Net loss.

All over the world too many people have chased too few fish -- the result is perhaps the classic example of unsustainable development

The way the old-timers tell it, the fish were so thick in the sea you could almost step over the side of the boat and walk to shore on their backs. There was so much marine life you didn't need bait; just lower a basket over the side and haul it in -- full.

The bounty of the ocean seemed inexhaustible. It wasn't. In just a few years, the stocks of the most popular species have plummeted; the list is long and growing longer: Redfish, hake, haddock, Antarctic cod, lobster, shrimp, northern cod, sardine/pilchard, salmon, pollock, orange roughy, anchovy, flatfish, mackerel, tuna, etc. The United Nations says that 70% of the world's fisheries are now operating at an unsustainable level; 13 out of 17 major ocean fisheries are in trouble; nine of these fisheries were described as "devastated." According to the Worldwatch Institute, all fishing grounds in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, as well as the Mediterranean and Black Seas, are in decline after peaking between 1973 and 1991. Only the Indian Ocean fisheries are still increasing total catches, but they could be on the brink of serious declines.

The real problems started in the 1970s. What looked like progress at the time, has turned out to be our undoing. Until about 25 years ago, fishing was very much a matter of hunting down your prey and then trying to catch it. The skill of a seasoned skipper could shorten the odds a little, but the fish still had the edge. As long as we groped about in the murky depths in this way, enough fish escaped the nets to breed and help their species thrive.

Then, technology came on the scene. Electronics helped captains locate schools wherever they might be hiding. Now, when the nets went over the side they went right into the middle of the prized catch. And, what nets they were; some big enough to swallow a dozen jumbo jets in a single gulp. Boats got bigger and more numerous. Factory ships meant fleets could fish farther away for longer times. Fishing went from a cottage industry to a large-scale business operation in a handful of years.

Look at Peru as an example. In 1950, 100 boats caught 87,000 tonnes of anchovy off Peru's coastline. Three years later, someone had the bright idea of turning anchovies into fish meal -- a commercial feed. That set off a boom. By 1970, 1,700 boats caught 11 million tonnes of anchovies. The fishery collapsed, and throughout the 1980s fishers averaged catches of just 1.2 million tonnes a year.

Closer to home, is the example of British Columbian trawlers. In March 1995, they set sail to catch roe herring. Their boats were so efficient they caught their entire year's quota -- 847 tonnes -- in just eight minutes.

With such sophisticated equipment we have very quickly vacuumed the ocean clean. Although fishers still only net a relatively small percentage of the 15,000 species known to exist, most of the ones that get away are either too expensive to catch, taste dreadful, or both.

Between 1950 and 1989, the annual world catch climbed from 22 million tonnes to 89 million tonnes. As a result, there has been a doubling of seafood consumption per person worldwide. But, as the size of the catch got larger, the fish themselves were getting smaller.

Since 1989, the catch has declined--to 84.2 million tonnes in 1993. In the past decade, most of the rich world's fisheries have been exploited to the point of near exhaustion. Increasingly, boats from the rich nations now head for Third World waters. Stocks in these distant regions are not fished out yet, but it's likely they will be soon. This will be especially bad news for those living in developing countries.

Seafood is the world's principal source of animal protein; providing one-sixth of total consumption. But, the poorest two-thirds of the world's people get 40% of their protein from fish. Those of us in the rich North might grumble about not having a salmon steak for supper, but most of us can switch to a beef steak instead. For people in the Third World substituting meat for fish is not usually an option; it's either not available or it's too expensive.

The Worldwatch Institute studied the problems and issued a report in 1994: "This is a global problem that has already caused armed confrontations between fishing nations, gunfire between fishers, and hunger in the developing world. If current mismanagement continues, we can expect a future in which millions of fishers are out of work, a future in which traditional fishing cultures from Nova Scotia to Malaysia disappear."

There has to be a villain in all of this. Is it the fisherpeople?

Those who catch fish are rational humans. For hundreds of years, these rational beings lived in communities, such as Newfoundland, and lived off the harvest of the sea. A community, held together by ties of obligation and mutual self-interest, can manage a common resource, such as a fishery, on its own. Everybody understands that if the resource is destroyed so is the community. So, for centuries people took what they needed and left the rest for the next person -- they managed the resource sustainably. So, if it isn't the fisherpeople, who can we blame?

The Economist thinks it knows who the bad guy is -- government. In a 1994 editorial, the magazine pointed out that only 10% of the world's catch swims in international waters. The rest are caught within 200 miles of the shore, in water over which some government claims sovereignty. And, many of those governments have paid out vast amounts of money to encourage the plunder at sea.

The Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that the world fishery lost $65 million in 1990. Government subsidies (help with paying for a boat and equipment, fuel-price breaks) made up the difference, thereby helping to keep the fleets at sea chasing shrinking stocks.

"Japan, Norway, and the former Soviet Union, among others," wrote The Economist, "have poured money into the fishing industry. The European Union increased fishing support from $80 million in 1983 to $580 million in 1990. One-fifth of that went to build new boats or to improve old ones ... Instead of protecting scarce resources, governments subsidize their destruction. The most elementary requirement for sustainable fishing is for governments to stop paying fisher[people] to deplete stocks. It makes sense to pay them to give up fishing." After years of blindly exploiting a declining resource, this is the difficult choice that was forced on Canada.

Between 1990 and 1994, the northern cod stocks off our East Coast dropped by 95%. The government's response has been to shut down the fishery entirely, destroying the livelihood of 45,000 Atlantic Canadians in the process. Ottawa has tried to soften the shock with multi-million dollar income-support programs. Ottawa failed to protect the resource over which it had control, it has also failed in the bigger picture.

Governments everywhere must take the blame for the failure of international agreements. In 1976, areas known as "exclusive economic zones" were extended from 12 to 200 nautical miles (370 kilometres) offshore. Because most commercially attractive fish live near the shore, the 1976 agreement brought most of the major fisheries under the control of the nearest country.

The idea was that marine biologists and other experts would manage the fishery prudently. They would monitor the size and health of the stocks. Based on what they found they would set limits to catches. license boats, and restrict fishing times. They would also make sure that the mesh in a net was big enough that the little guys could slip through so they could spawn and replenish the stocks.

It was precisely during this period of intensive fishery management that the stocks collapsed. The reasons? Politicians are not keen to do anything, such as conserving stocks, that might limit the income of voting fisherpeople. In case after case, managers have not followed the advice of scientists. And, when foreign vessels have been booted out of fishing grounds, domestic fleets have expanded to take their place.

If fishery management failed in the rich countries which have the knowledge and resources to make it work, the challenge for the Third World is overwhelming. And, developing nations own nine-tenths of the coastal waters that now lie within 200-mile fishery exclusion zones. Fishery management in these areas will be next to impossible; without a navy or coast guard to enforce rules it will be open season. A hundred million of the world's poorest people depend on fisheries. There will be no government handouts for them if their livelihoods disappear into the holds of foreign trawlers.

Downsizing on a global scale will have to take place. The declining catches have already cost about 100,000 jobs worlwide. But that's nothing compared to what's coming. Harvesting the maximum sustainable yield from the sea might take only one-fifth of today's fleet of boats, says The Economist. The Worldwatch Institute estimates there are 15 million to 21 million fishers currently at work. So, if we stick with our current large-boat strategy for fishing, there could be as many as 17 million people joining the unemployment lines.

Governments could ban the use of large fishing vessels and go back to traditional methods of landing catches. Inshore fishing from small boats was not what caused the groundfish stocks off Canada's East coast to collapse. It's very hard work, it's dangerous, and it never made anybody rich, but there aren't too many people on the coast of Newfoundland who would argue that it's better to sit on your backside and cash the unemployment cheques. Local fisheries employ 20 times as many people as do the industrial fisheries that replace them. Smallscale, community-based fishing proved sustainable over the long haul. In sharp contrast to what industrialized fishing has done to stocks.

Here's what Kiko Sobrino, a doctor in northern Spain said about that in an interview with The Observer: "Our fishermen don't give a damn about conserving stocks. It's an open secret that they use illegal nets, sweeping up the last stone from the bottom of the sea. It's so shortsighted. Bread today, misery tomorrow."

SUGGESTED ACTIVITIES:

1. Fishers are not without blame. Once overfishing starts, there is a powerful incentive to keep it going. A fisherperson who tries to conserve the stock by leaving fish in the sea has no reason to believe that he or she will gain by the prudent investment. The fish that have been spared, or their offspring, will probably be caught by someone else. By catching more fish now, the fisher will be the richer for it. How can this cycle be broken? Discuss.

2. The UN's Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that the global fishing industry was subsidized to the tune of $70 billion in 1992 and still managed to lose a colossal $65 billion. Mike Sutton of the World Wide Fund for Nature says: "The fishing industry is run on the economics of the madhouse." Can you think of any other industry that operates this way?

3. Appoint a team of students to investigate the health of the West coast salmon fishery and present a report to the class.

The worldwide catch of freshwater fish in 1993 was 17 million tones.

For every human killed by a shark, 4.5 million sharks are killed by humans.

The price of scarce bluefin-tuna steaks in Tokyo restaurants has risen to $85 per 100 grams.