Issue Paper Overfishing 2 - ERIM · Omar Belkadi ... Issue Paper Overfishing 8 losses in population is attributable to human impact like over-fishing. The most pessimistic view

GB

& S

M I

ssu

e P

ap

er

20

08

Ov

er

fis

hin

g

Earth provides enough to provide every man’s need, but not every man’s greed

-Mahatma Gandhi-

Abdellah Adbaili 297938

Omar Belkadi 311080

Ilhan Kobya 292462

25-09-2008

Master GB&SM

Cc1A Leadership

2 Issue Paper Overfishing

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This issue paper gives an outline of the characteristics of the global issue of overfishing.

Overfishing occurs when the quantity of fish captured exceeds the amount that can be re-

supplied by growth and reproduction1. This will eventually lead to a stock collapse where the

fish stock is commercially extinct.

According to the United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), six percent of all

major marine fisheries are underexploited, 20 percent are moderately exploited, 50 percent fully

exploited, 15 percent overfished, six percent depleted and two percent recovering.23 This means

that over two third, of all fisheries are endangered.

From a company perspective, we chose to asses Unilever’s sustainability and therefore we asked

our self the following question:

What is the sustainability story of Unilever and is this sustainable enough?

Unilever believes that sustainability can best be promoted by harnessing market forces. This is

why, in 1996, Unilever joined with the global conservation organization WWF to initiate an

independent certification scheme called the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). During a global

consultation process a set of principles and criteria based on the FAO Code of Conduct, was

developed and this forms the basis for independent certifications of fisheries. Unilever wants

their suppliers to manage their fisheries according to MSC standards.

The question whether this is sustainable enough is very difficult to answer. Basically, there will

always be something unsustainable in a company’s practice. Whether the practices of a company

are sustainable enough depends on what the governments and civil society in particular see as

sustainable.

1 www.oceanea.org [22 September, 2008]

2 FAO Press Resease 99/11

3 J.D. Sachs, p.72


Table of content

Executive Summary........................................................................................................................................................2

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................5

1. Issue characteristics ............................................................................................................................................6

1.1 Definitions........................................................................................................................................................6

1.2 Dimensions of the problem.......................................................................................................................7

1.3 Trends................................................................................................................................................................8

1.4 Causes of overfishing...................................................................................................................................8

1.5 Stakeholders.................................................................................................................................................11

2. Issue consequences ...........................................................................................................................................13

2.1 Scenarios........................................................................................................................................................13

2.2 Issue ownership..........................................................................................................................................13

2.3 Expectational gaps.....................................................................................................................................13

2.4 Regulation .....................................................................................................................................................14

2.5 Impact on stakeholders ...........................................................................................................................14

2.6 Link with global warming.......................................................................................................................15

3. Towards sustainability....................................................................................................................................16

3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................16

3.2 Companies as part of the problem......................................................................................................17

3.3 Companies as part of the Solution ......................................................................................................18

3.4 Sustainable story........................................................................................................................................19

4. Conclusion ..............................................................................................................................................................22

5. Research ..................................................................................................................................................................23

5.1: Draw backs and limitations of the research...........................................................................................23

5.2: Areas for further research .............................................................................................................................23

Bibliography....................................................................................................................................................................24

Articles:...........................................................................................................................................................................24

Books:..............................................................................................................................................................................25


Reports: ..........................................................................................................................................................................25

Websites: .......................................................................................................................................................................26

Appendix 1: Description of group process ...........................................................................................................27

Abdellah Adbaili..........................................................................................................................................................27

Omar Belkadi................................................................................................................................................................27

Ilhan Kobya...................................................................................................................................................................27

Group process..............................................................................................................................................................28

Appendix 2: Grading scheme......................................................................................................................................29


INTRODUCTION

We have seen the devastating collapse of the Canadian fisheries in 1992, which has led to drastic

measures by the Canadian government. Fisheries were closed and over 40,000 people lost their

jobs. Fisheries in Bulgaria and Romania closed as well, causing unemployment for 150,000

people. It is not only the economic aspect of overfishing which takes the attention of the world

but also the fact that overfished communities no longer interact significantly with other species

in community, driving species to ecological extinction (Cushing, 1988). The ecological extinction

of fish species raise the possibility that many more marine ecosystems are endangered to

collapse in the near future (Jackson et al, 2001). Although there are increasingly strict rules

concerning the fish seasons, schedules and quotas which are mandated by governments,

problems of overfishing continue all around the globe. Ibarra et al. (2000) show that production

and export growth of fish was facilitated by the absence of an effective regulatory framework;

encouraged by the fact that fish stocks were plenteous in Chile, Mexico and Peru (together by far

the world largest exporters of fishmeal and oil). Macroeconomic policies in these countries also

permitted increased private participation in the fish sector leading to overcapitalization and

dangerous overfishing. On the other hand, European and Japanese fishermen are now seeking to

find new grounds farther than they ever went as they reduced their near seas capacity. Almost

all coastal African nations have signed far-reaching and extensive fisheries treatments with the

EU or other rich countries4. According to scientist, the waters off Africa are among the most

likely to experience a collapse in fisheries due to overfishing, poor management and monitoring.

A collapse that would have more devastating consequences for a far poorer Africa which its

coastal population is more dependent on the fisheries than other developed countries. Research

from Botsford et al.(1997), Smith (2002), Christensen et al. (2003), Hilborn et al. (2003) and

Pauly et al., (2003) identify commercial fisheries as the primary cause of declining global fish

stocks.

