DRAFT TEXT FOR A CHAPTER ON
MARINE FISHERIES*
M. Ben-Yami**
"The ocean is an ecosystem--you can't
squeeze
one
piece
without
impacting
another," - says Kurt Martin, a fisherman
from Orleans, Mass. "Cod eat herring, seals
eat cod, dogfish eat everything. Managers
need to start taking a serious look at the how
predators and prey interact with each other.
If they don't do this, they'll never be able to
manage things right."
-------------------------------------------------------------------During most of the 20th century, marine
fisheries and fish farming were developing in
parallel as separate industries with little
market interaction. Each had traditional
consumers. Some preferred farmed carp or
tilapia, while others preferred wild marine fish,
like cod and salmon. Lovers of frutta di mare
have had the choice of fished crustaceans,
cephalopods, and mollusks gathered and
dredged on their beds in the wild, and of
fished or farmed shrimp and mollusks. But
during recent decades, things have been
changing on the fish market. Now many
consumers buy fresh or smoked salmon, seabream, or frozen shrimp, without knowing, and
some without caring, whether they were
caught in open sea by fishermen, or grown in
ponds or floating cages. The same goes for
additional 15, or so, species of marine finfish,
farming of which is starting off or already
expanding, each according to the progress
made by researchers and fish farmers.
Capture fisheries and fish farming are interrelated and to a great extent overlapping in
their ecology, economics and social impacts.
This chapter, therefore, is discussing both in
the context of the new approach of
progressive development, which recognizes
the fact that our whole civilization has been
based on modified ecosystems both on land
and in water, and that further modifications are
required in view of the badly mishandled
needs of the expanding human population and
the sustained destitution of many.
The dilemma of growing demand.
Worldwide,
both
governments
and
international and regional organizations define
their marine policies as aimed at achieving
sustainability in aquatic ecosystems and,
particularly with respect to aquatic life and
fisheries resources. At the same time, it is
widely recognized that the present production
of fishery products from the wild and from the
existing aquaculture would not be able to
match the increasing food needs of the
expanding human population.
The commonly proposed solution is both to
improve the management of exploited fish
stocks, which is widely implemented, although
with rather debatable results, and to further
the development of commercial fish farming –
a process, which is already going on at
accelerating pace. There is a continuum
between open-access fishing and intensive
aquaculture, along which fishing rights and
property rights develop from vague to almost
absolute (Anderson, 2002). However, such
developments represent a focus of an earnest
dispute on a global scale. This, because they
affect inter-related processes within the
domain of marine ecology, of economics and
of the involved social systems of coastal
communities and other people involved in
fishing, fish farming and fish processing and
trade,
In 2004, the total world fisheries yield reached
almost 142 million mt, of which some 106
million mt represented food fish, produced
almost equally by capture fisheries (58%) and
aquaculture (42%) (FAO, 2006). Aquatic foods
have high nutritional quality, contributing 20
percent or more of average per capita animal
protein intake for more than 2.8 billion people,
mostly in developing countries. Fish is also the
world’s most widely traded foodstuff and a key
source of export earnings for many poorer
countries with particular significance for small
island
states.
Defining sustainability. As far as the
management of wild fisheries resources is
concerned, both critics and advocates of the
presently
dominant
policies
of
the
management establishment are claiming that
they’re after sustainable extraction of fish and
other marine organisms from ecosystem. They
all accept the U.N.’s definition of sustainable
development that meets the needs of the
present without compromising the needs of
future generations... to be achieved through
…balance between environmental integrity,
social
development
and
economic
development…”.
According
to
FAO,
sustainability entails the notion of progressive
development, which has no negative effect on
the environment and on the future of the
resource concerned (Caddy and Griffiths.
1995).
This definition, however, has become a
subject of different and often contradictory
interpretations (Ben-Yami, 2006). Sustainable
development means at least three different,
often incompatible things to the economists,
sociologists and environmentalists (Sharp and
Hall, 2004). At the two poles of the
controversy there’s the extreme “nature-first”
conservation approach on one hand, and a
“development and business first”, on the other.
The former is about maintaining of or returning
to marine ecosystems as close as possible
their “virgin” or pre-industrial state (Ben-Yami,
1996). The latter is about extraction of fishery
resource in the most profitable way, now,
(Goodland and Daly, 1996).
The saga of the Nile perch in Lake Victoria
(Ben-Yami, 1996) may serve as an illustration.
The almost accidental introduction of Nile
perch to an Ugandan lake, and its spiraling
expansion in Lake Victoria in the1990s
created a loud brouhaha on the part of some
scientists,
in
particular
taxonomists
specializing on dwarf Haplochromine cichlids
of which over 200 species had created
hundreds of thousands of tonnes of huge
stunted populations undisturbed by predators
that filled every single eco-niche in the lake,
atrophied the lake's food chain, and stopped
the protein flow at a 5-6 cm fish length level.
The Nile perch expanded initially by feeding
on the dwarf cichlids. The result was that
instead of the bonny dwarfs, the the fishermen
were able to fill their nets with large Nile
perch, which has become an important source
of income to the coastal populations, and a
source of foreign currency as an important
export item of Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania.
Local fishermen nicknamed Nile perch “the
saviour”. All this, however, did not match the
sustainability and biodiversity paradigms, and
the anti-Nile perch protests, turned laments,
have continued till the present.
Undoubtedly, the intruding Nile perch had
modified the L.Victoria’s ecosystem. It
reduced the stunted stocks of the dwarf
cichlids
and,
thus,
enabled
several
commercial fishes that formerly had their eggs
and larvae depressed by the masses of
dwarfs, to develop exploitable populations,
thus changing the whole flow of protein from
primary production up to a level where they
became valuable to humans. In spite of the
obvious benefit to the local populations and to
their countries, only a few scientists stood up
to the carriers of the above paradigms (ibid.).
Gary Sharp, a widely respected veteran
marine systems ecologist wrote on the
Fishfolk
Internet
List:
“The
word'
Sustainability" is a nonsense term, too vaguely
defined
to
actually
be
meaningful
in communicating the issues, the solutions,
and coping with natural variabilities - that
actually dominate all issues - including how
over 6 Billion people are walking the earth
today”...
