing and as overfished, are operating under ACLs. Stock assessments show that the number of domestic stocks experiencing overfishing continues to decline. NOAA Fisheries and the Councils are actively monitoring how well ACLs control catch and are working to prevent further overfishing. Rebuilding and Improving Stocks When it is determined that a stock is overfished, the relevant Council must implement a rebuilding plan. A typical rebuilding plan allows fishing to continue, but at a reduced level so that the stock will increase to its target level and can produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY)—the largest long-term average catch that can be taken from a stock under prevailing environmental and fishery conditions. Fifty stocks and stock complexes currently are under rebuilding plans, including 13 stocks that are no longer on the overfished list because they have increased in abundance and are not yet at the

target level that supports MSY. Black sea bass, a Southern Atlantic stock managed by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, is a recent rebuilding success story. This popular stock, which ranges from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, to the Florida Keys, was declared overfished and a rebuilding plan put in place in 2006. Management measures such as a constant catch plan, as well as changes in the recreational bag limit and fish size limits for both the commercial and recreational fisheries, Continuing Improvement A researcher with a black sea bass. The Southern Atlantic Coast stock of black sea bass was declared rebuilt in 2013. National Marine Fisheries Service 3 led to an early recovery of the stock. As a result of rebuilding, annual catch limits have more than doubled. This is important to recreational anglers, charter boat captains, and commercial fishermen alike.

According to the latest Fisheries Economics of the U.S. report, in 2012 recreational marine anglers in the South Atlantic states spent more than $6.5 billion, generating over 34,000 jobs in east Florida alone. Black sea bass is also an important commercial species and many fishermen expect to see incomes rise with increased catch limits for this stock. NOAA Fisheries monitors the progress of all rebuilding stocks, and makes adjustments to plans if needed. Current information on fishing mortality and biomass trends for stocks in rebuilding plans is available online at: www.nmfs. noaa.gov/sfa/fisheries_eco/status_of_ fisheries.

US fishing industry is key to the economy- it contributes 1.5 million jobs and one half a trillion dollars every year, and the economy is becoming more dependent on fishing.National Marine Fisheries Service. 2014. Fisheries Economics of the United States, 2012. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA, Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-137, 175p. Available at: https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st5/publication/index.html.

In this report, the U.S. seafood industry includes the commercial harvest sector, seafood processors and dealers,

seafood wholesalers and distributors, importers, and seafood retailers. In 2012, this industry supported approximately 1.3 million full- and part-time jobs and generated $141 billion in sales impacts, $39 billion in income impacts, and $59 billion in value added impacts. Seafood retailers, which generated the largest job and value added impacts, contributed 610,000 jobs, $32 billion in sales impacts, $12.9 billion in income, and $17.6 billion in value added impacts to the national economy in 2012. The seafood import sector, which generated the largest sales impacts, contributed 207,000 jobs, $57 billion in sales impacts, over $9 billion in income, and $17.3 billion in value added impacts. Wholesalers and distributors constituted the smallest of the seafood industry sectors and contributed 57,000 jobs, almost $8 billion in sales, $2.6 billion in income, and $3.5 billion in value added impacts to the national

economy. Employment impacts from the U.S. seafood industry were 3% higher in 2012 than in 2011.

Similarly, industry-wide economic impacts in terms of income (up 5.9%), sales (up 8.7%), and value added (up 8.7%)

were also higher. Year-over-year increases in economic impacts were concentrated in three sectors: importers (employment up 18%), processors and dealers (employment up 11%) and wholesalers and distributors (employment up 5.8%). Economic impacts in the commercial harvesting and retail sectors were actually somewhat lower in 2012 relative to 2011. For example, employment impacts were 6% lower in the commercial harvesting sector and 1.3% lower in the retail sector.

Overfishing has severe consequences for the global economy--$50 billion per yearU. Thara Srinivasan, William W. L. Cheung , Reg Watson, U. Rashid Surnaila 10 (“Food security implications of global marine catch losses due to overfishing”, Journal of Bioeconomics, October 2010, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 183-200, EBSCO)

Overfishing, the taking of more biomass from a marine population than the biomass can replace, plagues many of the world’s fisheries (Grainger and Garcia 1996: Pauly et al. 1998; Froese and Kesner-Reyes 2002: MA 2005). Indeed, it has been recognized as the foremost force in the global degradation of coastal ecosystems (Jackson et al. 2001; MA 2005). In a recent study,

the World Bank and the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization estimated that excess fishing may cost the world roughly $50 billion a year in net economic losses—value the world could potentially

recoup by scaling back fishing efforts, and allowing rebuilding of depleted marine resources so that sustainably higher catches can be obtained in the future at higher population levels (World Bank & FAO 2009). In the case of the U.S., Sumaila and Suatoni (2006) showed that the net present value (NPV) of 17 stocks thai have implemented rebuilding plans is estimated to be three times higher than the NPV of the same stocks if they are not rebuilt, but continue to be fished at current levels.

By failing to safeguard the world’s ocean ecosystems, humankind is losing not only revenue from fisheries but also long-relied upon sources of nourishment and employment. Through over- exploitation of targeted species and the disruption of food webs (Pauly et al. 1998: Jackson et al. 2001: Pauly et al. 2002), we are losing biodiversity and injuring marine ecosystem services (MA 2005: Worm et al. 2006). In the twentieth century, fishing has driven several marine species to local extinction (Dulvy CL al. 2(X)3: MA 2005), and many marine fish on

the LUCN’s Red List of Threatened Species (http://www. iucnredlisi.orgl) are jeopardized by overfishing (Dulvy et al. 2003), yet certain marine species well known to be endangered by commerce are not yet covered under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species in wild Fauna and Flora.

The fish industry supports 1.5 million jobs and billions in sales and incomes, supporting a significant amount of the economy.US Department of Commerce 2010 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, “Fisheries Economics of the United States 2008 - Economics and Sociocultural Status and Trends Series”, April 2010, Date Accessed: 063014)

In this report, the U.S. commercial seafood industry includes the commercial harvest sector, seafood processors and dealers,

seafood wholesalers and distributors, and seafood retailers. In 2008, this industry supported approximately 1.5 million full- and part-time jobs and generated $104 billion in sales impacts and $45 billion in income impacts . Seafood retailers contributed most to these totals relative to the other commercial seafood sectors. This sector employed approximately 1.1 million workers (75% of total employees) in 2008 and generated $60 billion in sales (58% of total sales impacts) and $28 billion in income (62% of total income impacts). Seafood wholesalers and distributors (155,000 employees), commercial harvesters (115,000 employees), and seafood processors and dealers (105,000 employees) followed in terms of jobs supported across the U.S. Relative to 2007, sales and income impacts

from the commercial seafood industry increased in 2008: 5.4%, 5.5%, respectively.15 Increases in sales and income impacts were experienced across all of the sectors. The commercial harvester sector experienced the smallest increase, with a 3.8% sales impacts and a 4.3% increase in income. The largest increase was seen in the seafood wholesalers and distributors which experienced a

6.6% increase in sales and income impacts. Total employment impacts increased 2.4%, and increases in employment were seen across all sectors. These increases ranged from 1.2% in the commercial harvester sector to 3.4% in the seafood wholesalers and distributor sector.

Econ CollapseCostal economies depend on fisheries, overfishing will collapse costal economiesOcean Conservancy 2014 (Ocean Conservancy, organization aimed at conserving oceanic ecosystems, “America’s ocean and coasts provide jobs for 2.3 million people in thousands of communities across the country”, 2014, http://www.oceanconservancy.org/healthy-ocean/thriving-economy/)

The ocean-dependent economy, including six industries dominated by tourism, mineral extraction and marine transportation, generated more than $222 billion in 2009. And every year, commercial and recreational fisheries nationwide employ 1.9 million workers. ¶ Sustaining this economic success for years to come depends on: ¶ maintaining and securing sustainable fisheries, ¶ Protecting fragile habitats to help restore fisheries and boost the local economy,¶ Fighting trash and debris that threatens ocean health and drains our coastal economies,¶ using strong science to regulate genetically engineered fish and fish farming, and¶ creating smart, innovative planning for the ocean¶ Ocean Conservancy supports the millions who earn their living from the ocean every day. We are working with companies, commercial and recreational fishermen, and local, state and federal governments to ensure a healthy ocean and a thriving economy.¶ Historically, overfishing decimated iconic fish populations like cod, red snapper, bluefin tuna and species of Pacific rockfish.¶ Today, Ocean Conservancy is working with governments, fishermen and others to prevent overfishing and bring these populations back to sustainable levels—and it’s working. Red snapper are now recovering in the Gulf of Mexico, showing that success can be accomplished.¶ According to a recent National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) fisheries report, we are turning the corner on overfishing and the catch by American fishermen has reached a 17-year high. ¶ Altering the current science-based safeguards could jeopardize fish populations that are on their way back to healthy numbers. This would result in fewer fishing opportunities, fewer seafood choices and weakened coastal communities.

The US’s economy is dependent upon coastal economies, they account for ¾ of the economyColgan 2004 (Colgan, Charles, Professor of public policy and management at University of Southern Maine, “The Changing Ocean and Costal Economy of the United States: A Briefing Paper for Governors” March 25, 2004, http://www.seagrant.umaine.edu/files/pdf-global/06MWRcd/06MWR08.pdf)

Three quarters of the American economy is generated coastal states. Nearly half comes from the 25% of the land that is the coastal watershed counties, and more than 11% of the economy comes from the 4% of the land in the near shore area. Regardless of the definition of coast being used, the coastal economy has grown faster than the national economy. ¶ The ocean economy- the economic activity directly associated with using ocean resources - is considerably smaller than the coastal economy, but important nonetheless. In 2000, the ocean economy is estimated to have employed over 2.2 million people and contributed more than $117 billion to the national economy. The ocean economy is generally proportionate to the size of each state’s economy, but it is more important in some states than others.

Economic decline causes nuclear warHarris and Burrows 9 (Mathew, PhD European History @ Cambridge, counselor in the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and Jennifer is a member of the NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit “Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis” http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/twq/v32i2/f_0016178_13952.pdf

Increased Potential for Global Conflict)

Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample Revisiting the Future opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in which the potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorism’s appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the world’s most dangerous capabilities within their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups_inheriting organizational structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacks_and newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become self-radicalized, particularly in the absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than defense, potentially leading to escalating crises

Overfishing collapses economies – people lose their jobs and businesses are destroyed Canada provesGien 00, Gien, Lan. BSc., MEd., PhD., Professor at Memorial University’s School of Nursing. “Land and Sea Connection: The East Coast Fishery Closure, Unemployment and Health.” Canadian Journal of Public Health 91.2 (2000): 121. Web. 2 July 2014. CS

The most well-known example of the detrimental effects of overfishing is the collapse of the Atlantic northwest cod fishery. For 500 years, the economy of Canada’s eastern coast had depended on the northern cod fisheries. In the summer of 1992, Canada declared a moratorium, a suspension, on the Northern Cod fishery because the Northern Cod biomass had fell to 1% of its earlier leve l due to mismanagement. “The collapse of the Northern Cod fishery marked a profound change in the ecological, economic and socio-cultural structure of Atlantic Canada.” Because the economy depended on the fishery, many lost their jobs and the supply of northern cod in that area diminished significantly. To this day the fishery is still closed, allowing the cod to attempt to repopulate. In around the

1950s, technological advances allowed fishers to increase the volume of their catch by increasing the area and the depth at which they fished. Many fish caught were not the northwest cod, but other non-commercial fish that were

important ecologically. This bycatch further disrupted the ecosystem by removing predator and prey species.