Issue questions This paper is written from a company perspective finding an answer on the following research

questions:

What is the true problem of over-fishing?

What are the solutions of over-fishing?

What is the sustainability story of Unilever and is this sustainable enough?

4 http://www.afrol.com/articles/22397 [23 September, 2008]


1. ISSUE CHARACTERISTICS

This chapter begins with defining different concept related to the issue. These definitions are

important because often there are no standards for the concepts; this is one thing that makes the

subject of overfishing so complex. Then the main historical and future trends in marine

biodiversity are presented. After this we will lay out the dimensions of the problem and point

out the main causes. Finally this chapter will end with naming the stakeholders involved; all this

should give you a good overall picture of the issue.

1.1 DEFINITIONS

Marine biodiversity

Marine biodiversity is a complex concept that specifies the variety of life in the sea. It stretches

from the variety within a particular species to the diversity of ecosystems and is therefore very

difficult to measure. It is measured by the number of species and the size of the populations of

the species. The size of a population is often being calculated by counting the amount of fish that

is captured each year. There is disagreement on this method however, because the catch can

give a misleading view of the actual size of a population. Therefore the United Nation's Food and

Agriculture Organization (FAO) invests in more reliable observation techniques like satellite

scanning. These techniques are still in development however and are not yet widely used.

Overfishing

Overfishing occurs when the quantity of fish captured exceeds the amount that can be re-

supplied by growth and reproduction5. This will eventually lead to a stock collapse where the

fish stock is commercially extinct.

Stock collapse

As mentioned above a stock collapse means that the fish capture of a certain species is not

commercially exploitable anymore. In practice this often means that the fish population is too

small. Worm et al. (2006) define “collapse” as occurring when the current year’s catch is less

than 10% of the highest observed in a stock’s time series.

5 www.oceanea.org [22 September, 2008]


Aquaculture

Aquaculture is the cultivation of fresh-water and marine species. This is done by companies and

can stretch from low-technology extensive methods, using natural bodies of water, to high-

technology intensive methods, using special fish tanks for example.

200-mile zone

The 200-mile zone is considered to be the zone outside the exclusive economic zones (EEZ). It

stretches 200 nautical miles from mainland into the sea. Fishing outside this zone is also called

fishing on the high seas. Fishing on the high seas continues to attract the attention of

international organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the general public, all

of which have a growing interest in management of high sea resources and a general concern for

overfishing (FAO, 2006)

1.2 DIMENSIONS OF THE PROBLEM

According to the United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), six percent of all

major marine fisheries are underexploited, 20 percent are moderately exploited, 50 percent fully

exploited, 15 percent overfished, six percent depleted and two percent recovering.67 This means

that over two third of all fisheries are endangered.

The marine species that are described represent approximately 15% of all described species.

There are about 300.000 described marine species but there is little known about the total

number of these species. Estimates go up till more than 10 million species but the most common

heard number lays around 5 million (Sala and Knowlton, 2008).

The processing of fish, fishing and fish trading has provided food and employment for as long as

one can remember. Almost 200 million people around the world depend on fishery as a primary

income (Weber, 1992). Fish contributes directly and indirectly to the world food supply. 28% of

the world catch is used as food for animals8.

Declining catches have translated directly into job losses for over 100,000 people in recent years

and now threaten the livelihoods of millions more (Weber, 1992). With the collapse of the

Canadian cod fishery, for example, about 40,000 fishermen and women got unemployed.

Throughout history, the population of sea animals has changed dramatically but still there is

little understanding on the causes of these changes. There is some disagreement whether the

6 FAO Press Resease 99/11

7 J.D. Sachs, p.72

8 FAO, Fisheries Statistics Commodities, Vol. 77


losses in population is attributable to human impact like over-fishing. The most pessimistic view

of the future of marine biodiversity is by Worm et al. (2006). Worm states that if continued on

the current way all of the seafood producing stocks will collapse by the year 2048. Worm uses

analytical models based on fish catch and extrapolates to estimate this scenario. Many scientists

disagree on this method because fish catch is seen as an inadequate way to indicate stock status.

Another mayor concern is the disturbance of the food chain when overfishing or a collapse

occurs. We have to realize that all fish species are part of an ecosystem and when one part of this

system is removed the whole system is changed.

1.3 TRENDS

The marine biodiversity has changed over time and this can be explained by different trends.

From an evolutionary historical perspective biodiversity has changed during big events in

history. At the end of the Permian for example, about 250 million years ago, 98% of all marine

species were extinct (Sala & Knowlton, 2008) These sort of massive events occurred in mainly

because of asteroid impacts. Marine biodiversity changes also locally in terms of decades to

centuries. This is usually caused by environmental events like storms and hurricanes. In a study

by Griggs & Maragos (1974, cited by Sala and Knowlton) it was shown that the number of

species has grown after lava flows into the corals at the coast of Hawaii. What this basically

shows is that eco diversity increases over time if humans do not disturb in the ecosystem.

If the ecological extinction continues will the fish population decline rapidly. Population is

indicated by wild fisheries catch. Since 1990 these catches have been declining. 81 of the 304

exploited stocks in the United States are overfished, furthermore 158 are endangered by

overfishing.

It seems as if a doom scenario is sketched but not all animals are endangered, some animals

actually benefit from overfishing. For instance seagulls have adapted to the waste production

from fisheries and tend to increase their population near to the urban environment.