Sustainable development has been advertised
as a methodology that allows “holding the
cake of undiminished resources (including
fish) and enjoying the eating of it too”. But the
prevailing "sustainable development" policies
rarely examine their objectives in terms of
external costs as, for example, the non-
renewable fossil fuels that would be required
to
carry
out
their
sustainable
recommendations (Sharp and Hall, 2004).
Progresive development. This chapter is
introducing another, progressive concept of
fisheries development and management
policies. It entails profound changes to the
prevailing approach to management of aquatic
resources both in the developed and underdeveloped areas. It questions those
interpretations of the “sustainability principle”
in the aquatic realm that focus on preserving
lakes, seas and oceans in their “natural” state,
and on reverting of some regions to their premodification status, while neglecting basic
needs of many societies and uncounted
communities (Ben-Yami, 2005 & 2006).
This concept is about development of aquatic
ecosystems
(freshwater,
brackish
and
seawater) that is putting human beings and
their societies and communities first, and
about doing it with minimum damage to
environment, minimum pollution and with
great attention to maintaining maximum
feasible bio-diversity (Ben-Yami, 2000). On
the other hand, progressive development is
taking into account the present and future
achievements of technology and science, and
the maturing of political will that will produce
solutions to problems of the present,
especially those of coastal and marine
pollution,
overfishing,
preservation
of
important inshore habitats and offshore nature
reserves, and marine farming, which is not
detrimental to environment.
MANAGEMENT OF FISHERIES
Fisheries management means managing the
process in which fishing people exploit in a
rational manner fish-resources within fishery
ecosystems. In every fishery those three are
bound together, influenced by such external
factors, as people’s cultures, markets,
technology, and logistics on one hand, and
fishery-independent natural, biotic and nonbiotic trends and fluctuations on the other
(Ben-Yami 2006-b; Kawasaki, 1983; Kawasaki
et al., 1991; Sharp et al. 2004).
The management’s challenge is to find a
balance between the economics of the
fishing activities and the protection of the
environment and its resources. Social
scientists,
fishery
anthropologists,
sociologists, and socio-economists, have been
trying for years to give more weight to the
human aspect in fishery management
systems. What they are saying is that fishery
management should be first and foremost
about people whose way of life is fishing and
the related environment. Fish stocks and
macro-economics
come
next.
Another
problem is allocation of fishery resources
among the various fishery sectors; with
attention paid that fisheries management’s
policies and regulation protect the rights of
small-scale and artisanal fishermen to fish
undisturbed by industrial fleets in inshore and
coastal waters (Ben-Yami, 1993). The
problem is that the attention these problems
are getting from biologists, managers,
economists, and politicians is far from what it
should be (Ben-Yami, 1995).
In short, for all practical purposes, fisheries
management must seek the golden means to
exploiting
fisheries
resources,
without
depleting them. Rational management and
development of the global oceans and
adjacent inland and coastal areas (more than
60% of the world’s population lives within 60
kilometers of the coast) must comprise pursuit
of science and technology that support the
sustainability of human societies, as well as
aquatic biological resources, and calls for a
cross-disciplinary
methodology,
(MannBorgese, 1998).
The science behind the management. The
prevailing fishery management system is
based on stock assessment supposed to be
provided by “the best available science”.
Unfortunately, this science is mostly
inadequate, and in some cases utterly
fallacious. It’s using simplified assumptions,
sticks to statistics, avoids ecology, and ends
up with often dubious appraisals of whether
and how much fish stocks are overfished
(Ben-Yami, 2006-b).
No doubt, wherever occurs impoverishment of
commercial fish populations - a term, which
should be preferred to describe combined
causality, which happens in almost every
instance the term overfishing is brought up fishing would probably be one of the
causes. But any a priori blaming of every
negative change in fish populations solely on
fishing is certainly wrong and demonstrates
either ignorance or intentional fallacy, and not
once has led fishery management to a
debacle. In ecology there's almost never one
single factor that's responsible for an
ongoing process or for a given situation. No
moratoria on fishing will restore fish population
that unfavourable hydrographic changes or
massive pollution of its habitat chased it away
from its usual environs, or forced it into
producing poor year classes (Ben-Yami, 2006b; Sharp et al., 2004).
According to Beverton (1994), only close
liaison between biological and physical
research can tackle the effect of long-term
climate change on fish stocks in an integrated
manner.
Multi-species
and
ecosystem
research is vital for elucidating these longterm effects, the source of which lies in
profound changes in the early life history of
species and in basic productivity. The total
amount of fish eaten by other fish, marine
mammals, and birds is as great as or greater
than it is by man. Fishing is only one factor
and regulation by catch limits is fundamentally
flawed, except in the simplest of single
species fisheries, and the TAC system is both
wasteful and ineffective (ibid). Presently, some
15 years later, increasing number of fishery
scientists and fishermen are coming to
agreement with Beverton's statement.
The problem of stocks assessment. The
prevailing management system is based
mainly on catch targets imposed upon a
fishery in the form of a total allowable catch
(TAC ), which requires assessment of the
managed stock size and composition. This is
presently achieved by employing various
population models predominantly based on a
“root” formula: resulting biomass = old
biomass less fishing mortality less natural
mortality plus recruitment (Hoggarth et al,
2005), which over-simplifies the ecological
and biological reality of fish populations.
According to M. Heino (2003), “Models that
consider fish stocks in isolation from their
ecosystem have clearly had their day, and
fisheries science is moving on”. Obviously,
these models never have been any good and
the consequences have been felt in most
areas of the N. Atlantic and adjacent seas.
There is a growing recognition that the
mainstream fishery management has been
based on flawed assumptions. This makes all
the “sustainable yield” notions, whether
maximum (MSY), or optimum (OSY), etc.,
which serve as bases for the TAC fixing,
appear as a sort of make-believe values,
calculated for single species in a tunnel-vision
manner on the basis of last-year and only
seldom on some current data. The resulting
values are employed for fixing future TACs,
when they'd already be hardly relevant and
often counter-productive (Ben-Yami, 2005).
Also, to be able to follow environment-induced
trends, it is not enough if a model is designed
to follow a past trend; it must be able to "catch
up" with trends changes in real time, and be
continually fed with a real time data. For any
reasonably reliable predictions it must be fine
tuned to well-studied long term time-series of
environmental cycles (Ben-Yami, 2006-b;
Kawasaki et al., 1991; Klyashtorin and
Lyubushin, 2007), which, for the time being is
a rather tall order.
