11 Todd

Critique of the Global Treaty Solution Method
There is no global fishery problem, only a globe of local fishery problems. What this means is that a worldwide international organization or treaty, the necessary solution for truly global problems such as global warming or the ozone hole, is not necessarily the best way to save the world's fisheries.

Both global warming and fishery collapse are classic tragedies of the commons. Such problems must be solved at or above the organizational level of the commons in question.
An example may help clarify this point: Suppose the residents of a town share a piece of grazing land. Overgrazing could be prevented by an enforced edict from a state or national official, because the townspeople would have no choice but to follow the order. Or the town could establish its own grazing rules binding on all residents.

What would not be likely to work, however, would be neighborhood or smaller-scale grazing control agreements. There would be no reason for anyone to participate in such a scheme, because it would mean the loss of personal income without really solving the overgrazing problem.
Ultimately, the only commons management system for which it is long-term rational for a commons user to participate in is one encompassing the entire commons.

Now, the fishery application: Unlike climate users, who can only rationally participate in a global climate agreement, fishery users can participate rationally in a management system encompassing only a single fishery. Therefore, the problem of overfishing can be solved at the individual fishery level, not just with a world sustainable fishing agreement.

It is not yet clear to me that such a treaty, let alone a special regulatory organization to administer it, is actually the most efficient way to solve the problem. The reason is that the U.N. lacks coercive power over its subdivisions: Unlike a fishing regulatory law in a nation, a world sustainable fishing policy could not simply be created by the U.N. and forced on the world. Each nation would have to be individually persuaded, most likely by its own citizens or by nation-to-nation diplomacy, to sign onto the agreement. Because any attempt to reform fisheries management will demand considerable politicking on the national and nation-to-nation levels, creating a global treaty does not reduce the amount of work that must be done to solve the problem. But if intranational or nonglobal international action is sufficient to solve the problem, why bother with the international organization?

This is not to say that global action is irrelevant. Fishery resources in the deep ocean must be regulated by some sort of international body, but this does not mean that such a body needs to regulate every marine fishery in the world. The climate aspect of the fisheries issue must also be addressed globally.

A world sustainable fishing treaty could be a uniquely useful contribution if it included terms that required signatories to pressure nonsignatories to join the treaty. But creating such a strong treaty might be so hard in the first place as to still make it a waste of effort.

Most of the world's local fishery problems must be resolved to prevent serious global consequences resulting from a substantially reduced food supply. But top-down pressure from a global governing body is not necessarily required to get them solved. Instead, the "horizontal" pressure of national trade policies, bilateral and (nonglobal) multilateral agreements, and national and international citizen activist groups may be the most viable way to solve the world's fishery problems.

Some Other Ideas

Climate Change
Present and future climate change has implications for almost every aspect of human existence and so must be addressed in our report. But although a global climate solution may be helpful or even necessary to solve the world's fishery problems, our group is hardly able to provide one. Here is a proposal for how the climate issue could be addressed in the solution:

First, briefly summarize the relationship between fisheries issues and climate change. Make sure we get everything covered: Changing water temperatures, ocean acidification, etc. Attempt to estimate how serious of a problem climate is relative to the other problems facing fisheries.

If we find that climate change is a significant problem for the world's fisheries, then we should simply recommend that the global climate problem be solved but that what such a solution should be is outside the scope of this study.

If it turns out that climate change is a relatively insignificant problem, we should state as such but note that a climate solution should be found for other reasons.

Management System Design
Management measures must acknowledge the full complexity of the ecosystem to be managed.
The article "Multispecies and Ecosystem Models in a Management Context" in the book "Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem" cites a number of hypothetical examples of how well-intentioned management measures can fail.

The central reason for these failures is that nature does not respond directly to whatever aspect of human behavior is being regulated under the management measure. A fishing fleet does not do a certain number of horsepower-days of fishing on a fishery, it takes specific fish from the ocean. And if those fish were young, or great in number because of a lucky catch, a fish stock could still be destroyed even if all rules of a reasonable management system were followed perfectly. Other simple management systems, such as total allowable catch limits and closed areas, can fail for similar reasons.