1.4 CAUSES OF OVERFISHING Although many think that regulation should not allow overfishing, there is a clear conflict

between the goals of increased production and stock conservation, and the implications of this.

All fishery around the globe is theoretically aimed to be subject to an effective management

system that respects local, national and international laws. Researchers have shown that

macroeconomic programs and regulation have had tremendous impact on our natural resources.


The fishery sector all over the world was undoubtedly affected by trade liberalization (Shurman,

1996), financial deregulation (Salas et al., 1997), tax reform and privatization (Pena-Torres,

1996). The law concerning the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) allowed coastal states

Extended Fisheries Jurisdiction (EFJ) and ensured the coastal states the licensing and or

exclusion of foreign fleets in their national waters. According to Ibarra et al. (2000) after this law

more capital and labor rapidly entered the fisheries. Fish catches rose by an average of 8.6% per

year through the 1980s which led to overcapitalization and overfishing. The same paper claimed

that belated laws for the national fisheries in the case of Peru, Chili and Mexico made sure that

their fisheries became over-exploited.

Another reason that world fish stocks are decreasing rapidly is by catch. By catch is defined by

Hall (1996) as the part of the capture that is discarded at sea, dead (or injured to an extent that

death is the result). Research done by Clucas (1997) reveal the following reasons for by catch:

• Fish caught are of the wrong species, size or sex, or the fish are damaged (by-catch).

• Fish are incompatible with the rest of the catch (from the point of view of storage).

• Fish are poisonous.

• Fish spoil rapidly (i.e. before it is brought on board).

• Lack of space on board.

• High grading.

• Quotas reached.

• The catch was of prohibited species, in prohibited season fishing ground, or with

prohibited gear.

According to Hall et al. (2000) implementation of rules against by catch which damages the

global fisheries faces many challenges because the fisheries sector in many countries have

powerful lobbies. Another issue within by catch is the estimation of fish mortality; because there

are no data available on its frequency or the magnitude of its impact.

Research from Pauly et al. (2002) and Hilborn et al. (2005) showed that subsidies for vessel

construction encouraged overcapitalization in the fisheries which enforced overfishing. This is

an issue within overfishing on which many scientist universally agreed. Fishermen increasingly

replace their small-scale fishing vessels with larger ones while governments continue the

payment of subsidies to fishers. It seems that only in the North Atlantic alone fisheries are

subsidized for US $2.5 billion (Hilborn, 2007).


According to the AP In 2001, a 200-kg Atlantic bluefin tuna was sold for just a price of

US$173,600 at a Tokyo auction9. Jacquet et al. (2006) consider that the depletion of the tuna

fishery was mainly caused to feed this market and that the tuna fishery spawning biomass

declined to 20% of 1970 levels. Human consumption of fish has doubled in the last 30 years

resulting into overfishing, the collapse of innumerable fish populations and the destruction of

ocean habitat. It was not only human consumption of fish that has a tremendous influence on

global fish stocks but also an issue within overfishing that has always been important: the

fishmeal and fish oil industry. According to the FAO in 2004 fishmeal represented around 3.3

percent of the value of exports while fish oil represented less than 1 percent. Total fishmeal and

fish oil production took 25% of the world global catch. Strong demand, especially from China

and other Asian countries increased fishmeal an fish oil prices strongly in 2006

Figure 1 (Fishmeal and soybean meal prices for the Netherlands and Germany) shows that in six

year time fishmeal prices per ton increased approximately with 250% while soybean meal

prices increased slightly. According to the International Fishmeal and Fish Oil Organization

(IFFO), the use of fishmeal in aqua feed will rise by more than 5 percent from 2002 to 2012,

while demand for fish oil will increase by more than 17 percent from 2002 to 2012 yearly.

Anderson (2003) states that Aquaculture has been definitely the fastest growing food sector

over the past two decades while this increasingly influences the demand for fishmeal and fish oil

in this sector. While rising fishmeal and fish oil prices push factories and fishermen to produce

and catch more, (Naylor et al. 2000) quote that environmental groups are more concerned about

the potential negative dependency of the aquaculture industry on the availability of fishmeal and

fish oil. This dependency in one case will definitely lead to overfishing and destroy wild fish

stocks.

Figure 1 Fishmeal and soybean meal prices for the Netherlands and Germany

9 Associated Press. Giant tuna sells for record $173,600, 2001 www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/inNews/GiantTuna.htm

[24 October 2005]


1.5 STAKEHOLDERS We can classify the stakeholders in three institutional models according to the institutional

triangle (Van Tulder, 2006). See figure 2 for placement in the triangle.

United Nations:

The United Nations has a variety of bodies dealing with environmental issues. The Environment

Programme (UNEP)organizes the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, this is an

international treaty to promoting sustainability.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) leads effort to defeat hunger by acting as

a neutral forum. They help developing countries to improve agriculture, fisheries and forestry. .

World Bank

The World Bank is a development institution for developing countries around the world. Their

main goal is to alleviate poverty. They provide interest-free loans and credits for education and

infrastructure. This is a stakeholder because they are involved in the discussion on biodiversity.

Governments and governmental bodies

Governments have a direct influence in the debate on biodiversity and overfishing because they

are able to make laws on this issue. Governments exist in different layers, the EU is also seen as

government.

World Trade Organization (WTO):

The WTO is a trading forum were trade agreements can be negotiated. It can function as a

platform to settle trade disputed. Members of the agreement are nations that negotiate to come

up with trading rules. As it is negotiated and signed by governments it is a governmental body.