Not only did the people of the region lose their jobs, they also lost entire businesses, investments in the form of fishing boats, and part of their cultural identity. A study by CBC News in the summer of 2011 indicated that the northern cod fishery may recover in the future, suggesting major changes to marine ecosystems may be reversed with time and government regulation. Thus, it is not too late to save many of the fisheries.

Poverty ScenarioMillions of people around the world rely on seafood to avoid starvation and povertyFAO ’11 (Fish Consumption Reaches All-time High February 8, 2011. Food and Agriculture Organization. http://blueocean.org/2011/02/fish-consumption-reaches-all-time-high/)

The FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), an autonomous agency within the United Nations, is a forum where nations convene to debate and develop policies regarding farming, fishing, and aquaculture. On January 31st, they issued their most recent report regarding global fish consumption. The report included some facts and figures that got my attention and I wanted to share them with you.¶ The headline of the report reads “Fish consumption reaches all-time high.” This news did not surprise me in and of itself, but the hard data was still impressive:

the global average per person fish consumption was 17 kgs, “supplying over three billion people with at least 15% of their average animal protein intake.” (In the U.S., however, the percentage is much less.) This represents an overall increase, due in large part to the growing production of seafood via aquaculture. Indeed, the supply of fish raised on farms is about to

surpass the amount caught in the wild. If that’s not the definition of a tipping point, then I don’t know what is. Needless to say, this means that it’s more important than ever to be aware of the environmental impact of different fish-farming methods, consume it judiciously, and to advocate for best practices. ¶ Given the enormous size of the global seafood industry – fish is the most traded commodity in the world – how many people depend on it for their

livelihood? According to the report, 45 million work in the seafood industry directly, another 180 million indirectly (i.e., processors, transporters, etc.), and if you include the workers’ families, a full 540 million people depend on some aspect of catching, farming, processing, or distributing fish for their economic wellbeing – in other words, eight percent of the world’s population.¶ The report included some sobering news: “The overall percentage of

exploited, depleted or recovering fish stocks in the world’s oceans has not dropped and is estimated to be slightly higher than in 2006. About 32 percent of the world fish stocks are estimated to be overexploited, depleted or recovering and need to be urgently rebuilt…”¶ On a more optimistic note, “15 percent of the stock groups monitored by FAO were estimated to be underexploited (three percent) or moderately exploited (12 percent) and therefore able to produce more than their current catches.” Unfortunately, however, this proportion is steadily decreasing over time.¶ The FAO reported that they examined efforts to control “illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.” One approach is to use trade measures to block the entry of fish that has been caught illegally.

Collapse of the fish industry exacerbates economic insecurity and poverty – loss of tourism, Jobs, and income from exports Hauge et al. 9, Hauge, Kjellrun H., Belinda Cleewood, and Douglas C. Wilson. jellrun Hiis Hauge, Institute of Marine Research, Bergen, Norway; Douglas Clyde Wilson, Senior Researcher and Research Director at Innovative Fisheries Management, Aalborg University; Belinda Cleeland, project officer, IRGC. "Fisheries Depletion and Collapse." (n.d.): n. pag. IRGC. International Risk Governance Council, 2009. http://irgc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Fisheries_Depletion_full_case_study_web.pdf Web. 1 July 2014. CS

Harvesting fish in an unsustainable manner also means harvesting them inefficiently . When we put fish stocks at risk we also put at risk the economic welfare of millions of people dependent on marine products. Tourism is an important source of income in some countries, where the vibrant aquatic life (around

coral reefs, for example) attracts divers, sports fisherman and other visitors. Income generated by tourism could be lost if fisheries are depleted and marine biodiversity is lost. More substantial, however, is the importance of fish exports for developing economies. Indeed, there is a direct link between overfishing and poverty. Approximately half of the total export value of the world trade in fish and fisheries products (US$71.5

billion in 2004) comes from developing countries. Poverty among coastal communities in developing countries is often high (especially in Asia and Africa), and fishing industries help alleviate this, employing 150 million people and 3 providing a last resort livelihood for the poor. The collapse of fisheries can thus have devastating

economic impacts for developing countries, as well as for countries whose trade in fishery products makes up a large percentage of their total merchandise exports (Greenland and Iceland, for example) [World Bank, 2005:4-5 and 7].

Poverty is the worst form of structural violenceMumia Abu-Jamal 1998 [“A QUIET AND DEADLY VIOLENCE,” 9/19/98, http://www.mumia.nl/TCCDMAJ/quietdv.htm]

It has often been observed that America is a truly violent nation, as shown by the thousands of cases of social and

communal violence that occurs daily in the nation. Every year, some 20,000 people are killed by others, and additional 20,000 folks kill themselves. Add to this the non lethal violence that Americans daily inflict on each other, and we begin to see the tracings of a nation immersed in a fever of violence. But, as remarkable, and harrowing as this

level and degree of violence is, it is, by far, not the most violent feature of living in the midst of the American empire. We live, equally immersed, and to a deeper degree, in a nation that condones and ignores wide-ranging "structural" violence, of a kind that destroys human life with a breathtaking ruthlessness. Former Massachusetts prison

official and writer, Dr. James Gilligan observes;"By `structural violence' I mean the increased rates of death and disability suffered by those who occupy the bottom rungs of society, as contrasted by those who are above

them. Those excess deaths (or at least a demonstrably large proportion of them) are a function of the class structure; and that

structure is itself a product of society's collective human choices, concerning how to distribute the collective wealth of the society. These are not acts of God. I am contrasting `structural' with `behavioral violence' by which I mean the non-natural deaths and injuries that are caused by specific behavioral actions of individuals against individuals, such as the deaths we attribute to homicide, suicide, soldiers in warfare, capital punishment, and so on." -- (Gilligan, J., MD, Violence: Reflections On a National Epidemic (New York:

Vintage, 1996), 192.) This form of violence , not covered by any of the majoritarian, corporate, ruling-class protected media, is invisible to us and because of its invisibility, all the more insidious . How dangerous is it -- really? Gilligan notes:

"[E]very fifteen years , on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed in a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths; and every single year, two to three times as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating, thermonuclear war, or genocide on the weak and poor every year of every decade, throughout the world." [Gilligan, p. 196]

Price Spikes Scenario

Causes Price SpikesOverfishing causes resource depletion and price spikesFashandi et al. 10 Dr.Bhram Shakouri Department of Economics Islamic Azad University, Dr.Soheila khoshnevis Yazdi Department of Economics Islamic Azad University, Anahita Fashandi Student of Department of Marine Biology, Islamic Azad University, “Overfishing”, 2010 2nd International Conference on Chemical, Biological and Environmental Engineering (ICBEE 2010) , IEEE, Pg. 1, Accessed: 7/1/14 CS

Oceans have received only slight consideration in recent discussions of the global fisheries crisis, even though fisheries provide much-needed protein, jobs, and income, especially in poor rural communities of developing countries .

Systematic overfishing of fresh waters is largely unrecognized because of weak reporting and because fishery declines take place within a complex of other pressures. Moreover, the ecosystem consequences of changes to the species, size, and tropic composition of fish assemblages are poorly understood. These complexities underline the paradox that

overexploitation of a fishery may not be marked by declines in total yield, even when individual species and long-term sustainability are highly threatened. Around the world, over-fishing is leading to severe depletion of valuable fisheries. This is as true in many parts of the world. According to the United Nations Environment Program, fully 25 percent of fisheries worldwide are in jeopardy of collapse due to over-fishing. Overfishing is a common problem worldwide. For example, it is estimated that we have removed 90% of the large fish (e.g., sharks, swordfish) from the ocean. And as a result of overfishing, the price of fish has gone way up l. In this section, we will explore why overfishing is common, and what can be done about it. Ecosystem considerations may be incorporated into fisheries management by modifying existing overfishing paradigms or by developing new approaches to account for ecosystem structure and function in relation to harvesting. Ecosystem based overfishing concepts are to assume a greater role in management, unambiguous, quantifiable, and predictive measures of ecosystem state and flux. Ecosystem considerations do not need to substitute for existing overfishing concepts, practice, they emphasize the need to manage fishing capacity, supported by broader use of technical measures such as marine protected areas and gear restrictions.

Overfishing causes the price of fish to increaseNoyes in 2011, James, El Camino College, http://www.elcamino.edu/faculty/tnoyes/Readings/13C__R-Overfishing_Reading.pdf/

We now take over 4 times the amount of seafood from the ocean that we did in the 1950s, an increase of more than 300%. According to the (conservative) estimates of the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization, over half of the world’s fisheries are overexploited or perilously close to it. By definition, overfishing is taking so many fish from the ocean that there are not enough left to reproduce and replenish the population . Therefore, when fishermen overfish, the fish population goes down, making it easier to overfish during the next year . (If the

population is lower, then you could still be overfishing, even if you take fewer fish than the previous year.) Overfishing is a common problem worldwide. For example, it is estimated that we have removed 90% of the large fish (e.g., sharks,

swordfish) from the ocean. And as a result of overfishing, the price of fish has gone way up . In this section, we will explore why overfishing is common, and what can be done about it.

Price Spikes ImpactFood wars are directly linked to price spikes—2008 and 2011 global food crises proveKick et al, 2011(Edward L Kick, Laura A McKinney and Gretchen H Thompson, November 2011, International Journal of Comparative Sociology 2011 52: 478 originally published online 10 http://cos.sagepub.com/content/52/6/478.full.pdf+html)

Political economic interpretations. Political economists employing world-system and dependency interpretations (Frank, 1969; Wallerstein, 1974) argue domestic dynamics including food depriva- tion are the consequence of a global division of labor in which core capitalist accumulation results from exploitation of the

semiperiphery and periphery (McMichael, 2004; Wallerstein, 1974; Wimberley and Bello, 1992). Populations in the developing world, the