Above all, the world's fisheries must adopt management systems that work. Certain systems are known to work better than others, and this should be taken into account when our group decides what solution to recommend.

In "Performance of Fisheries Management Systems," another article in "Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem" the authors review and update an OECD study on the merits of various fishery management systems. Many popular systems, most notably a total allowable catch limit, are found wanting. The authors urge the use of individual fishing quotas (IFQs) or other schemes which grant fishers the right to take a particular amount of fish. Although other management methods are not useless, they will probably work best when used with individual quotas.

Management Systems Must Have the Support of the Fishers
Fisheries management must be done in consultation with the people directly dependent on the fishery in question, and our solution should state as such. The people who will make the day to day management decisions need to sincerely and respectfully listen to the views of the fishers, even if they do not always follow the fishers' advice. Additionally, the actual enforcement of rules must be done in the least offensive way possible. I have in mind one of the people we met at Gloucester: You could tell how being hostilely stopped and questioned while doing research work in a closed area aggravated him. Excessively heavy-handed, paternalistic, or otherwise insulting management policies are likely to invite attempts to overturn them, and thus contribute nothing to the solving the problem.

10 Emily

Our UTF, Alison, and our group (Team 7) had discussed the viability of various plans especially in regards to disparities in economic ability to pay. We had thrown around the idea of creating regional caucuses that would be "in charge" of an area of regional water as a collective, so that the more economically stable countries can provide some of the capital in exchange for abidance of rules by the developing countries; ideally, this will pair resources with need so that everyone has a better fish population in general. Furthermore, we felt it addressed the differences in management as required by area. The International group probably has a better idea of the feasibility of this idea, but I just wanted to throw it out there.

9 Emily A. Moberg (Team 7) Nov. 2nd   Riparian Buffers

Importance:

                Riparian buffers provide various important stream functions.

(1)    Leaves that fall into the water provide energy for headwaters (i.e. a food source).

(2)    Branches and roots provide shelter for in-stream organisms.

(3)    Overhead leaf cover shades water and keeps it cool, by as much as 10° in summertime (Great Fishing).

(4)    Roots hold stream banks in place and prevent erosion.

(5)    Vegetation slows water velocity, thus reducing run-off induced erosion and also allows particulates (including many water contaminants) to settle out.

(6)    Soils and root systems filter nutrients and pollutants (especially from agriculture and residential areas) before they reach surface areas from groundwater (Haberstock).

These functions are not only important to the biota that lives in these regions year round, but also to anadromous species that come to spawn. For example, salmon require clean gravel for spawning; if silt settles over the gravel, it not only destroys suitable spawning substrate, but it can also smother eggs and the invertebrates that juveniles feed upon (Haberstock). Haberstock also reports that branches and other woody structures provide places for invertebrate prey to live, as well as structural habitat and varied flow patterns that are important for salmon. The improved water quality provided by riparian buffers and the cooling effect they provide are also critical (Haberstock).

Solution:

Riparian buffers should be established along rivers; the width should be determined based on various criteria as detailed below. To implement this, focus should be placed on education of farmers to take up these measures voluntarily. Governments and agencies that can afford to provide funds to help establish these buffers, offer tax incentives, or to rent land to take it out of production should do so.

The width of the buffer depends on many factors, especially the slope of the land (steeper slopes require wider buffers), the permeability of the soil (less permeable soils require wider buffers because water takes longer to infiltrate), and the presence of overland water sources--like intermittent streams or gullies-which can render small buffers ineffective (Haberstock). The type of vegetation-such as wooded or ground level vegetation--as well as factors such as duff height can influence buffer efficacy (Haberstock). Buffer width is measured from the end of alluvial soils (floodplain edge) (Haberstock). Haberstock also notes that wetlands in these areas should be preserved, because they function more effectively in nitrogen-fixation and retention of contaminants and sediments.

