What food requires no fresh water, produces little carbon dioxide, does not use any arable land, and provides healthy, lean protein at a cost accessible to the world’s poor?
This is the same question our very own CEO Andrew Sharpless will be asking audience members at The Economist’s “Feeding the World” conference this week in Amsterdam.
In addition to Oceana, other experts from agribusiness, policy, science, and the NGO community will join the conversation by discussing and debating the future of food security as the world population grows toward 9 billion by 2050.
Andy will contribute to this prestigious global conversation by presenting Oceana’s “Save the Oceans: Feed the World” initiative which details the benefits of wild fish as a food source. He’ll explain the many advantages wild fish has over traditional agriculture, especially in developing countries, as it’s cheap and accessible to anyone with a hook or a net and requires no ownership of land or access to fresh water.
The best part is that we already know how to maximize the ocean’s potential as a food source. It requires the same steps we’re already taking to preserve biodiversity, such as reducing bycatch, protecting habitat and enforcing scientific quotas. We just have to do it in the right places.
If managed effectively in the 25 countries that control 75% of the world’s fish stocks, wild fish will be abundant enough to feed 12 billion people by 2050, which far exceeds the current population projections. Andy will explain that by protecting our dwindling fish stocks and focusing on effective fisheries management in the top fishing nations, fish can become the perfect protein of the future.
Learn more about how saving the oceans can feed the world.
If it’s October 16th then it’s World Food Day! At Oceana we recognize the importance of this day, launched in 1979 by the UN to bring light to the issue of world hunger. With the world population careening towards 9 billion by mid-century and arable land growing both more scarce and more vulnerable thanks to global warming, we believe that well-managed fisheries will be critical to feeding the world.
Right now the world’s fisheries are not nearly as productive as they could be. More than half are over-exploited and technologically advanced fishing fleets are searching far and wide for ever more remote fish stocks that have yet to be exploited. But the idea that we can perpetually decimate stock after stock is not realistic on a finite planet. We need to manage our fisheries so that they give us enough to eat year after year. The good news is there are proven ways to do this.
1) Science-based quotas. Taking so many fish out of the water that populations are unable to maintain themselves one way to ensure collapse. Basing quotas on fish biology, rather than fishing industry interests is the only way to ensure that fish stocks will survive into the future.
3) Reduce bycatch. Bycatch is the incidental catch of species not targeted by fishermen. It may sound like an obscure industry topic, but bycatch makes up over 10% of the world’s catch, or more than 16 billion pounds of wasted seafood every year. Bycatch is also a killer of endangered sea turtles, sharks and marine mammals.
These are steps that have been proven to restore stocks of fish wherever they have been implemented, from Baltic cod, to Spanish anchovies; from Japanese snow crab, to Norway herring, and the list goes on. While it’s counterintuitive, by imposing limits to what we catch today we will actually be able to increase the amount of fish that we catch tomorrow. A new study published in Science showed that sensible management could increase fish yields up to 40% and increase the biomass in the oceans by a whopping 56%! If managed wisely, our fisheries could provide the world with 700 million nutritious meals every day. That will be vital on a planet where almost a billion people already go hungry every day.
This World Food Day learn more about the world’s food security and vow to help fight world hunger. At Oceana it’s one of our highest priorities.
Earlier this year, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration set catch limits under the 2006 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act amendments for all covered species, a major triumph for fisheries management.
The Environmental Forum asked the leading voices in fisheries management, “Is the 2006 law succeeding in restoring fish stocks? Are adjustments needed to ensure robust stocks and sustainable commercial and recreational fisheries in the future?” Here’s an excerpt of the response by Mike Hirshfield. Oceana’s Senior Vice President for North America, and Chief Scientist. He is currently on sabbatical; you can read about his travels at his blog.
The United States is fortunate to have a law designed to keep abundant fish populations in the ocean. All ocean lovers, including commercial and recreational fishermen, should celebrate the passage of the 2006 amendments to that law. If they are carried out fully, we will definitely see increased fish populations in future years. Our fishery management system is one of the best in the world, certainly compared to places like Europe. But before we pat ourselves on the back too much, we need to take a clear-eyed look at what the amendments did — and didn’t — do, as well as the way the National Marine Fisheries Service is implementing the law. Some problem areas are indicated below by italics.
The amendments only addressed part of the problem. Fisheries management comes down to three principles: First, don’t kill more fish than can be replenished. Second, don’t kill too many other animals. And third, don’t wreck the places fish need to live. The 2006 amendments really only dealt with the first.
The amendments came 10 years too late for some species. Conservationists thought the 1996 amendments required an end to overfishing. We were wrong. Unfortunately, for some species, the additional decade meant ten more years of declining populations. For long-lived, slow-growing species like Atlantic halibut, some sharks, and Pacific rockfish, the extra overfishing means their populations won’t rebuild for decades — if ever.
Too many species are “off the books.” Several hundred species of fish caught by fishermen are not included in fishery management plans, so managers don’t consider them subject to the accountability requirements of the 2006 amendments. Managers have even removed species from plans to avoid the obligation. Species subject to international management are exempt from the requirements, even if overfished, like Atlantic bluefin tuna.
Too many species may fail to rebuild. Many rebuilding plans are designed with little better than a 50 percent chance of success — meaning they are nearly as likely to fail. Even an 80 percent chance of success means 20 of 100 such plans will fail. We may not always have all the science we would like, but it needs to be taken seriously, with the tie going to the fish. We need more safety margin, not less.
The bare minimum is the target. “Not overfished” and “preventing overfishing” are weak standards of success, leaving too many populations at risk. Fish stocks will face increased threats from a changing climate. We need to hedge our bets with larger fish populations, not the bare minimum.
You can read the full piece at The Environmental Forum.
Last month our CEO Andy Sharpless attended the Economist's World Oceans Summit in Singapore. He spoke to the BBC about the importance of sustainable fishing to the future of global food security, check out the interview and pass it on:
Editor's note: This is part 2 in a series of dispatches from the Philippines.
One of the biggest challenges facing sustainable fishing in the Philippines is the prevalence of dynamite fishing, where fishers create an improvised bomb out of a rum or Coke bottle and ammonium sulfate. The sound wave created by the explosion stuns the fish, which float to the surface, but it also destroys corals and seagrass meadows that can take years to recover from a single blast.
Dynamite fishing has been a problem in Cortes, a town on the southern half of Lanuza Bay. There’s a lot of pressure to fish here no matter the cost, because the area produces no other local meat or fruit – everything except some coconuts is sold at the market in Tandag, a half-hour drive to the south. As a result, 80 percent of the residents are fishers, and much of the fish they catch is used to feed their families.
This makes Cortes a perfect location for a Rare campaign, and the mayor, Pedro Trinidad Jr., is an enthusiastic participant. Along with Rare conservation fellow Vincent Duenas, the mayor has upped enforcement of the local MPA – one of Cortes’ eight MPAs – with 24/7 volunteer guards. The mayor has even gotten approval to start a landmark program that would require families on welfare assistance to volunteer for shifts in the guardhouse, the first program of its kind in the country.
Vince’s work to educate the town about dynamite and illegal fishing has been so successful that fishermen who were part of the problem have now come around. “Illegal fishermen are now stewards of the sea,” the mayor said as we met over lunch. “Those who were dynamiting the fish are now guarding the MPA.”
Later, we went to visit the guardhouse in Uba, a tiny town of 150 fishing families a short drive from Cortes. Vince’s campaign mascot, a friendly oversize rabbitfish named Rabita, made an appearance – swarmed by children – and we met with a dozen fishers and their wives and daughters in the guardhouse, located on a rocky outcropping just outside town.