How Is Industrial Fishing Harming Oceans? Let Me Count the Ways
Anyone who has spent time near the ocean has experienced its magic. The way it stretches across the horizon, seemingly infinite, humbles you. Its vastness is almost impossible to comprehend. Those who dare to dip below the surface are rewarded even further with a glimpse into another world.
As a kid, I wanted nothing more than to swim with dolphins. That's how the dream began, at least, to become a marine biologist. There weren't many paths for marine biology at my Mexican university back then, so I enrolled in the closest thing possible: fisheries science.
At the time, I didn't realize those early studies would reveal just how destructive industrial fishing is. With all I had learned, I knew I couldn't stand by while humanity destroyed the oceans.
World Oceans Day is on June 8, and in fact, all of June is World Oceans Month. These special waters cover around 70% of our planet. They regulate our climate, provide more than half of the world's oxygen, feed billions, and sustain all life on Earth. A month of celebration is the least we can offer them.
This year's theme is 'wonder: sustaining what sustains us,' and to truly sustain the ocean, we have to change how we fish.
Industrial fishing is one of the biggest threats to our oceans, with many fish populations being caught at unsustainable rates. Bottom trawling is among the worst offenders, scraping entire seabeds clean with nets the size of football fields. The vast majority of what they capture is bycatch, including sharks, sea turtles, and other endangered species. Imagine bulldozing a forest to pick a single apple. That's bottom trawling.
Another core issue is that industrial fishing is often unregulated and plagued by corruption. Foreign vessels routinely fish illegally, especially in waters of poorer nations, and enforcement is nearly nonexistent.
In Africa, European and Chinese fleets exploit national waters, sometimes flying an African country's flag through corrupt deals with local governments. If caught, these vessels can simply change their names or switch ships. Local fishers are left with empty nets, and their food security and livelihoods are eroded.
Similarly, in Antarctica, 'super-trawlers' are harvesting massive quantities of krill — tiny crustaceans that form the foundation of the Antarctic food chain. These ships often operate in biologically rich areas that Antarctica's governing body, CCAMLR, has failed to regulate. When krill are overfished here, the entire ecosystem suffers.
But how does this translate to our plates?
Certifications like the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and Friend of the Sea (FOS) aim to guide us towards sustainable seafood consumption decisions. But even they are problematic. Their certifications rely on an outdated scientific model, called Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY). The goal of MSY is to exploit the most fish possible without collapsing the population. Still, the model is risky and flawed because it ignores the complexity of marine ecosystems and the interactions of species within them.
What's shocking is that MSC even certifies bottom trawling!
All of this is leading us on a dangerous path toward global-scale fisheries collapse, and we've seen it happen before.
Take the Atlantic cod fishery. Canadian communities sustainably fished cod using traditional methods for centuries. But when industrial trawlers arrived in the 1950s, everything changed. Catches skyrocketed from 250,000 to over 800,000 tonnes annually by the 1960s. Warning signs were ignored, and by 1992, the fishery collapsed. It took only a few decades of industrial fishing to destroy what had survived centuries of traditional use. To this day, cod populations haven't recovered.
We haven't learned our lesson. Scientists are now raising alarms about other major fisheries approaching collapse. We risk repeating history — only this time, on a global scale.
But abandoning seafood isn't the solution. Fish are a critical source of nutrition and livelihood for billions. What we need is a radical transformation of how we fish.
Last year, 30 leading ocean experts released '11 golden rules' for sustainable fishing. These go beyond outdated science and offer a more holistic vision that protects ecosystems, respects communities, and supports food security.
Marine conservation and fishing can coexist. Off Baja California Sur, I've worked with organizations advocating for the Dos Mares Biosphere Reserve. It wouldn't ban all fishing, just industrial fishing. Thousands of local fishers support it. Their oceans have been depleted by industrial fleets, and they understand the need for change.
Artisanal, small-scale fishers have stewarded the ocean for generations. They use traditional, low-impact methods, and their communities depend on the long-term health of the sea. Supporting them means supporting sustainability.