Zone 1: 35 feet

For other width determinations, see the method outlined in Haberstock pages 8-14.

8 Emily A. Moberg (Team 7) Nov. 2nd

DAMS

I.                    Solutions: (I have lots of reasons why dams are a problem, but I didn't include them for reading ease)

For dams that have not yet been built there are many steps that can be taken to minimize the impacts. First, efforts should be extended to maximize energy and water efficiency as much as possible; in the past, increases in technological efficiency, recycling, enforcement of environmental legislation, and industrial minimization of intensive water use resulted in a water consumption rate increase much lower than the population demand pressure (WCD). This can be seen as a cost effective method, considering that large-scale dam projects require an incredible amount of capital and are usually both over budget and are completed late (WCD). However, if a dam is definitively needed, research should be thoroughly conducted to determine the environmental impacts. The World Commission on Dams reports that many of the negative impacts from dam construction resulted from complications that were unforeseen; it predicts that use of environmental impact assessments could significantly lower these effects (WCD). Furthermore, proper placement of dams (such as on tributaries rather than on a main branch) and the use of minimal numbers of dams on a given river (because multiple dams can have cumulative effects, such as the dams leading to the Aral sea, which decreased water flow to such an extent that an increase in salinity and pollutants caused the entire fishery to collapse at a cost of approximately $1.25-2.5 billion per year) should be legislated by governments as these restrictions can minimize the large-scale negative impacts of large dams (WCD). Once these data are collected, the dam planning may begin; in this way, the dam design can take into account such features as gates that allow managed flood releases on a scale that can mitigate effects to the ecosystem. The use of such managed floods in Kenya has been economically favorable by maintaining sectors of the economy that relied upon flows that would have been blocked entirely by damming (WCD). These floods help to release nutrients and sediments and help lessen the impact of the dam overall (WCD). These managed floods should be tailored to a specific river, as flood cycles are highly unique. It is important, however, that all such planning occurs before dam construction, as post-construction mitigation techniques have not been shown to be effective; the WCD reports rates of 20% effectiveness.

In terms of fish passage, fish passes have a very low success rate currently. In Norway, fish passes report a 26% rate of "good efficiency" and 32% of no success at all (WCD). In many parts of the world, fish passes are not used at all. Also, even with fish passes, fish often suffer from a lack of environmental cues (like currents) that help them find their spawning site (WCD). However, properly designed fish passes (specific to each dam and species of intended use) do hold promise; in Pennsylvania, fish passes were ineffective until tailored to the American shad, at which point they became very helpful in shad restoration (Richardson). Fish hatcheries and stocking may also be required to augment populations until the spawning routine is re-established with the dam in place; successful restoration of American shad and striped bass required such measures (Richardson), and these methods are likewise advocated by the WCD. The creation of artificial wetlands around shallow dam can also help mitigate dam impact by providing new habitat (WCD).

For developed countries with large budgets and effective environmental legislation (such as France and the United States) decommissioning dams is a solution for aiding fish in special habitats (especially salmon) (WCD). While short-term effects of dam removal include large-scale sediment flushing, over relatively short time scales fish will return and spawn in those areas. However, dam removal is costly and must be studied beforehand; in many cases, toxins and chemicals can build up behind dams and the effects of these toxins washing downstream can be severe (Francisco).

7 Alex T. Vai, et. al.:  October 31st

Fair Trade Fish (Better Name Pending) 

One of our biggest problems is getting the general public to care about the issue of the oceans in the first place.

We know that there do exist sustainable, well-run fisheries in the world (Alaskan Pollock, for instance).  If sustainable seafood were marketed as such, the consumer would have a concrete way to make an environmental difference, while getting a likely superior product at a comparable price.

A formalized certification and marketing process seems like a logical extension of existing programs, such as the Monterey Bay Aquariums "Seafood Watch List"

Many of you may be aware of the hype surrounding "Fair Trade Coffee" (the namesake), "EnergyStar," or the "Organic Foods" movement.  If similar popular support can be generated regarding sustainable fishing, there would be significant economic pressure to make fisheries more sustainable.  There could be a marketing campaign for people to only buy fish marked with a "Gold Star for Sustainability."

