Fisheries are in crisis around the world. Over 70% of all fisheries are over-exploited or fished to capacity (FAO 2006). At the current rate of exploitation, most are predicted to collapse by mid-century (Worm 2006). A concerted global effort to move to a sustainable system of management is needed to avoid devastating effects on the health and stability of marine ecosystems as well as the endangerment of a food source that is integral to worldwide food security.
The state of fisheries can also be used as a proxy indicator for the overall health of marine environments. For an ecosystem to be resilient it must have robust populations of a variety of species, from large predators at the top of the food chain to filter-feeding mollusks towards the bottom. Fishing has historically culled top predators first and then continued down the food chain to species that were formerly not considered fit for human consumption. Cutting off the top of the pyramid in this way creates a less diverse environment that is much more susceptible to disease epidemics and can lead to long-lasting changes in species composition. For example, the Caribbean is currently undergoing a phase shift from coral reef to algal dominated systems. This shift is caused at least in part by fishing pressure on herbivorous fish.
Beyond environmental concerns, fisheries are also a major source of human livelihoods and food supply. They provide 16% of the world’s dietary protein consumption, and for many, constitute the only affordable source of protein. The demand for high-quality seafood is also increasing in the developed world, which has placed further pressure on marine resources and fueled the expansion of aquaculture.
Because fish populations often cross national borders, the indicators developed for the 2008 EPI do not focus on the health of specific fish stocks. It is difficult to quantify to what extent a particular country is contributing to the decline of a fish stock that is internationally exploited. Rather, the goal of the chosen indicators is to measure the sustainability of each individual country’s fishing practices within its exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
Many of the global datasets on fisheries are out of date or incomplete. Major data sources employed in this section of the 2008 EPI were the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) fishing vessel database and the Sea Around Us Project’s fish landings database and Marine Trophic Index values. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) areas were taken from the Global Maritime Boundaries database, which was calculated using standard GIS protocols.
Though the FAO vessel database is used in one of this section’s indicators, it should be noted that it is somewhat out of date. Some data have not been updated since 1996. Gaps in data also exist simply because not all countries have major fisheries and many have no coastal access at all. To overcome this problem in creating a global ranking, countries missing data had their fisheries score averaged around in the productive natural resources category.
Nations that performed very well across both indicators include a very high percentage of small island states. This finding is believed to be largely the result of economic constraints. The majority of these nations lack the vessels and other capital to exert ecologically unsustainable amounts of fishing effort. Other high performers include Central American nations such as Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, and Panama. Several West African countries, including Ghana, Cote d’Ivoire, and Benin, also have high scores in the low 90s range.
Though this seems to confirm a correlation between highly developed economies and poor performance on environmental metrics related to fishing, there are exceptions to this rule. Australia and Portugal feature prominently in the top ten, while the lowest scoring nations are Myanmar, Bangladesh, and Cambodia. These results indicate there is not a strict linear correlation between wealth and fisheries stewardship. Denmark is one of the lowest performers, with a score of just under four points. This is presumably due to high competition that results from sharing the relatively small Baltic Sea. Indeed, both Denmark and Germany have among the lowest scores for trawling intensity, which supports the theory that the two countries are in fierce competition over limited marine resources. Generally speaking, the Trawling Intensity indicator has a more consistent positive correlation to GDP than does the Marine Trophic Index indicator.
The indicators selected here give an acceptable picture of the ecological problems associated with current fishing practices, though existing data sources can be improved. One of the most significant improvements would be for the FAO to produce an updated version of its fishing vessel database.
Additionally, some critical areas are entirely absent from this analysis due to lack of data. These include the negative impacts of aquaculture as measured by the sector’s fishmeal and fish oil consumption. Aquaculture’s primary threat to the sustainability of fisheries is its high demand for fishmeal and fish oil, which are the major inputs to many aquafeeds. The need for aquaculture contributes to overfishing worldwide as all of the small fish stocks used to make these products are already fished to capacity or overexploited (FAO 2004). Right now there is no direct data available for fishmeal usage. However, such data would be a valuable asset to measuring the impact of aquaculture.
Environmental policy would also improve if policy makers had access to indicators that monitor fishing practices that cause mass kills, such as dynamite fishing. Another problematic fishing practice is long lining, which often unintentionally captures marine birds and turtles on the many miles of baited hooks that are left unattended on the floating “long line.” A long lining metric that captured the impact of this practice would be quite useful.
While they provide information on unsustainable fishing practies, these proposed metrics fail to capture the socioeconomic factors that contribute to the overall sustainability of fisheries. One important socioeconomic measure is the landed value per fisherman. This metric would give a sense of the distribution of wealth among stakeholders. The distribution of wealth from fisheries is notoriously unequal. In addition, government subsidies for fishing equipment and fuel are driving a great deal of excess global fishing effort. A regularly updated database on fishing subsidies is needed to conduct a proper assessment of their impact. Developing a metric that tracks ecologically harmful fishing subsidies would also be a significant aid to policymakers.
Recent work at the University of British Columbia has focused on developing broad indicators for fisheries management and aquaculture sustainability that could be used in future editions of the EPI if data were available for a greater number of countries. An indicator that measures compliance with the FAO’s code of conduct for responsible fisheries could also be developed in order to provide positive feedback for countries that make efforts to improve their practices.
The histograms above represent indicators used to calculate this policy subcategory score. Each dot is a single country’s proximity-to-target value for this indicator. The tinted box represents the inner quartile range of country values, or points lying between the 25th and 75th percentiles. The small triangle marker at the bottom of the chart indicates the median of country scores.
