Too few fish in the sea

Written by Kendall O'Connor

As she places her final order for the day, Sally Ball is not happy.

“That will be $57 thanks,” says the shopkeeper.

Sally reaches for her credit card, shaking her head in what appears to be disbelief at the cost of four fillets of Tasmanian salmon and a dozen South Australian oysters.

“It never used to be this expensive,” she says as she leaves the store.

Many would agree with Sally’s statement that the price of seafood has skyrocketed in the past few years.

Collin Granger, a Mandurah resident and a recreational fisher says it’s also getting more difficult to catch fish in and around the popular tourist destination.

“I remember 10 to 15 years ago there were heaps of fish to go around, now there’s barely anything,” says Granger.

“I think it must be to do with people flocking to Mandurah to enjoy the relaxed holiday lifestyle, which includes fishing,” he continues.

Scarcity spreading

The issue of scarcity in fish stocks is unfortunately not isolated to the town of Mandurah, nor is it just an Australian problem.

It’s a global problem, with global consequences.

According to an international team of scientists researching marine life populations around the world, oceans will be empty of fish and other aquatic life if current trends continue.

At this present time, nearly a third of sea fisheries stock has collapsed and the rate is continuing to increase.

“This century is the last century of wild seafood,” Steve Palumbi of Stanford University, California, recently told the BBC.

Over-fishing, increased human population and a lack of collective action on behalf of governments are believed to be the main reasons why the situation of the worlds fish population are at such a dire stake.

Water pollution and destruction of habitat are other factors to take into account as well.

This fish stocks collapse is not only a possible end for a once thriving industry, but the environmental consequences of the issue will be far more devastating.

Fishing affects more individual animals than any other human-based animal industry.

Recreational fishers

In Australia alone there are more than three million recreational anglers and 24 per cent of households fish regularly.

The commercial fisheries markets seek to capture approximately 800 different marine and freshwater species.

Between the years 2005 and 2006, 241,000 tonnes of fish, crustaceans and molluscs were commercially harvested.

This number doesn’t include the amount taken by recreational fishers.

From a global perspective, the output of fisheries peaked at 1988 at 80 million tonnes of fish.

Since then, stocks have fallen by 500,000 tonnes a year.

According to the first ever Census of Marine Life 2010, species of phytoplankton, a food source for many fish is also declining.

This further supports the case that there are adverse affects to excessive fishing in oceans.

Not only are the bottom members of the food chain being impacted- due to growing demand for shark fin soup and Chinese herbal medicine, several shark species have been listed as endangered.

Tuna most at risk

However the most tragic case has to be that of the threat faced by the Atlantic bluefin tuna.

According to the UN, seven of the 23 commercially fished tuna species are now considered to be over fished or have depleted stocks.

The 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has extensively damaged one of the only two remaining Atlantic bluefin tuna spawning sites in North America.

This leaves an estimated 9,000 fish in the region suitable for consumption.

To make matters worse, measures to conserve Atlantic bluefin populations have been met with hostility from Mediterranean fishing groups- most notably from Japan, which is the world’s largest Atlantic bluefin importer.

Despite recommendations by scientists to reduce catch limits of Atlantic bluefin tuna, the limits were doubled in 2008.

The increases sparked heavy criticism from conservationists, which led to a reduction in quotas.

But it was in 2009 that scientists, conservationists and environmentalists all argued that there should be a zero-catch policy on Atlantic bluefin tuna as numbers were severely being depleted.

It was believed a set up similar to that of the 1982 moratorium on commercial whaling should be established, but Japan put diplomatic pressure on other countries to reject the plan.

As a result of failure to make a structured outline on Atlantic bluefin tuna preservation, coupled with the disastrous BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, one of last great giants of the ocean is facing commercial extinction by the middle of this century.

The plight of tuna stocks highlights the fact that there has been little international discussion on preventing a further decrease in fish populations.

Failed international co-operation

The recent Convention on Biological Diversity Summit in Nagoya, Japan, highlights the problem of the failure of international cooperation.

An agreement established in 2002 to cut biodiversity loss failed and a new agreement has proven to be just as weak as the agreements established during the 2009 Copenhagen Summit on climate change.

The reason for the failure all comes down to money. It so happens that the regions with the richest biodiversity happen to not have the strongest economies.

These countries refused to sign up to any agreement unless there was some form of financial compensation, something which the countries with stronger economies did not agree to.

The absence of a US backed agreement also weakened the outcomes of the summit.

The Australian Minister for Environment, Tony Burke did not attend the summit either.

Japan itself is another force to be reckoned with, arguing that fish is a part of Japanese culture and that is simply ludicrous to impose limits on catchments.

History 'wrong'

However the historical argument may not be so strong as opponents say the 19th century, tuna in Japanese cuisine was almost unheard of.

Though no concrete international agreements have been set in place, small efforts are being made to ensure that there will be fish for many generations to come.

Conservation groups such as the World Wildlife Fund are making their concerns loud and clear through activism and lobbying governments.

Proposals for safe migration pathway areas have also been developed.

One example is the ‘Coral Triangle’, which aims to ensure the safe migration of juvenile tune between Malaysia, the Philippines and Papua New Guinea.

'Let fish mature'

“By letting young fish mature, their annual value should increase from $236 million to $1.5 billion,” WWF officer Jose Ingles reportedly told New Scientist.

Similar methods are also being established to improve hammerhead shark populations, whose fins are highly prized for shark fin soup.

Enlisting more species of fish as endangered or a more detailed outline of fishing quotas is also crucial in improving fish stocks.

However, this requires international consensus, something that is hard to get.

It has been proven time and time again that one or two meetings of world leaders are not enough to establish an agreement or treaty on a single issue.

Several need to take place in order for progress to be made.

A success story that was modelled on this basis was the countless amount of summits on reducing the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

International meetings on eradicating world poverty are also held frequently and progress is (slowly) being made to eradicate poverty.

The idea of fish being a renewable resource, as abundant as water itself, is now being challenged.

Like the humble homestead farm, relying on the local fisherman for the catch of the day has become a rare entity.

The fishing industry has turned into a heavily unregulated and financially motivated business, no longer regarding the sustainability of their practices.

This, combined with the failure of environmental diplomacy, has resulted in the present situation and the belief that global fish stocks are about to collapse.

As many scientists and conservationists have argued, a stance similar to that of protecting whales needs to be taken.

“We can no longer afford to consider fish and crustaceans just as seafood, they need to be looked at as wildlife which needs to be protected,” says Steve Palumbi.

Back then it was argued that the loss of the whales in the ocean would have a devastating effect on the ocean’s biodiversity.

Now history appears to be repeating itself, the only difference is that the voices calling for change are not being heard by both governments and the general public alike.