This could also be a boon for corporations seeking to improve their public image (i.e. "We serve only Sustainable Fish").

In terms of the actual "fair trade" portion, if fishermen could receive better prices for high-quality, sustainably caught fish, they would be far more motivated to fish sustainably than through traditional management.  (Consider, for example, the proliferation of environmentally friendly "shade-grown" coffee in Latin America.

Some Challenges: 

Some degree of marketing studies would be needed to see how much of a price increase a consumer is willing to tolerate for sustainability (see Toyota Prius).  However, I contend that a certification process does not necessarily mean higher prices.  I argue that the average consumer would select a sustainable product, if other factors are relatively equal.

I acknowledge that this is plan uniquely targeted at Developed Countries, but also consider that the majority of environmental damage is caused by such countries.

This would require the creation of Representative, Interdisciplinary "Council" to act as a certification body, and the development of standards for "sustainable fisheries."  Note that, such standards already exist in some form in the US, they merely need to be formalized and centralized for maximum effectiveness.

6 Team 8,9: October 31st

 (Note: You can read the details and supporting analysis in the text if you like, but the actual recommendations are included in the Abstract and the Key Proposals sections.)

A Plan Regarding Marine Protected Areas

Abstract:  We assert that the establishment and operation of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) is a viable and effective, albeit incomplete, means of protecting, rebuilding, and sustaining the world's marine resources. In accordance with the goals of Mission 2011, MPAs are an ecosystem-based approach to marine management.  MPAs currently in operation unequivocally demonstrate that reductions human impacts allow ecosystems to return to a healthier, more natural state.  We will also demonstrate other advantages of MPAs, both alone and relative to other management strategies.  Given such benefits, the primary challenge is to expand MPA coverage to a globally significant scale, while at the same time maintaining the support of various stakeholder groups.  In this solution, we will first propose a broadly applicable scheme for establishing MPAs, and then discuss some issues regarding their operation.

Key Proposals:

I.       Aim to cover 10% of the global oceans with No-Take Reserves within a reasonable time-frame

          A.      This scale provides a balance between ecological effectiveness and acceptability

                   1.       20 - 30% may be better, but is increasingly implausible

          B.      This is comparable to the scale of protected Land Areas

          C.      To be used in conjunction with other degrees of protection and other management strategies in the remaining area

II.      General Principles for Area Selection

A.           Must be representative selection of habitats

B.      Multiple examples of similar habitats need to be protected

C.      Individual Areas can be small, but they must be "networked" larger scales

III.     Implementation Logistics

          A.      International Vision...National and Local Action

                   1.       National mandate must be supported by strong legislation, national budgeting

                   2.       Nations could adapted existing infrastructure from land-based conservation to MPAs

IV.     Public Support and Education

A.           Use MPAs as a tool to increase ocean literacy and awareness of general public

B.            Can be used directly as an educational tool

Benefits of Marine Protected Areas:

One of the best known and longest established MPAs is the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park off the coast of Australia.  Studies in no-take areas of the park by Evans and Russ show dramatic increases in the biomass fished species, as compared to fished areas.[1]  There are also clear indications of generally improved ecosystem health.[2]  There is also evidence of a so-called "spillover effect" whereby the benefits of the MPA extend beyond park boundaries.[3]  Ecologically successful implementation of MPAs is well documented scientific literature, and has been shown possible in a wide variety of marine environments.

Marine Protected Areas, and in particular, no-take marine reserves, possess attributes that set them apart from traditional marine management Since they are ecosystem-based, they do not require large amounts of species-specific, qualitative data to be effective, a significant flaw of traditional management.  Fundamentally, MPAs are proactive, rather than reactive; they provide a buffer and "insurance policy" against inaccuracies in science and policy. Furthermore, by maintaining or restoring natural systems, MPAs provide a valuable scientific "baseline" or "control" to better judge activities outside of their boundaries.  Also well established are the positive role of MPAs in education, tourism, recreation, and critical ecosystem services.