South, are left vulnerable due to limited food supplies coupled with barriers to food access (Jenkins and Scanlan, 2001; Scanlan, 2001a, cos.sagepub.com at UMKC University Libraries on July 2, 2014Downloaded from 484 International Journal of Comparative Sociology 52(6) 2001b, 2003, 2004). Thus, while capitalist development – via modernizing processes – increases well-being in the United States, Japan and the North Atlantic ‘core’ nations of the world system, it is temporally, spatially, and causally coterminous with the relative under–development of the rest of the system. Modernization proponents propose that greater globalization in the form of Westernization mitigates the intensity of food deprivation in developing countries, but the world- system/dependency perspective adopts the position it exacerbates food deprivation for them. The global food regime literature (Friedmann, 1982; Friedmann and McMichael, 1989) provides additional, related insights into food deprivation. As a companion to world-system/dependency theory, the food regime approach is informed by a political economic interpretation of nationally- based entitlements to global food markets (McMichael, 2009; Weis, 2007). Proponents have noted precipitous increases in food imports among developing countries, especially during the late 20th and early 21st centuries, which promoted profit and development

within core nations while fostering vulnerability in the semiperiphery and periphery (McMichael, 2009). The 2008 and 2011 global food crises consistently showed rising food prices escalated hunger and precipitated global crises (Heady et al., 2010). Steep increases in food prices have caused cash-strapped households throughout the developing South to use unsustainable portions of their domestic budgets to procuring food (Brown, 2011; IFPRI, 2009). The globalized hierarchy of food production and trade for profit led by the United States and European Union (EU) has used domestic agricultural policies, such as the US Farm Bill or the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy to support domestic agricultural industries to help ensure national development, based in part on global agricultural exports and trade (Pechlaner and Otero, 2010). Compelled to participate in global trade and regional trade agreements (e.g. the North American Free Trade Agreement), developing countries lower barriers to agricultural trade which often results in an influx of core agricultural products that fosters food import dependency (McMichael, 2009; Pechlaner and Otero, 2010). When considered alongside the many other, hier-

archically arranged axes of global power, this results in the deepening marginalization of the global South. For this line of argument, then, food deprivation is best viewed alongside the many inter- penetrating international power structures that perpetuate a globalized spatial inequality between the developed North and developing South. Violent conflict and food deprivation. Another pathway in our model of food deprivation emanates (indirectly) from conflict. Although the longstanding

‘guns and/or butter’ debate between moderniza- tion and dependency perspectives has led to sometimes contradictory hypotheses about the relationship between militarization and food deprivation , one point of greater agreement is that intra- and inter- national wars undermine food provisions. They do so through ‘food wars’ (Bello and Baviera, 2009), the increased loss of access to food among vulnerable populations (Jenkins et al., 2007; Messer and Cohen, 2006; Messer et al., 2001; Scanlan, 2001b) and impediments to overall development and growth, including the basic provision of public goods and services (Benoit, 1973; Bullock and Firebaugh, 1990; Kick and Sharda, 1986; Kick et al., 1998), which impact food

production and distribution. Jenkins et al. (2007) additionally find that the cessation of conflict reduces child hunger. This is consistent with the bulk of approaches that posit conflict exacerbates military spending, and may indirectly heighten the intensity of food deprivation.

Food price spikes cause global social unrest and violent conflictKlare, 2012 < Michael T. Klare is the Professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College, The Hunger Wars in Our Future, http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/08/food-scarcity-drought-global-crisis>

This, however, is just the beginning of the likely consequences: if history is any guide, rising food prices of this sort will also lead to widespread social unrest and violent conflict. Food—affordable food—is essential to human survival and well-being. Take that away, and people become anxious, desperate, and angry. In the United States, food represents only about 13% of the average household budget, a relatively small share, so a boost in food prices in 2013 will probably not prove overly taxing for most middle- and upper-income families. It could, however, produce considerable hardship for poor and

unemployed Americans with limited resources. "You are talking about a real bite out of family budgets,"commented Ernie Gross, an agricultural economist at Omaha's Creighton University. This could add to the discontent already evident in depressed and high-unemployment areas, perhaps prompting an intensified backlash against incumbent politicians and other forms of dissent and unrest. It is in the international arena, however, that the Great Drought is likely to have its most devastating effects. Because so many nations depend on grain imports from the US to supplement their own harvests, and because intense drought and floods are damaging crops elsewhere as well, food supplies are expected to shrink and prices to rise across the planet. "What happens to the US supply has immense impact around the world," says Robert Thompson, a food expert at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. As the crops most affected by the drought, corn and soybeans, disappear from world markets, he noted, the price of all grains, including wheat, is likely to soar, causing immense hardship to those who already have trouble affording enough food to feed their families. The Hunger Games, 2007-2011 What happens next is, of course, impossible to predict, but if the recent past is any guide, it could turn ugly. In 2007-2008, when rice, corn, and wheat experienced prices hikes of 100% or more, sharply higher prices—especially for bread—sparked "food riots" in more than two dozen countries , including Bangladesh, Cameroon, Egypt, Haiti, Indonesia, Senegal, and Yemen. In Haiti, the rioting became so violent and public confidence in the government's ability to address the problem dropped so precipitously that the Haitian Senate voted to oust the country's prime minister, Jacques-Édouard Alexis. In other countries, angry protestors clashed with army and police forces, leaving scores dead. Those price increases of 2007-2008 were largely attributed to the soaring cost of oil, which made food production more expensive. (Oil's use is widespread in farming operations, irrigation, food delivery, and pesticide manufacture.) At the same time, increasing amounts of cropland worldwide were being diverted from food crops to the cultivation of plants used in making biofuels.

Price Spikes SolvencyOverfishing increases prices and is detrimental to the poor – only quotas solveHamilton et al 04, Hamilton, Lawrence, et al. “Above and Below the Water: Social/Ecological Transformation in Northwest Newfoundland.” Population and Environment 25.3 (2004): 195. Web. 2 July 2014. CS

Overfishing in developing countries only exacerbates the food crisis. As fish become scarce, the prices rise.

The people in developing countries are mostly peasants and nearly all of their income already goes to paying for food. If the price rises even just a little bit, they often cannot afford to buy the food .

Neoliberalism, which refers to free trade, open markets, and deregulation, does not apply to food. Food cannot function unregulated. The best way to regulate fish would be to put quotas on the amount of fish allowed to be caught. In this way, the governments of developing countries will not need to subsidize the fish prices, which would indubitably cost more than their treasuries can afford. In most cases, the government cannot or will not subsidize and regulate the prices, and riots and protests will increase in these areas.

A2: Turn – IFQ increase PricesQuotas don’t affect prices – however shortages caused by overfishing increase prices for the long term Hayes 12, Hayes, Jeffrey, Jeffrey J. Hayes, Ph.D. Professor at the University of Rochester. "QUOTAS, OVERFISHING AND DIMINISHING BLUEFIN TUNA STOCKS." Facts and Details. Jeffrey Hayes, Jan. 2012. http://factsanddetails.com/world/cat53/sub340/item2187.html Web. 02 July 2014. CS

The cuts and quotas are not expected to affect the supply or price of tuna by that much and many hope they will lead to more responsible fishing. The price of bluefin tuna rose 20 percent in Tokyo in 2007. In many cases sushi restaurants have not been able to pass on the costs to their customers and take a loss whenever their customers eat too much bluefin sushi. High prices have caused

household consumption of blue fin tuna to decline 20 percent. In November 2009, there were rumors that there might be shortages of

bluefin tuna during the holiday season and that prices for the fish were going to spike. The government issued a statement that the rumors were not true and that suppliers stockpiled an ample supply. At the first bluefin auction of the year at Tsukiji in 2010, there were 20

percent less fish than at the same time a year earlier. One wholesaler told the Yomiuri Shimbun, “Since the first auction of the year, few tuna have been up for auction. Prices are up 20 percent on last year. I hope it’s not a bad sign.” An executive with a

fishing organization said, “If catches and stockpiles decrease, and the economy recovers and demand increases, prices will rise.”

Laundry List ImpactsOverfishing threatens the economy, ecosystem, and social warfareFreitas et al 8Freitas, B.; Delagran, L.; Griffin, E.; Miller, K.L.; Hirshfield, M. May 2008. “Too Few Fish: A Regional Assessment of the World’s Fisheries.” Accessed 7/2/14 at http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/toofewfish41.pdf

The depletion of fish stocks violates the basic conservation requirement of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea as well as every tenet of sustainable development. It is also contrary to the principles and management provisions adopted in the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for

Responsible Fisheries. Overfishing affects the structure, functioning and resilience of the ocean ecosystem, threatens food security and economic development, and reduces long-term social welfare. Until recently, as fishermen have found new resources to exploit — either further down the food chain, further away or deeper in the ocean — an appearance of plenty has been maintained for those in developed countries. But this illusion hides the reality that the vast majority of stocks are exploited at or beyond their maximum sustainable potential. Without effective management and restraints on incentives to fish, even the few stocks with potential room for expansion are doomed to overexploitation. The need to control fishing effort and capacity is essential to achieving sustainable catches from the world’s oceans, with the resulting economic and development benefits that would follow. But global subsidies, amounting to approximately 25 percent of the landed value of fish, undermine management efforts by supporting uneconomic and unsustainable fishing activity.

Solvency

Catch Shares

CS Solve overfishingCatch share programs have been successful- they create financial incentives for fisheries to adopt sustainable practices, and give fisheries the flexibility in their approach to fishingDAVID FESTA, DIANE REGAS, and JUDSON BOOMHOWER in 2013, Festa is director, Diane Regas is managing director, and Judson Boomhower is a fellow of the Oceans Program at Environmental Defense in Washington, DC, Sharing the Catch, Conserving the Fish, Issues in Science and Technology, http://issues.org/24-2/festa/

In 1995, regulators changed the rules of the game and implemented a catch share program—one of the first in the United States. Under this system, fishermen can catch halibut nine months a year—as long as they catch only their share of the total allowable catch. Compliance with catch limits is now nearly 100% for individual fishermen, and overall the fishery usually winds up erring on the safe side and is under its catch

limits. The success of the halibut catch share system has inspired others; there are now nine catch share programs in the United States. Experience in other publicly owned natural resources areas, such as national forests, the atmosphere, and the electromagnetic spectrum, demonstrates that resource stewardship improves when regulators include some form of incentive-based management that better aligns the economic incentives of the users with the public policy objectives, including conservation, that must go hand in hand with granting private access to that

resource. In the case of fisheries, catch limits, bycatch controls, and habitat protections—the traditional management tools—

must continue. But these controls work better to promote sustainable fisheries when fishermen are accountable for catching only a dedicated percentage of the catch . Further, the value of the catch goes up when a fisherman can take his boat out when the price is right, rather than when every other boat goes out. Worldwide, programs that incorporate a right to a share of the catch have been implemented in various guises for more than 30 years, under names such as individual fishing quotas , individual transferable

quotas, and territorial use rights in fishing. Their key feature is that fishermen (individually or in cooperatives) are assigned

either a percentage share of the total allowable catch or of the fishing concessions in a given bay, bank, reef, or other ocean

area (a system referred to as “territorial use rights for fishing”). Where such programs are used—in most fisheries in Iceland and

New Zealand and in some fisheries in Australia, Canada, Mexico, Chile, and the United States—compliance with key limits improves and fishermen have been able to make a better living. In places where catch shares have been used to address

overfishing, stocks have improved. As with some traditionally managed fisheries, catch share fisheries have a cap—the total

allowable catch—that is based on a scientific assessment of the sustainable yield from the fishery . Fishermen are each allocated a specified percentage of the allowable catch, and their take is monitored. The catch

shares are usually tradable, with some restrictions. Because the value of the percentage shares increases when stocks improve and managers raise the total allowable catch, catch shares create an incentive for fishermen to steward the resource. Equally important for conservation, especially in the near term, these approaches give fishermen a way to benefit financially immediately from fishing “cleaner”; that is, with less impact on the ecosystem. Consider bycatch, for instance. Bycatch saps profits. It is expensive to buy, deploy, and retrieve gear. The greater the ratio of target to nontarget species

is, the higher the profits. When fishermen are not fishing against the clock, they can, and do, take the time to figure out how to increase that ratio. This is good for their bottom lines and for the marine ecosystem .