Consumers

Consumers as individuals cannot be classified into the triangle; however as an interest group

they can be classified as a civil organization. In the Netherlands for example there is the

‘Consumentenbond’ that stands for the interests of consumers.

Multinationals and Farmers & Fisheries

The main goal for these organizations is to make profit and therefore these are pure market

driven. Unilever counts as a multinational.


World Watch Institute (WWI)

The World Watch Institute was founded in 1974 as an independent research organization. They

provide research for government, business, civil society and academics. Their focus is on people,

nature, economy and energy. WWI has characteristics of a NGO but tends to be also market

driven, although their goal is not profit.

Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s)

These are pure civil societal bodies that want to solve societal problems. On a global scale, there

are only a few NGO’s that deal with issues on biodiversity; Greenpeace and WWF.

Figure 2

Farmers & Fisheries

World Bank

Governments and

governmental bodies

WTO

WWI

NGO’s

Consumers Multinationals

Government

Market Civil

United Nations

WWI


2. ISSUE CONSEQUENCES

2.1 SCENARIOS Nowadays scientist do not react with disbelief to news that there will be a global crisis in

fisheries (in the early 1990’s many of them reacted with disbelief). This crisis driven by the

impact from fisheries and pollution on biodiversity with the combination of climate change

makes the scenario’s on fisheries dire (Botsford , 1997). The Global climate change is an

additional stressor for issues like pollution, overfishing, water diversion, and widespread

introduction of non-native Fishes, fastening the collapse of fish populations (Smith, 2000).

Overfishing nowadays hand in hand with global warming will cause more unemployment,

declining fish stocks, loss of more biodiversity, increasing fish prices. If we go on with the

production as we are doing now, all of the seafood producing stocks will collapse by the year

2048. A desert in our oceans and waters will occur.

2.2 ISSUE OWNERSHIP Overfishing has many stakeholders which are involved. The ownership of overfishing by all

those stakeholders is however questionable. Fishermen together with the governments are the

major issue owners. The reason for this is quite clear;

As mentioned before, research from Botsford et al.(1997), Smith (2002), Christensen et al.

(2003), Hilborn et al. (2003) and Pauly et al., (2003) identified commercial fisheries as the

primary cause of declining global fish stocks. In addition, macroeconomic policies and

governmental rules concerning fishing have a tremendous influence on overfishing (Ibarra et al.

2000). The awareness against overfishing and unsustainable fish from the side of the consumers

however has grown due to many eco-labels launched by NGOs and aquariums. Consumers have

the possibility to consult seafood wallet cards at the grocery or restaurant to check which fish

are sustainable and not sustainable.

2.3 EXPECTATIONAL GAPS We have seen in Chili, Peru and Mexico that governmental macroeconomic politics with an

attempt to increase employment and welfare for a country’s habitants can have a tremendous

influence on the natural resources of a country. There is a conflict between increased production

and stock conservation of fishes. This is also the case with the commercial fisheries that

increase their capacity to catch more and more.


Fisheries around the globe employ millions of people while they have powerful lobbies. In

Turkey, the Black Sea fisheries have powerful lobbies because they employ a huge part of the

unemployed low educated people in the Black Sea. These fishermen can buy fuel for less, do not

have to pay taxes and can fish as much as they want (no quotas). Now Turkey has the second

largest fish fleet in whole Europe while each year fish stocks (anchovy and sprat) are decreasing.

There is a true gap in what fisheries want, demand and do and the power of nature and our

future.

2.4 REGULATION Regulation is vital to stop or prevent overfishing. The leading countries with commercial

fisheries: Peru, Chili, Mexico, Norway, Denmark and Iceland all have quotas for their fisheries.

These countries have very strict rules in their own waters because their industry depends on

fisheries (for Norway and Denmark less). Sustainability for fisheries requires governments’

ratification of and adherence to international fisheries management agreements (Pauly, 2003).

Although there are international, national and regional legislation concerning the fisheries, there

is little capacity in most laws to create connectivity among them for conservation purposes and

not all of them are ratified by all countries (Vásárhelyi, 2008).

2.5 IMPACT ON STAKEHOLDERS We will describe the impacts on the stakeholders from the perspective of the institutional

triangle (Van Tulder, 2007). Every dimension of this triangle has a different perspective because

of other interests.

The government promotes fresh fish as healthy because of its fat and urges us to eat fish at least

twice a week. This can contradict with the government’s point of view concerning overfishing.

Therefore it is difficult to find a balance between public health and on the other hand the

environment.

Although some multinational organizations could present themselves as sustainable, they try to

fulfill their main purpose that is making profit. A trend is that companies combine those two

assumptions, for example Happy Shrimp, which cultures shrimps using rest warmth of an

energy supplier on a profitable way.

The impact from overfishing on civil society is great. Nongovernmental organizations like

Greenpeace and the WWF have an ideology for sustainability. Although these organizations are

aware of the difficulties companies and governments face, they still pursue this ideology.


2.6 LINK WITH GLOBAL WARMING Although still uncertain what the exact impact of global warming is, it is quite certain that it is

happening. The general effect is that the water temperature also increases with global warming.

Freshwater fishes are cold-blooded and have the same temperature as the water surrounding

them. Ficke et al. (2007) have argued that global warming can have a devastating effect on many

fish species because of this. There are possibilities however that fish communities can cope with

changes in groundwater temperature and will change genetically.