The challenge:

As it stands today, roughly 0.7% of the world ocean is protected in some way (in contrast 11.5% of land areas re protected in some way).[4]  THIS IS SIMPLY NOT ENOUGH to have a globally significant impact.  Furthermore, the rate at which the MPAs are growing is far lower than the human ability to exploit the oceans.  Hence, the challenge is to expand coverage to a more significant level, as quickly as possible, while limiting the impact on human culture and economics.

The Goal and Plan:

A reasonable middle ground will be to aim for 10% coverage of the world oceans with no-take areas.  This is comparable to global protected land areas, would likely be enough to make a substantial impact, and could still remain palatable for fishers, etc. The principle behind a conservative goal, is that it is one for which widespread support would be possible with the appropriate motivations.  Also, having a well-defined, conservative goal makes it clear that there is no attempt to radically restructure the way the business is carried out on the seas; in contrast, the MPA proposal is designed to preserve and protect the seagoing cultures and ways of life that have existed for many generations. Most important is the acknowledgement that an inflexible attitude toward the creation of MPAs is counterproductive.  This 10% target attempts to be sensitive to socio-economic concerns, as well as biological and ecological concerns.[5]

In areas outside of the no-take zones, lesser restrictions will almost certainly be necessary.  Traditional management schemes, such as gear restrictions, quotas, or days-at-sea limitations, are all possibilities.  In any case, it is important to note that the intent is for MPAs to work in conjunction with other management schemes.

How to Choose Locations for MPAs:

Given the limited coverage area, clear thought must be given to maximizing the influence of each unit.  We reiterate that the size of individual sanctuaries is not the most important matter, but rather the global scale of coverage. Within the proposed 10%, a representative sample of habitats and ecosystems should be protected. Furthermore, multiple examples of each habitat should be protected to insure against localized disturbances. Finally, individual MPAs should be located in mutually reinforcing "networks," to maximize their influence.

Although the MPAs in this proposal are intended to protect entire ecosystems, we acknowledge that there are secondary biological or economic situations in which a certain organism is of particular importance.  In such cases, an understanding of the relevant biology and ecology can, for example, allow key life stages or migration routes to be protected by careful placement of reserves.  A land-based analogy may be the protection of bird nesting sites and reserves for migratory birds, respectively.[6]

Implementation:

In principle, there is nothing wrong with an international approach to marine management.  Indeed, if some international organization can provide a "vision" and moral support, it would be extremely beneficial.  However, the details of implementation can most effectively be handled on a more local or regional basis.  States have the established legislative and financial machinery to mandate and fund the creation of MPAs, something lacked by virtually all current International bodies.  Even more practically, there is the sovereignty issue of direct enforcement in territorial waters.

Also consider that many nations have preexisting infrastructure related land-based conservation areas that can be expanded and adapted to meet the needs of running MPAs.  Using the United Statesas an example, National Legislation such as the National Marine Sanctuaries Act can be strengthened, to streamline the process for the creation of new MPAs, to explicitly mandate their creation, and to provide for budget appropriations therein.[7]  The scope of existing enforcement agencies, such as the National Park Service can be expanded to cover MPAs.  Their mandate can be greatly assisted by technological solutions, such as satellite-based remote sensing, etc.

[1] Evans, RD; Russ, GR.  "Larger biomass of targeted reef fish in no-take marine reserves on the Great Barrier Reef." Aquatic Conservation.  14 (5) : 505-519.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Russ, GR; Alcala, AC; Maypa, AP. "Spilloverfrom marine reserves: The case of Naso vlamingii at ApoIsland, The Philippines"  Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., Vol. 264, pp. 15-20. 2003.
[4] D. Pauly.  Lecture. and UNEP World Database on Protected Areas. <http://www.unep-wcmc.org/wdpa/>.
[5] Agardy T., et. al.  "Ideological Clashes around marine protected areas."  Aquatic Conservation 13(4): 353-367.
[6]Guenette, S; Pitcher, TJ; Walters, CJ. "The Potential of Marine Reserves for the management of northern cod in Newfoundland."  Bulletin of Marine Science, 66(3): 831-852, 2000.
[7] 16 United States Code § 1431

