It is becoming increasingly apparent that the vast blue expanse of ocean—the last
frontier—is not as inexhaustible as it once seemed. While we have yet to fully explore the
reaches of the sea, technology has granted humans the ability to harvest its wealth. We can
now fish anywhere, at any depth, for any species. Like the American frontier range's bison
and wolf populations brought to the brink of extinction swordfish and sharks are the
ocean's most pursued prizes. The disadvantages associated with the depth and dimensions of
this open range, however, have long obscured the real consequences of fishing. Indeed,
scientists have the formidable challenge of assessing the status of species whose home
covers over 75% of the earth.
Three recent highly publicized papers—a trifecta detailing troubled waters—call
attention to overfishing's contributions to the dramatic declines in global fisheries.
Delving into the past, Jeremy Jackson and colleagues (2001) combined local historic records
with current estimates to detail the ecological impacts of overfishing, Reg Watson and
Daniel Pauly (2001) drew attention to distortions of global catches, and Ransom Myers and
Boris Worm (2003) highlighted the depletion of the majority of the largest ocean predators.
While some have valid criticisms of the assumptions and aggregation of historic data used
to assess the global situation, few disagree with the overriding conclusion that humans
have drastically altered not only fish biodiversity, but, increasingly, the ocean
itself.
Recent reports by the United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) which
maintains the world's most complete global fisheries database, appear to validate the
conclusions of these studies. The most recent FAO report states that 28% of global stocks
are significantly depleted or overexploited, and 47% are either fully exploited or meet the
target maximum sustainable yield. Only 24% of global stocks are either under- or moderately
exploited. As the sea is increasingly harvested, many ecologists wonder how the ecosystem
will continue to function (Jackson et al. 2001). Although economic and social
considerations often supercede scientific assessments, science will continuously be called
upon to deliver management options that will straddle the needs for conservation and
production, even in areas where there is only subsistence fishing (Box 1). As scientists
debate the details of global fisheries assessment, they are also including studies of the
long-term ecosystem effects and options for recovery efforts. Like was done on the open
range, shall we conserve or farm the sea—or both?
Catches, Collapses, and Controversies
The FAO began keeping fisheries records in 1950. Unfortunately, an enormous amount of
data comes directly from each country's fishing industry, which is often biased as a result
of unreported discarding, illegal fishing, and the misreporting of harvests. For example,
mid-level Chinese government officials seeking promotions systematically enhanced China's
fisheries numbers in recent years—which inflated and skewed international catch rates.
The FAO data show that catches, excluding a recent surge in anchoveta and China's
suspect numbers, reached a peak of 80 million metric tons in the late 1980s and have since
begun to decline. Regional studies validate these trends. “Most of the line fish around the
coast of South Africa are depleted to 5%–15% of pristine levels,” says George Branch, a
marine biologist from the University of Cape Town (Cape Town, South Africa). Meryl
Williams, Director General of WorldFish in Penang, Malaysia, notes that the Asia-specific
database called TrawlBase (www.worldfishcenter.org/trawl/) confirms that the region's
commercial species have been depleted to 10%–30% of what they were 30–40 years ago.
Obtaining accurate information on highly migratory species is challenging, to say the
least. It is not hard to imagine that data quality is the biggest disadvantage to any
scientific assessment. Of the 50 managed stocks in the northeast Atlantic Ocean—including
invertebrates, sport fishes, and major commercial finfish—data are kept on only one-fifth
of the species. There are 250 fish species in the region, but only 55 species are of
commercial interest and merit inquiry. “We know next to nothing about noncommercially
fished species,” notes Jeff Hutchings, a conservation biologist at Dalhousie University
(Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada). And that is where fisheries have adequate access to current
monitoring programs. “With the recent expansion of the Taiwanese and Chinese fleets, we
don't have the kind of sampling programs needed for those kinds of fisheries,” says Rick
Deriso, a fisheries scientist with the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) (La
Jolla, California, United States).