According to Hester (2008), the early
management concept of single stock (species)
management depended on a simple model –
the Baranov catch equation – and that is still
the case. All that is needed is catch and effort
data and some understanding of how the
fishery operated to plug into the equation and
do the arithmetic. The key was the adequacy
of the data and the validity of the assumptions
about how the stock responded to exploitation.
That included the biology of the species
concerned and the operation of the fishery.
While some recognize and pay lip service to
the importance of ecological interactions with
other occupants of the biosphere, and
inadequate data, the former methodology is
still used. It is concealing the data flaws in
complex statements of probabilities, which in
the final analysis ignore the probabilities an
still base management decisions on a point
estimates with obscenely wide confidence
intervals, so that these variance estimates do
not reflect the true levels of uncertainty. The
result is that as long as assessments use
models as a substitute for data, the results will
be whatever the political regime wants (Ibid.,
2008).
Copes
(1998)
suggested
abandoning
mathematically impeccable naïve models in
favour of a realistic, multi-disciplinary
approximation of a working fishery, on the
understanding that empirical verity should take
precedence over theoretical precision. For
policy implementation in a real-life fishery, is it
not better to be approximately right than
precisely wrong? – wrote Prof. Copes.
Nonetheless, mathematical models and their
software offshoots have been promoted and
applied in fishery science under a fallacious
pretense that they have reliable operational
value. Their devotees are trying to
mathematize
the
“unmathematizable”,
computerize the incomputable, and program
the “unprogrammable”. They miss the
knowledge of the interrelations and weight of
the various factors, such as fishermen and
species
inter-relations
in
multi-species
fisheries, planktonic and benthic food and
forage fish availability, prey-predator relations,
and the various effects of physical fluctuations
in the environment; they overlook or ignore
many of them, lack reliable and sufficient data
to feed the models, and disregard or “smooth”
unwieldy parameters for the sake of making
their findings mathematically accurate and
statistically significant
Sharp, 1995 &1997).
(Ben-Yami,
2003;
Requested for precision by their superiors in
the management establishment, stockassessment
scientists
keep
providing
ridiculously precise figures for the stock
biomass in the sea and, hence, for the catch
quotas they are paid to advise on. No
accuracy can be achieved by dividing estimate
by approximate, adding a guesstimate and
multiplying it all by an assumption.
Social anthropologists William Ward and
Priscilla Weeks (1994) who had made fishery
scientists in Texas the object of a study, found
that their education has not included either
social studies or management courses that
might have prepared them to look at and deal
with people. Moreover, much of their approach
is made up not only of scientific analyses of
empirically established facts but also of
concepts and presumptions inherited from the
system of which they had become a part. This
nudges them to profess more and more of the
same, and secures them against other
concepts and new ideas. Thus, they tend to
extrapolate rather from basic scientific models
and theories than from actual research and
findings, and local knowledge obtainable from
fishing people. Chris Finlayson (1994) in his
analysis of the NE Atlantic cod stock debacle
wrote that scientific opinions are made by
scientists, who may interpret the same data
differently
and,
thus,
draw
different
conclusions, all the more that they are acting
within their respective social and political
milieus.
Many of the scientists, responsible for
advising political managers on fishery
management see themselves stewards of the
resource, but their contact with "the industry",
(that is the fishing people), is quite limited,
their knowledge about it coming from the old
hands in the fishery-science system (Ward
and Weeks, 1994). Their approach to the
management of fisheries is often limited to the
often misused and ill-applied concept of
“tragedy of the commons” reviewed by Feeny
et al, 1990), which with respect to fisheries,
Prof. Russ J. McGoodwin called in his book
“Crisis in the World Fisheries: People,
Problems, and Policies": ”the tragicomedy of
commons” (McGoodwin, 1990).
At best, the dominant fishery science
produces very approximate results. At worst, it
employs inadequate models and feeds them
with inadequate, often erroneous data and
their results’ likeness to reality is all but
incidental. Ironically, most of the stock
assessment scientists are honest-to-God
individuals, led astray by fictitious beliefs in
the almighty powers of statistical and
mathematical
models.
They’ve
been
conditioned, not to say brainwashed, to prefer
their magic over human and nature’s realities,
and to shun empirical at-sea research. Hence,
their irrational pretension that computer
models can forecast and provide solutions for
situations where nature’s intricacies and
related fish responses, and fishermen’s free
will and choice play a major role in processes,
events and developments.
Environmentalist advocacy and fisheries
management.
Environmentalists
and
fishermen rarely agree on anything. It’s a pity,
because conventional logic would say that,
fundamentally, environmentalists and fishing
people should stand shoulder-to-shoulder in a
common cause for maintaining resources
sustainability, while blending that with their
sensible usage. This, especially, with respect
to the damage to the environment due to
pollution and coastal habitat destruction.
Unfortunately, only too often over-eager
environmentalist see fishing people as
enemies of the environment, and a
controversy between the two, at times on low
fire, at times raging, is going on in many
countries, and even globally.
For example, to some environmentalists
sustainability means reducing commercial
fishing to no more than a very small inshore
one-man vessel industry with the interests of
seaweed/fauna growing on the seabed being
preferable to the development of an industry
that over the generations has been producing
top quality nutritional food. But, they say it’s
needed, for it is only by reducing the capacity
of fishing fleets that a solution to the problem
of over-exploitation of the marine environment
can be found. “The fishing industry cannot
exist if there are no fish left” – is the argument.
They believe that reduction of excess fishing
capacity, creation of "no-take zones" covering
about 20 or more percent of marine habitats,
and political enforcement of sustainable
fishing levels would solve the problem of
stocks impoverishment (Pauly et al, 1998). But
what they fail to see or often ignore are the
dozens of toxic chemicals and excess
nutrients that abound in upstream water and
air pollution and their joint effect on coastal
marine areas, and that the most deadly
pollution that affects coastal habitats including
fish nursery and feeding grounds, comes from
industrial sources and, in particular, from the
petro-chemical and electro-chemical sectors
(Patin, 1992).