5 Team 5: October 29th

We propose creating an international body under the UN- possibly affiliated with the FAO (but which could also be autonomous) that would regulate/manage/enforce the following treaty that is designed to meet our goals. This treaty only includes the requests of Team 2 and our team, so please post/email what regulations you would like included (i.e. does Team 3 want something on pollution or environmental considerations?):

1. How do we enforce international fishing regulations, including what technology could be used and where technology could be used?
    a. We need to achieve near full compliance from most countries and create incentives to deter flag hopping.
         i. China, US, EU, Japan, Russia, Canada, Brazil, South Africa, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand and other countries with large fishing demand*
         ii. Offer economic incentives from our regulatory body: trade restrictions on fish/fishing technology placed upon non-compliant countries; similar or more stringent                 rules apply to countries who sign but flag hop
    b. How do we achieve near-full compliance?
         i. Treaty/mandate/charter
                1. Countries are responsible for all ships that are registered under their flag
                2. Cannot register with a noncompliant country
                3. Limit what technology can be used where
                    a. Info from Team 2      
                4. Fishing quotas for international waters/polar regions
                    a. Info from other teams on quota success
                5. Each countries regulates compliance of ships under its flag by use of
                    a. Tracking devices
                    b. Regulatory officers
                6. Each country responsible for regulating/measuring/tracking the biodiversity and biomass within coastal regions
                7. Funds from dues to research biodiversity/biomass in international and the polar regions
                    a. How do we track this? Team 10
         ii. Financial officers provided to each signatory by the regulatory body to help them balance the demands of the treaty without damaging the economy
                1. Committee of experts that deals with case by case
    c. Create a body: International Regulatory Commission for Sustainable Fishing (IRCSF)
         i. Either autonomous, like NATO
         ii. Or a part of the UN, like WHO or UNICEF (suggested)
                1. Maybe under or affiliated with the FA

A sub-branch of the UN, UNEP, is already designed to do this. Wouldn't it be good if this could be incorporated into UNEP, rather than coming up with a new body? 

4 Team 6: October 29th

Establishing a law that requires all fishing vessels to have a GPS tracking device on board will make the regulation of fishermen and fishing companies much simpler and more effective. It will allow regulating bodies to know which fleets are in the water and whether or not they are within legal boundaries. For fishermen, it is an simple way to determine which closed areas are in effect. For all fishing vessels currently in operation, the cost of the tracking devices can be subsidized.

Establishing a fish tax will put the cost of depleting fisheries on the consumer. Similar to gasoline tax and cigarette taxes, a fish tax will increase the cost of any fish products sold on the market. Currently there is a very high demand for fish, and if we are to keep a sustainable global fish population, we cannot catch the number of fish needed to meet this demand. An increase in fish prices will not only discourage consumers from buying more fish, thus lowering the demand, but it will make them aware of the crisis in our oceans today.

Issues: poor people now cannot afford fish (but in America there are substitutes)

Other ideas:
*Subsidizing fishing is NOT a solution.
*Fish tax vs. tariffs?
*what if countries aren't allowed to fish in each others waters at all? (make distant water fleets illegal) then the only way to get fish would be through imports and exports, which is easier to regulate than flaghopping
*set international standards for nitrates/phosphates (<-- algae)

3 Todd: October 28th

Let's start expanding the outline by adding questions and topics that need to be addressed under each section of the outline. If you make changes please sign them with your name and date. Substantial restructing of the outline is probably best left in the hands of the executive committee. Possibly we could also use this page to keep track of work assignments, but I would like to discuss that in class first. The page will look better if it is edited in Wiki Markup language. It's not hard to do. If you would like to alter, object, or otherwise comment on any of these suggestions, please contact me.
Todd Mooring 10/28