Studies show that every catch share program implemented has successfully reduced habitat destruction and overfishing.DAVID FESTA, DIANE REGAS, and JUDSON BOOMHOWER in 2013, Festa is director, Diane Regas is managing director, and Judson Boomhower is a fellow of the Oceans Program at Environmental Defense in Washington, DC, Sharing the Catch, Conserving the Fish, Issues in Science and Technology, http://issues.org/24-2/festa/

Environmental Defense recently conducted a study to examine how well catch share programs have performed in the 10 fisheries in the United States and British Columbia in which they have been implemented. (The Redstone Strategy Group performed the quantitative evaluations of the industry as a whole, as well as each existing catch share program.) The fisheries analyzed were Alaska halibut, Alaska pollock, Alaska sablefish, Alaska king crab, mid-Atlantic surf clam and ocean quahog, South Atlantic wreckfish, Pacific whiting, British Columbia sablefish, British Columbia halibut, and British Columbia groundfish caught by trawling.

Our findings support earlier studies showing that catch share programs effectively end the persistent overshooting of scientific targets for safe levels of fishing while cushioning the impacts on fishermen . The study also reveals five key areas in which catch shares improve management outcomes. Overharvesting. Under traditional management, a fishery may have an official catch limit, but fishermen do not . Because they are not held directly accountable for exceeding a limit, they will fish until told to stop. Real-world time lags in reporting and enforcement lead to overages in collective catch targets . Regulators must then allow less catch the following year if the fish population is to recover. For the group of stocks analyzed, before catch shares were introduced, annual catch targets were exceeded in half of all fishing seasons. Sometimes the excess was small, but for some British Columbia groundfish species the caps were

exceeded by as much as 60%. After catch shares were introduced, overages essentially disappeared. In fact, landings

were, on average, about 5% below the annual cap. Bycatch and habitat destruction. The amount of nontarget species caught each year—not just fish, but sea turtles, dolphins, corals, and sponges—is staggering . Worldwide, about one-fourth of the total catch is thrown back, much of it dead or dying . Naturally, fisheries managers and fishermen

themselves would like to eliminate this wasteful and costly inefficiency. However, when regulators attack the problem indirectly, the fishermen’s incentive is to obey the letter of the law but still find ways to catch as much as fast as possible. The result is continued bycatch, although sometimes of different kinds of sea life than before. When fishermen can reduce costs by avoiding bycatch or, even better, are held directly accountable for reducing bycatch, they do so. Bycatch decreased in every catch share fishery examined in the study, by 40% on average , and

the programs collectively prevented the waste of enough seafood to feed 16 million people in the United States for a year. The fishermen also deployed 20% less gear to catch the same amount of fish. The incentive to reduce gear use under catch shares exists because success depends on efficiency instead of speed. To fishermen, less use of gear means less capital expenditure and lower input costs in the form of bait, lost gear, and labor. For the environment, less gear means a lower likelihood of harmful interactions with habitat and wildlife.

Catch shares promote safer fishing practices by reducing stress for a profitEDF ’14 (Environmental Defense Fund, How catch shares work: A promising solution, EDF, http://www.edf.org/oceans/how-catch-shares-work-promising-solution, accessed: 6/30/14 GA)

Catch shares are a type of management system that dedicates a secure share of fish or fishing area, to individual fishermen, communities or fishery associations. Each year, the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) also known as a "catch limit" is set with portions of the limit divided among fishery participants. With a secure privilege of the total catch and clearly defined access to resources, fishermen have the ability to catch a certain amount of fish each year and are responsible for not exceeding that amount. And with this privilege, fishermen are afforded great flexibility in planning their business operations. They are no longer told exactly when or how to fish and are able to enjoy the freedom to do what makes sense for them. Often, fishermen have the opportunity to buy and sell shares which improves flexibility and increases economic efficiency. Fishermen are also able to coordinate harvests to meet market demands, resulting

in higher prices for their catch, and overall, resulting in improved levels of the fishery’s profitability. Catch shares "right the ship." With a secure share of the catch, there is no pressure or need to race for fish. And with a clear stake in the overall health

and sustainability of the fishery, fishermen’s incentives change from maximizing volume to maximizing value .

Fishermen no longer become fierce competitors but are now inspired to collaborate as environmental stewards of the resource their livelihood depends on. This type of cooperation is almost unheard of in non-catch share fisheries where

competition — not communication — is the rule. With more time and flexibility to fish, fishermen can more effectively plan their harvest, delivering fish when the demand is higher and staying ashore when the weather conditions are unsafe. More time to fish also allows fishermen to catch more sustainably — avoiding "bycatch," unwanted species, and reducing the amount of "discards" — fish thrown overboard often dead or dying. And with greater accountability from fishermen, regulators are able to relax many of constraints on fisheries. Evidence shows that catch shares overcome the "tragedy of the commons" by providing a clear economic rationale for conserving resources. Similar to how shareholders in a company have a stake in the success of a business, fishermen under catch share programs have a direct investment in the fish

stock because as fish populations rebound, their share grows. Under these programs, there is also an increased effort to avoid unmarketable species, known as bycatch, which minimizes impacts on ecosystem health. In addition

to improving safety and economic performance, catch shares have also been shown to increase environmental benefits. Catch shares give fishermen longer and more leisurely fishing seasons. With more time to fish, they are able to adjust fishing methods and increase efficiency allowing them to stay within catch limits and reduce impact on unwanted species. Reducing costs, avoiding penalties and engaging in conservation simply make good business sense. In addition, catch shares have provided more secure, full-time jobs, eliminated overcapitalization and alleviated the substantial stress and instability of short "derby" fishing seasons . Sustainable fisheries rely on a healthy ocean including a protected seafloor and estuaries, and reduced ocean impacts from climate change, among others. Catch shares provide the performance-based framework necessary for ensuring compliance with catch limits. Also, by tying together economic and conservation performance, catch shares create a constituency for addressing other challenges affecting fisheries. Different fisheries can have varying goals. For example, one fishery may want to maximize profits while another may want to preserve the

current owner-operator fleet structure. Catch shares can be designed to help incorporate and balance these various goals. A number of special design features, from allocation to trading rules to new net designs, have come about from the great diversity of fisheries where catch shares have been used. As catch shares continue to be utilized around the world, the innovation will only continue. Offering flexibility and versatility, catch shares allow customized management and balance needs and goals of each fishery.

CS Solve-TimeframeCatch shares are the only way to save the fisheries, without regulation all of the fisheries will have collapsed by 2048Costello et al in 2008 (Can Catch Shares Prevent Fisheries Collapse? Christopher Costello1,*, Steven D. Gaines2, John Lynham3,† September 19,2008http://www.sciencemag.org/content/321/5896/1678.full)

Although the potentially harmful consequences of mismanaged fisheries were forecast over 50 years ago (1, 2), evidence of global declines has only been seen quite recently. Reports show increasing human impacts (3)

and global collapses in large predatory fishes (4) and other trophic levels (5) in all large marine ecosystems (LMEs) (6). It is now widely believed that these collapses are primarily the result of the mismanagement of fisheries. One explanation for the collapse of fish stocks lies in economics: Perhaps it is economically optimal to capture fish stocks now and invest the large windfall revenues in alternative assets, rather than capturing a much smaller harvest on a regular basis. Although this remains a theoretical possibility for

extremely slow-growing species (7), it remains rare in reality. A recent study reports that under reasonable economic parameterization, extinction is suboptimal (even with low growth rates) and that biomass under economically optimal harvest is larger than that under maximum sustainable yield (8). If global fisheries contain large potential profits [perhaps a present value of $1 trillion (9)], yet the profits are only realized if the fisheries are managed sustainably, why are actively managed fisheries systematically overexploited? The answer lies in the misalignment of incentives. Even when management sets harvest quotas that could maximize profits, the incentives of the individual harvester are typically inconsistent with profit maximization for the

fleet. Because individuals lack secure rights to part of the quota, they have a perverse motivation to “race to fish” to outcompete others. This race can lead to poor stewardship and lobbying for ever-larger harvest quotas, creating a spiral of reduced stocks, excessive harvests, and eventual collapse. Examining

specific cases, Beddington et al. (10), Hilborn et al. (11), Grafton et al. (12), and Griffith (13) argue that rights-based fisheries reforms offer promising solutions. Rather than only setting industry-wide quotas, fishermen are allocated individual rights. Referred to as catch shares or dedicated access privileges, these rights can be manifest as individual (and tradable) harvest quotas, cooperatives, or exclusive spatial harvest rights; the idea is to provide—to fishermen, communities, or cooperatives—asecure asset, which confers stewardship incentives. Most readily implemented within national jurisdictions (that is, inside 200 miles), some international agreements attempt to serve a similar function in international waters. Although both theory and empirical evidence suggest a robust link between catch shares and economic

performance of a fishery (14, 15), the link with ecological performance is more tenuous. Even so, Sanchirico and Wilen (16) argue that “It is widely believed and supported by anecdotal evidence that once fishers have a financial stake in the returns from sensible investment in sustainable practices, they are more easily convinced to make sacrifices required to rebuild and sustain fisheries at high levels of economic and biological productivity.” A recent report provides examples consistent with this widely held belief (17). We tested the hypothetical causal link between the global assignment of catch shares and fisheries sustainability. Whereas individual fishing rights have been implemented on small spatial scales in traditional cultures for millennia, the adoption rate in major fisheries has accelerated since the late 1970s. To test the efficacy of catch shares, we assembled a global database of 11,135 commercial fisheries and determined which fisheries had instituted catch shares from 1950 to 2003. We matched this institutional database to the same harvest database (18) used to assess fisheries collapse by Worm et al. (6). Our objective is to answer the question: Can catch shares prevent fisheries collapse? In their widely cited contribution, Worm et al. (6)

correlate the species richness of LMEs with fisheries collapse. They define a fishery as collapsed in year t if the harvest in year t is <10% of the maximum recorded harvest up to year t. Using this definition, ∼ 27% of the world's fisheries were collapsed in 2003. Extrapolating this trend into the future, Worm et al. (6) find that 100% of the world's fisheries could be collapsed by 2048. Although this highly controversial projection (19) captured most of the attention from this article, a larger focus of the work was the role of ecosystem biodiversity in preventing collapse. Fisheries in more biodiverse regions were less likely to be collapsed at any given point in history. Unfortunately, however, this greater resilience to human exploitation does not change the ultimate conclusion. Biodiversity does not prevent collapse; it merely delays it. In our analysis, we expanded beyond the characteristics of the ecosystem to consider the characteristics of the regulating fisheries institutions, simultaneously controlling for the ecosystem, genus, and other covariates. To assemble our catch-share database, we searched the published literature and government reports,

interviewed experts on global fisheries, and vetted our final database with a diverse array of researchers. In total, we identified 121 fisheries