Couple these inadequacies with previously unknown bycatch rates (i.e., the fish caught
in addition to the target catch) and illegal catches, and it is easy to see that the task
is formidable. The FAO estimates that roughly one-quarter of the marine commercial catch
destined for human consumption—some 18–40 million metric tons of fish—is thrown back in the
sea, a harvested catch that is never utilized or counted. It is estimated that the illegal,
unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fisheries surpass allowed fishing quotas by 300%. IUU
fishers operate in areas where fishing is not permitted, use banned technologies or
outlawed net types, or underreport catches. “The IUU fishery for Patagonian toothfish
expanded rapidly in the mid-1990s, likely on the order of 20–30 vessels,” says Andrew
Constable, an ecological modeler at the Australian Antarctic Division (Kingston,
Australia), who also works with the Scientific Committee of the Commission for the
Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (Hobart, Australia). “These rates of IUU
fishing could reduce stocks to threshold levels in some areas in two to five years,” he
adds.
Often overlooked is the inescapable fact that even sustainable harvest rates reduce fish
populations quickly. “If the goal is a productive fishery, we're automatically talking
about up to a 70% decline in population across the board,” says Deriso. The FAO's Chief of
Marine Resource Services, Jorge Csirke, states that “from a stock point of view, there is
no way to preserve integrity of wild stocks and exploit them at the same time.” Indeed, the
United States' National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) considers optimal harvest rates to
be between 40%–60% of virgin levels. But once fish populations dip below the 10%–20% mark,
declines are of serious concern.
Atlantic cod in Canadian waters suffered a total population collapse and are now on
Canada's endangered species list (Figure 1). From 2 billion breeding individuals in the
1960s, Atlantic cod populations have declined by almost 90%, according to Hutchings. While
advisors called attention to declining cod stocks, Constable notes that by the time a
significant declining trend has been detected by traditional catch assessments, stocks are
likely to be in poor shape, if not already depleted.
Given the task of compiling data on only the economically important species, fisheries
biologists developed a single-species management approach in the 1960s, which assumed that
fisheries affect each species in isolation. This approach, although now rife with problems,
served the community and the politicians well during the decades of abundant resources.
“They brought the approach of single-species management to near-perfection,” says Boris
Worm, a marine ecologist at the Institute for Marine Science in Kiel, Germany. A growing
discontent with the model, in addition to greater awareness of ecological interactions,
however, prompted Worm and his Dalhousie University colleague Ransom Myers to question the
sustainability of the single-species approach. Attempting a comprehensive assessment, their
widely cited recent paper (Myers and Worm 2003) indicated that the global ocean has lost
more than 90% of large predatory fishes, such as marlin, sharks, and rays.
However, this new approach to assess fish stocks is not without its critics. Fisheries
biologists point out that the nuances of management contained in fisheries data—such as
altered fisher behavior, the variable “catchability” of individual species, and altered
gear use—were discounted in the Myers and Worm (2003) assessment and led to
misinterpretations for some species, notably tropical tunas (Figure 2). A number of tuna
biologists have expressed concern that these omissions have left the mistaken impression
that all tuna species are among the list of declining predators (Hampton et al 2003). Worm
acknowledges that his approach can be improved, but says, “The whole point of our paper was
to aggregate species to communities to see what the overall ecosystem is doing.”
Ecosystem Sustainability
Despite the controversy, most agree that the large predators, particularly sharks,
skates, rays, and marlin, are in the most dire straits. Unlike other lower-trophic order
species, the wholesale removal of top predators has enormous effects on the rest of the
ecosystem. One consequence is that overall reproduction rates can potentially suffer. Fish
size, gender, and age at maturity have a substantial impact on individual species'
reproduction rates. Since larger fish are the most susceptible to fishing, the population's
age structure can shift as individuals, particularly females, are fished out. For example,
a 23-inch (59-cm) female vermilion rockfish can produce 17 times the young of a 14-inch
(36-cm) fish. Given uncertainties with population dynamics, the fact that basic biological
data are missing makes the job even harder. While knowledge of these components is still
quite spotty, tuna inventories, for example, have started collecting gender data on
catches.
