Overfishing is a major problem for the world's oceans, but a strategy adopted nearly 50 years ago has helped protect fisheries: giving nations exclusive rights to waters 200 miles offshore and letting them police their own fish stocks.
A study by UC Berkeley graduate student Gabriel Englander shows that the nations that reap the most value from fisheries within their exclusive economic zones (EEZs) are the most effective at keeping other nations out. These results, published this week in the journal Nature Sustainability, are the first to demonstrate that assigning property rights to countries leads to the protection of fisheries from unauthorized fishing.
EEZs were first established in the 1970s, giving nations authority over fish, oil and mineral resources in a huge chunk, some 39 percent, of the world's oceans. Before that, countries had authority only within three miles of land, leaving the bulk of marine resources free for exploitation.
Using newly available data, Englander found that unauthorized foreign fishing is 81 percent lower just inside EEZs compared to just outside them. Today, more than 95 percent of global marine fish catch occurs inside EEZs.
The results could have implications for preserving fisheries in the remainder of the ocean. The United Nations recently convened the Intergovernmental Conference on Marine Biodiversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) to consider the creation of new marine protected areas on the high seas, which are remote and costly to police.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 21 2019, @01:25AM (1 child)
Two arrivals supporting ownership is right way! Missing maximizing profits is killing the world.
Fai and balanced?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 21 2019, @06:25AM
Fay, and balanced, like a marble up khallow's coacula. The free market is the solution to all our problems, from organ
harvestingdonation, to worker' rights, and underage prostitution with the President! Oh, my, god, it's gonna rain, and rain hard. No more Republicans after this, ever. They are duplicitous assholes, ones who could even ever consider a Cruz candidacy. Are they crazy, or just Conservative? Can anyone tell the difference anymore? Paul Ayn Rand, and Rand Ayn Paul are the Republican party, and they have their heads stuck up their asses so far that most Americans have lost sight of them. Which is a good thing.Libertariantardism has maxxed out. Everyone for themselves, and everyone else against these egotistic bastards. Death to libertarians! Or, at least, re-education, if it is possible. I envision large camps, in former Walmarts, under the cover of Operation Lapis Lazuli Helm. Coming to a Texas small town near you!
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday October 21 2019, @01:33AM
Imagine that: give people control over their own resources, prevent greedy fucking multinationals from exploiting them, and they safeguard their own. It's almost as if capitalism that takes "externalities" into account is more successful, more "fit" in Darwinian terms, than the corporate-raider psychopathology a disturbing amount of this site's userbase worships as its God.
Hmm...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 21 2019, @01:54AM (6 children)
Not all countries have stable and strong government that can enforce its national interest against invasive parties like, say, Chinese fishing fleets. Even China itself, despite being a commie regime, can't stop their fishermen wiping out the seed in their own shores.
See Somalia. If the foreign fishing fleets didn't deplete their rich Arabian Sea/Indian Ocean fishing ground, they could have maintained their basic economic base and manage a stable government.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 21 2019, @02:15AM (5 children)
Not just that, but many species of fish travel across multiple jurisdictions and through international waters. When fish spend most or all of their time within an area that's controlled by one nation, it's relatively simple for them to control it. However, with species like tuna that cross many different jurisdictions, there's a problem in terms of each nation lacks the necessary authority to control the number of fish caught. They can, at best, control the people fishing in their territorial waters, which can result in a tragedy of the commons style overfishing.
Locally, here in WA state, our fisheries are mostly restored to sustainable levels. They aren't what they used to be, but they have mostly recovered to the point where current levels of fishing can be maintained indefinitely. It's a success story, but it was hugely painful for those involved in the industry as fewer permits were issued, boats were bought back and the industry in general had to scale way back to allow the fisheries to recover. In the long term it was the right move, but it wasn't one that the fishermen necessarily would have supported at the time.
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 21 2019, @02:31AM (3 children)
We have nuclear weapons. Why can't we just blow people up for overfishing? We have to power to fix things fast. We should use it!
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday October 21 2019, @02:45AM (1 child)
Nukes are slight overkill. We also have drones, are close to being able to loft solar powered surveillance aircraft for long term deployment, not to mention satellite tracking, etc. See a boat in a no fishing zone, deploy an enforcement vessel and make them regret having ignored the law.
As far as this goes... the US could step up UN funding and let the UN field a couple of carrier groups for environmental protection.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/06/24/7408365/
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 21 2019, @03:32AM
Nukes are slight overkill.
Yeah, I suppose. I was just thinking we'd only have to do it once or twice, and people would catch on. Let 'em know we're fuckin' crazy. You can spend less time and money "patrolling".
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday October 21 2019, @01:54PM
Mr. president, use of nookular weapons will cause a major regional or even global biological and likely economic catastrophe.
If you eat an entire cake without cutting it, you technically only had one piece.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Monday October 21 2019, @02:42AM
Ah, yeah, the pelagics like tuna are pretty well fucked without major changes.
Really, the whole ocean is pretty well fucked without major changes, and the land isn't far behind.
https://www.half-earthproject.org/ [half-earthproject.org]
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/06/24/7408365/
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Monday October 21 2019, @02:32AM (3 children)
Total harvesting ban marine preserves are tremendously more productive than any kind of managed fisheries. Appropriately sized and placed marine preserves increase total productivity of a fishery that they are established in. The trick is: enforcement. On that front, total harvesting ban is much easier to enforce than any kind of complicated rules.
https://www.half-earthproject.org/half-earth-day-2019/ [half-earthproject.org]
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/06/24/7408365/
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday October 21 2019, @03:54AM (2 children)
Yes, the trick is enforcement. That holds true for any limit on catch. The studies I've encountered show that the fish illegally caught are much higher than the official books claim. And if they can't sell them, they just throw them back too injured to survive.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday October 21 2019, @12:45PM (1 child)
If we have these navies capable of taking on opposing navies with hostile weapons, I don't see why we can't demand: A) that fishing vessels do not equip themselves with anything other than onboard defensive weaponry, and B) that fishing vessels obey exclusion zones, enforced by armed warships. Further - global tracking / position reporting devices are also cheap-ish - give the first one free to any fishing vessel capable of holding more than one ton of cargo, demand they keep it operational with fines equal to double the cost of installing it if they are ever caught with it being dysfunctional - intentionally or not.
https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-12.0/centery:25.0/zoom:4 [marinetraffic.com]
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/06/24/7408365/
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @06:34PM
This is the problem with that:
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Ocean#/media/File:Pacific_Ocean.png [wikipedia.org]
That is, there just isn't enough navy to cover all that ocean.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 21 2019, @07:08AM
Various nations have claimed territorial rights to waters at various distances from their shores. The US and UK only recognize territorial waters if and when it is convenient to do so. If we do decide to recognize territorial waters, we only respect an arbitrary limit of 12 miles.
Making a universally accepted territorial limit of 100 (or whatever) miles would have it's consequences. Pirates in east Africa would use it to justify their piracy. Pirates anywhere, actually.
The idea here is probably a good one, but the dozen most powerful nations on earth would all have to sign on, to make it work. Meaning, if a US fishing vessel were found poaching, that nation being poached on could take possession of that US fishing vessel - AND THE US WOULD COOPERATE!! Ditto for the UK, China, Russia, India, etc right on down the line.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 21 2019, @11:59AM
Marriage.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 21 2019, @02:31PM
Step 1. PROFIT!
But seriously, the junior high level economic boosterism on this site is tiresome.