Ecology and Enviroment

The need to hold companies responsible in terms of environmental justice

Summary

Climate change, acid rain, depletion of the ozone layer, species extinction- the global environmental issues point to one thing, that environmental health is a global issue that should be viewed with concern by all countries in the world. Environmental justice should be prioritsed, so all communities over the world find commonality in their own circumstance and share the goal of seeking environmental justice. In the early 1980s, the Environmental Justice Movement emerged in North Carolina, USA, due to the local dispute over toxic waste dumping near a neighbourhood of African-American people. After the drama of Chernobyl which happened in 1986, the European countries started to rethink matters of industrial progress, environmental change, and social justice. Moreover, human geographers have conducted both ethical and political-ecological studies on environmental discrimination and justice. The ethical orientation has, for example, aimed at formulating general principles for the fair division of good and bad environments, so this has developed toward a meta-ethical debate about the moral lessons that humankind needs to learn in order to to change the current alarming social and ecological trends on Earth (Lehtinen, A. A. 2009). However, regulating all companies in the world to take responsibility for environmental justice can be challenging and a long process since in different countries, the legislation for environmental pollution might be different and some essential companies, like oil producers, might not be regulated efficiently. In detail, thirty per cent of the global industrial greenhouse emissions between 1965-2018 can be traced to the activities of 15 companies in the oil industry. In this case, the duty of decarbonisation entails a large-scale transformation that the oil companies and other energy producers ought to undergo in order to reduce and eventually eliminate carbon emissions from their business model. Therefore, increasing businesses’ level of concern for environmental justice should be deemed as one of the most important issues for governments and environmental conservation institutions to work on.

Definition of key terms

Environmental justice-Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of race, colour, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.

Communities of justice-Alliances or co-associations, both local and trans-local, that (re)produce the criteria, practices, and relations central to the shared formation of a sense of justice.

Distributive justice-An ethical or juridical approach that focuses on the distribution of benefits and burdens, including the outcomes of decisions or events.

Modernisation-Development phase and paradigm that emphasises human reason and rationality, accompanied by the ideas of linear progress and absolute truth as well as confidence in the human ability to control nature. The modern worldview also contains strong ideals of equality and liberty.

Background information

The movement exposed a contradiction within North American environmentalism, reflecting historical complexities. Mainstream conservationists often avoided addressing racial and social concerns, stemming from a history rooted in white middle-class appreciation of pristine wilderness areas, symbolizing white power. The establishment of national parks like Yellowstone and Yosemite displaced indigenous First Nations, exemplifying the historical connection between environmental preservation and indigenous displacement. The colonial expansion in North America led to the genocide of First Nations and marked civilization's progress through wilderness conquest. This expansion was coupled with the transatlantic slave trade and unequal urban living conditions, leading environmental justice issues to frequently intersect with environmental racism. The concentration of environmental risks on ethnic minorities serves as a stark reminder of North America's violent past. This historical context shapes the perception of justice, emphasising interethnic violence in the continent's founding. This awareness underlies ongoing discussions of social and environmental inequalities at local and global levels. Environmental justice matters are addressed in legal forums by experts and in activist networks concerned with local-global injustices. While both legal experts and activists share a commitment to just decision-making and positive change, European and North American approaches to environmental justice differ in practical applications and formulations.

In Europe, the response to environmental and justice issues is influenced by the continent's recent environmental history. Experiences of human-nature challenges in the past decades have reshaped perceptions of justice. The European Union faces concerns over genetically modified foods due to the food crises of the 1990s, highlighting the risks of high-tech food production. This has sparked debates about the unjust consequences of increasing technological dependencies and the ethical treatment of animals in the food industry.