We can live in harmony with the ocean. We can thrive from its bounty without destroying it. You don't have to give up seafood to protect the ocean. But knowing where your seafood comes from absolutely matters — and that's the first step toward sustaining what sustains us on this World Oceans Day.
Paul Nicklen and Cristina Mittermeier co-founded SeaLegacy in 2014. SeaLegacy's mission is to inspire people to fall in love with the ocean, amplify a network of changemakers around the world, and catalyze hands-on diplomacy through hopeful, world-class visual storytelling. For more updates on their meaningful work, learn more about SeaLegacy, and subscribe to Ripple Effect, Katie Couric Media's sustainability newsletter.
The post How Is Industrial Fishing Harming Oceans? Let Me Count the Ways appeared first on Katie Couric Media.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
3 hours ago
- CNBC
NATO allies will pledge to hike defense spend – but will they deliver?
Fireworks could kick off during NATO's annual summit this week, as the U.S. pushes its allies to sharply increase their defense spending to 5% of their gross domestic product (GDP). The 5% figure is made up of 3.5% of GDP that should be spent on "pure" defense, with an extra 1.5% of GDP going to security-related infrastructure, such as cyber warfare capabilities and intelligence. While some member states they're happy to hit that milestone, and some countries are not too far off that mark, others don't even meet the 2% threshold that was agreed over a decade ago. While they might pledge to increase defense spending, whether these promises materializes will be the key question. Talk is cheap and timelines can be vague — but concerted action is what the U.S. and President Donald Trump, who's attending a NATO summit for the first time since 2019, will want to see. "The U.S. is looking for everybody to say, 'Yeah, we mean it. We have a plan. 5% is real. We're going to get there'," Kurt Volker, former U.S. ambassador to NATO and distinguished fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), said Wednesday. "But one thing to watch for is if the messaging is actually on point. Some of the messaging from some of our European allies, at least when they back brief their own media and their own parliaments is, 'Yeah, 5% but it's really 3.5% and 1.5%, and that can be pretty much anything' ... So there's going to be a whittling down [of defense spending pledges] almost immediately," Volker noted at a CEPA briefing ahead of the NATO summit. "And if that is over emphasized, you're going to have a clash with the U.S.," Volker added. The stakes are high as allies meet in The Hague in the Netherlands on June 24-25, given ongoing conflict in Ukraine and war in the Middle East threatening to destabilize the global economy. Defense analysts say this year's meeting could be the most consequential in the alliance's 77-year history, with the U.S.' spend-pushing heavily forewarned before the summit. U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was emphatic as he said 5% "will happen" at a separate NATO gathering earlier this month, with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte also widely plugging that message to allies too. Defense spending has been a thorny subject for NATO members for years, and a persistent source of annoyance and anger for Trump, who was demanding that allies double their spending goals from 2% to 4% of GDP all the way back in 2018. NATO defense expenditure has nevertheless sharply picked up among NATO members since Trump was last in power. Back then, and arguably at the height of the White House leader's irritation with the bloc, only six member states met the 2% target, including the U.S. Times have changed, however; by 2024, 23 members had reached the 2% threshold, according to NATO data. While some greatly surpassed that target — such as Poland, Estonia, the U.S., Latvia and Greece — major economies including Canada, Spain and Italy have lagged below the contribution threshold. No NATO member has so far reached the 5% spending objective, and some are highly likely to drag their feet when it comes to getting to that milestone now. The U.K., Poland and Germany have already said they intend to increase defense spending to the requisite target, but their timeline is unclear. The UK is also reportedly trying to delay the spending rise among by three years, according to the i newspaper. CNBC has reached out to Downing Street for comment. Spain and Italy are seen as major holdouts against the 5% target, after only committing to reach the 2% threshold in 2025. Canada meanwhile spent 1.3% of GDP on defense in 2024, NATO estimates suggest, even less than Italy, Portugal or Montenegro. Spending 5% on defense is a target, but not a given, Jason Israel, senior fellow for the Defense Technology Initiative at CEPA, said Wednesday. "Every single country ... is trying to figure out how they're going to thread that needle of being able to make the commitment, but also make the accounting work when every single