managed using catch shares—defined as variations on individual transferable quotas (ITQs)—by 2003 (20). These work by allocating a dedicated share of the scientifically determined total catch to fishermen, communities, or cooperatives. This provides a stewardship incentive; as the fishery is better managed, the value of the shares increases. By analyzing the data at the fishery level [rather than the aggregate level, as in (6)], we facilitate inclusion of fisheries institutions as independent variables in our model specification. We adopt the Worm et al. (6) definition of collapse. Although a better measure would be based on stock (21), no systematic database of global fish biomass exists. This collapse metric may overestimate the frequency of collapsed fisheries (22), which creates a conservative test for the benefits of catch shares. Sensitivity analyses that consider alternative thresholds for collapse and address other potential biases yield unchanged or stronger conclusions (23). By 2003 the fraction of ITQ-managed fisheries that were collapsed (dotted line in Fig. 1A) was about half that of non-ITQ fisheries (solid line in Fig. 1A). Accelerated adoption of ITQs began in the late 1970s (dashed line and right y axis in Fig. 1A). In the preadoption period, would-be ITQ fisheries were on trajectories toward collapse, similar to non-ITQ fisheries. In the adoption period, the two curves diverge as ITQs are increasingly adopted (24). This disparity grows over time (23). Fig. 1. View larger version: In this page In a new window Download PowerPoint Slide for Teaching Fig. 1. (A) Percent of fisheries collapsed with (dotted line) and without (solid line) ITQ management using the Worm et al. (6) collapse threshold (10% of historical maximum). The number of ITQ fisheries increases through time (right y axis and dashed line), and the rate of implementation has been accelerating. (B) Percent of fisheries collapsed with (dotted line) and without (solid line) ITQ management using more conservative collapse thresholds: 1 to 6% of historical maximum catch. Demonstrating statistically a causal linkage between rights-based management and fisheries sustainability is complicated by three competing effects. First, the number of ITQ fisheries is growing, and new ITQ fisheries are drawn from a global pool with an ever-increasing fraction of collapsed fisheries. Random selection from this global pool could mask some benefits of rights-based management. Second, the conversion of fisheries to ITQs may involve a biased selection. For example, ITQs may be implemented disproportionately in fisheries that are already less collapsed, possibly giving a misleading perception of benefits from rights-based management. Finally, there may be temporal benefits of an ITQ (for instance, the longer an ITQ is in place in a given fishery, the less likely that fishery is to collapse). All of these mechanisms would lead to differences between ITQ and non-ITQ fisheries, but only the last mechanism implies a benefit from the management change. An initial regression of the data in Fig. 1 suggests that implementing an ITQ reduces the probability of collapse by 13.7 percentage points (23). Because ITQs have been disproportionately implemented in a few global ecosystems such as Alaska, Iceland, New Zealand, and Australia (25), regional or taxonomic biases could generate misleading results. To account for potential selection bias, we used a variety of estimation strategies: (i) We restricted the sample to only those ecosystems or taxa that have experienced ITQ management. (ii) We used propensity score methods to match ITQ fisheries to appropriate control fisheries (26). (iii) We used fixed-effects estimation to identify the benefit of ITQs within each fishery. The results are remarkably similar across all specifications and estimation techniques (23). The propensity score results are summarized in Table 1. Consistent with Fig. 1, ITQ fisheries perform far better than non-ITQ fisheries. Switching to an ITQ not only slows the decline toward widespread collapse, but it actually stops this decline. Each additional year of being in an ITQ (row 2 of Table 1) offsets the global trend (0.5% increase) of increasing collapse in non-ITQ fisheries (23). Other estimation techniques suggest even larger benefits. For example, fishery fixed-effects results suggest that ITQs not only halt the trend in global collapse, but they may actually reverse it (23). View this table: In this window In a new window Table 1. Fishery-specific analyses of ITQ benefits. Each fishery is treated as a time series of collapse, with some fisheries converting to ITQ during the interval. Propensity score matching (25) controls for the effects of LME, genus, or species to further isolate biases that may arise from the particular places and fisheries where ITQs have been implemented. Columns 2 to 5 provide regression model results for four different propensity score models. Rows 2 and 3 provide the regression coefficients and SEs (in parentheses). Fisheries without ITQ management had an average annual percentage change of 0.54. For all comparisons, the annual benefit of ITQs roughly counters the current rate of decline in other fisheries (23). All estimated coefficients are statistically significant at the 1% level. Although bioeconomic theory suggests that assigning secure rights to fishermen may align incentives and lead to significantly enhanced biological and economic performance, evidence to date has been only case- or region-specific. By examining 11,135 global fisheries, we found a strong link: By 2003, the fraction of ITQ-managed fisheries that were collapsed was about half that of non-ITQ fisheries. This result probably underestimates ITQ benefits, because most ITQ fisheries are young. The results of this analysis suggest that

well-designed catch shares may prevent fishery collapse across diverse taxa and ecosystems. Although the global rate of catch-share adoption has increased since 1970, the fraction of fisheries managed with catch shares is still small. We can estimate their potential impact if we project rights-based management onto all of the world's fisheries since 1970 (Fig. 2). The percent collapsed is reduced to just 9% by 2003; this fraction remains steady thereafter. This figure is a marked reversal of the previous projections. Fig. 2. View larger version: In this page In a new window Download PowerPoint Slide for Teaching Fig. 2. Simulation of trend in fisheries collapse if all non-ITQ fisheries switched to ITQs in 1970 (dotted line), compared with the actual trend (solid line). The thought experiment assumes that the annual ITQ benefit counterbalances the global trend toward complete collapse, which is consistent with the observed trends in actual ITQs (Table 1). Fluctuations in the simulation arise from estimated interannual variability. Despite the dramatic impact catch shares have had on fishery collapse, these results should not be taken as a carte blanche endorsement. First, we have restricted attention to one class of catch shares (ITQs). Second, only by appropriately matching institutional reform with ecological, economic, and social characteristics can maximal benefits be achieved. Nevertheless, these findings suggest that as catch shares are increasingly implemented globally, fish stocks, and the profits from harvesting them, have the potential to recover substantially.

CS Solve Fishing IndustryCatch share policies boost economic gains of fisheries- they increase efficiency and allow fishermen flexibility that boosts profits 80%DAVID FESTA, DIANE REGAS, and JUDSON BOOMHOWER in 2013, Festa is director, Diane Regas is managing director, and Judson Boomhower is a fellow of the Oceans Program at Environmental Defense in Washington, DC, Sharing the Catch, Conserving the Fish, Issues in Science and Technology, http://issues.org/24-2/festa/

Economics. Typical business conditions in a traditionally managed fishery consist of a boom time during the initial years, followed by economic dislocation as fishing capacity is drawn into the fishery, the stock is overfished, and managers restrict fishing operations and lower total allowable catches. Most U.S. fisheries are overcapitalized: There is too much fish-capturing ability (vessels and gear) to efficiently harvest the level of allowable catch. The fishermen are then caught in a catch-22. A fisherman might be using only, say, half of his fishing capacity and would prefer to downsize his boat or gear, thus saving money on boat financing and operating costs while catching the same amount of fish. But if other fishermen in the fleet do not do the same, their bigger capacity will scoop up the fish faster than he can in the race against the clock. The result is that our fisherman makes the best choice under a tough set of circumstances and stays in the race. To make matters worse, when the entire annual

supply of fish comes to market over a short period, buyers can offer low prices. Additionally, the intense competition to land fish quickly makes it impossible for fishermen to pursue quality-oriented instead of quantity-oriented business models. When the regulatory driver of overcapacity is removed, revenues per boat increased 80% on average in the fisheries studied. Although the total number of hours worked remained steady, there was a move from a part-time labor market to more stable full-time fishing jobs, and fishermen reported greater satisfaction with the quality of employment. Consumers also benefited from greater availability of fresh fish.

Scientific consensus shows that individual fishing quotas increase economic gains of fisheries will promoting sustainability and replenishing fishing stocksTrevor A Branch in 2009, School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, Box 355020, University of Washington, Seattle, How do individual transferable quotas affect marine ecosystems? , Fish and Fisheries Volume 10, Issue 1, pages 39–57, March 2009

Individual transferable quotas can create incentives for fishers to adopt sustainable fishing practices

(Branch et al. 2006a; Grafton et al. 2006). In practice, they solve many of the economic problems of fisheries, while greatly

changing social relationships (Grafton 1996; Squires et al. 1995; McCay 1995). Based on the reviewed literature, the observed ecological effects of ITQs on target species are largely positive provided the TAC is set at a precautionary level and is rigorously enforced, but their overall effect on other fisheries and on the environment is mixed or unknown. There are many positive ecological benefits of ITQs. Primarily, they encourage stewardship towards the resource by linking the value of quota shares to the future stream of income from the fishery . For a wide

range of species, quota share value is maximized at higher stock sizes and lower catches than the maximum sustainable biological yield (Grafton et al. 2007a). In consequence, ITQ stakeholders may request TAC cuts to ensure sustainability and improve profitability, providing a stark contrast to the usual clamour for TAC increases in other fisheries. In nearly all ITQ fisheries, fishers demonstrate an improved ability to constrain catches to the TAC and reduce incidental mortality from ghost fishing, while in many ITQ fisheries there is a reduction in high-grading and discarding. The net result is that fisheries are expected to be more sustainable under ITQs,

although there is no definitive study comparing the status of many fisheries over time under different management systems. Some fisheries do not benefit from ITQs. There are glaring examples of ITQ fisheries that have failed altogether, from which there are important ‘autopsy’ lessons to learn (Smith and Link 2005). These lessons are that ITQs cannot prevent fisheries collapse if the TAC is set too high (Sinclair et al. 1999), or if there is insufficient enforcement to prevent massive overcatching of the TAC (Chávez et al. 2008; Ecotrust, 2004). Important prerequisites for the success of ITQs are a stable political system and reliable scientific advice to ensure that TACs are sustainable (Walters and Pearse 1996), and a fishery that can be monitored easily – implying manageable numbers of participants, few landing sites, and an easily regulated processing

industry. In general, ITQs ease enforcement because there are fewer participants, fewer at-sea regulations to police, and because fishers have a collective interest in controlling illegal fishing to protect the value of their quota.

A2: No Solvency- ImplementationImplementation can happen- only outdated views hold back coordinationDAVID FESTA, DIANE REGAS, and JUDSON BOOMHOWER in 2013, Festa is director, Diane Regas is managing director, and Judson Boomhower is a fellow of the Oceans Program at Environmental Defense in Washington, DC, Sharing the Catch, Conserving the Fish, Issues in Science and Technology, http://issues.org/24-2/festa/

Both theoretically and empirically, catch share programs improve management outcomes in ending overfishing and raising the economic prospects of fishermen. But although the idea behind catch shares is a simple one, developing and implementing such a program in a given fishery involve complicated policy choices. Regulators must tackle issues such as how to cost-effectively monitor individual catches, how to weigh the interests of historically fishing-dependent communities, and how to

allocate catch privileges among fishermen. In fact, these issues can be and increasingly have been dealt with effectively, especially in newer catch share programs, during the policy design process at the individual fishery level. Still, outdated criticisms sometimes scare fishermen and regulators away from exploring catch shares in their fisheries. This is especially unfortunate because fishermen in fisheries where catch share programs have been implemented report strongly positive experiences with the shift. Experience with catch share programs reveals some important lessons about how contentious issues can best be addressed in the policy design process.