The Chernobyl nuclear reactor explosion in 1986 brought about a new ethical environmental discourse in Europe. The incident underscored the vulnerability of the technological age and exposed the risks entrenched in industrial culture. Radioactive fallout polluted wide areas of Europe, transcending political borders and prompting a collective effort to protect against radiation. However, varying levels of individual protection resulted from factors like employment histories, wealth disparities, risk awareness, and attachment to home. Chornobyl compelled a reevaluation of industrial progress, environmental change, and social justice. It exposed intergenerational justice issues, emphasising the consequences of previous generations' actions. This experience reshaped European environmental consciousness, fostering a growing concern for the direction and justification of modernisation. The emergence of the risk society concept further complicated matters. It revisited the lessons of Enlightenment and progress, challenging the separation between nature and society. Nature's contamination, both external and internal, disrupted the notion of a pristine Europe. This history informs Europe's approach to environmental justice, evident in considerations of human and animal rights, food quality, marginalised communities, ecological threats, and more. The tension between ethical rethinking and security measures characterises Europe's response to these issues. It shapes the constitutional discourse of the European Union, pitting visions of a strong federal entity against democratic co-jurisdiction. This dispute centres on socio-spatial dynamics and the control of justice communities, encapsulating the complexities of Europe's evolving environmental consciousness and its interaction with justice concerns.

Human geographers have explored environmental discrimination and justice through both ethical and politico-ecological perspectives. The ethical stance seeks to establish principles for fair distribution of environments, asserting a foundational right to a healthy environment for all. Meanwhile, the politico-ecological approach delves into real-world social and environmental conditions, examining processes that lead to inequality and injustice in everyday life and political-economic practices. Scholars in this tradition analyse exploitative practices, changing roles of consumers, environmental regulations, and neoliberal reorganisations. Political ecologists scrutinise how power intersects with nature's use, often critically engaging with historical socio-environmental relationships. They highlight corrective and retributive justice, addressing environmental racism from indigenous and minority viewpoints. Concerns about inter-species justice and intergenerational aspects have also emerged. The multiscale nature of environmental justice issues is emphasised, connecting individual injustices to broader societal changes. Moreover, new animal geography spotlights nonhuman suffering and intergenerational justice concerns. Critical geographers and political ecologists uncover discriminatory practices that form sociospatial and ecological peripheries. They highlight participation shortcomings stemming from ethnic, age, gender, regional, or class-based discrimination, as well as the neglect of nonhuman entities. Community-based perspectives emphasise how communities shape notions of nature and justice. Community serves as the foundation for environmentally just preferences and practices, originating from shared ideas and values. This approach requires understanding the unequal distribution of risks faced by communities and examining how environmental changes are articulated, justified, and distributed, thereby linking environmental research to distributive justice concerns.

Oil industry

Climate change is intricately linked to justice, prompting discussions on ethical considerations and challenges. The debate over climate justice centres on determining which agents should be central in moral discussions about anthropogenic climate change. While the current state-centric perspective focuses on nations as primary agents, there is growing consideration for individuals and collective responsibility. Often overlooked, oil and gas companies hold a distinctive role in causing climate change due to their substantial greenhouse gas emissions. This responsibility doesn't absolve other agents but underlines the need for these companies to address climate change.

Recent studies by Richard Heede and colleagues focus on the contributions of major carbon producers to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Termed "carbon majors," these are prominent public and private oil, gas, coal, and cement producers. The research reveals that just 100 operating carbon majors have been responsible for 71% of global industrial emissions since 1988. Attribution science has also connected specific climate impacts to these carbon majors. For example, emissions from 90 major carbon producers contributed to a significant portion of the rise in global mean surface temperature and global sea level since 1980. The oil industry stands out as a key carbon major due to its extensive reach. While ownership of oil and gas resources varies, the industry serves as the conduit for their global distribution. It consists of international oil companies (IOCs) and national oil companies (NOCs). IOCs are private entities with operations spanning the exploration, production, refinement, and distribution of petroleum products. NOCs, often government-owned, follow a similar structure. The oil industry is vertically integrated, engaging in both upstream (exploration and production) and downstream (refining and distribution) activities. The industry's cumulative GHG emissions have been significant, with just 10 oil and gas companies contributing nearly 25% of emissions between 1965 and 2018. Their fossil fuel reserves could raise global surface temperatures well beyond the 1.5°C target. Researchers argue that a substantial portion of oil, gas, and coal reserves should remain unburned by 2050 to achieve this target. The findings underscore the oil industry's substantial role in climate change and its implications for global efforts to mitigate its effects.