Global warming may affect the extinction of a large number of species. In 1999 for example 16

species were extinct in the northwestern Mediterranean due to a warming event (Sala and

Knowlton). Another phenomenon associated with higher temperatures of water is coral

bleaching. Coral bleaching occurs when nutritious parts that live inside the coral get affected, the

result is that the coral turns colorless and eventually die. In 1998, 80% of the corals in the

Indian Ocean bleached and 20% died (Sala and Knowlton).


3. TOWARDS SUSTAINABILITY

3.1 INTRODUCTION Sustainability is a hot item since years. In 1987, the UN/Brundtland report emphasised the term

"sustainable development" in that same report links were made between:

• Development Cooperation and environment preservation

• Prosperity and welfare

• Economic growth and improvement of the surrounding

• Economic, ecological and social dimensions

By the early 1990s, conclusive evidence from the FAO showed that over-fishing had put global

stocks of fish for human consumption at serious risk.

It became clear that because of the complex relationship between the many different fish species

and wild stocks in the marine ecosystem, the solution had to help make all fisheries sustainable.

Also in 1992 became global sustainability emphasised. During the United Nations (UN)

conference for environment and development, in Rio the Janeiro, the member countries decided

to strive for sustainability. Furthermore in 2002 was there a world meeting in Johannesburg

about sustainable development. Therefore, as you can see sustainability was already a well-

spoken topic.

Nevertheless, what is sustainable development?

The most widely quoted definition of sustainable development is development that “meets the

needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own

needs (World commission on Environment and Development 1987, p.8)

According to John Elkington, world authority on business strategies in the areas of corporate

responsibility and sustainable development, companies should have to make a minimum of

effort on three areas (the ‘bottom line’) to be sustainable. He emphasises in his book ‘Cannibals

with Forks’ (1997), the global supported approach of the ‘triple-bottom line’, also known as the

triple-P. This triple-P stands for Profit (‘economical prosperity‘), Planet (‘ecological quality’) and

for People (‘welfare’).


3.2 COMPANIES AS PART OF THE PROBLEM Fisheries have experienced difficulties in the previous years: decreasing fish presence because of

climate change and/ or overfishing, using destructive material (such as big nets), decreasing

quota, less and less sea days and finally yet importantly, the oil prices which has increased

dramatically the last years. The secular fishery stands under more pressure than ever. Whereas

the balance between economy and ecology nowadays is very shaky in the fishery.

Sustainable fishery is from ecological and economic perspective (convalescence fish presence,

more sustainable capture methods, energy saving, stable capture quantities, restructuring of the

fleet) urgently wished.

According to a research done by Jackon et al.(2001)10 which was cited 908 times, overfishing

started when hook and line fishing were replaced by intensive use of the beam trawl during the

18th century, and with the increase of industrialized fishing that was further intensified with the

advent of large steam and diesel powered vessels and the otter trawl at the end of the 19th

century. Kaufman and Dayton (1997)11 state that changes due to overfishing occurred

worldwide in coastal marine ecosystems over many centuries. The first concrete consequences

of overfishing have been seen when new mechanized fishing technology in the 1920’s set off a

rapid decline in numbers and body size of coastal cod in the Gulf of Maine (Ludwig et al. 2003)12.

The extinction of sheephead, spiny lobsters, and abalone started in the 1950’s while sardine

stocks off California and Japan were overexploited and disappeared in the1940’s. The anchovy

and sardines extinction in Peru and Chile in 1972 are other examples of overfishing. But

especially the extinction of the Canadian cod fishery and several New England groundfish stocks

in the 1990’s made scientist aware that the claim of Thomas Huxley ( famous English biologist)

in 1883 that fish stocks were inexhaustible was totally misplaced. The bankruptcy of the

Canadian cod fisheries leaving thousands of people unemployed put the issue of overfishing on

the agenda of many countries and international organizations. The FAO and the Marine

Stewardship Council have been more active with the issue while trying to find solutions for the

problem. The Marine Stewardship Council, which was set up in 1997, developed an

environmental standard for sustainable and well-managed fisheries rewarding co-operators

with a blue product ecolabel for consumers that are concerned about overfishing. The FAO

continues to put pressure for quotas through the U.N.

10 Historical Overfishing and the Recent Collapse of Coastal Ecosystems Science 293, 629 (2001); Jeremy B. C. Jackson, et al.

11 Kaufman, L. and Dayton, P, in Nature’s Services, G. C. Daily, Ed. (Island, Washington, DC, 1997), pp. 275–293 12 Ludwig, D., Hilborn. R., Walters, C. Science 260, 17 (1993).


From all this can be seen that the issue is still in a development phase and that there are many

issues to be cleared within the issue of overfishing like; fleet funding, increasing consumer

demand, increasing fishmeal and oil prices etc.

3.3 COMPANIES AS PART OF THE SOLUTION Everyone with the slightest green heart for the environment agrees that it is time for action.

From many perspectives are there possible solutions. Such as stated by Degnbol et al. (2006)

That many ecologists argue that we need networks of marine protected areas. Economists argue

from their point of view, for market-based mechanisms, sociologists on the other hand argue for

community-based management and lastly do policy makers/ lawyers support stronger legal and

institutional control over fisheries enforcing lower catches.

