Search

Effective fisheries management is necessary for the long‐term sustainability of fisheries and the economic benefits that they provide, but focusing only on ecological sustainability risks disregarding ultimate goals related to well‐being that must be achieved through broader social policy. An analysis of global landings data shows that average fishing wages in 36%–67% of countries, home to 69%–95% of fishers worldwide, are likely below their nationally determined minimum living wage (which accounts for costs of food, shelter, clothing, health and education). Furthermore, even if all fisheries in every country were perfectly managed to achieve their Maximum Sustainable Yield, a common sustainability target, average incomes of fishers in up to 49 countries—70% of fishers worldwide—would still not meet minimum living wages. Access to decent work and livelihoods are fundamental human rights, including for all fisherfolk around the world, and strategies to support their well‐being must therefore integrate a much wider set of perspectives, disciplines and institutions. Key first steps for fisheries researchers are to more fully recognize and estimate fisheries benefits to households—including income from women and/or alternative employment, unreported landings, or shadow values of subsistence catch—and to help identify and learn from economic equity outcomes in rebuilt fisheries around the world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) is a common target for fisheries aiming to achieve long‐term ecological sustainability. Although achieving MSY may ensure the long‐term sustainability of fish populations, we ask whether it will provide economic security for fishers. Here we use 16 years of daily landing records to estimate potential catches and revenues per capita if fisheries were exploited at MSY in 11 subregions across Mexico. We then compare fishers' estimated revenues per capita against national poverty limits at the household level. Our results show that even if MSY is reached in artisanal fisheries, the overcapacity of fleets and the dissipation of rents threatens the economic well‐being of fishers and their families, pushing revenues per capita below poverty levels. Our work demonstrates the importance of resolving the trade‐offs between achieving economic, social and environmental objectives when managing for the long‐term sustainable use of natural resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Harmful fisheries subsidies contribute to overfishing leading to environmental and societal impacts. If only fisheries and ecosystems within the subsidising nations' jurisdiction were affected, then unilateral actions might be sufficient to help safeguard our ocean and the people reliant upon it. However, just as fish move between jurisdictions, so too do the subsidised fishing fleets that target them. As such, the impacts and solutions to subsidies-induced overfishing are often matters of international concern. Mapping the distribution and flows of harmful subsidies is therefore key to understanding these concerns, informing multilateral reform, and empowering impacted nations to strengthen the terms of access to their waters and resources. Here we quantify the amount of harmful fisheries subsidies that supports fishing in the high seas, domestic and foreign waters. We estimate that between 20% and 37% of all harmful fisheries subsidies support fishing in foreign waters or the high seas, that is outside the jurisdictions of the subsidising nations. We show that harmful subsidies primarily originate from nations with high-Human Development Index (HDI), strong fisheries management capacity and relatively sustainable fish stocks, yet disproportionately impact nations with low or very low-HDI, lower management capacity and more vulnerable fish stocks—40% of the harmful subsidies that support fishing in very low-HDI nations waters originate from high-HDI and very-high HDI nations. We show that Asia, Europe, and North America, are net subsidy sources; they provide more harmful subsidies to their fishing fleets than their respective ecosystems are impacted by; while Africa, South, Central America and Caribbean, and Oceania are net subsidy-sinks. This discrepancy between the source of harmful subsidies and the nations that are ultimately impacted is unsustainable and unjust. Prohibiting all harmful subsidies to distant-water fishing and fishing in the high seas—with narrow exceptions for Small Island Developing States—should be prioritised to support the advancement of sustainable and equitable fisheries worldwide. • We quantify the amount of harmful subsidies supporting fishing in the high seas, domestic and foreign waters. • Between 20% and 37% of harmful subsidies support fishing in foreign waters or the high seas. • Harmful subsidies unequally affect low or very low-HDI nations, with low management capacity and vulnerable fish stocks. • Asia, Europe and N. America are net subsidy sources; providing more harmful subsidies than their ecosystems are affected by. • Marine ecosystems within Africa, Oceania, South, Central America, and Caribbean, are net subsidy-sinks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Subsidies can directly support unsustainable fishing practices that harm both ecosystems and long-term social and economic benefits. Global fishery subsidies are substantial, yet their impacts on fishing dynamics are specific to given regions or fisheries at local scales. Subsidies thus have markedly different effects when applied to artisanal versus industrial, or managed versus open-access conditions, as shown for Mexican fisheries. Subsidy reform strategies are critically assessed, drawing on a review of over 30 case studies worldwide to determine patterns in their usefulness and conditions for implementation. Strategies with best relative results are reorienting subsidies away from capacity-enhancement, and/or conditioning them on specific sustainable performance metrics. Decoupling subsidies from fishing (e.g. providing direct aid to fishers) has unpredictable and unclear results, whereas buyback programs tend to have poor outcomes. Eliminating subsidies is perhaps the simplest strategy, but is the most difficult to implement from a social and political perspective. Key factors for any policy to succeed are clear short- and long-term goals; creative design; transparent implementation; and strong socio-political will. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Harmful fisheries subsidies have historically contributed to fleet overcapacity and continue to be allocated to the fishing industry to artificially maintain its profitability. However, in this contribution we show that removing harmful subsidies and reducing overfishing will help to recover the resource biomass, subsequently leading to increased levels of sustainable catches, income and well-being of fishers, and reduces inequities in income and consumption when fish stocks are not effectively managed. Maintaining harmful fisheries subsidies is socially and economically inefficient. Taking the example of the EU fishing fleet, one of the largest fishing fleets in the world, we use the total factor productivity to show that small-scale fishing fleet's productivity is almost two-fold in the North Atlantic and 16% higher in the Mediterranean and Black seas compared to large-scale vessels. This result is explained because the harmful fisheries subsidies disproportionately allocated to large-scale vessels introduce distortions in the efficient allocation of inputs. With critical WTO negotiations ongoing regarding the global rules on fisheries subsidies, the EU must take advantage of the opportunity to lead a desirable transformative change while also supporting developing nations to truly achieve global sustainable and equitable fisheries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

November 2021 could see members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) reach an agreement to prohibit harmful fisheries subsidies, culminating over 20 years of negotiation and discussion. This commentary highlights strengths and places where the current draft text can be improved to ensure the agreement truly contributes to sustainable and equitable fisheries. Overall, conditionalities and exemptions are better streamlined and defined, time periods to enter into compliance are allowed yet reasonably short, types of subsidies to be particularly avoided are clearly noted, and appropriate emphasis is placed on reducing impacts from distant-water and transboundary fishing fleets. Key places for improvement relate to unspecific language on supporting fisher incomes, the uniform handling of illegal, unreported, and unregulated fisheries (IUU), and transparency in distant water fisheries, issues partly stemming from historical definitions that are useful for some fisheries but may not capture the complexity of others. Capacity-enhancing subsidies should be avoided, and it is important to avoid further negative impacts on marginalized fisher populations. Given the importance of reaching an agreement without further delay, we urge members to proactively and inclusively formalize their fishing definitions and practices to prevent inequitable outcomes for vulnerable fishers during the implementation stage of a new agreement. A WTO agreement to prohibit harmful fisheries subsidies is an opportunity to catalyze the design and funding of improved and cooperative national and international fisheries policy and management strategies, to the benefit of fishers, global seafood production, and indeed all who hold relationships with our oceans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]