Six facts are stated to emphasise the responsibility of oil companies to take for environmental justice:

Fact 1: The largest 60 oil companies contributed to more than 40% of all global industrial emissions between 1988–2015 (Carbon Majors Database – 2017 Dataset Release). According to the 2018 Carbon Majors Database, just 10 oil and gas companies accounted for almost 25% of all global industrial emissions between and just 15 for almost 30% between 1965–2018.
Fact 2: Some oil companies have had knowledge about the harmful effects of burning fossil fuels in causing climate change (CIEL 2017). For instance, at the celebration of the one-hundredth anniversary of the world’s first commercial oil well in 1959, organised by the American Petroleum Institute in New York, the renowned physicist Edward Teller warned oil executives, government officials and scientists with startling prescience about the correlation between carbon dioxide and global warming.
Fact 3: Most of Big Oil’s emissions were released between 1988–2015 (Carbon Majors Database – CDP Carbon Majors Report 2017). Additionally, the five largest IOCs – BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell and TotalEnergies – plan to invest around $3.5 billion (only 3 per cent of their 2019 capital expenditures) in low-carbon technologies, while roughly $110.5 billion will be put into oil and gas exploration and production (InfluenceMap 2019).
Fact 4: Big Oil had the possibility to reduce the harmful effects of its business and to adjust its business model to become less carbon-intensive; some investor-owned oil corporations had this opportunity over 40 years ago (CIEL 2017). At the end of the 1980s, the US oil industry owned or controlled the largest share of solar panel production in its homeland, maintaining its prominence in this technology well into the 2000s. If these technologies had been developed and deployed, the oil industry could have had a major impact on reducing carbon emissions and accelerating the shift toward a low-carbon future. But the prospects of the higher costs of carbon-saving technologies, at least initially, slashing the oil industry’s profits meant that it chose to not go down this path.
Fact 5: Leading investor-owned oil companies actively opposed and, in many cases, successfully prevented policies to reduce GHG emissions and, in some countries, funded climate denial efforts (Oreskes and Conway 2011; Frumhoff et al. 2015). The evidence of the oil industry’s denial is overwhelming.
Fact 6: Oil companies have made substantial profits that have greatly increased the wealth of their shareholders through their activities related to fossil fuels (Frumhoff et al. 2015).

The oil industry's responsibility for climate change is supported by a series of morally relevant facts. Fact 1 highlights that major oil companies have significantly contributed to climate change through their fossil fuel-related activities. While this establishes causal responsibility, more stringent moral responsibility demands awareness of consequences, intentions, and actions. Fact 2 underscores that oil companies have known about the harmful effects of their actions since at least the first IPCC report in 1990. Despite this awareness, Fact 3 notes that they released most emissions in recent decades when they could have limited their impact (Fact 4).

Furthermore, Fact 5 reveals that some oil companies intentionally obstructed climate initiatives and funded climate denial efforts. Fact 6 emphasises the substantial profits these companies gained from fossil fuel-related activities, enhancing their responsibilities. This aligns with a moral logic that links the burden of rectification actions to benefits derived and the ability to pay. These facts collectively justify assigning moral responsibility to oil companies for climate change. In particular, they can be attributed to "collective" moral responsibility, as conglomerate collectivities, which transcend the sum of individual identities. These entities possess attributes like an overarching identity, decision-making structures, consistency over time, and self-conception as a unit. Hence, oil companies qualify as moral agents, justifying different forms of responsibility.

Considering these morally relevant facts and the notion of collective moral responsibility, the oil industry should be held morally responsible for its role in causing climate change. This includes positive, special, backward- and forward-looking moral responsibility.