Catch Shares goodTradable Catch shares increases job security, focuses on long term sustainability of the industry, and deters political lobbying, Alaska ProvesSafina 13, Safina, Carl, founding president of the Blue Ocean Institute and writes extensively on the changing oceans. "A Future for U.S. Fisheries." Issues in Science and Technology. University of Texas at Dallas, 27 Nov. 2013. http://issues.org/25-4/safina-4/ Web. 01 July 2014. CS

Moving to a new era of fisheries management will require revising some conventional tools that are functioning below par and adopting an array of new “smart tools.” Regulations that set time frames for overfishing and recovery can play a valuable role, if properly interpreted. For example, traditional catch quotas must be based firmly on scientific knowledge about fish stocks, and they must be enforced with an eye toward protecting the resource. Newer tools, adapted to specific environments and needs, would include: Tradable catch shares. In this approach, now being used in some regions in varying degrees, fishery managers allot to fishers specific shares of the total allowable catch and give them the flexibility and the accountability for reaching their shares. Thus,

fishers do not own the fish; rather, they own a percentage of the total allowed catch, which may fluctuate from

year to year if management agencies adjust it up or down. In expanding the use of such programs, managers must establish the shares based on the advice of independent scientists who are insulated from industry lobbying.

Managers also should allot shares only to working fishers, not to corporations or processors . Of course,

finding equitable ways of determining which fishers get catch shares will be critical . Methods of allocating shares may vary from location to location, but the key is ensuring an open process that accounts for fishers’ legitimate interests and maintains

conservation incentives. In many cases, fewer fishers will be eligible to keep fishing. But those not selected would likely have been forced out of business anyway by the combination of pressure from more successful fishers and reduced fish stocks. By significantly reducing competition that breeds a race for fish, this approach offers several benefits. For one, it makes for safer fishing. Fishers who own shares know that they have the whole season to fill their quota regardless of what other boats are catching, so they are less likely to feel forced to head out in dangerous weather. In addition, owning a share helps ensure (other factors

permitting) that a fisher can earn a decent living, so local, state, or regional politicians will feel less pressure to protect their fishing constituents and push for higher catch quotas. At the same time, marginal operators granted shares would no longer feel trapped, because they would have something to sell if they wished to exit the fishery. By promoting longer-term thinking among fishers and politicians alike, catch-share programs help foster a sense of future investment in which quota holders will benefit from high or recovered fish populations. The impact of tradable catch shares can be seen in experiences in several regions. In Alaska, where fisheries managers once kept a tight cap on the halibut catch, the fishing season shrank to two days annually

because there were so many competing boats. After managers introduced tradable catch shares, the number of boats fell precipitously and the season effectively expanded to whenever the fishers wanted to work toward filling their shares. Safety improved markedly, and the halibut population remained robust . In New England, where the industry resisted tradable shares, the story ended differently. Managers allotted individual fishers a shrinking number of days at sea, which progressively crippled their economic viability, gave them no option to exit the fishery short of foreclosure, and kept fishing pressure so high that the fish stocks never recovered.

Accumulation LimitsAccumulation limits solve consolidation and help small fishers- they set caps on the market share given to fishers, preventing large corporations from taking over.Matt Rand in 2012, Policy Analyst, Accumulation Limits a Critical Component of Catch Shares to Provide Benefits to Fishing Families and Communities, Environmental Defense Fund, http://blogs.edf.org/edfish/2012/10/17/accumulation-limits-a-critical-component-of-catch-shares-to-provide-benefits-to-fishing-families-and-communities/

Catch shares, a fishery management system that gives fishermen a secure share of the catch in exchange for increased monitoring and greater accountability, represent a substantial change from the way U.S. fisheries have been managed in the past. Well-designed catch shares –

particularly when they include accumulation limits – can provide safeguards for small boat fishermen , their

families, and their communities. Because these are the people who are hurt most when fisheries collapse, EDF believes it is imperative to ensure that management programs take the needs of both fish and fishermen into account.

Catch shares are uniquely suited to do so in a number of ways that conventional fishery management plans could not. For

example, conventional fishery management plans typically call for shortened seasons and even closures when overfishing or other factors deplete stocks. This unpredictability of management can endanger smaller operators more than bigger ones, since they may not have the flexibility to weather the changes . Because

catch shares usually allow fishermen to operate all year long, they provide far greater job stability for fishermen, who know in advance how much fish they can catch during the season and what their needs will be at any given time. They can spread their catch out over the year, avoiding the gluts that occur when everyone brings in their catch at once and timing trips to maximize the price they’ll earn for that catch. Some fishermen are working directly with

processors so they are fishing for species that are most sought-after at the most desirable times, earning the highest price per fish. With longer seasons, fishermen can also take time off for needed boat repairs, and avoid working under the most dangerous weather conditions. These are welcome changes for many fishermen, who had grown accustomed to having to work at a frenzied pace whenever regulators said they could, with no flexibility to come in during dangerous weather or stay out when the

fishing was good. Industry consolidation continues to be a concern due to climate change and the fact that there simply

aren’t as many fish in the sea. While fleets have been shrinking for decades, catch shares allow fishery managers to set limits on consolidation when this is a concern. Accumulation limits are designed to put reasonable caps on the control or ownership of fishing quota. Most catch share programs in North America have established accumulation limits to control fleet consolidation and to make sure that quota ownership is spread across a large enough number of participants in order to limit market power and fishing opportunity by a

few individuals or companies. There is no single way to set accumulation limits, and in fact, they are typically tailored to the characteristics of individual fisheries and the management goals of that fishery . Some fisheries have set high limits in order to allow for consolidation (such as a 25 percent consolidation cap for the New Zealand shore side sector), while others are low (such as

a 1 percent cap for Alaska halibut). These kinds of tools allow fishery managers to set up a system that protects fishing communities and fishing families from instability and the kind of rampant consolidation that had been going unchecked for years. Catch shares provide the framework for the future – and with the right structure and features, this system is well suited to help protect fish and fishermen.

Accumulation limits prevent large fishers from pushing out small scale fishingAssociated Press 7/11/2011 Limits weighed to keep small fishing boats afloat Posted: Monday, July 11, 2011 1:00 am, http://www.stardem.com/business/article_b2c5acd8-4eb8-5d23-a0de-b6d87718e2ed.html?mode=print

Rulemakers who protect the fish off New England's crooked coastline are considering ways to make sure the small-boat fishermen who chase those fish don't vanish in the meantime . The New England Fishery Management Council is beginning to devise so-called "accumulation limits" to restrict what any single fisherman or

fishing business can haul home annually. The idea is to keep the wealthiest fishing interests from accumulating such a dominant share of the catch that they swallow the small, independent boat owners who've sustained New England's fishing communities for centuries. This persistent industry fear heightened last year, when a new management system was installed that allots each fisherman a transferrable share of the total catch, which they can lease or sell. Some say that makes it far easier for well-moneyed fishing interests to accrue catch shares from smaller, less profitable fishing businesses. David Goethel, a New

Hampshire fisherman who owns one boat, believes the way the catch was distributed in the new system gave large boat owners an unearned advantage that could drive out small operators like him . Accumulation limits are needed to make things even, he said. "We're a seafaring family and it's a way of life, and what they're doing is taking our way of life and turning it into a commodity," Goethel said. Hundreds of jobs linked to the small boat fleet, the region's heritage and access to fresh, locally-caught fish is at stake, said Goethel, a council member who emphasized he was speaking only for himself. The council last month took the first steps toward establishing accumulation limits and said it was working to amend fishing rules to include them.

Some catch shares have already been implemented- we must have federal regulation requiring accumulation limits to prevent the consolidation of the fishing industrySalemNews, November 26, 2012, Our view: Federal quota caps needed to protect small-boat fishermen, http://www.salemnews.com/opinion/x2120607353/Our-view-Federal-quota-caps-needed-to-protect-small-boat-fishermen/print

Now, however, NOAA Chief Jane Lubchenco and the New England Fishery Management Council have made such a mess of the New England groundfishery through Lubchenco’s and Environmental Defense’s beloved catch share management system that they have driven the industry to the point of economic “disaster” — conceded in a Commerce Department announcement in September. To their credit, NOAA regional

administrator John Bullard, environmental groups, Gloucester’s Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance and a number of fishermen realize at least some steps that must be taken to fix it. That’s to put so-called accumulation caps on the amount of quota or “catch shares” any fishing business can control, or perhaps take other actions, such as requiring on-board ownership presence at all times or some other limits that can keep the bigger businesses from gobbling the shares of smaller,

independent boats that can no longer compete. That’s right: Given the current state of the New England groundfishery, federal officials have no choice but to put new limits, new regulations on an industry that must be rescued from itself. That should not, of course, be the usual government course of action in dealing with most businesses. And Jackie Odell, director of the Gloucester-based Northeast Seafood Coalition, makes a valid point in suggesting that the feds should essentially let the free market play out —

just as it should in virtually every other field. But there’s a catch. In this case, the runaway economic system that’s now killing waterfront jobs, driving out small businesses, and consolidating more and more fishing quota and fishermen’s “catch shares” in the hands of fewer and bigger fishing corporations didn’t evolve as a free market on its own. It was created by the government itself thanks to Lubchenco’s catch share policies drawn from her work with EDF, the same folks who brought us the corporately driven “cap and trade” approach to confronting air pollution. Beyond that, let’s also remember that, in setting up this monopoly-building commodities trade system, NOAA also controls the available “product,” as well, setting tight limits on fishermen’s total allowable catch, so that even when smaller, family-run boats do try to remain competitive, their share of the quota and the allowable catch is undercut by the bigger, more dominant boats and corporations — up to and including the big boats reportedly swooping in to scoop up inshore cod on Stellwagen Bank, a venue heretofore left to the smaller boats and businesses. It’s those scenarios that make it clear that NOAA’s and the New England Council’s Amendment 16 and catch share system — while clearly working for Lubchenco and her shameful recessionary goal of fleet consolidation — are indeed creating a disaster for fishermen and New England’s fishing communities.

And NOAA and Commerce officials owe it to those communities — including Gloucester — to undo the damage.

Over a longer haul, that should mean the abolition and abandonment of the catch share system as we know it. But in the short term, that must mean clamping accumulation limits on the amount of quota any company can control , or taking

other steps to ensure that smaller, independent fishermen are not driven out of business by their own government. Each day the status quo remains in place is another step in a path to an even deeper economic fishery disaster .

Other countries will model U S

Other countries are on board with international efforts to limit fishingAgence France-Presse March 14, 2014 10:36am, Global powers sign declaration on sustainable fishing, http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/140314/global-powers-sign-declaration-sustainable-fishing

Officials from some of the world's top fishing powers signed a declaration in Greece on Friday to promote sustainable management of fish stocks . The signatories -- the EU, United States, Japan, Philippines, Colombia and

Indonesia -- pledged to support measures to address fishing overcapacity. These include developing international

fishing vessel records, limiting the number of licenses and vessel tonnage and eliminating fisheries subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing. "We bear responsibility for the conservation of living marine resources and thus for addressing overcapacity when it undermines conservation and sustainability objectives," the statement said. The event was organised in Thessaloniki under Greece's rotating

EU presidency. According to the European Commission, the EU imports 70 percent of its fish intake. Overall, the bloc accounts for a fourth of the world's seafood resources. Some progress has been made. In 2013, 25 stocks were fished sustainably in the North Sea and Atlantic, five times more than in 2009, the European Commission says. This is expected to increase to 31 stocks in 2015. But environmental group Greenpeace stressed that more action is needed. "EU countries should start by scrapping the largest and most destructive industrial fishing vessels, initiating a shift towards small-scale low-impact fishing, which is more environmentally sustainable, creates jobs and

supports local communities," the group said in a statement. The organisation's oceans policy advisor Sebastian Losada added: "Better management of fishing capacity is critical and long overdue. Governments must ensure that excess fishing capacity is removed and not just dispatched to new fishing grounds." EU Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Commissioner Maria Damanaki conceded in an

online article this week that enforcing compliance by states has been a "struggle". "To achieve the right balance between fishing power and natural resources, all global actors need to pull together ," she wrote in a Huffington Post article.