Other
factors
ignored
by
the
environmentalists’ advocacy are the crucial
influence of climatic and oceanic processes
and fluctuations on fish populations, well
documented in the history (Cushing, 1982;
Klyashtorin and Lyubushin, 2007). Species
with narrow temperature preference limits, are
affected by thermal anomalies that delay or
hasten spawning and hatching, and displace
spawning and feeding grounds. Survival of
larvae and juveniles depends, apart from
hydrographic conditions, also on availability of
the right food, at the right place and time, as
well as on the rate of predation (Sharp et al.,
2004). Changes in river flows raise or reduce
salinity in estuaries, deplete and displace fish
and aquatic plant species. Climate variability
is the key controlling factor in fishing yields for
about half of the world's large marine
ecosystems, including the East and West
Greenland shelves, the Benguela Current off
Southwest Africa, the Canary Current off
Northwest Africa and the Humboldt Current off
the west coast of South America (ibid.).
Over the past decades, modes of oceanic
variability such as the Pacific Decadal
Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation
have been related to shifts in marine
ecosystem structure, species composition,
distribution and biogeochemical processes.
Thus, since patterns of species abundances
shift with the ocean climate, when climatic,
biological and oceanographic conditions are
just right, fish can respond with an extremely
strong year class, or a series of them, and the
other way around (Beamish, 1993 &1995;
Cushing, 1982; Csirke and Sharp, 1983;
Kawasaki, 1983; Sharp and Csirke (1983)).
Economics.
Environmental
lobbying
encourages fisheries managers to think that if
they got hold of controlling the fishing, all their
problems
would
be
solved.
Ignoring
anthropogenic (Ben-Yami, 1998) and natural
environmental factors, which critically affect
natural mortality is ridiculous. But to many of
them all these ecological problems are only a
noise, which creates confusion in their favored
system. In that they’re joined by some
economists, who analyze fisheries in purely
economic-financial terms, with hardly paying
even lip service to non-fishing factors that
affect the whole system, fishery resources
included (Hannesson, 1996). A neo-liberal
economic approach inserted the agenda of
privatization of fishery resources as a
medicine to overfishing. This agenda is often
disguised as rights-based management.
Politically it depends on who holds or is
offered the rights, and economically - are
those rights marketable, a solution promoted
by neo-liberal economists.
Accordingly, the quota system has been
introduced
to
fisheries
management,
particularly the individual transferable quotas
(ITQ), which had great theoretical appeal to
those economists. They embraced ITQsystem quickly and uncritically, and appeared
to regard it as a cure-all for fisheries
management problems. While the overall
benefits of the ITQ-system are highly
disputable, what is not is that it causes an
ongoing concentration of quota in the hands of
a smaller number of larger operators and a
resulting displacement of fishermen owneroperators. Thus, the introduction of the ITQs
has become also a political tool for
redistribution of benefits from marine fishery
resources away from the small to the hands of
large firms and corporate interests (Ben-Yami,
1998-b,
2003-b;
Copes,
1995).
Notwithstanding,
the
whole
idea
of
rationalization of fisheries through privatization
is based on misperception and, hence, it fails
to achieve the desired results of sustainability,
all the more that for most fisheries any
promise of true privatization is a hoax (Copes,
1998).
Evidence accumulated over many years
shows that there’s more than a single viable
resource management option. Private, state,
and communal property and fishing rights are
all potential options and there’s no panacea
for fisheries management. Fishery laws and
regulations should be separately tailored for
every fishery and environment, and for the
different socio-economic conditions. The
tunnel vision of some economists, which
disregards external costs and benefits,
represents achievement of the highest profits
and free marketing of fishing rights and quotas
as also the highest social and national
benefits. Often, consequences of such
approqch becoming actual policy have been
social and economic devastation of fishing
communities and dislocation of fishing people.
ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT
In the recent years, the fishery science started
internalizing the notion that management by
single species and only by controlling fishing
is illogical and contrary to ecological realities.
A new approach entered the domain of
fisheries management under the name of
“Ecosystem-based management”. So what the
new approach should be about?
Let’s
consider the main elements of an ecosystem
affected by commercial fishery (fishery
ecosystem) and their changes in space, time
and character. The first element is the time
factor. Any aquatic ecosystem is a dynamic,
pulsating, and ever-changing macro-organism.
Thus, trends and fluctuations that have been
occurring in the ecosystem throughout history
must be taken into account (Sharp et al.,
2004). The second element embraces all the
changes and physical, biological and chemical
forces, including upstream and coastal
pollution, imposed upon the ecosystem by
climatic variations and the various human
activities. Whatever happens with inshore
and bottom habitats, and the water, affects the
ecosystem’s biota (i.e., all living things). The
third element is made up of the relationships
between the various species occupying the
ecosystem at all stages of their life. This runs
from bacteria and phyto-plankton up to top
predators, with special attention to the
managed “target species”, physical factors
affecting them, their food, prey and predators.
Last, but not least is fishing, which apart from
massive removal of marine organisms from
the system, also may influence the size, age
and genetic composition of the fished
populations (Laevastu et al., 1996). The
fishing itself is influenced by the market and
the socio-economic context of fishing people
and their communities, and of fish consumers,
as well as by the industries and technologies
involved (Sharp et al., 2004). No doubt,
controlling fish harvests is not enough to
ensure sustainable fishery and healthy
ecosystems.
“The vastness of linkages between species
and critical habitats in a coastal area requires
comprehensive management of all its parts”,
(Caddy and Sharp, 1986). An appropriate
approach should incorporate institutional
arrangements and cultural factors to provide
for better analysis and prediction, (Feeny et
al., 1990).
The list of the factors other than fishing that
affect the size, composition and well-being of
populations of marine organisms would be
extensive. Here’re some examples:
Further expansion of dead anoxic
zones, 150 of which were reported in
2003 in bays and semi-enclosed seas,
some of which extended up to 27,000
square miles, may well be a greater
peril than overfishing.
A
slowly
killing
mycobacteriosis
epidemic was affecting the condition
and size of the striped bass population
in Maryland and Virginia and in the
heavily polluted Chesapeake Bay.
According to some estimates, the
word’s seabirds consume 70 million mt
of food as compared to the 80-90
million mt of global marine landings,
and the amount of fish eaten by marine
mammals worldwide is several times
the worldwide ocean fish harvest.
Climatic fluctuations and separate
events
cause
boom-and-bust
sequences among fish populations and
other marine organisms. There may be
umpteen sorts of association between
the physical and biological elements.
For example, studies show that the
main factors
critical for salmon
abundance are distance to and size of
oceanic areas with temperature and
food critical to the survival of juveniles,
such as the abundance of krill, which is
their main food.