Possible solutions

Oil companies facing their responsibilities and duties can lead to different possible actions, each with its own implications for justice. One extreme possibility is the 'Sudden End,' involving an abrupt termination of fossil fuel-related activities. While this would prevent future harm, it may hinder fair reparations to climate change victims and negatively impact vulnerable shareholders.

A more practical approach is the 'Just Transition,' entailing a gradual phase-out of fossil fuels from oil companies' operations and products. This option accommodates compensation and obligations to vulnerable shareholders, maintaining company existence while aligning with justice requirements. The 'Just Transition' is less disruptive to the global socio-economic system compared to the 'Sudden End,' which could impact states, industries reliant on fossil fuels, and stakeholders. However, the 'Just Transition' can take diverse forms, with varying durations and combinations of strategies like decarbonization, compensation, business-as-usual, and emissions offsetting. These transition scenarios range from slow, ineffective business-as-usual to more proactive approaches involving compensation efforts or rapid decarbonization and business model shifts. Balancing the duties of reparation and decarbonisation is challenging due to finite budgets, necessitating prioritisation. Both duties are crucial from a justice standpoint, prompting the need for context-specific research to assess their relative importance.

To address this conundrum and provide practical insights, future research should delve into nuanced contextualised approaches, weighing the significance of each duty. Additionally, more extensive theoretical exploration of 'Just Transition' perspectives and policy implications is essential. Ultimately, all possible actions involve trade-offs among justice concerns, highlighting the complexity of achieving a fair and effective response to oil companies' responsibilities in climate change mitigation.

Bibliography

Claudio L. (2007). Standing on principle: the global push for environmental justice. Environmental health perspectives, 115(10), A500–A503. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.115-a500
Ganguly, G., Setzer, J., & Heyvaert, V. (2018). If at First You Don’t Succeed: Suing Corporations for Climate Change. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 38(4), 841-868. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqy029
Grasso, M. (n.d.). Climate Justice from Theory to Practice: The Responsibility and Duties of the Oil Industry. International Relations.
Ramirez-Andreotta, M. (2018). Environmental Justice. Environmental and Pollution Science (Third Edition), 573-583. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-814719-1.00031-8
Ramirez-Andreotta, M. (2018). Environmental Justice. Environmental and Pollution Science (Third Edition), 573-583. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-814719-1.00031-8
Bolte, G., Pauli, A., & Hornberg, C. (2010). Environmental Justice: Social Disparities in Environmental Exposures and Health: Overview. Encyclopedia of Environmental Health, 459-470. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-52272-6.00685-1
Lehtinen, A. A. (2009). Environmental Justice. International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, 535–539. doi:10.1016/b978-008044910-4.00773-2
CIEL – Center for International Environmental Law 2017.Smoke and Fumes. The Legal and Evidentiary Basis for Holding Big Oil Accountable for the Climate Crisis. Washington and Geneva: CIEL.
Ekwurzel, B., Boneham, J., Dalton, M. W., Heede, R., Mera, R. J., Allen, M. R. and Frumhoff, P. C. 2017. “The rise in global atmospheric CO2, surface temperature, and sea level from emissions traced to major carbon producers”. Climatic Change 144 (4): 579–590.
Finnemore, M. and Sikkink, K. 1998. “International norm dynamics and political change”. International organization 52 (4): 887–917.
French, P. 1984. Collective and Corporate Responsibility. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Frumhoff, P. C., Heede, R. and Oreskes, N. 2015. “The climate responsibilities of industrial carbon producers”. Climatic Change 132 (2): 157–171.

The use of carbon taxes to reduce environmental damage

Introduction

The introduction of carbon taxes to reduce environmental damage is at the centre of the current global debate on environmental protection and sustainable development. Climate change and related environmental challenges have increased the urgency of this debate as we witness the profound impacts of rising temperatures, extreme weather events and ecosystem loss around the world. At a time when the environmental impacts of human activity are undeniable and calls for drastic action are growing louder, the implementation of carbon taxes is moving to the centre of the political agenda.