Gillis et al. (1995) have showed in a series of papers that individual fishermen make decisions on

discarding based on maximization of the economic value of their fishing trips. Individual

fishermen will invest in new vessels or technology if they will make more money by doing so,


and individuals will fish illegally when it is profitable. To counter that individual profit-

maximization, fishing practice should be changed, this could be achieved through:

• Entrance

� Licenses (where only licensed companies may fish)

• Material

� Mesh width (to minimize by-catch, whereas it should be prescribed which fish may

be caught with which mesh width)

� Engine power (to achieve that companies who have fast boats don’t over fish seas)

� Size ships (to achieve that companies who have bigger boats don’t over fish seas)

• Catches

� Minimum size (fish)

� Total Allowable Catch (TAC) & Quota (to achieve through legislation that companies

may not fish too much, and if they catch too much they will get a fine)

Both the fishery sector and the government should take their responsibility between all threats

and chances. To innovate sustainability, beside a stimulating government, is their especially for

the entrepreneurs a role.

The (European) fishery policy should be focused on creating useful conditions. Within those

policies, there arises a social/ economical and ecological sustainable exploitation of the fish

stocks. The own responsibility of the fishers is very important, only with enough effort can the

sustainable fishery be a success.

Changing fishing practice is one side of the solution. The other is to help consumers understand

sustainable fishing. This involves building awareness of the MSC logo and then promoting the

appreciation that fish products bearing it have been caught in a sustainable way.

3.4 SUSTAINABLE STORY As we have said before overfishing is a global issue. Especially because it does not only influence

the customers (society) but it also brings interface challenges with it concerning government

(state) and fishery companies (market). The big solution of overfishing is sustainability. To draw

an example we will describe the sustainable story of Unilever.

Being sustainable was a huge challenge for Unilever, as they knew that progress could only come

about by working with others who shared their goal, both outside and inside the industry.


Faced with the overwhelming evidence from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the

United Nations (FAO), Unilever made a public commitment in 1996 to buy all our supplies from

sustainable sources by 2005.

Separately, but related, Unilever began discussions with the world conservation organization

WWF. They had different motives but a common purpose: the need to assure the long-term

sustainability of global fish stocks and the integrity of the

marine ecosystem.

Drawing on WWF’s experience in forestry conservation and

the Forestry Stewardship Council, Unilever agreed to work

together to set up a Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), to

develop a fisheries certification scheme that could endorse

sustainable fisheries management and operational practice.

Fish in shops sourced from certified fisheries would be able

to carry an MSC logo on the pack. Consumers could choose fish products from well-managed

fisheries and in this way the market would encourage responsible fishing. The two partners each

brought wide-ranging skills, knowledge and networks to support the formation of the MSC.

The MSC undertook an inclusive, global consultation process, including discussions with

environmental and marine experts, scientists, fishing industry and trade representatives,

government officials and regulators, and many others connected with the marine environment.

The output of the consultation, was a set of broad principles and criteria (see below) that

provide a framework for promoting environmentally and economically viable fishing.

“Certification completes the link from fishermen to consumers, allowing us to include on-pack

information – in the form of a well recognized, reputable logo – that allows consumers to

demonstrate to suppliers that sustainable fishing counts,” says Unilever Co-chairman, Antony

Burgmans.


Source: Fishing For the Future II: Unilever’s Sustainable Fisheries Initiative (2003)

Unilever’s commitment on sustainable supplies of fish

Unilever is committed to buy all its fish from sustainable sources by 2005. Their definition of

this generally reflects the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) Code of Conduct for

responsible fisheries and the relevant FAO Guidelines13.

For some time Unilever has been working in partnership with their suppliers to encourage more

sustainable fishing methods. A detailed examination by Unilever of all fisheries supplying the

company is well underway to select long-term sustainable sources.

Unilever believes that sustainability can best be promoted by controlling market forces. This is

why, in 1996, Unilever joined with the global conservation organization WWF to initiate an

independent certification scheme called the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). During a global

consultation process, a set of principles and criteria, based on the FAO Code of Conduct, was

developed and this forms the basis for independent certifications of fisheries. Unilever wants

their suppliers to manage their fisheries according to MSC standards.

13

http://www.fao.org/fi/agreem/codecond/codecon.asp [24 September, 2008]


4. CONCLUSION

Unilever is in our eyes sustainable, especially as they were one of the first to take the initiative

for sustainable fishery. As they mention in their Corporate Sustainable Annual report, Unilever

has not achieved their set goal to produce only sustainable fish, although if you see Unilever in

the whole picture they have booked progress.

“We are making good progress to meet our commitment and we hope this will help drive the

fisheries market towards a sustainable future. There is still a long way to go before all fisheries are

managed in a sustainable way. We are working in partnership with our suppliers and other

interested parties and we will continue to seek improvement”. Antony Burgmans and Niall

FitzGerald, Chairmen of Unilever

The attention to conservation of the fish stocks and for sustainable fishery has increased. There

are encouraging signs that consumers see more and more the importance of an aware choice for

fish that has been caught on a sustainable manner. One of the Unilever initiatives to achieve

customer involvement is that Unilever has posted on the website a link to the website of

goedevis14 so customers can see whether the fish they eat is sustainable.

14

http://www.goedevis.nl [24 September, 2008]


5. RESEARCH In this final chapter, we will shortly address the drawbacks and limitations of the research.

Following with a concluding analysis with suggestions for further research in areas related to the

issue.

5.1: DRAW BACKS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH The biggest draw back in current research is the effective abiding of law and regulations by the

fish companies. As stated before, although many think that regulation should not allow

overfishing, there is a clear conflict between the goals of increased production and stock

conservation, and the implications of this. All fisheries around the globe are theoretically aimed

to be subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international

laws. It will remain difficult to fully control the company’s behaviour, or even predict their

behaviour.