Daniel Pauly, a fisheries biologist at the University of Vancouver (Vancouver, British
Columbia, Canada), has shown that increased fishing has caused the industry to “fish down
the food web,” or systematically move to lower trophic levels over time as higher ones were
depleted (Pauly et al. 1998). The impact to ecosystems is only beginning to be uncovered.
“If you fish out an abundant predator, the species that it was eating or competing with
will increase,” says Worm. “The problem is that the ecosystem may change in such a way that
recovery is inhibited because a species niche space is taken or altered.”
Fisheries science has taken steps to increase the quality of data in recent years.
“Traditional fishery models assumed that a fishery was a homogenous thing—like bacteria in
a bottle—rather than a spatially diverse system,” says Pierre Kleiber, a fisheries
biologist with the Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center of the NMFS (Honolulu, Hawaii,
United States). He adds that recent work accounts for spatial diversity. In addition,
fisheries are now dealing with the inherent uncertainty of their work and are factoring
that into models and decision-making. “Uncertainty didn't used to be dealt with at all in
formulating fishery management advice,” confirms Keith Sainsbury, a marine ecologist with
the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) (Clayton, South
Victoria, Australia), adding that its absence gave rise to an awful lot of troubles.
“Traditional models tended to assume perfect data with no holes in it,” says Kleiber. “Now
we've tried to craft a model to fit the realities of missing data.”
As well as incorporating spatial diversity and uncertainty, researchers are beginning to
comprehend the ecological damage caused by different types of fishing gear. Indeed,
trawling the bottom of the seafloor for groundfish can destroy a half-acre footprint of
habitat (Figure 3). Detailed reports document that, depending on the habitat's stability,
bottom trawling can not only remove fish from seafloor habitats, but alter bottom relief
such that it compromises the ability of other fish to survive (NRC, 1002). In Australia,
for example, lingcod rely on undisturbed bottom relief to lay their eggs, while other
groundfish species depend on complex seafloor habitats for the majority of their food.
“Science is getting more realistic, but it is getting more difficult,” says Branch.
Ecological models are far more complex than traditional fisheries models, says Csirke,
adding that more model variables make it more difficult to apply to fisheries, an industry
whose focus is, understandably, not conservation. Despite its incorporation into national
fisheries policies, ecosystem-based management remains a loosely defined term. It is not a
well-defined concept because it is not possible to optimize every species, says Deriso.
An additional concern to scientists is that of biomass resilience in the face of
environmental changes. Francisco Chavez, a biologist with the Monterey Bay Aquarium
Research Institute (Moss Landing, California, United States), recently demonstrated that
over a 25-year period, warmer and cooler Pacific waters tilt the distribution of anchoveta
versus sardines, both open-ocean dwellers (Chavez et al. 2003). Indeed, El Niño influenced
the crash of the heavily fished Peruvian anchoveta industry in the late 1970s. These
examples illustrate how susceptible fisheries are to environmental fluctuations. When the
biomass of a population is reduced, it is much more sensitive to environmental change. We
do not know how environmental fluctuations like these will affect the natural production of
young fish, says Kleiber, expressing the concern that without a better understanding of
climate, fisheries scientists end up trying to estimate moving targets.
In the end, many scientists have their doubts about the influence of science on
decision-making. “My personal view is that it's naïve to think that modifying and improving
models will necessarily lead to improved natural resource management,” says Simon Jennings,
a fisheries biologist with the United Kingdom's Centre for Environment, Fisheries and
Aquaculture Science in Lowestoft. Indeed, the International Council for the Exploration of
the Seas (Copenhagen, Denmark) recently recommended a total ban on North Sea and Irish Sea
cod stocks, based on single-species assessment. Although the more intensive ecosystem-based
models could not have produced a more stringent recommendation, politicians allowed
harvests at roughly half of last year's catch.
To Conserve or to Farm?