Pollution of rivers and estuaries and
longshore development that destroys
inshore habitats, affect the reproduction
of many fish species whose spawning
and nursery areas are in inshore
waters.
In most coastal areas, rehabilitation of marine
habitats and restoration or protection of
essential upstream environments and coastal
hydrology functions are essential to future
fisheries sustainability. The fundamental
message is that for such sustainability we
must
restructure
general
coastal
management. Environmentalist NGOs and
everyone involved in trying to secure
sustainability of habitats must realize that
there has to be a balance between the needs
of the people and the conservation of living
resources, and both sides need to be
prepared to compromise (Carpenter et al.,
1999). The environmentalists’ and some
scientists’ advice that by only controlling
fishing they’d achieve sustainability is counterproductive when it diverts attention from other,
often more significant factors.
Only an intelligent analysis and synthesis of
the interaction of all important elements
involved can enable understanding of the
problematique of ecosystem management and
searching for solutions. We have to accept
that the dynamics of the system is so complex
that even the best existing models are of
limited use for forecasting the outcomes of
actual management actions.
In this general context, “ecosystem-based
fishery management” must address the
particular elements (ibid). Those that require
intervention must be defined and managed
respectively, while the others, including those
that are beyond the management’s powers,
must be taken into account. Flexibility and
tailoring management for each specific fishery
and area should become the rule. There’s no
rational way to impose a policy that doesn’t
take all the above into account, or a single
“common” policy for different fisheries,
ecosystems and fishing cultures. We have to
analyze separately each fishery ecosystem to
see, for example, if TACs are the right
methodology to use or other options such as
effort control should be considered (Ben-Yami,
2005).
Unfortunately, some authors and “green”
zealots are trying to hijack the concept of
“ecosystem management” by representing it
as care-taking of the fishery that it doesn't
affect the ecosystem. While paying lip service
to other factors, they focus on commercial
fishing in a way which stigmatizes it as the
only factor affecting ecosystem that needs
tackling and as the main villain to be
constrained or eliminated in order to “protect”
marine ecosystems. Their interest doesn’t lie
in cleaning up habitats and keep fisheries
prosperous, but elsewhere. Where? – This
depends on who’s the “father” (or sponsor) of
the particular "stewardship" (Ben-Yami, 2003c). The institutional and human inertia is
strong and many NGOs as well as the fishery
management system worldwide abound in
scientists and environmentalists who preach
sustainability, but keep talking of "saving the
oceans" just by shutting down fisheries or by
closing off major sea areas to fisheries, and
hardly even mention the whole set of other
vectors, whatever may be their relative roles in
each separate ecosystem. They still ignore
physical
and
biological-ecological
environmental factors and upstream and
marine pollution from industrial, municipal, and
agricultural sources. They close the eye on
inshore habitat destruction, and disregard or
play down non-human predation, nowadays
enhanced by the extensive protection
bestowed upon marine mammals.
In fact, however, ecosystem management
approach places fishing in its proper context,
so it can’t be blamed anymore for everything
that happens in the sea. Ecosystem
management doesn’t allow managers and
politicians to keep turning a blind eye to
pollution, environmental variations, habitat
destruction, etc. It carries fishery management
from the current over-simplification into more
complex concepts. This obviously worries
some scientists and managers, who are
concerned that with “ecosystem management"
they'd be sailing in unknown waters and lose
their control over fishing rights and quotas.
Doubtless, it won’t be easy, but the point is
that to manage fishery ecosystems using the
existing methodologies, as they’ve practically
been since the mid 20th century, is like looking
under a streetlamp for a lost key, because
that’s where the light is, instead of looking for
it where it may be - however dark is the place.
The new approach may also require to get
used to the fact that for a long time to come
we won’t be able to put numerical values to all
acting factors, a current custom that
sometimes borders on numerology, and
relearn to talk also in qualitative terms and
perhaps to employ fuzzy logic (Mendel, 2005).
While ecosystem-based management is
coming of age, institutional inertia and
obstinacy, human conservatism, fear of the
unknown
and
need
to
admit
own
misconstruction of the realities of the coastal,
marine and living resources, impedes its
application (Ben-Yami, 2008).
The notion of positive development stems
from the recognition that, climatic conditions
permitting, sustainability of both, marine
capture fisheries and marine aquaculture, can
only be achieved by integrated and balanced
approach to ecosystem management involving
upstream
and
downstream
influences,
fisheries, and any other human activities that
affect coastal and offshore habitats. There is a
growing understanding of the complexity of
the systems to be managed and of the futility
of simplistic approaches, such as those of the
still prevailing fishery management based on
inadequate science and its mathematical
models.
Fishery science must:
1 - recognize that marine ecosystems are
complex and involve many factors affecting
each the other and the system in general;
2 - recognize that marine ecosystems and
their bio-resources cannot be "managed" and
otherwise manipulated by only managing
fishing;
3 - recognize that the presently employed
models, as long as they lack in parameters
with reliable values, represent inadequate
fishery science, and can be scientifically
applied, if any, only with appropriate
qualifications;
4 – recognize that more effort should be
invested in studying marine ecosystems in
general, and the ecology of fishery resources
in particular, and
governments should
allocate more funds for, especially, sea-borne
marine research;
6 - increase the time scientists spend at sea
both on board research and commercial
vessels, on the beach, and in the lab, at the
expense of the time now spent at operating
computer models;
7 - direct much more attention and
consequent efforts to chemical-industrial,
agricultural
and
urban
pollution,
eutrophication,
habitat
degradation
or
destruction by longshore development and
various extraction activities on sea bottom,
introduction and invasions of exotic species,
and studies of the effect of climatic variations
that are among the main causes for
fluctuations in the abundance of living marine
resources, but presently obfuscated by
directing most of the attention towards fishing.
*****
*Published as: Chapter 11 –
Progressive Development in the
Marine Environment – by:
Menakhem Ben-Yami and Arie S.
Issar, in: A.S. Issar (Ed.).
PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT.
(Springer, 2010). Pp. 71-80.
*benyami@actcom.net.il;
www.benyami.org
REFERENCES
Alverson, D.L., M.H. Freeborg, S.A.
Murawski and J.A. Pope. 1994. A
global assessment of fisheries
bycatch and discards.
FAO Fish.Techn.Pap.(339). (FAO,
Rome). 233 pp.
Anderson, J.L. 2002. Aquaculture
and the Future: Why Fisheries
Economists Should Care. Mar.
