How to Reduce the Severity of Overfishing

How to Reduce the Severity of Overfishing

By: Justin A. Carlisle

                Not long ago the oceans and seas of the world were considered so vast as to be beyond depletion. However, as the article we read about from the economist mentioned, fishing got easier and we are now depleting global fish stocks. The article champions the idea of giving local fishermen certain rights and privileges to make them feel like owners. The idea is that the fishermen will have an incentive to protect their property and the viability of the waters they fish. In developed countries this could take the form of dividing portions of the quota so long as enforcement is possible. In less developed countries such a strategy is less effective than just letting local fishermen manage things for their selves. This is a very direct approach that attempts to influence the decisions of fishermen by giving them more authority in the hopes that they will spontaneously decide to change their habits. But it will not work.

                This approach doesn’t affect the incentives that the fishermen face. Ultimately it will come down to supply and demand. If demand is high and supply is low then prices will be high and overfishing will occur even if people are given authority because it is in their best interest to sell when prices are high. The opposite is also true so if supply is higher than demand prices will drop and there will be less of an incentive to overfish. Thus any approach that hopes to reduce the overexploitation of a resource must either reduce demand, or increase the supply of either substitutes or of the same good but from other sources. Fortunately we have readily available techniques and technologies at our disposal that can solve the issue of overfishing rather easily.

                Aquaculture is the practice of growing fish in containment facilities. It is a rapidly growing industry that has the potential to replace wild capture fisheries as the primary source of seafood. By increasing the amount of fish produced by aquaculture it is possible to increase supply by providing a substitute (I consider farm raised and wild caught fish to be different so I don’t consider it to be providing the same good from a different source but that is personal opinion). This increase in supply will create lower market prices for seafood which will likely increase demand somewhat (only somewhat because even if fish were free most people probably wouldn't eat them for every meal of everyday). However, this extra demand can easily be met by further increasing the use of aquaculture. The goal is to get the price down enough so that commercial fishing become less profitable. This would make overfishing less profitable and thus lessen the incentive to continue doing it. However, there would no doubt still be a market for wild caught fish as they would likely be considered a luxury item. However, since the price of the wild caught fish would be higher fewer people would want to buy it if they have a readily available substitute (farm raised fish) that are significantly cheaper. This would result in a decrease in the demand for wild caught fish specifically and thus reduce the incentive for people to overfish because they would not be able to sell more than what the market demands (it would spoil resulting in wasted input costs). So Commercial fishermen would see a decline in both the prices received for the fish they catch and in the number of fish that they can successfully sell to distributors. It should also be noted that this would have the added benefit of providing more fish to the people of world (high supply + lower price = greater access for poorer people) which would help promote food security and reduce world hunger.

                This solution doesn’t require much action at all. The trend is already occurring and should be encouraged rather than slowed (assuming it can be slowed). This approach doesn’t withhold rights from fishermen or tell them how to go about their business which avoids nasty conflicts over who should be in charge of the decision making process. It goes beyond the fishermen and attacks the incentives they face directly which will then influence their decisions without the need for regulation. The downside is that the commercial fishing industry will be hit hard and many commercial fishermen will lose their livelihoods. However, this type of structural unemployment is unavoidable. As technologies improve certain jobs will be displaced and people must adjust and find new occupations. Additionally, there is a possibility that the oceans will be devalued by this approach. Effectively this approach would make it so that oceans were no longer important for providing food for humanity. It would still be important for other things like hydrologic cycles, being a carbon sink, providing most of the world’s oxygen, tourism, shipping, recreational activities and etc. But it will have lost its value as a provider of sustenance.