5.2: AREAS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH As mentioned, there is a lot of criticism on the abidance of laws. Research in this area could

develop new international rules and guidance for implanting these rules. Furthermore could

there be researched concerning the implementation of rules against by catch which damages the

global fisheries as that is one of the main problems in overfishing.

In addition, it might be interesting to look at the developments of the companies that cause

overfishing. Examining the factors that led to overfishing might give interesting insights in for

example a lack of appropriate culture or even other causes that we are not aware of at the

moment.

It might also be interesting to research the leadership styles of CEO’s that cause overfishing,

because we think they are the main characters who caused this whole issue. Common sense

might say their styles might be alike, but there is no empirical evidence there, yet.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

ARTICLES: BOTSFORD, L.W., CASTILLA, J.C., PETERSON, C.H., 1997, The management of fisheries and marine ecosystems, Science, 277, 509–515. CHRISTENSEN, V., GUE’NETTE, S., HEYMANS, J.J., WALTERS, C.J., WATSON, R., ZELLER, D., PAULY, D., 2003, Hundred-year decline of North Atlantic predatory fishes, Fish and Fisheries, 4, 1–24. CLUCAS, I. J., 1997, The utilization of bycatch/discards, Papers Presented at the Technical

Consultation on Reduction of Wastage in Fisheries, FAO Fisheries Report 547, pp. 25±44; 338 pp. CUSHING, D. H., 1988, The Provident Sea, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK

ELKINGTON, J., 1997, Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st

Century Business, Capstone, Oxford

FICKE, A.D., MYRICK, C.A., HANSEN, L.J., 2007, Potential impacts of global climate change on freshwater Fisheries, Rev Fish Biol Fisheries, 17:581–613 GRANT, D.C., BEUMER, J., 1996, Developing and Sustaining World Fisheries Resources: The State of Science and Management, Second World Fisheries Congress, CSIRO, Australia, pp. 767–771. GILLIS, D.M., PETERMAN, R.M. and PIKITCH, E.K., 1995a, Implication of trip regulation for high-grading: a model of the behavior of fishermen. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 52, 402–415. GILLIS, D.M., PIKITCH, E.K. and PETERMAN, R.M., 1995b, Dynamic discarding decisions: foraging theory for highgrading in a trawl fishery. Behavioral Ecology, 6, 146–154. HALL, M. A., 1996, On bycatches, Review of Fish Biology and Fisheries, 6, 319±352. HALL, M.A., ALVERSON, D.L., METUZALS, K.I., 2000, By-Catch: Problems and Solutions, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 41, 1-6, pp. 204-219 HILBORN, R., ORENSANZ, J.M. and PARMA, A.M., 2005, Institutions, incentives and the future of fisheries. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B – Biological Sciences,

360, 47–57. HILBORN, R., 2007, Managing fisheries is managing people: what has been learned? School of

Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, Box 355020, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA HILBORN, R., BRANCH, T.A., ERNST, W., MARGNUSSON, A., MINTE-VERA, C.A., SCHEUERELL, M.D., VALERO, J.L., 2003, State of the world’s fisheries, Annual Review of Environment and

Resources, 28, 359–399.


IBARRA, A.A., REID, C., THORPE, A, 2000, Neo-liberalism and its impact on overfishing and overcapitalisation in the marine fisheries of Chile, Mexico and Peru, Food Policy, Volume 25, Number 5, October 2000 , pp. 599-622(24) Publisher: Elsevier JACKSON, J.B.C., et al., 2001, Historical Overfishing and the Recent Collapse of Coastal Ecosystems, Science, 27, Vol. 293, pp. 629-637 JACQUET, J.L., PAULY, D., 2006, The rise of seafood awareness campaigns in an era of collapsing fisheries, The Sea Around Us Project, The Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia KAUFMAN, L. and DAYTON, P., 1997, in Nature’s Services, G. C. Daily, Ed. (Island, Washington, DC, 1997), pp. 275–293 LUBCHENCO, R., MOONEY, H., and TROELL, M. 2000, Effect of aquaculture on world fish supplies. Nature, 405: June 29. LUDWIG, D., HILBORN, R., WALTERS. C. 1993, Science 260, 17.

PAULY, D., ALDER, J., BENNETT, E., CHRISTENSEN, V., TYEDMERS, P., WATSON, R., 2003, The future for fisheries, Science, 302, 1359–1361. PAULY, D., CHRISTENSEN, V., GUE’NETTE, S. et al., 2002, Towards sustainability in world fisheries, Nature 418, 689–695. PITCHER, T., 2008, The sea ahead: challenges to marine biology from seafood Sustainability, Hydrobiologia, 606:161–185 SALAS, S., TORRES, R., 1997, Factors affecting management in Mexican fisheries, Hancock, D.A.,

Smith SCHURMAN, R., 1996b, Snails, southern hake and sustainability: neo-liberalism and natural resource exports in Chile, World Development, 24, 1695–1709 (p. 1698). SMITH, T.D., 2002, A history of fisheries and their science and management, Handbook of Fish

Biology and Fisheries, vol. II, Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 61–83. VASARHELYI, C., THOMAS, V.G., 2008, Reflecting ecological criteria in laws supporting the Baja to Bering Sea marine protected areas network case study, Environmental Science & Policy, Volume 11, Issue 5, Pages 394-407

BOOKS: ANDERSON, J.L., 2003, International Seafood Trade, Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Ltd. SACHS, J.D., 2008, Common Wealth: Economics for a crowded planet, London: The Penguin Press.