Resour. Econ. 17:133–151.
Anonymous. 2008. Grow your own
bluefin. Fish.News Internatl.
47(12):16-17.
Asgard, T., E. Austreng, I.
Holmefjord, and M. Hillestad. 1999.
Resource efficiency in the
production of various species. In:
Svennevig, N, H. Reinertsen, and M.
New (Eds.). Sustainable
Aquaculture: Food for the future?
Pp. 171-183. (A.A. Balkema,
Rotterdam, Netherlands).
Bailey, C., S. Jentoft and P. Sinclair
(Eds.). 1996. Aquacultural
Development: Social dimensions of
an emerging industry. (Westview
Press, Boulder, CO, USA): 281 pp.
Beamish, R.J. 1993. Climate and
exceptional fish production off the
west coast of North America.
Can.J.Fish.Aquat.Sci. (50):22702291.
Beamish, R.J. (ed.).1995. Climate
change and northern fish
populations.
Can.Spec.Pub.Fish.Aquat.Sci. (121).
Ben-Yami, M. 1986. Aquaculture: The
importance of knowing its
limitations. Ceres, 19 (4):15-19. FAO,
1986.
Ben-Yami, M. 1990. Ecological
aspects of artificial islands – the
Israeli context (with Y.Nir). In: Gallil,
B. & Y.Mart (eds.). Studies of
Mediterranean coastal margins of
Israel. Collection of Lecture
Abstracts. (Inst.Nat.Conserv., Fac. of
Life Sci., Tel Aviv Univ.). 3rd
Session, 1 p.
Ben-Yami, M. 1993. Scope of low
energy fishing in the present world
fisheries context. Pp.121-125 in:
George, V.C. et al (Eds.). Low Energy
Fishing. Fish.Technol. (Spec. issue:
Proc.Natl.Workshop on Low Energy
Fishing, Aug.8-9, 1991). Society of
Fisheries Technologists, India..
Ben-Yami, M. 1995. Fisheries
management: fish or people? World
Fish.
1995 (2):14.
Ben-Yami, M. 1996. Ecological and
socioeconomic aspects of the
expansion of Nile Perch in Lake
Victoria. Pp. 95-110 in: Meyer, R.M.
et al (Eds). Fisheries Resource
Utilization and Policy. Proc. World
Fisheries Congress. Theme 2.
Oxford & IBH Publ.Co., New Delhi.
Ben-Yami, M. 1997. Marine farmers
ocean bound. World Fish. 1997
(7):25.
Ben-Yami, M. 1998. Middle Eastern
marine environments: an overview
of anthropogenic impacts. Pp. 365374 in Albert, J., Bernhardson, M.
and R.Kenna (Eds.). Transformations
of Middle Eastern Natural
Environments: Legacies and
Lessons. Bull.Series (103). (Yale
Univ., New Haven, USA).
Ben-Yami, M. 1998-b. Fisheries
management: stealing the common.
(A keynote lecture delivered at the
St.John’s Conference of Harvesters
in the North Atlantic Fisheries).
Samudra (19):11-18. Also:
www.benyami.org.
Ben-Yami, M. 1999. A collision
course with aquaculture. World
Fish.1999 (1):6
Ben-Yami, M. 2001. Managing
artisanal fisheries of Galapagos.
A Consultancy Report – 07-01-2001 –
03-02-2001. (Charles Darwin
Research Station; Ecuador Fisheries
Department).
Ben-Yami, M. 2001-a. Fisheries
management crisis. World.Fish.
2001(12):6
Ben-Yami, M. 2002. Sea cage fish
farming decline. World Fish. 2002
(10):10.
Ben-Yami, M. 2003. Fisheries
management: Something has gone
wrong. Samudra (34):29-32, March
2003. Also: www.benyami.org.
Ben-Yami, M. 2003-b. Fisheries
management: Hijacked by neoliberal
economics. Samudra (35):19-25, July
2003. Also: Post-autistic Economics
Rev . (27), Sept. 2004 –
www.paecon.net &
www.benyami.org.
Ben-Yami, M. 2003-c. Tilapia: not any
more a humble fish. World Fishing.
2003 (2):8
Ben-Yami, M. 2003-d. "Nature"
stumbles. World Fish. 2003 (8):8
Ben-Yami, M. 2004. Will science
help cage farmers clean up their
act? World Fish. 2004 (1):18.
Ben-Yami, M. 2005. Ecosystem
management. World Fish. 2005 (8):6.
Ben-Yami, M. 2006. The meaning of
sustainability. Part 1, World Fish.
2006 (5):6; Part 2, World Fish. 2006
(6):6.
Ben-Yami, M. 2006-b. Observations
on Fishery Management of the
Faroes. – Internet: www.benyami.org
and at Faroese Fishermen’s Union
site: www.fiskimannafelag.fo , and
as: Making sense of sustainable
fisheries management, (p.17- 40) in:
M.Olsen (phot.), M.Ben-Yami &
B.Tyril. 2006. Images of Fishermen:
the North Atlantic. (GlobalOne Press
Ltd. Aberdeen, UK. nais@globalonepress.com). 384 pp.
Ben-Yami, M. 2007. Marine fish
farming: Problems and remedies.
World Fish. 2007 (10):6.
Ben-Yami, M. Comment by
Menakhem Ben-Yami on “XXIcentury alternative to XX-century
peer review ”, Real-wrld econ.Rev.,
(47):258, 3 Oct. 2008, p.
http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/is
sue47/CommentsIettoGillies47pdf25
8
Beverton, R.J. 1994. The state of
fisheries science. In: C.V.Voitglander
(ed.). The State of the World’s
Fisheries Resources, pp.25-54.
Proc.World Fish.Congr., Plenary
sessions. 204 pp. (Oxford & IBH
Publishing Co.Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi,
India.
Caddy, J.F. 2007. Marine Habitat and
Cover: Their Importance for
Productive Coastal Fishery
Resources. (UNESCO Publishing,
www.publishing.unesco.org).
Caddy, J.F. and G.D. Sharp. 1986. An
biological framework for marine
fisheries investigations. FAO
Fish.Techn.Pap. (382). (FAO, Rome).
Caddy J.F. and R.C. Griffiths. 1995.
Living marine resources and their
sustainable development – Some
environmental and institutional
perspectives. FAO Fish.Techn. Pap.
