What percentage of all the marine life caught by industrial fishing operations ends up on our plate? Ninety percent? Seventy-five? Fifty? Not even close. Try just 10 percent.
The rest is simply discarded as bycatch — the unwanted fish and other marine creatures caught during commercial fishing operations. And we’re not just talking fish. The “other marine creatures” includes everything from whales and porpoises to turtles and albatrosses.
As this infographic depicts, a total of 600,000 cetaceans and seabirds alone — many of them threatened by extinction — are killed each year. According to the World Wildlife Fund, most bycatch is the result of indiscriminate fishing practices, such as trawling or the use of longlines and gillnets.
Can we just eliminate bycatch altogether? Not so easy, says the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
“If bycatch could be decreased at no cost, it would be neither complex nor contentious. However, the bycatch problem is complex. An action that is taken to reduce the bycatch of one species can increase that of another. Regulations put in place to reduce bycatch may also prevent fishermen from maximizing their catch of other species.”
But solutions do exist to dramatically reduce bycatch numbers.
The Consortium for Wildlife Bycatch Reduction, a group spearheaded by the New England Aquarium with partners Blue Water Fishermen’s Association, Duke University, Maine Lobstermen’s Association and the University of New Hampshire, has developed a comprehensive database featuring bycatch reduction studies and mitigation techniques.
Possible solutions listed include modifications to fishing gear to allow nontargeted species to escape or avoid capture, establishment of reserves in locations where threatened and endangered marine life are known to exist, and improvements in fisheries management to better enforce quotas and permits.
With an estimated 27 million metric tons of marine life discarded annually, any changes to current fishing techniques will have a meanginful impact.
The credibility of this graphic would be improved if the sources of data were included in the image, perhaps as fine print under each image or at the bottom.
What is the source of information in this infographic? I mean, "57% of the world's fish supply is already exploited" means nothing (and would actually be wrong if taken literally) - exploited means fished. Is it overfished, underfished, fully fished?
Trevor BranchMay. 21st, 2014
The numbers quoted here are completely wrong. For example "10% of fish caught end up on a plate". The latest estimate from FAO is that 8% is discarded (Kelleher et al. 2005). So, 92% ends up on a plate.
The "27 million t" is discarded is an old FAO estimate (FAO 1994). The new FAO number is 7.3 million t (Kelleher et al. 2005). In fact, in the new report, FAO specifically begs people to stop citing the 1994 numbers.
The 57% "fully exploited" is also an old FAO number. The new number is 61%, and means "sustainably fished", as opposed to developing (10%) or overfished (29%). Source: FAO (2014).
Thank you for bringing this issue and information to our attention. We're actively working to understand what the numbers actually are, so your data and links are quite helpful as we conduct further research.
One challenge we're seeing is that there are a range of bycatch values in publication. For example, in 2009 WWF published a study (http://assets.panda.org/downloads/bycatch_paper.pdf) saying, "Applying this definition to global marine fisheries data conservatively indicates that bycatch represents 40.4 percent of global marine catches..."
Another challenge appears to be how bycatch and related terms are defined and quantified by different organizations and studies.
We'll post more information soon.
Sincerely,
Todd Reubold
Ensia director and founding editor
Post a Comment
You care about environmental issues. So do we!
Sign up now for our bi-weekly newsletter and you'll get the latest stories from Ensia delivered straight to your inbox.
You're in! Watch your email soon for stories that build awareness and understanding of urgent environmental problems — and promising solutions to those problems.
The "27 million t" is discarded is an old FAO estimate (FAO 1994). The new FAO number is 7.3 million t (Kelleher et al. 2005). In fact, in the new report, FAO specifically begs people to stop citing the 1994 numbers.
The 57% "fully exploited" is also an old FAO number. The new number is 61%, and means "sustainably fished", as opposed to developing (10%) or overfished (29%). Source: FAO (2014).
Please correct these errors in your data.
Sources:
FAO 1994 http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/T4890E/T4890E00.htm
Kelleher et al. 2005
http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/y5936e/y5936e00.HTM
FAO 2014
http://www.fao.org/fishery/sofia/en
Thank you for bringing this issue and information to our attention. We're actively working to understand what the numbers actually are, so your data and links are quite helpful as we conduct further research.
One challenge we're seeing is that there are a range of bycatch values in publication. For example, in 2009 WWF published a study (http://assets.panda.org/downloads/bycatch_paper.pdf) saying, "Applying this definition to global marine fisheries data conservatively indicates that bycatch represents 40.4 percent of global marine catches..."
Another challenge appears to be how bycatch and related terms are defined and quantified by different organizations and studies.
We'll post more information soon.
Sincerely,
Todd Reubold
Ensia director and founding editor