But she noted that scrapping fishing vessels piecemeal was not in itself an answer to the problem. "The solution must be a well-designed mix of structural and conservation tools, rights-based management systems, tighter controls and, especially, incentives for diversification," Damanaki said in the article, jointly written with former World Trade Organisation director-general Pascal Lamy and South African national planning minister Trevor Manuel.

Over 20% of the earth’s fish resources are in US waters- the US is seen as a leader in international fisheries management and enforcementAdmiral Thomas H. Collins, Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard in 2003, [Senate Hearing 108-971] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office] S. Hrg. 108-971 GLOBAL OVERFISHING AND INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES MANAGEMENT, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-108shrg85979/html/CHRG-108shrg85979.htm

``Fish do not recognize international boundaries'' is an oft-quoted phrase in the fisheries management and enforcement business, and the Coast Guard is directly engaged with enforcement agencies in Canada, Mexico, the Russian Federation, Japan, South Korea, the People's Republic of China and many other nations to promote sustainability through compliance with regulations and management regimes. Our efforts include enforcement Memoranda of Understanding, fisheries enforcement workshops, ship rider agreements, joint operations, and boarding officer training. In an action plan on the Marine Environment and Tanker Safety prepared last week at

the G-8 Summit in Evian, France, G- 8 leaders, led by President Bush, pledged to work towards sustainable fisheries and

marine conservation. I would like to share with you a success story in international cooperation and effective enforcement. In 1991, the United Nations declared an international moratorium on the use of large-scale (greater than 2.5 kilometers in length) pelagic high seas driftnets. Since that time, the U.S. Coast Guard, NOAA Fisheries, the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Russian Federal Border Service, the People's Republic of China Bureau of Fisheries, and the Fisheries Agency of Japan have worked together to all but eliminate high seas driftnet fishing in the North Pacific. Our closely coordinated efforts have resulted in Russian officers staffing a joint command center in Alaska, Chinese enforcement officers sailing on U.S. Coast Guard cutters, and NOAA Fisheries agents flying in Canadian Air Force surveillance

planes. These countries are also members of the North Pacific Heads of Coast Guard organization that I personally participate in. The North Pacific Heads of Coast Guard, recognizing the importance of fisheries, recently implemented a Fisheries Working Group to meet regularly and discuss fisheries issues of regional interest. The Coast Guard's fisheries law enforcement strategic plan OCEAN GUARDIAN, stipulates that our highest priority enforcement mission is to prevent encroachment of the U.S. EEZ and internal waters by foreign fishing vessels. The Plan also emphasizes ensuring compliance with international agreements for the management of living marine resources such as the United Nations

Driftnet Moratorium. Fisheries enforcement, particularly enforcement of international fisheries management schemes, is a mission largely conducted by Coast Guard Deepwater assets . The U.S. EEZ is the largest and most productive in the world. It occupies 3.36 million square miles and includes 95,000 miles of coastline. It contains an estimated 20 percent of the world's fishery resources . These vast patrol areas, coupled with the long distance from U.S. shores--for example the non-contiguous EEZ in the central Pacific--provide a significant challenge to the Coast Guard's assets.

As fish stocks throughout the world dwindle and the fleets of distant water fishing nations are being pushed farther from home and into the high seas in search of catch, the bounty of our EEZ becomes a more attractive quarry. The improved capabilities the Coast Guard will garner and the technology we will have available to leverage as a result of the Integrated Deepwater System project will greatly enhance our ability to enforce international fisheries regulations in the U.S. EEZ

and beyond. The world is becoming more aware of the need to ensure the sustainability of our collective fish stocks. At the same time, the United States is becoming increasingly involved in the management of living marine resources on the high seas. Naturally, this means the Coast Guard will become even more involved in the enforcement of agreements to which the U.S. is a party. In the past, international policies governing the conservation of high seas fisheries fell well short of

their goals because they lacked any effective enforcement provisions. However, in 1995, a landmark agreement, the Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks Agreement established the framework for all future international fishery regimes. This agreement calls for strict adherence with fishery conservation measures and, more importantly, contains non-flag state enforcement provisions that allow the Coast Guard to board foreign fishing vessels flagged by any nation party to any mutual international fishing agreement. The Agreement entered into force on December 11, 2001.

The US has more power over ocean policy than other nations- only US leadership can get other countries on board with fishing managementThe Washington Post 6/22/2014, Our survival depends on the health of the oceans, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/our-survival-depends-on-the-health-of-the-oceans/2014/06/22/2c0acd0a-f72e-11e3-a3a5-42be35962a52_story.html

HUMANITY DEPENDS on the oceans, but their worsening state gets little attention. Good for Secretary of State John F. Kerry, then, for trying to elevate the issue last week in an international oceans conference in Washington. The conference produced a billion dollars in pledges for ocean programs, promises from other nations to better protect their marine ecosystems and the news that President Obama will

set aside a vast portion of U.S. waters in the central Pacific for ecological conservation. That’s all to the good. But the health of the oceans — sources of employment, recreation and food for billions — depends on what Mr. Kerry and those like him can get other nations to do. Mr. Obama’s plan is to protect nearly 700,000 square miles of Pacific habitat adjacent to islands and atolls the

United States controls. Because the president has authority to preserve precious natural land- and aqua-

scapes, and because the United States controls more of the planet’s oceans than anyone else , Mr. Obama is perhaps the person on the planet with the most power to protect the seas with a stroke of a pen. The White House will solicit feedback over the next few months, after which Mr. Obama might amend his ocean plan. But, like Presidents

Bill Clinton and George W. Bush before him, Mr. Obama should not shrink from using his powers to preserve pristine ecological treasures. Even with the preservation of some habitat, though, people will need to do a better job of managing the exploitation of ocean resources that will continue. According to a 2012 analysis from California Environmental Associates, “over 40 percent of fisheries have crashed or are overfished, producing economic losses in excess of $50 billion per

year.” Some 80 percent of the world’s catch is pulled in from unmonitored fisheries. Desperate fishermen, many in developing

countries, are spending more time and traveling further to catch fewer fish. About two-thirds of unmonitored stocks

could provide more fish on a sustainable basis — with the right oversight. The United States has gone a long way to fixing its regulation, deploying a system that gives fishermen ownership interests in the long-term health of their fisheries. This model could work in many other places, if those nations could enforce the rules on which the system depends. The United States can and should help other governments develop this capacity, though it ultimately will be up to foreign leaders to act in their nations’ best interest.

The US should lead by example- past conservation measures prove modelingSutton in 07, director of the Monterey Bay Aquarium's conservation program: the Center for the Future of the Oceans Read more at http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0709-interview_mike_sutton.html#lsV0DZbh3dWVF3dP.99 How to save the world's oceans from overfishing An interview with the Monterey Bay Aquarium's Mike Sutton Rhett A. Butler, mongabay.com July 9, 2007 http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0709-interview_mike_sutton.html#lsV0DZbh3dWVF3dP.99

Mongabay: So, is the idea then to have the United States lead by example? If we have sound sustainable policy, then in theory that would influence policy in other places?

Sutton: I think that is part of it, yes. The US has always prided itself as a leader in conservation and science. We've

believe that if it's done right here other places will want to emulate us as they have our national park system. I think that's by in large been the case. Take California for example. In the last couple of years, we've seen a lot of progress in ocean conservation. The Governor [Arnold Schwarzenegger] turned out to be a great champion of the ocean. He has signed legislation and appointed key people to various state bodies. He is really batting almost a thousand on ocean issues and wants to leave an ocean legacy. As a result, California has done far more than the federal government in the last few years for oceans, and

California is also a good model for the other states. When the Governor of Oregon saw what Governor Schwarzenegger was doing here, he

wrote a letter to his ocean policy advisory council and said, "I want to do the same thing. I want to set up a series of protected areas along my coast." So, it may be an old cliche that California leads the nation, but it's certainly the case with respect to the oceans.

Sustainable Fishing

Sustainable Fishing Good

Sustainable fishing is key to preventing sickness and having healthy food – also saves the environmentHaruhi 10, Suzumiya, Haruhi blogger. "Why Sustainable Fishing Is Important." Smart Being. WordPress, 18 Jan. 2010. http://smartbeing.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/why-sustainable-fishing-is-important/ Web. 01 July 2014. CS

In a world where fish are being hunted by massive ships and new technology , its more important than ever

for people to eat more sustainably. The need for sustainable fishing is rather large, because we are slowly killing off all the edible fish in the ocean. In fact, scientists predict that by 2048, there will be no more edible fish in the ocean if rates continue like this. Sustainable food means that it is caught or grown in environmentally friendly ways. One reason we should eat sustainable fish is because its caught safely, and that the fish is good for you. That doesn’t mean that suddenly Bluefin tuna is good for you, because bluefin is a “red” fish, according

Seafood Watch at the Monterey Bay Aquarium in California. Eating “red” fish (which means avoid eating) is not sustainable in any way. Red fish (e.g., Bluefin tuna) are caught mostly by trawlers – large nets pulled by ships that drag up all kinds of sea life. One of the worst parts is when they take all the sea life that they don’t want (or is dead) and throw it overboard. Dead, rotting fish in such large quantities isn’t good for the ocean. Another reason we should eat sustainable seafood is because the way it affects people. Fish not caught in environmentally friendly ways can carry sicknesses that are bad when you eat them. Eating sustainable seafood not only helps the environment, it also helps you and your family. Please try to eat sustainable fish when you have the chance, because a little can go a long way.

