WRI Stories Feed: EarthTrends: Environmental Information

A Closer Look at Aqueduct's New Global Water Stress Maps

Tien Shiao — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 10:02:07 -0400

The World Resources Institute and the Coca-Cola Company recently announced a partnership that made industry-leading global…

Catch Shares: Will They Work for Bushmeat?

Mon, 27 Oct 2008 13:45:57 -0400

Two recently released studies offer new insight into the problem of harvesting wildlife, and perhaps even a solution.

This story originally appeared on EarthTrends.

Capturing and eating fish and rainforest wildlife, including large primates, for human sustenance has been practiced for generations. Bushmeat can include any non-domesticated animal harvested for food such as wild pig, deer, snake, turtle, elephant, gorilla or other primates.

However, as human populations have grown and demand for these resources has increased, species in coral reefs and tropical rainforests–the most diverse ecosystem types on the planet–have been put in jeopardy.

Though both ailing fisheries and dwindling wildlife populations have received much attention and attempted remediation, these problems have been difficult to tackle because of competing interests among conservationists and fishermen/hunters who base their livelihood on harvesting wildlife.

The first new report, released by the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), found that harvested tropical wildlife, referred to as ‘bushmeat,’ is a major protein source for forest communities in developing countries in central Africa. As a result of these findings, the report discourages placing a total ban on bushmeat to protect wild populations. Rather, it is suggested that wildlife should be managed as a renewable resource with individual rights to use, similarly to catch shares in the fishing industry.

The second report, published in Science days after the CIFOR report was released, affirms that the use of catch shares is a successful wildlife management tool. The Science report found that catch shares, which give fishermen a financial stake in the health of fish populations, can stop and even reverse the decline and predicted collapse of fisheries.

What Are Catch Shares?

Often referred to as the ‘cap and trade’ of fisheries, the system of catch shares—also known as Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQ’s)—allocates individual fishing quotas or shares to fishermen that add up to the overall catch quota for an entire fishery. If a fisherman’s total catch for the season is below his quota, he may decide to sell his additional catch shares to other fishermen. The overall quota each season is determined by the government and is based on scientific assessment of the health of fish populations.

Using this system, fishermen become financial stakeholders in the long-term health of the fishery because their share of the season’s catch will proportionally increase as the fish population grows and the overall fishing quota for their fishery increases.

Implementation of catch shares has been particularly effective in the Alaskan halibut fishery. When the catch share program was put in place in 1995, the halibut fishing season had been decreased to only a few days due to the poor health of halibut populations. During the few days of open season, fishermen would race, often in unsafe weather conditions, to maximize their catch. When halibut reached the docks, the market for these fish became flooded and halibut prices would crash.

Today, more than 10 years after the implementation of catch shares, the Alaskan halibut fishing season lasts as long as eight months which allows fish to be sold at more stable prices. Other changes in this fishery include larger fish being caught, a seventy percent decrease in search-and-rescue missions, and a fifteen percent decrease in deaths of fishermen.

While the new Science study demonstrates the success of catch share programs over a broad range of troubled fisheries, some scientists have stated that catch share programs may not always suffice; total fishing bans will be necessary in some locations for the most devastated populations to recover. Additionally, fishermen have voiced concern over the possible domination of a fishery by a wealthy shareholder, and the problem of enforcement.

Dependence of Impoverished Populations on Bushmeat

An ITQ system has been suggested to improve wildlife conservation in central Africa and allow for the sustenance of forest communities. The CIFOR study reports that between thirty and eighty percent of protein in local diets is supplied by bushmeat, and that four of the five central African countries examined in the study don’t produce enough non-bushmeat protein to feed their populations. Since developing countries in central Africa are already home to some of the most undernourished populations in the world (see Figure 1), extinction of bushmeat wildlife or hunting bans would only increase food scarcity and undernourishment in these areas.

Figure 1: Percentage of Population that is Undernourished

Source: EarthTrends, 2006 using data from FAO, 2006

This grave conflict between disappearing wildlife and human needs demonstrates that ecological sustainability is not a one dimensional concept, but is complicated by economic and social factors. A system similar to catch shares in the fishing sector may offer a solution to the bushmeat crisis, as it was designed to improve the livelihood of fishermen in addition to maintaining the health of wildlife populations.