(T353). (FAO, Rome). 167 pp.
Carpenter, S., W. Brock and P.
Hanson. 1999. Ecological and social
dynamics in simple models of
ecosystem
management.
Conserv.Ecol.
3(2):4;
on
line:
www.consecolorg/vol3/iss2/art4.
Copes, P. 1995. Problems with ITQs
in fisheries management, with
tentative comments on relevance for
Faroe Islands fisheries. In S.T.F.
Johansen
(ed.),
Nordiske
fiskersamfund i fremtiden (Nordic
fishing communities in the future),
Vol. 1, 19-42. Copenhagen: Nordic
Council of Ministers.
Copes, P. 1998. The extended
economics of an innate common-use
resource: the fishery. In A. Eide and
T. Vassdal (eds.), The Ninth Biennial
Conference of the International
Institute of Fisheries Economics and
Trade, Proceedings, Vol. 2, 889-895.
Tromsø: The Norwegian College of
Fisheries Science, University of
Tromsø.
Csirke, J. and G.D. Sharp (Eds).
1983: Report of the Expert
Consultation to Examine the
Changes in Abundance and Species
Composition of Neritic Fish
Resources, San Jose, Costa Rica,
18-29 April 1983. FAO Fish. Rep. Ser.
291, Vol. 1. 100 pp. Cushing, D.H.
1982. Climate and Fisheries. 373pp.
Academic Press, London.
Cufone,M. 2008. Ocean Fish Farms
and Public-Resource Privatization.
The Amer.Prospect, November 24,
2008. (Internet).
Dempster, T., Moe, H., Fredheim, A.
and P. Sanchez-Jerez, 2007. Escapes
of marine fish from sea-cage
aquaculture in the Mediterranean
Sea: status and prevention”. CIESM,
2007. Impact of mariculture on
coastal ecosystems. CIESM
Workshop.
Diamant, A., A. Colorni and M. Ucko.
2007. - Parasite and disease transfer
between cultured and wild coastal
marine fish. CIESM, 2007. Impact of
mariculture on coastal ecosystems.
CIESM Workshop.
FAO, 2006. The state of world
fisheries and aquaculture (FAO,
Rome).
FAO. 2008. Opportunities for
addressing the challenges in
meeting the rising global demand for
food fish from aquaculture.
Committee on Fisheries, Subcommittee on Aquaculture. 4th
Session. Puerto Varas, Chile, 6 - 10
October 2008
Feeny, D., B. Fikret, B. J. McCay3 and
J. M. Acheson. 1990. The Tragedy of
the Commons: Twenty-two years
later. Human Ecol. 18 (1):1-19.
Finlayson, A.C. 1994. Fishing for
Truth: a Sociological Analysis of
Northern Cod Stock Assessments
from 1977-1990. Social and
Economic Studies No. 52. (Inst. Of
SociL AND Economic Research,
Memorial Univ. of Newfoundland.
176 pp.
Folke, C., N. Kautsky and M. Troell.
1994. The Costs of Eutrophication
from Salmon Farming: Implications
for Policy. J. Env. Manag. 40(73):182.
Forster, J. 2008. Emerging
technologies in marine aquaculture.
In: Rubino, M. (Ed.) 2008. Offshore
Aquaculture in the United States:
Economic considerations,
implications & opportunities; pp. 51-
72. Pre-publication copy. (U.S.Dept.
of Commerce, NOAA, Silver Spring,
MD).
Forster, J. 2008-b. Broader issues in
the fish farming debate; pp. 245-259.
In: Rubino, M. (Ed.) 2008. Offshore
A|quaculture in the United States:
Economic considerations,
implications & opportunities; pp. 5172. Pre-publication copy. (U.S.Dept.
of Commerce, NOAA, Silver Spring,
MD).
Frazer, L.N. 2008. Sea-Cage
Aquaculture, Sea Lice, and Declines
of Wild Fish. Conservation Biology,
(Published Online: Dec. 10, 2008);
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/j
ournal/120122721/issue
Goodland, R., and H.Daly. 1996.
Environmental Sustainability:
Universal and Non-Negotiable.
Ecol.Applications 6(4):1002-1017.
Halweil, B. 2008. Fish Farming for
the Future: Will Farmed Fish Feed
the World? (Worldwatch Report,
Sept. 2008. Worldwatch Institute,
www.worldwatch.org/node/5881#toc)
.
Hannesson, R. 1996. Fisheries
Missmanagement: the Case of the
North Atlantic Cod. (Fishing News
Books, Oxford, U.K.). 160 pp.
Heino, M. 2003. Does fishing cause
genetic evolution in fish stocks?
Newslet. Internatl.Counc.Explor.Sea
(ICES), (40), Sept. 2003.
Hester, F. 2008. Opinion posted on
Fishfolk/Internet, 18-11-08.
Hoggarth, D.D., C.C. Mees, C. O’Neill,
J.Hindson and M. Krishna. 2005. A
Guide to Fisheries Stock
Assessment Using the FMSP Tools.
(Marine Resources Assessment
Group (MRAG), London, U.K.). 91 pp.
ICLARM (The World Fish Center).
2002. Producing larval sea
cucumbers in New Caledonia.
Internet:
www.cgiar.htm>www.cgiar.org/iclar
m/
Isaksson, A. 1996. Ocean ranching:
its role and contribution to Pacific
and Atlantic salmon fisheries. In:
C.V.Voitglander (ed.). The State of
the World’s Fisheries Resources, pp.
133-149. Proc.World Fish.Congr.,
Plenary sessions. 204 pp. (Oxford &
IBH Publishing Co.Pvt.Ltd., New
Delhi, India.
Ito, S. and H.Kitamura. 1998.
Technical development in seed
production of the Japanese seacucumber Stichopus japonicus.
Beche-de-mer Info.Bull. (10): 24-28.
Kawasaki, T. 1983. Why do some
fishes have wide fluctuations in their
number? - A biological basis of
fluctuation from the viewpoint of
evolutionary ecology. pp. 1065-1080
In: Proceedings of the Expert
Consultation to Examine Changes in
Abundance and Species
Composition of Neritic Fish
Resources. (G.D. Sharp and J.
Csirke, eds.) FAO Fish. Rep. 291(3).
Kawasaki, T., S. Tanaka, Y. Toba,
and A. Taniguchi. eds. 1991. LongTerm Variability of pelagic Fish
Populations and Their Environment.