REPORTS: FAO Press Resease 99/11, J. Sachs p.72 FAO, Fisheries Statistics Commodities, Vol. 77


Fishing for the future, Unilever’s sustainable fisheries initiative Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future A/42/427 (1987), p.8 PENA-TORRES, J., 1996, Economic analysis of marine industrial fisheries, Doctoral Thesis, Economics Department, QMW College, University of London.

WEBSITES: http://www.goedevis.nl/ [Accessed on 22-09-2008] www.oceanea.org [Accessed on 22-09-2008] http://www.afrol.com/articles/22397 [Accessed on 22-09-2008] Associated Press. Giant tuna sells for record $173,600, 2001. Retrieved 24 October 2005, from www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/inNews/GiantTuna.html [Accessed on 21-09-2008] Code of Conduct for responsible fisheries and the relevant FAO Guidelines. http://www.fao.org/fi/agreem/codecond/codecon.asp [Accessed on 24-09-2008]


APPENDIX 1: DESCRIPTION OF GROUP PROCESS Beforehand we have made a group contract in which we all specified the roles that we thought

we would have. Now, afterwards, we will shortly evaluate ourselves individually to see if we still

agree on our anticipations.

ABDELLAH ADBAILI At the beginning of this week, I thought that I would primarily play the role of shaper.

Afterwards, I do not think that I fulfilled the role of shaper this week. We have more or less

shaped/challenged ourselves and everybody had their own parts in the reflective circle in which

they did the most work. I cannot say that I have considered the entire reflective circle with every

step, nor did anybody else. At the beginning of the week, I felt that I was very research oriented,

thus making me an evaluator. Halfway week, I felt I was an implementer, really focused on

output and at the end of the week I was the finisher, seeing I was the one that edited all parts

and put them together. Nevertheless I thing the combination of a team worker and implementer

suits me the best.

OMAR BELKADI This first research paper for the master made me realize that good planning of the work is

essential for reaching a desired result. The final result of the assignment was a bit disappointing

for me, because I am sure we as a group could do much better.

The cause for this result I think is that we didn’t start out right. Speaking for myself I was not

critical enough, particularly in the beginning, towards the exact elaboration of the assignment.

For example, I was not really sure what part of the problem of overfishing we had to write about;

this is what I had to find out in the first place before making a research plan. Looking back at the

group contract we made, I specified myself as a coordinator. I think my role as a coordinator did

not work out as I expected. I’m not sure whether this is due to not knowing my exact role or

because our personal attitudes did not match to make a good functioning team. I realize that by

being critical to the group process following assignments can be successful.

ILHAN KOBYA For me the paper was easy to do because I worked as a consultant in the fish industry and

clearly have in-depth knowledge about this industry, because of this knowledge I was from the

beginning the specialist. My emphasis was on the scientific part of overfishing. The structure of

the assignment can be confusing to some. For me it was not clear what was expected from me

because in the slides and course manual there were different things stated. Therefore I found it

difficult to implement my knowledge on the subject in the research.

I hope that next years students have such an assignment whereas it was real interesting and

very informative.


GROUP PROCESS

This report has been put together in a period of seven days. For the three of us it was new

working on a paper in a short period like this. Seven days were filled with meetings, research,

reading and writing, discussing and finally re-writing. Though we were not able to get a

complete overview of the issue or to consult every single article ever written about overfishing

whereas there are just too many articles concerning this subject, we do feel that we have been

able to gather sufficient information to analyze the current state of this issue and to be able to

give out advice.

We all agree that working on issues like this was a very instructive experience. Our goal was to

put enough time and effort into the project to deliver an issue analysis that is a good reflection of

our capabilities. Furthermore before writing the paper we had set up three ambitions, these

were firstly, we wanted to gain knowledge on this well-spoken topic. Secondly, we as a group

would like to improve our academic-writing skills. Finally, we want to obtain a “good grade”

with a minimum score of an 8 on the scale from 1 to 10. By setting high standards for ourselves,

eight or higher, we have been able to not only motivate ourselves to new heights, but also each

other as well.

Although the group process was not optimal in the beginning due to different opinions about

how to precede the assignment and miscommunication, we realize that we have learned how to

manage a project like this in the future. In this view we are glad that the criteria set by the

instructors were high, this way students are forced to deliver high quality work.


APPENDIX 2: GRADING SCHEME

Issue: Overfishing

Students: Abdellah Adbaili 297938

Omar Belkadi 311080

Ilhan Kobya 292462

Your

Category Weight assessment

[1] Issue dossier has all necessary ingredients Minimum Yes

[2] Abides to rules of plagiarism and correct quotation:

specify your sources! Minimum Yes

Well [3] Good identification of the problem (the issue) 15% 8

Written [4] Clear structure 15% 8

[60%] [5] Good links of issue life cycle with 'indicators' 15% 5

[6] Good conclusions 15% 8

[7] Nice lay-out 5% 8

[8] Well-written executive summary 5% 7,5

[9] Specifies well the draw-backs and limitations of the

research plus area for further research 10% 0

[10] Short and adequate description of the group process

(related to the group contract) 10% 0

[11] Nice presentation: 10 minutes maximum, every minute

longer lowers impact 10% 7,5

Proposed grade: 5,88

Documents

Issue Paper Overfishing 2 - ERIM · Omar Belkadi ... Issue Paper Overfishing 8 losses in population is attributable to human impact like over-fishing. The most pessimistic view