However, establishing an ITQ system for effective wildlife management in central Africa is no simple endeavor because of several important differences between the fishing sector and bushmeat hunting in central Africa. One major difference is that governing capacity in central African countries such as Cameroon, the Congo, and Democratic Republic of the Congo is significantly different from that of the United States, Australia and New Zealand where most ITQ fishery programs have been established. Local governments, in particular, in central Africa may not have the means or credibility to establish and enforce quotas.

Additionally, the potential problem of domination of the bushmeat market by one wealthy shareholder is exacerbated in small central African countries where there exists massive disparity between rich and poor. One wealthy share-holder, for instance, has the ability to corrupt the ITQ system by buying up all the shares and monopolizing rights to wildlife which were once common property. Finally, though catch share programs have been proven effective in the fisheries sector, a regulation that is successful for governing the occupational behavior of fishermen may not necessarily be as effective at regulating the amount of bushmeat harvested by a hunter to protect his family’s health and stave off starvation.

The crucial differences between fisheries and bushmeat should be carefully considered in order for an ITQ system in central Africa to attempt to achieve the kind of success this management scheme has seen in Alaskan fisheries.

Food Price Crisis Triggers Questions about Global Food Security

Zachary Sugg — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:00:17 -0400

Skyrocketing food prices have triggered riots across the developing world and forced the world’s largest food aid agency to confront a $500 million deficit. The media are focused on short-term consequences, but there are also concerns about the long-term forecast for global food security, poverty, and hunger.

A food line in Africa

Global food prices have been rising steadily since 2000, and are up almost 50 percent in the last year alone. Low-income countries that import more food than they export have been hit hardest. Thirty-seven countries—21 of which are in Africa—are in a food security crisis, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

The World Bank recently announced that the current food situation could push 100 million people into deeper poverty, undoing years of progress in the fight against global poverty and hunger. Poor households spend between 60 percent to 80 percent of their income on food, compared to only 10 percent to 20 percent in most industrialized countries.

FAO Food Price Index: February 2007 - January 2008.
Source: FAO, 2008

What Are the Causes?

Despite several record-breaking harvests, world cereals production between 2000 and 2007 fell well short of consumption. The shortfall has forced the depletion of world grain stocks—a useful proxy for global food security—which are now at their lowest levels in 25 years.

There are several commonly acknowledged drivers behind the current food price spikes, including:

High price of oil, manifested in increased fertilizer and fuel costs
Increased demand for meat and dairy products in the developing world, which requires more grain be fed to livestock
Diversion of crops for biofuel production
Adverse weather conditions, such as the recent six-year Australian drought that decimated rice production
Commodity speculation by investors, and
Lack of access to improved inputs and markets amongst smallholder farmers in the developing world—particularly in sub-Saharan Africa—which limits their ability to react to the incentives created by increased demand, and
Domestic policy responses to higher food prices in developing countries—such as export taxes, bans, or other restrictions—which exacerbate the problem.

These factors together have created a “perfect storm” that has driven food prices up. Although adverse weather conditions and commodity speculation may nudge food prices up in the short term, the rest of these drivers appear to be longer-lasting, and their effects are likely to be felt for several years.

Short-Run vs Long-Run Measures for Global Food Security

The FAO forecasts a 2.6 percent rise in cereal production in 2008, which would result in a record harvest of over two billion metric tons. If this prediction materializes—much depends on unpredictable weather—the current food crisis should ease somewhat. Even so, experts predict that prices will remain high at least through 2015, indicating that short-term policy interventions are necessary to combat hunger over the coming decade. These actions should include targeted safety nets for vulnerable populations, such as the urban poor; increased support for food aid agencies; and short-run trade policy measures, such as reducing tariffs and taxes on key staples.

Over the long-run, ensuring global food security will require greater effort. While most experts believe that the world’s agro-ecosystems, coupled with improved technology, have the physical capacity to satisfy demand through the 21st century, this will not happen if current circumstances prevail. Agricultural trade barriers, environmental degradation, and the under-performance of African agriculture, energy efficiency, and the restoration of marginal lands must all be addressed.

Furthermore, climate change threatens to exacerbate food insecurity in the world’s poorest regions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts that rising temperatures will decrease yields in 40 developing countries, mainly in sub-Saharan Africa, and that three degrees Celsius of warming will increase the price of food by 40 percent. Without concerted global action to help vulnerable populations adapt to a warming climate, while also addressing the other drivers of food security described above, global hunger will not be tackled this century.

*Photo by Peter Casier via Flickr