nation has to make trade offs against what is generally unpopular, massive increases in defense spending," he noted, stressing it's a "long way from commitments ... to actual capability," European aerospace and defense companies are following NATO spending commentary and commitments closely, but say they're stuck in limbo between pledges and action by way of concrete government procurement. The leaders of Leonardo, Embraer and Saab told CNBC last week the continent needs to act decisively and collectively to make long-term commitments to defense spending and investment contracts to enable companies like theirs to scale-up their production capacity and manufacturing capabilities. "If we go for 3.5% [of pure defense spending] across the European part of NATO, that will mean a lot, and more will be needed in terms of capacity. But we need to understand the capability targets better," Micael Johansson, the chief executive of Swedish defense company Saab, told CNBC. "We can do more, and I think we need to come together in Europe to create more scale, also in what we do to align demand, align requirements, so we can actually be competitive player in internationally. So there's a lot to do still," he said. Roberto Cingolani, CEO of Italian defense firm Leonardo, agreed that "there's a lot of work to be done." "Leonardo has a capacity boost program at the moment because we are quite aware of the fact that we have to increase the production of specific platforms, defense systems, electronics and technology solutions. It is not only matter of money, it's matter of priority. It's matter of reducing the fragmentation among countries in Europe," he told CNBC's Charlotte Reed at the Paris Air Show. Defense companies needed to know what will be expected of them ahead of time, Cingolani said, given the complex nature of global supply chains that underpin the defense industry. "We have approximately 5000 companies in the supply chain, and we are in 160 countries in the world. So it's very complicated," he noted. "You have to invest in supply chain. You have to make investments. You have to protect the supply chain. But of course, we also have to face a shortage of raw materials ... There is no no simple solution. If there were a solution, we would have done it already," he said.
CNBC
3 hours ago
- CNBC
European markets set to start the week lower as Middle East crisis worsens
London at dawn. Dukas | Universal Images Group | Getty Images Good morning from London, and welcome to CNBC's live blog covering European financial markets and the latest regional and global business news, data and earnings. Futures data from IG suggests a choppy start for European markets, with London's FTSE looking set to open 0.3% lower at 8,747, Germany's DAX down 0.4% 23,222, France's CAC 40 0.5% lower at 7,536 and Italy's FTSE MIB 0.6% lower. Global market sentiment could plummet further this week after the United States entered Israel's war against Iran over the weekend, launching strikes against three nuclear sites in Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz. The move by U.S. President Donald Trump surprised investors because he had said last Friday that he would make a decision to attack Iran "within the next two weeks," according to the White House. The latest attacks caused oil prices to rise further and have stoked fears of a wider conflict in the Middle East. Asia-Pacific markets declined overnight, while U.S. stock futures fell ahead of Monday's session. — Holly Ellyatt Global markets will be on edge, given the escalation in the Middle East over the weekend, as a further spike in oil prices could be on the cards. In Europe, flash purchasing managers' index data, showing business activity in the services and manufacturing sectors, is due Monday morning. There are no other major earnings or data releases. — Holly Ellyatt
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
NATO leaders gather Tuesday for what could be a historic summit, or one marred by divisions
THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — U.S. President Donald Trump and his NATO counterparts are due to gather Tuesday for a summit that could unite the world's biggest security organization around a new defense spending pledge or widen divisions among the 32 allies. Just a week ago, things had seemed rosy. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte was optimistic the European members and Canada would commit to invest at least as much of their economic growth on defense as the United States does for the first time. Then Spain rejected the new NATO target for each country to spend 5% of its gross domestic product on defense needs, calling it 'unreasonable.' Trump also insists on that figure. The alliance operates on a consensus that requires the backing of all 32 members. The following day, Trump said the U.S. should not have to respect the goal. 