Pergamon Press, Tokyo. 402pp.
Klyashtorin, L.B. and A.A.
Lyubushin. 2007. Cyclic Climate
Changes and Fish Productivity.
(VNIRO Publishing, Moscow,
Russia). 224 pp.
Laevastu, T., D.L.Alverson and R.J.
Marasco. 1996. Exploitable Marine
Ecosystems: their Behaviour and
Management. (Fishing News Books,
Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK). 321
pp.
Longhurst, A. 2007. Doubt and
certainty in fishery science: Are we
really headed for a global collapse of
stocks? Fish. Res. 2007 (86):1-5.
Mann-Borgese, E. 1998. The Oceanic
Circle: Governing the Seas as a
Global Resource. (U.N. University
Press, Tokyo, Japan). 240 pp.
McCay, B.J. 1998. Oyster Wars and
the Public Trust: Property, Law and
Ecology in New Jersey History."
University of Arizona Press, Tucson,
AZ.
McGoodwin, J.R. 199.. Crisis in the
World Fisheries: People, Problems,
and Policies. (Stanford University
Press, Stanford, USA).
Mendel, J.M. 2005. Uncertain RuleBased Fuzzy Logic Systems:
Introduction and New Directions,
(University of Southern California,
Los Angeles, CA) Internet:
http://sipi.usc.edu/~mendel/book
Palawski, D., J. B. Hunn, and F. J.
Dwyer. 1985. Sensitivity of young
striped bass to organic and
inorganic contaminants in fresh and
saline waters. Trans.Amer.Fish.Soc.
(114):748–753. Internet:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1577/15488659(1985)114<748:SOYSBT>2.0.CO;
2
Patin, S.A. 1992 - Global pollution
and biological resources of the
world ocean. In: Conditions of the
World's Aquatic Habitat. Proc. World
Fish.Congr. (May 1992, Athens,
Greece). Theme 1 (N.B.Armantrout,
ed.).P.81-87.
Patterson, K. and J.W.Potter. 2003.
Proc.Natl.Ac.Sc. 2003, June 25th.
Pauly, D., V. Christensen, J.
Dalsgaard, R. Froese and F. Torres,
Jr. 1998. Fishing down marine food
webs. Science 279:860-863.
Phyne, J. 1996. Along the coast and
in the state: Aquaculture and politics
in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
In: Bailey, C., S. Jentoft and P.
Sinclair (Eds.). 1996. Aquacultural
Development: Social dimensions of
an emerging industry. (Westview
Press, Boulder, CO, USA): 281 pp.
Rabanal, H.R. 1998. History of
aquaculture. FAO Project Reports –
AGI58/E. 19 pp.
MIT's Self Propelling Fish
Farm Prototype (text and video).
Internet: Mechatronics
Robson, D. 2008.
Rosario, W. 2008. Sea cucumbers in
fish ponds. Internet information.
Ryther, J.H., and J.E. Bardach, The
Status and Potential of Aquaculture,
American Institute of Biological
Sciences, Washington, D.C., May
1968, Clearinghouse for Scientific
and Technical Information,
Springfield, Virginia, Vol. I: PB 177767.
Saiki, M. K., M. R. Jennings and R. H.
Wiedmeyer. 1992. Toxicity of
agricultural subsurface drainwater
from the San Joaquin Valley,
California, to juvenile Chinook
salmon and striped bass.
Trans.Amer.Fish.Soc. 121:78–93.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1577/15488659(1992)121<0078:TOASDF>2.3.C
O;2
Sharp, G.D. and J. Csirke (Eds).
1983. Proceedings of the Expert
Consultation to Examine the
Changes in Abundance and Species
Composition of Neritic Fish
Resources, San Jose, Costa Rica,
18-29 April 1983. FAO Fish. Rep. Ser.
291, Vols. 2-3. 1294 pp.
Sharp, G.D. 1995. It’s about time:
new beginnings and good old ideas
in fisheries science. Fish.Oceanogr.
4:324-341.
Sharp, G.D. 1997. Its About Time:
Rethinking fisheries management.
In: Developing and Sustaining World
Fisheries Resources: The state of
science and management. Pp 731736.Hancock, Smith, Grant and
Beumer, eds. (CSIRO, Australia).
Sharp, G.D., M. Ben-Yami and J.R.
McGoodwin. 2004. Out of
Fishermen’s Hands: The evolution of
Fishing Cultures. (Center for
Climate/Ocean Resources Study,
Salinas, CA, USA. Internet:
http://sharpgary.org). 238 pp.
Sharp, G.D. and C.A.S. Hall. 2007.
Neoclassical Economics and
Fisheries. In: Leclerc G. and C.A.S.
Hall (Eds.). 2004. Making World
Development Work: Scientific
Alternatives to Neoclassical
Economic Theory. (University of
New Mexico Press, Albuquerque,
USA). 655 pp.
Standal, D and I. Bouwer Utne. 2007.
Can cod farming affect cod fishing?
A system evaluation of
sustainability. Marine Policy ,31(4):
527-534
Symes, D. (Ed.) 1999. Alternative
Management Systems for Fisheries.
(Fishing News Books, Blackwell
Science, Oxford, UK). 242 pp.
Volpe, J. 2004. Farming is a net-loss
proposition -- ecologically, socially
and economically. Seattle PostIntelligencer. January 25, 2004.
Internet:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinio
n/157539_focus25.html
Ward W. and P. Weeks. 1994.
Resource managers and resource
users: field biologists and
stewardship. P.91-114. In: C.L.Dyers
and J.R.Mcgoodwin (Eds.). Folks
Management in the World’s
Fisheries: Lessons for Modern
Fisheries Management. (University
Press of Colorado, Niwot, Colorado,
USA). 347 pp.
Zion, B. et al. 2007. Technologies for
fish growers. Fish.Fishbreed.Isr.
2007 (1): 1058-1063. (In Hebrew with
English abstract).
Zohar, Y., Y.Tal, H.G.Schreiber,
C.R.Steven, J.Stubblefield and
A.R.Place. 2008. Commercially
feasible urban re-circulating
aquaculture addressing the marine
sector. In: Coasta-Pierce, B.,
A.Desbonnet, P.Edwards, and
D.Baker (Eds.). 2008. Urban
Aquaculture., pp. 159-172. (CABI
Publishing, Wallingfort, OX, U.K.).