While lowering fisheries' effort seems the most logical approach to the recovery of
depleted fisheries, social and economic concerns often stymie political action. Yet demand
for seafood continues. Therefore, scientists also are investigating both conservation and
alternative production options.
Given the social, economic, and political problems associated with that, managers have
often used closures to help a hard-hit species recover. In many cases, however, the
recovery time for exploited species is longer than once thought (Hutchings 2000). “Based on
the available information, it is not unusual for fish populations to show no or little
recovery even after 15 years,” says Hutchings. “All else being equal, we predict the
earlier the age of maturity, the faster the rate of recovery,” he adds. And that depends on
environmental conditions as well. “In the case of Antarctic species, some overexploited
populations remain at less than 5% pre-exploitation abundance after 30 years,” says
Constable.
One management strategy to recover species is to create marine protected areas (MPAs),
zones that restrict all removal of marine life (Box 2). A number of marine ecologists are
staunch supporters of MPAs for both conservation and fishery's recovery. What looked like
sustainability in the past were fisheries out of our reach—naturally protected areas—says
Pauly, adding that our increasing ability to harvest fisheries necessitates the creation of
MPAs now. In theory, these areas are refugia for fishes to reproduce, spilling over not
only healthy adults but also potentially transporting thousands of viable young—seeding
surrounding waters. To date, less than 1% of the ocean's area is protected, which hinders
the ability to conclusively determine if spillover rates have the predicted impact on
fishery's recovery.
A review of 89 studies of MPAs by Ben Halpern, a student at the University of
California, Santa Barbara (Santa Barbara, California, United States), demonstrated that the
average number of fish inside a reserve increases between 60%– and 150% (Halpern 2003). In
addition, 59% of the sites had increased diversity. While the numbers inside the reserves
look good, the crucial condition of larval spillover has yet to be proven. Most scientists
involved in the debate agree that MPAs should be one component in an overall management
scheme, but worry that until the crucial element of fishing effort is resolved, MPAs may
just displace the vast industrial fleets.
In terms of simply producing fish for global food needs, aquaculture (also known as fish
farming) is another, increasingly popular, option. In 2001, the European Union produced 17%
of total fishery's production via aquaculture. These numbers are projected to steadily
increase, but some question whether aquaculture would be sufficient to supply what has been
lost by overexploited fisheries.
Concentrated in coastal areas, aquaculture has aroused numerous concerns. Indeed, in
developed countries, most operations grow carnivorous fish, which necessitates growing fish
to feed fish. While the process has become more efficient in recent years, due in part to a
growing reliance on vegetarian diets, it still takes about 3 pounds (1.36 kg) of fish to
create 2.2 pounds (1 kg) of desirable meat (Aldhous 2004). Yet, the total catch of food
fish continues to grow, as do concerns about nutrient runoff and estuary pollution
resulting from aquaculture. Increasingly, coastal residents often complain about the
aesthetics of such activities, and there is also new research that indicates that
farm-raised fish harbor more cancer-causing pollutants than wild species (Hites et al.
2004).
To alleviate many of these concerns, open-ocean aquaculture is now being considered.
Indeed, the NMFS is set to propose a Code of Conduct for Offshore Aquaculture, which would
open up the 200-mile (322-km) United States Exclusive Economic Zone to net pens seaward of
coastal state boundaries and authorities. The Sea Grant program in conjunction with
interested business, is also currently assessing the carrying capacity of open-water pens
as well as their potential environmental impact. Given increased industrial interest and
unchanging demand for seafood, many think farming the sea may be around the corner.
Undoubtedly, scientific effort will continue to inform both conservationists and
industry about fisheries' capacity and potential recovery options. As attitudes towards
fisheries continue to change, increased understanding of the ecological underpinnings
should help strike a more informed balance between fisheries' conservation and production.
“The big mistake is suggesting that you can manage fish stocks,” says Niels Daan, a
biologist with the Netherlands Institute for Fisheries Research (IJmuiden, The
Netherlands). “In my opinion, we can only manage human activity.”
