Poole (UK) June 7 (360 info) Restricting subsidized deep-sea fishing and supporting local catches benefits fish, fishermen and coastal communities.
For many people, “sustainable” is synonymous with “good,” so it may come as a surprise to discover that “sustainable fishing” can wipe out up to 80 percent of the natural population of a fished species. Even bottom trawling, known for its damage to the seabed, can fall under the definition of sustainable fishing.
Read also | India has a set of interests when it comes to committing to the Taliban regime: the US.
In fisheries science, sustainability usually means leaving between 20 and 30 percent of a fish population intact so that the fish population can grow (and be harvested) at its maximum rate. But recent research shows that restricting deep-sea fishing would do much more to protect marine ecosystems and coastal livelihoods than more “sustainable” fishing practices.
Eliminating 70 to 80 percent of large fish species from the oceans has consequences.
Read also | Boris Johnson’s censure vote: The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom survives the vote of confidence, as 211 of his deputies vote for him.
Most human-eating fish are predators that eat smaller fish and other marine species, such as zooplankton (microscopic animals). Eliminating predators can lead to increases in zooplankton and smaller fish, which in turn means more respiration and more carbon dioxide.
Increased respiration and associated carbon dioxide means that the ocean can absorb less carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store less carbon. (Carbon is removed from the carbon cycle when buried in ocean sediments or dissolved in depth, where it can remain for hundreds of years).
More urgent research is needed to understand the impact of fishing on the ocean carbon cycle. It could play a very important role in climate change.
Marine protected areas are one of the best ways to protect fish populations, fragile marine habitats and the function of marine ecosystems. Once disturbances such as fishing cease, most marine ecosystems can be restored.
But many protected areas do not ban fishing and have very few management measures in place to prevent harmful activities. Banning all fishing in protected areas is unnecessary, but there are strong economic arguments against fishing on the “high seas” and especially in international waters. Many areas far from the land are fished only because government subsidies support the fishing industry there.
Ensuring that fishing practices are kept closer to the coast and that catches are landed in local ports and harbors would support livelihoods in coastal communities. Low-cost or artisanal fishermen use smaller boats and generally have lower environmental impacts. Prohibiting fishing in large areas of the ocean, far from the coasts, would regenerate fish stocks and ocean ecosystems.
This would spread to coastal regions in many ways, improving local catch, providing important food sources for coastal communities, such as those in most developing economies, and improving the regional economies of other countries. For example, in the UK, many of the poorest areas are former fishing towns, which could be revived.
In contrast, in countries such as the United Kingdom, eating fish can help establish healthy marine ecosystems, but people need to change the types of fish they eat. Flatfish and shellfish are important catches for small-scale fishermen in many parts of the UK, so consumers should choose them instead of imported cod or farmed salmon.
Today, most fish caught in UK waters are exported. Exports are much easier to manage in bulk, so larger vessels with larger catches are prioritized over small-scale catches for the export market. Eating locally caught fish supports more environmentally friendly fishing methods, allows protected areas on the high seas to recover from fish stocks, and boosts regional economies. (360info.org)
(This is an unedited story automatically generated from the syndicated news channel. LatestLY staff may not have modified or edited the body of the content.)