IFQs

IFQ SolvencyIndividual Fishing Quota must be put in place, Fish are running outWWF in 2012, overfishing jeopardizes global food security, World Wildlife Fund,http://wwf.panda.org/?205578/Overfishing-jeopardizes-global-food-security/

Gland, Switzerland: An ever-growing dependence on fish means governments must understand that the current fisheries crisis is an issue of

fundamental humanitarian importance. Strong management measures to achieve sustainable fisheries and eradicating unfair competition caused by illegal fishing or unfair exploitation contracts must be a priority on the policy agenda, WWF International reiterated today. The global environment organization’s message comes after the release of the latest State of the World’s Fisheries and Aquaculture report (SOFIA 2012) issued today in Rome by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). SOFIA 2012 estimates that in 2009, 57 per cent of marine fisheries are fully exploited, while 30 per cent of all

assessed marine stocks are over-exploited. The report shows that fisheries- related employment supports the livelihoods of 10-12 per cent of the world’s population (660-820 million people), with 4.3 billion people depending on fish to provide about 15 per cent of their animal derived protein. “With such dependency on fish meeting a rapidly growing population, we simply cannot sustain a situation where 87 per cent of global marine fisheries are at or above full

exploitation” said Alfred Schumm, Leader of WWF’s global Smart Fishing Initiative. “Using the precautionary approach, a holistic suite of ecosystem- and science based measures must be adopted if we are to realize the clear economic, environmental and social benefits of sustainably managed fisheries” added Schumm. Importantly,

SOFIA 2012 also recognizes that controlling illegal, unreported and unregulated vessels is a burden gradually falling on coastal states, port states, regional fisheries bodies, and others entities . “Nobody wants the efforts of the good players to be undermined by an ugly underbelly of illegal fishing. We urge countries to push for the ratification and implementation of essential tools to manage this, such as the Port State Measures Agreement and the Global Record of Fishing Vessels as well as we urge fisheries to implement satellite AIS and electronic observer tools on every fishing- and carrier-vessel” said Mr. Schumm.

IFQ’s are critical to sustain the fishing industry – Iceland and New Zealand prove solvencyVince 12, Vince, Gaia. Gaia is a science writer and broadcaster who is particularly interested in how humans are transforming planet Earth and the impacts our changes are having on societies and on other species "How the World's Oceans Could Be Running out of Fish." BBC Future. Smart Planet, 21 Sept. 2012. http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120920-are-we-running-out-of-fish Web. 30 June 2014. CS

Clearly, industrialised countries are not about to return to traditional methods. However, the disastrous management of the industry needs to be reformed if we are to restore fisheries to a sustainable level. In

the EU alone, restoring stocks would result in greater catches of an estimated 3.5 million tonnes , worth £2.7 billion a year. Rather than having a system in which the EU members each hustle for the biggest quotas – which are already set far beyond what

is sustainable – fisheries experts suggest individual governments should set quotas based on stock levels in their surrounding waters. Fishermen should be given responsibility over the fish they hunt – they have a

vested interest in seeing stocks improve, after all – and this could be in the form of individual tradable catch shares of the quotas. Such policies end the tragedy of the commons situation whereby everyone grabs as much as they can from the oceans before their rival nets the last fish, and it’s been used successfully in countries from Iceland to New Zealand to the US. Research shows that managing fisheries in this way means they are twice as likely to avoid collapse as open-access fisheries. In severely depleted zones, the only way to restore

stocks is by introducing protected reserves where all fishing is banned. In other areas, quota compliance needs to be properly monitored – fishing vessels could be licensed and fitted with tracking devices to ensure they don’t stray into illegal areas, spot-checks on fish could be carried out to ensure size and species, and fish could even be tagged, so that the authorities and consumers can ensure its sustainable source. The other option is to take humanity's usual method of dealing with food shortages, and move from hunter-gathering to farming. Already, more than half of the fish we eat comes from farms – in China, it’s as high as 80% – but doing this on an industrial scale has its problems.

NOAA

NOAA controls fishing policyFishing policy is controlled through the department of commerce- the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has been delegated authorityNational Marine Fisheries Service. 2014. Fisheries Economics of the United States, 2012. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA, Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-137, 175p. Available at: https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st5/publication/index.html.

The authority to manage federal fisheries in the United States was granted to the Secretary of Commerce by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, also known as the Magnuson-Stevens Act (P.L. 94-265 as amended by P.L. 109-479). NOAA Fisheries is the federal agency with delegated authority from the Secretary of Commerce to oversee fishing activities in federal waters. Federal fisheries are generally defined as fishing activities that are prosecuted between 3 and 200 nautical miles from the coastline. Generally, individual states retain management authority over fishing activities within 3 nautical miles of their coasts.

CS encouraged by NOAAThe US has encouraged, but not required, the adoption of catch share programs at national fisheriesNational Marine Fisheries Service. 2014. Fisheries Economics of the United States, 2012. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA, Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-137, 175p. Available at: https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st5/publication/index.html.

A variety of market-based tools are available to fishery managers. NOAA Fisheries is currently implementing several different types of catch share programs such as limited access privilege programs (LAPPs), which include individual fishing quota programs (IFQs), regional fishery associations, and fishing community quotas1 ; community development quota programs (CDQs); fishing cooperatives; and sector allocation programs1 . In 2010, the NOAA catch shares policy1 was released to encourage well-designed catch share programs to help maintain or rebuild fisheries, and sustain fishermen, communities and vibrant working waterfronts, including the cultural and resource access traditions that have been part of this country since its founding

Things to incorporate later

Advantages

CultureCollapse of the fish industry would destroy coastal communities ability to thrive and results in a loss of cultural value Hauge et al. 9, Hauge, Kjellrun H., Belinda Cleewood, and Douglas C. Wilson. jellrun Hiis Hauge, Institute of Marine Research, Bergen, Norway; Douglas Clyde Wilson, Senior Researcher and Research Director at Innovative Fisheries Management, Aalborg University; Belinda Cleeland, project officer, IRGC. "Fisheries Depletion and Collapse." (n.d.): n. pag. IRGC. International Risk Governance Council, 2009. http://irgc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Fisheries_Depletion_full_case_study_web.pdf Web. 1 July 2014. CS

Excess fishing capacity and depleted fish stocks cause problems for coastal communities that depend on the fishing industry and eco-tourism. Such devastation of coastal settlements can also result in the loss of cultural value. Problems can be fortified in cases where rights to fish can be traded and quota shares become concentrated in fewer hands. The introduction of individual transferable quotas in Iceland contributed to the marginalisation of fisheries dependent coastal communities, due to quota concentrations [Pálsson & Helgason, 1995].

DiseaseOverfishing leads to diseaseJackson et al., 01, Jeremy B. C. Jackson, Michael X. Kirby, Wolfgang H. Berger, Karen A. Bjorndal, Louis W. Botsford, Bruce J. Bourque, Roger H. Bradbury, Richard Cooke, Jon Erlandson, James A. Estes, Terence P. Hughes, Susan Kidwell, Carina B. Lange, Hunter S. Lenihan, John M. Pandolfi, Charles H. Peterson, Robert S. Steneck, Mia J. Tegner, Robert R. Warner, ”Historical Overfishing and the Recent Collapse of Coastal Ecosystems” Science 2001, vol 293. No. 5530: 626-637. ProQuest. Accessed: 7/1/14 CS

The second important corollary is that overfishing may often be a necessary precondition for eutrophication, outbreaks of disease, or species introductions to occur (27). For example, eutrophication and hypoxia did not occur in Chesapeake Bay until the 1930s, nearly two centuries after clearing of land for agriculture greatly increased runoff of sediments and nutrients into the estuary (77). Suspension feeding by still enormous populations of oysters was sufficient to remove most of the increased production of phytoplankton and enhanced turbidity until mechanical harvesting progressively decimated oyster beds from the 1870s to the

1920s (77, 80) (Fig. 2C). The consequences of overfishing for outbreaks of disease in the next lower trophic level fall into two categories. The most straightforward is that populations in the lower level become so dense that they are much more susceptible to disease as a result of greatly increased rates of transmission (94).

This was presumably the case for the sea urchin Diadema on Caribbean reefs and the seagrass Thalassia in Florida Bay. In contrast, among oysters disease did not become important in Chesapeake Bay until oysters had been reduced to a few percent of their original abundance (80), a pattern repeated in Pamlico Sound (86, 87) and

Foveaux Strait, New Zealand (93). Two factors may be responsible. First, oysters may have become less fit owing to stresses like hypoxia or sedimentation, making them less resistant to disease (87). Alternatively,

suspension feeding by dense populations of oysters and associated species on oyster reefs may have indirectly limited populations of pathogens by favoring other plankton-an explanation that may extend to blooms of toxic plankton and most other outbreaks of microbial populations (88). The third important corollary

is that changes in climate are unlikely to be the primary reason for microbial outbreaks and disease . The

rise of microbes has occurred at different times and under different climatic conditions in different places, as exemplified by the time lag between events in Chesapeake Bay and Pamlico Sound (77, 79, 80, 84).

Anthropogenic climate change may now be an important confounding factor , but it was not the original cause.

Rapid expansion of introduced species in recent decades (95) may have a similar explanation, in addition to increase in frequency and modes of transport. Massive removal of suspension feeders, grazers, and predators must inevitably leave marine ecosystems more vulnerable to invasion (96, 97).

WaterOverfishing poses a threat to clean waterHauge et al. 9, Hauge, Kjellrun H., Belinda Cleewood, and Douglas C. Wilson. jellrun Hiis Hauge, Institute of Marine Research, Bergen, Norway; Douglas Clyde Wilson, Senior Researcher and Research Director at Innovative Fisheries Management, Aalborg University; Belinda Cleeland, project officer, IRGC. "Fisheries Depletion and Collapse." (n.d.): n. pag. IRGC. International Risk Governance Council, 2009. http://irgc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Fisheries_Depletion_full_case_study_web.pdf Web. 1 July 2014. CS

The loss of biodiversity in coastal waters that can result from overexploitation of fisheries can make these coastal waters much more susceptible to other human and environmental disturbances . Harmful algae blooms and oxygen depleted areas may arise more frequently once the marine ecosystem has been disturbed by overfishing and species loss [Jackson et al., 2001].

A2 Neg Offcase Arguements

Ptx

Angers fishing lobbiesFisherman are the lynchpin of conservation efforts – they donate the most moneyASA 13, The American Sportfishing Association (ASA) is the sportfishing industry’s trade association committed to representing the interests of the entire sportfishing community. American Sportfishing Association. "Sportfishing In America." Leading the Way for Sportfishing’s Future SPORTFISHING (2013): 2. ASA. American Sportfishing Association, Jan. 2013. Web. 1 July 2014. CS

THANK AMERICA’S ANGLERS if you enjoy clean, healthy lakes, rivers and oceans teaming with a dynamic variety of fish and shorebird species, since it’s their dollars that provide the bulk of the funding for our nation’s fisheries conservation and environmental success. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find any group of people in the country who contributes more: nearly $1.5 billion annually . And angler numbers are growing – 11 percent overall in the five years since the last national survey. In fact, accounting for regional variations, some angling demographics actually increased by a larger percentage, including Great Lakes anglers, whose numbers grew by 17 percent and saltwater

anglers, whose numbers increased by 15 percent. This growing legion of anglers is the economic engine that helps keep fisheries conservation moving successfully forward through the purchase of fishing licenses, which go directly toward the operations of state fish and wildlife agencies, and through the federal excise tax on fishing

tackle as part of the long-running Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund. License sales in 2010 amounted to $657 million, while the excise taxes collected on the sale of fishing gear, boats and boat fuel added another $390 million in support of conservation efforts carried out in each state. It’s a model that virtually powers itself. In addition, anglers donate over $400 million more each year to various conservation and fishing organizations. Without fish and good habitat, there would be no anglers, and without anglers –

men, women and children – there would be few fish and little quality habitat. The year 2012 marked the 75th anniversary of our nation’s system of conservation funding – a model that is envied throughout the world – that directs excise taxes on fishing and hunting gear toward state-based conservation. The Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund has resulted in robust fish and wildlife populations and quality habitat that is the legacy of the sportfishing industry and sportsmen and women alike