Solution Document Outline

• Introduction
  • Survey of global fisheries and their significance
    • How much fish is caught? Where and what kinds? How important are nonfood uses of fish? How important are nonfish ocean products? Todd Mooring 10/28
    • What is the monetary value of these fish/other ocean creatures? How big economically is the fishing industry? How many people work in it? Todd Mooring 10/28
    • Attempt to classify world fisheries. Discuss similarities and differences between large high technology fisheries that provide fish to the developed world and the small fisheries of developing countries. Todd Mooring 10/28
• Threats to fisheries
  • Fishing activities
    • Overexploitation Todd Mooring 10/28
    • Bycatch Todd Mooring 10/28
    • Other aspects of fishing (trawl damage, ghost fishing) Todd Mooring 10/28
  • Pollution
  • Climate
    • Could non-temperature aspects of climate change impact fish? If so, how? Todd Mooring 10/28
  • Assess relative importance of these factors Todd Mooring 10/28
• Implications for Humans
  • Food security
    • Needs to be assessed by region of the world Todd Mooring 10/28
  • Economic impact
    • Would it be possible to put a dollar value on the loss of global fisheries? Todd Mooring 10/28
    • How hurtful have fishery collapses been in the past? Todd Mooring 10/28
• Goals and Justification
  • (Maybe we should insert the goals here) Todd Mooring 10/28
  • What we want and why
• Non-biological considerations when formulating solution
  • Economic/social/political issues
• Regional/fishery management solutions---How goals are to be achieved
  • The global problem is a collection of local problems
  • Regional solutions
    • Discuss fishery problems and solutions in various regions of the world
  • Solutions by fishery type---solution templates
    • Discuss problems and solutions in various kinds of fisheries---large commercial, subsistence, etc.
  • Discuss effectiveness of various types of fishery management systems. Some methods are better than others, according to one source. Todd Mooring 10/28
  • This section could probably be reorganized Todd Mooring 10/28
• Global and technical aspects of solution
  • Climate
  • International waters
  • Change global fish demand
  • Aquaculture
• Specific recommendations/issues not addressed elsewhere
  • Need for additional fisheries research
• Conclusion

2 Team 4: October 26th

As part of Mission 2011's overall solution, we think that to be able to know and track population size, normal age distribution, and predator/prey levels, electronic tags must be used. If the need arises to know biomass of a fishery, but does not need to be specific to a species, then SONAR can be used to find that information.  We are working to develop an implementation of the tagging and surveying techniques that we have researched.

Our group will also be able to use GIS data and biomass estimates from ICES [http://www.ices.dk] and FAO [http://www.fao.org/fi/] to identify crashed stocks.  We are working on analyzing our data to summarize which stocks are at dangerously low levels

 NOTE: We know that this needs to be fleshed out better, but we wanted to get something posted for now.

1 Todd: October ?

Here is an outline/template for our solution.

Using the Outline

We could create the solution by listing and then answering relevant questions under each of these headings.  The topics are listed in what I think would be a rational order for a presentation or paper.  The outline could also be a site map for the Web site we will create.  Please feel free to send comments to me and/or post them on the wiki. 
-Todd Mooring

Solution Document Outline

Introduction

                Survey of global fisheries and their significance

Threats to fisheries

                Fishing activities

                Pollution

    Climate

Implications for Humans

                Food security

                Economic impact

Goals and Justification

                What we want and why

Non-biological considerations when formulating solution

                Economic/social/political issues

Regional/fishery management solutions---How goals are to be achieved

The global problem is a collection of local problems

                Regional solutions

                                Discuss fishery problems and solutions in various regions of the world

                Solutions by fishery type---solution templates

Discuss problems and solutions in various kinds of fisheries---large commercial, subsistence, etc.

Global and technical aspects of solution

                Climate

                International waters

                Change global fish demand

                Aquaculture

Specific recommendations/issues not addressed elsewhere

                Need for additional fisheries research

Conclusion

TEAM 2 PROPOSED SOLUTION: work in progress

(Please edit as you see fit. This list has already been sent to the regulations group as a preliminary sketch of what we would like to see regulated but by no means is it complete or entirely accurate and will need editing and additions as we learn more.)