Definition of Key Terms

Carbon taxes are seen as one of the most promising policy measures to incentivise reductions in greenhouse gas emissions while generating revenue for environmental projects. They are based on the principle that polluters of environmental impacts should bear the costs of these impacts. This form of taxation has gained considerable attention in many countries and internationally and is seen as a possible key to mitigating climate change and creating a more sustainable future. In this study, the role of carbon taxes in addressing environmental damage is explored in more detail to provide a deeper understanding of their implications and importance in the global environmental agenda.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) - an intergovernmental organisation with 38 member countries, founded in 1961 to stimulate economic progress and world trade.

Background Information

In some countries, like Chile, Colombia, Argentina, Mexico, and South Africa, they have put in place something called a "carbon tax." However, in other countries, when they say "carbon tax," it's not quite the same thing from a technical point of view.

For instance, in some places, they have taxes that they call carbon taxes, but they're actually taxes on things like fuels or motor vehicles. This matters because these taxes don't work the same way as a true carbon tax. While they can bring in money for the government, they usually don't do as much to help the environment as a real carbon tax would, even though they might reduce local pollution or have other environmental benefits.

For example, a tax on gasoline might make people drive less, but it wouldn't necessarily make them use less fuel for things like heating their homes, which also produces carbon emissions. Another example is that a carbon tax allows for different pricing between regular diesel and a "cleaner" kind of diesel made with biofuels. This would be trickier to do with a tax based on the value of the fuel. Because there isn't one single definition of what a carbon tax should be, policymakers need to be careful when they design these taxes and consider different methods to make sure they actually help the environment.

Why the UN supports Carbon Taxes

Mitigating Climate Change: the primary goal of carbon taxes, according to the UN, is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, which are a major contributor to climate change. By putting a price on carbon emissions, countries can incentivise individuals, businesses, and industries to reduce their carbon footprint.

Funding Climate Initiatives: revenue generated from carbon taxes can be used to fund climate-related initiatives, such as renewable energy projects, climate adaptation programs, and investments in clean technologies. This can help countries transition to a low-carbon and sustainable economy.

Creating Incentives for Green Practices: carbon taxes create financial incentives for businesses and individuals to adopt more environmentally friendly practices. Companies may invest in energy-efficient technologies, reduce fossil fuel consumption, or develop cleaner products to avoid higher tax costs.

International Cooperation: climate change is a global issue that requires coordinated efforts from all countries. The UN encourages countries to adopt carbon pricing mechanisms, including carbon taxes, as part of their commitment to the Paris Agreement, an international treaty aimed at limiting global warming.

How Carbon Taxes Might Differ from Country to Country

The implementation of carbon taxes can vary from one country to another due to differences in economic structures, energy sources, and political considerations. Here's how they might differ:

Tax Rates: the level of carbon taxation may differ based on a country's emissions profile and economic capacity. Some countries might impose higher taxes on carbon-intensive industries, while others may have lower rates to avoid disproportionately affecting their economies.

Exemptions and Rebates: countries may offer exemptions or rebates to certain industries or individuals to prevent adverse economic impacts. For example, energy-intensive industries might receive exemptions or reduced tax rates to remain competitive on the global stage.

Use of Revenue: countries can decide how to use the revenue generated from carbon taxes. Some may allocate it exclusively to climate-related initiatives, while others may use it for general government purposes.

Implementation Timeline: the timeline for introducing and phasing in carbon taxes can vary. Some countries might adopt them gradually, allowing businesses and individuals time to adjust, while others may implement them more rapidly.

