The Nonlinear Library EA - Sustainable fishing policy increases fishing, and demand reductions might, too by MichaelStJules
Apr 25, 2024
25:30
Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Sustainable fishing policy increases fishing, and demand reductions might, too, published by MichaelStJules on April 25, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum.
Summary
Where there's overfishing, reducing fishing pressure or harvest rates - roughly the share of the population or biomass caught in a fishery per fishing period - actually allows more animals to be caught in the long run.
Sustainable fishery management policies are generally aimed at maximizing or maintaining high levels of catch - the biomass of wild aquatic animals caught - in the long run. More restrictive policies that would actually reduce long-run catch generally seem politically infeasible, and less restrictive policies that increase long-run catch don't seem like a stepping stone to more restrictive ones that decrease it.
Demand reductions for wild-caught aquatic animals may increase or decrease actual catch, and it's very unclear which. My highly uncertain tentative best guesses are that
they seem slightly more likely to increase than increase catch in the near term but bioeconomic "long run", e.g. over the next 10-20 years, and
persistent demand reductions and cumulative work towards them seem slightly more likely to decrease than increase catch over longer timelines with more sustainable fishery management and eventual population decline, but it's not clear if and when catch would actually be consistently lower on average than otherwise.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Brian Tomasik, Ren Ryba and Tori for their feedback, and Saulius Šimčikas for his supervision on an earlier unpublished project. All errors are my own.
Basic terminology
I use 'fishing' to include the capture of any wild aquatic animal, including crustaceans, not just fish.
I refer to the long run (and long-run) in fishing as long enough for all production factors, including the number of boats/vessels, amount of fishing equipment, employment and the number of fishing companies or businesses to increase or decrease and approximately reach a new equilibrium in response to a permanent shift in prices, supply or demand. I'd expect this to typically be less than a decade. This is a standard term in economics.
Introduction
Reductions in fishing pressure or harvest rates - roughly the share of the population or biomass caught in a fishery per fishing period - can result from reductions in demand or from improvements in fishery management, like the use of quotas, smaller fishing net mesh sizes, seasonal closures or restrictions on fishing vessels or their numbers. However, these reductions can also lead to increases in catch where there's overfishing, by allowing stocks to recover, resulting in more fish to catch.
Fishery management policies that preserve or increase stocks are also typically aimed at increasing long-run catch.
If we're concerned with reducing total exploitation, injustice or harm caused by humans or moral/rational agents, then this would count against this kind of work (see also Tomasik, 2015, who made this point earlier).
The same could hold for a (weighted) average level of exploitation, injustice or harm by humans across all animals or moral patients.[1][2] I don't personally take exploitation or harm by humans in particular to be worse than other types of harms, independently of their effects on subjective welfare,[3] but this seems to be a common position.
Furthermore, harm caused by humans might matter more for indirect reasons related to subjective welfare in practice, tracking our willingness to help or make other sacrifices for other animals.[4]
Or, if fishing deaths are particularly bad compared to natural deaths and will continue to be so (e.g. humane capture and humane slaughter won't become widespread), and bad enough to be worth preventing regardless of the population effects and effects on natural deaths, then...
Summary
Where there's overfishing, reducing fishing pressure or harvest rates - roughly the share of the population or biomass caught in a fishery per fishing period - actually allows more animals to be caught in the long run.
Sustainable fishery management policies are generally aimed at maximizing or maintaining high levels of catch - the biomass of wild aquatic animals caught - in the long run. More restrictive policies that would actually reduce long-run catch generally seem politically infeasible, and less restrictive policies that increase long-run catch don't seem like a stepping stone to more restrictive ones that decrease it.
Demand reductions for wild-caught aquatic animals may increase or decrease actual catch, and it's very unclear which. My highly uncertain tentative best guesses are that
they seem slightly more likely to increase than increase catch in the near term but bioeconomic "long run", e.g. over the next 10-20 years, and
persistent demand reductions and cumulative work towards them seem slightly more likely to decrease than increase catch over longer timelines with more sustainable fishery management and eventual population decline, but it's not clear if and when catch would actually be consistently lower on average than otherwise.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Brian Tomasik, Ren Ryba and Tori for their feedback, and Saulius Šimčikas for his supervision on an earlier unpublished project. All errors are my own.
Basic terminology
I use 'fishing' to include the capture of any wild aquatic animal, including crustaceans, not just fish.
I refer to the long run (and long-run) in fishing as long enough for all production factors, including the number of boats/vessels, amount of fishing equipment, employment and the number of fishing companies or businesses to increase or decrease and approximately reach a new equilibrium in response to a permanent shift in prices, supply or demand. I'd expect this to typically be less than a decade. This is a standard term in economics.
Introduction
Reductions in fishing pressure or harvest rates - roughly the share of the population or biomass caught in a fishery per fishing period - can result from reductions in demand or from improvements in fishery management, like the use of quotas, smaller fishing net mesh sizes, seasonal closures or restrictions on fishing vessels or their numbers. However, these reductions can also lead to increases in catch where there's overfishing, by allowing stocks to recover, resulting in more fish to catch.
Fishery management policies that preserve or increase stocks are also typically aimed at increasing long-run catch.
If we're concerned with reducing total exploitation, injustice or harm caused by humans or moral/rational agents, then this would count against this kind of work (see also Tomasik, 2015, who made this point earlier).
The same could hold for a (weighted) average level of exploitation, injustice or harm by humans across all animals or moral patients.[1][2] I don't personally take exploitation or harm by humans in particular to be worse than other types of harms, independently of their effects on subjective welfare,[3] but this seems to be a common position.
Furthermore, harm caused by humans might matter more for indirect reasons related to subjective welfare in practice, tracking our willingness to help or make other sacrifices for other animals.[4]
Or, if fishing deaths are particularly bad compared to natural deaths and will continue to be so (e.g. humane capture and humane slaughter won't become widespread), and bad enough to be worth preventing regardless of the population effects and effects on natural deaths, then...