IMPROVEMENT IN FISHING TECHNOLOGY (SHORT TERM)

          General Goals:

• • Decrease harmful effects of fishing technology on the environment
  • Increase selectivity of fish caught both by species and size

          Suggestions:

(Not all of the solutions are compatible but are simply suggestions as some ways in which the aformentioned goals can be met)        

• • Use fishing methods that are more environmentally friendly such as handlining or trapping rather than bottom trawling because trawls stir up sediment (turbidity is harmful to many fish species as well as bivalves), destroy fish habitat, destroy plants and animals that live along the bottom, etc) whereas handlining and other methods do not contact the bottom and thus do not harm the nonliving environment.
  • Rather than trawling or fishing X amount of hours and pulling up the nets to see what and how much has been caught, putting sensors on nets that measure tension or width of the net or other factors that can give fishermen an estimation of the amount of fish in the nets so that the quota allowance will not be exceeded resulting in all of the fish over the for example, 500 pound limit are thrown back dead into the ocean.
  • Use nanosensors along the bottom of a trawling net that would keep the net a certain fixed height above the ground to prevent damaging the bottom and using electrified ticklers to scare fish into the nets rather than using chains that scrape up the sea floor to scare fish into nets.
  • Creating and implementing sonar and other tracking devices to determine size (and from that age if possible) and species before nets are put into the water to limit the amount of bycatch of unwanted species or fish that are too small.
  • Creating and implementing devices to sort fish before catching based on instinctual defensive responses of other means such as electrofishing using certain frequencies which attract (and even paralyze if desired) fish of certain size and repel others away in order to lower bycatch.
  • Putting escape vents for large sea mammals that get trapped in fishing nets.
  • Using diamond mesh instead of square mesh because square mesh does not close when towed and thus small fish can get through the mesh which would make net size regulations more effective.

REGULATION OF FISHING TECHNOLOGY (LONG TERM)

 *Regulation should occur before fish are caught rather than after as the most effective way of preventing overfishing. For example, regulation should regulate net drag speed and net mesh size rather than throwing away fish that exceed the pound limit though that too should be in place in a modified form*

• Bottom Trawling should not be allowed in communities deeper than X (More research is needed in classifying sediment type according to depth or extensive underwater terrain maps showing sediment composition so that bottom trawling is absolutely not allowed in deep ocean where recovery is slow but perhaps allowable in very shallow areas that show little or no damage in the succeeding months though bottom trawling should be phased out as newer technology is implemented.)
• Where mobile gear (trawls and other similar fishing methods) and non-mobile gear (such as lines or traps) can be used and cannot be used in conjunction with the mapping of underwater terrain. Mobile gear catches greater volumes of fish but can be much less selective than non-mobile gear. (Mobile gear is much more cost effective though since more fish can be caught in less time.)
• For mobile gear, regulating at what speed nets can be dragged so as to maximize the benefit of increased mesh size and prevent fish smaller than the size of the netting from being trapped by the larger fish who are pressed against the end of the net by the high speeds. Trawling typically occurs at about 3 knots up to perhaps 5 knots as an estimate.)
• Setting a minimum size that nets cannot exceed and shape of the netting as well (though more research is needed as to what size the minimum size should be and how different species fishing should be regulated in that regard.)

PROBLEMS in the way between current generation fishing technology and next generation technology:

• Next Gen is not currently cost-efficient 
• Next Gen is not currently feasible
• Enforcement of regulations in regards to fishing technology is difficult and not cost-effective
• Inertial resistance to change
• Current technology is already efficient at tracking and catching fish (though not selective enough)
• Once catching what we want through selectivity is achieved, more regulations will be need to prevent overfishing of species we want 

TEAM 3 -- CLIMATE CHANGE

• See attached article (you can skip ahead to the last few paragraphs if you are short on time)