International Agreements: some countries may coordinate their carbon tax policies with neighbouring nations or participate in international carbon trading markets to manage emissions collectively

Stakeholders

International organisations:

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
World Bank
International Monetary Fund (IMF)

NGOs:

World Wildlife Fund (WWF): WWF is a global organisation working on conservation and climate-related issues. They often engage in advocacy for policies aimed at reducing environmental impact.
Greenpeace: Greenpeace is known for its environmental activism and campaigns. They focus on issues such as climate change, deforestation, and pollution and may have a perspective on carbon taxes.
Friends of the Earth: An international network of environmental organisations, Friends of the Earth is involved in various environmental campaigns, including those related to climate change and sustainable development.
Climate Action Network (CAN): CAN is a global network of over 1,500 NGOs working to promote government and individual action to limit human-induced climate change.

Relevant UN Treaties, Resolutions and Reports

UN Handbook on Carbon Taxation for Developing Countries (2021)

Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)

Previous Attempts to Solve the Issue

planting new forests (afforestation) or restoring old ones (reforestation) (Union of concerned scientist)
reducing fuel consumption, increasing efficiency and using cleaner fuels and technologies (UNFCCC)

Possible Solutions

Reduce carbon emissions , environmental damage, eg. recycle more, all countries needs to establish the carbon tax to some extent especially in those that rely on fossil fuels.

International Cooperation: Climate change is a global issue that requires coordinated efforts from all countries. The UN encourages countries to adopt carbon pricing mechanisms, including carbon taxes, as part of their commitment to the Paris Agreement, an international treaty aimed at limiting global warming.

Bibliography

UN Handbook on Carbon Taxation for Developing Countries (2021)

Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)

https://blogs.worldbank.org/energy/what-carbon-tax-can-do-and-why-it-cannot-do-it-all

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6473478/

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2019/06/what-is-carbon-taxation-basics

https://www.oecd.org/env/tools-evaluation/48164926.pdf

The need to limit overfishing and reduce bycatch to protect our resources

Introduction

Only 1.5% of the ocean is protected, leaving over 80% to be fished in; this means that bycatch and other methods damaging marine life are possible. Overfishing and bycatch need to be limited due to its destructiveness to several vital resources. More specifically, it affects marine life that many depend upon for their survival, the oceans themselves and the coral reefs which protect coastline from storms and erosion, and provide food and medicine. Moreover, 55% of coral reefs are affected by overfishing due to the fact that the number of fish grazing the coral declines. Grazing coral is vital as it keeps them clean, preventing algae overgrowth. Also, overfishing causes extinction to many marine species, therefore disrupting the food chain, which can result in more species dying. These species are needed in the water as they are used for food, survival and much more by certain communities. But nearly a third of all global fish stocks are overfished, even to the point where 60% are fished to their maximum sustainable yield, making them less readily available, therefore increasing consumer price. Lastly, illegal and unregulated fishing play another part in this issue, where millions of non targeted catches are caught unintentionally.

Definition of Key Terms

Firstly, overfishing means catching too many fish in one go, therefore leaving a population too exhausted to recover. Secondly, bycatch is when fish or other marine species are captured unintentionally by commercial fishing nets. Bycatch is a result of the method of longlines which is when J hooks (baited hooks) are hung on a fishing line. Another method is trawling where large nets are dragged along the seabed resulting in picking up everything it encounters and finally gillnets is when a wall of netting is hung in the water column . Water column is the concept used to describe the physical and chemical characteristics of seawater at different depths. Gillnets are nets that are hard to see so cetaceans (e.g whales, dolphins) are unable to use echolocation to detect them. Echolocation is the physiological process of where cetaceans detect an invisible object by emitting a sound wave that therefore bounces off the object. Fish stocks refers to the sub-population of a certain species of fish. Subsidies are sums of money granted by the state/ public body to help an industry/ business keep the price of a commodity/ service low, in this case the fishing industry. Finally, IUU fishing refers to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. Illegal fishing can include fishing without permission in another countrys’ waters, or fishing in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Unreported fishing describes mis/ non-reporting of information of fishing operations and their catches. Unregulated fishing means when fishing takes place in regional fisheries management organisation (RFMO) areas, by vessels without nationality or not belonging to RFMO.