'I don't think we should, but I think they should,' he said. Trump lashed out at Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez's government, saying: 'NATO is going to have to deal with Spain. Spain's been a very low payer.' He also criticized Canada as 'a low payer.' Spain was the lowest spender in the alliance last year, directing less than 2% of its GDP on defense expenditure, while Canada was spending 1.45%, according to NATO figures. Then Trump ordered the bombing of nuclear installations in Iran. In 2003, the U.S.-led war on Iraq deeply divided NATO, as France and Germany led opposition to the attack, while Britain and Spain joined the coalition. European allies and Canada also want Ukraine to be at the top of the summit agenda, but they are wary that Trump might not want President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to steal the limelight. The two-day summit in The Hague involves an informal dinner Tuesday and one working session Wednesday morning. A very short summit statement has been drafted to ensure the meeting is not derailed by fights over details and wording. Indeed, much about this NATO summit is brief, even though ripples could be felt for years. Founded in 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed by 12 nations to counter the threat to security in Europe posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, notably via a strong U.S. presence on the continent. Dealing with Moscow is in its DNA. Keeping the peace outside the Euro-Atlantic area is not. NATO's ranks have grown to 32 countries since the Washington Treaty was signed 75 years ago. Sweden joined last year, worried by an increasingly aggressive Russia. NATO's collective security guarantee — Article 5 of the treaty — underpins its credibility. It's a political commitment by all countries to come to the aid of any member whose sovereignty or territory might be under attack. Trump has suggested he is committed to that pledge, but he has also sowed doubt about his intentions. He has said the U.S. intends to remain a member of the alliance. The United States is NATO's most powerful member. It spends much more on defense than any other ally and far outweighs its partners in terms of military muscle. Washington has traditionally driven the agenda but has stepped back under Trump. The U.S. nuclear arsenal provides strategic deterrence against would-be adversaries. NATO's day-to-day work is led by Rutte, a former Dutch prime minister. As its top civilian official, he chairs almost weekly meetings of ambassadors in the North Atlantic Council at its Brussels headquarters. He chairs other 'NACs' at ministerial and leader levels. Rutte runs NATO headquarters, trying to foster consensus and to speak on behalf of all members. NATO's military headquarters is based nearby in Mons, Belgium. It is always run by a top U.S. officer. With Trump demanding greater defense spending, it's unclear what role Ukraine will play at the summit. Zelenskyy has been invited, but it's unclear whether he will have a seat at NATO's table, although he may take part in Tuesday's dinner. Russia's war in Ukraine usually dominates such meetings. More broadly, NATO itself is not arming Ukraine. As an organization, it possesses no weapons of any kind. Collectively, it provides only non-lethal support — fuel, combat rations, medical supplies, body armor, and equipment to counter drones or mines. But individually, members do send arms. European allies provided 60% of the military support that Ukraine received in 2024. NATO coordinates those weapons deliveries via a hub on the Polish border and helps organize training for Ukrainian troops. A key part of the commitment for allies to defend one another is to deter Russia, or any other adversary, from attacking in the first place. Finland and Sweden joined NATO recently because of this concern. Under NATO's new military plans, 300,000 military personnel would be deployed within 30 days to counter any attack, whether it be on land, at sea, by air or in cyberspace. But experts doubt whether the allies could muster the troop numbers. It's not just about troop and equipment numbers. An adversary would be less likely to challenge NATO if it thought the allies would use the forces it controls. Trump's threats against U.S. allies — including imposing tariffs on them — has weakened that deterrence. Due to high U.S. defense spending over many years, the American armed forces have more personnel and superior weapons but also significant transportation and logistics assets. Other allies are starting to spend more, though. After years of cuts, NATO members committed to ramp up their national defense budgets in 2014 when Russia illegally annexed Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula. After Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the NATO allies agreed to make 2% of GDP the minimum spending level. Last year, 22 countries were expected to hit that target, up from only three a decade ago. In The Hague, the allies were expected to up the ante to 3.5%, plus a further 1.5% for things like improving roads, bridges, ports and airfields or preparing societies to deal with future conflicts. Whether they will now remains an open question.
