Environment: For troubled fishing industry, less is more

By Stephen Leahy

BROOKLIN, Canada, Dec 11, 2007

Catch less fish. Make more money. Could this be the solution to the global overfishing crisis?

Australian economists writing in the current issue of Science magazine think so.

Reducing fish catches in the short term will bring fishers big profits later. And that profit potential may finally persuade an intransigent fishing industry to agree to lower catch limits, they say.

"Bigger stocks mean bigger bucks", says co-author Quentin Grafton, research director at the Crawford School of Economics and Government at the Australian National University (ANU).

More than 75 percent of all fisheries are either folly exploited or heading for oblivion, according to a U.N. Food and Agriculture Organisation report last year. The total global fish catch has stalled for decades despite far more sophisticated fish-finding technology – airplanes and satellites – and fish-catching equipment.

"Peak fish" arrived long before "peak oil".

In reality, when fish are more plentiful and thus easier to catch, fishers don't have to spend as much on fuel and other costs to fill their nets, resulting in higher profits. The researchers tested their theory on four different fisheries by plotting revenue and profit curves against fish biomass. In all cases, letting a stock rebuild was far more profitable than continuing to fish until little was left.

"Conservation promotes both larger fish stocks and higher profits", said Tom Kompas, director of the International and Development Economics Programme at ANU.

"The debate is no longer whether it is economically advantageous to reduce current harvests – it is – but how fast stocks should be rebuilt", he said.

How long fish harvests have to be reduced depends on the species and current conditions, Grafton told IPS. For Northern tiger prawn, four years is enough and is currently being done in Australia. Slow-growing species like the orange roughy require a reduced harvest for 25 to 40 years.

However, in many parts of the world, direct and indirect subsidies are keeping fishing boats, especially trawlers, in the water. Such subsidies run to the hundreds of millions of dollars if not more for the construction, operating and fuel costs of fisheries vessels, port infrastructure, storage and processing facilities.

Exercise 2. Say if the sentences are true or false using the information from the text:

1. Slow-growing species like the orange roughy require an increased harvest.

2. Less than 75 percent of all fisheries are either folly exploited or heading for oblivion.

3. Conservation promotes both larger fish stocks and higher profits.

4. The total global fish catch has developed for decades despite far more sophisticated fish-finding technology.

5. Letting a stock rebuild was far more profitable than continuing to fish.

Exercise 3. Answer the following questions:

1. What problem is concerned in this article?

2. Could there be the solution to the global overfishing crisis?

3. What do the specialists think about this problem?

4. What part of fisheries is folly exploited?

5. What equipment can help in fish catch?

6. What is more profitable: a stock rebuild or continuous catch?

7. What do fish harvests depend on?

8. What do slow-growing species require?

9. What measures can you offer to improve the situation?

Exercise 4. Write down the measures taken to save the fish stock.

TEXT 3

Exercise 1. Read and translate the text with the help of a dictionary.