Background Information

Firstly, overfishing causes disruption to the whole ecosystem. This results in various bodies of water such as: ponds, oceans, rivers and lakes food chains being altered.

Secondly, bycatch has increased due to the modern fishing methods that advantageously cover large areas, therefore being unselective in which species are captured. There are many ways in which bycatch is increased; for example bottom dragging, which captures target species along with others by the towing of a net along the ocean floor. Furthermore, longlines, trawls and gillnets pose the greatest threat to ocean life through incidental captures; leaving 720,000 seabirds, 345,000 seals, sea lions and 250,000 turtles dead due to fisheries using these techniques. Longlines target species such as swordfish, tuna and halibut by using baited hooks which can hook onto non targeted species, and if swallowed cause death. Additionally, loggerhead turtles and leatherback turtles are endangered due to long lines set out for species. Trawling is the use of large nets which are heavily weighted to collect all species lying along the seabed, resulting in the capture of marine turtles and the damage to coral reefs. By using these modern methods less than 65% of fish stocks are fished within biological sustainable levels, leaving a large majority being fished outside of these guidelines. 35% of fish stocks are being overfished, leaving the fish depleting faster than they are being replaced.

Private fishing is another factor that accounts for the increase in overfishing. This is because it doesn’t take into consideration the net mesh sizes. If the mesh size is smaller it increases the number of unwanted species caught, so it’s less selective; making bi-catching twice as likely to occur from the use of smaller mesh tangle nets. By using these fish are caught around the snout instead of ensnaring them. An example of this is gillnets, which is a wall of mesh netting that hangs in the water column, invisible to sea creatures. Its disadvantages are that fishs’ gills get caught when they try to escape the net, capturing them, along with trapping turtles. When the fish try to move through the mesh holes they get their heads and gills entangled, resulting in suffocating due to their gills being constricted, alongside their skin and scales being cut. Even after they have served their use the gillnets are sometimes discarded back into the ocean or even lost, where they still have the power of entrapping more fish. Altogether, 300,000 small whales and dolphins die from entanglement caused by these nets each year, making it the largest cause of death for small cetaceans. Private fishers also abandon bycatch mitigation measures and quotas. Fishing quotas are implemented to limit the size and amount of fish that can be caught in certain areas, therefore limiting extinction of species.

Another reason why overfishing has occurred is due to the fact that we consume twice as much seafood in comparison to 50 years ago. Moreover, the consumption of aquatic food per capita was 9.9kg in the 1980s and became 20.2kg in 2020. By eating more seafood, demand for aquatic species increases, so the suppliers increase their catches to make more profit. There has also been an increase in consumption as fish are marketed as being packed in nutrients such as vitamin D, and omega 3, while also supposedly lowering the risk of heart disease due to its benefits. However, those that depend on consuming marine species for their survival need these species to live, while others should limit their consumption. However, many fisheries we are dependent on, have minimal regulations, leading people to overfish, by not following the rules.

The final reason why overfishing and bycatch occurs is because only 1.5% of the ocean is protected and 80% of the protected areas allow fishing. Due to the lack of protected areas, sharks and tuna become the most prone species to overfishing. As they play vital roles in keeping ecosystems stable, without them underpopulation and algal bloom would occur. Algal bloom is when algae grows uncontrollably and produces toxic and harmful effects. One of these effects is that it consumes the majority of the oxygen, further fuelling its growth and therefore blocking sunlight from underwater plants, depriving other species of food and habitats. One can see this effect visually as freshwater becomes discoloured.

Relevant UN Treaties, Resolution and Reports

Bycatch Mitigation Initiative- started 1st October 2016, completion 1st January 2020 (https://sdgs.un.org/partnerships/bycatch-mitigation-initiative)

Reduce by- catches and discards from fisheries- started 1st June 2017, completion 1st December 2023. (https://sdgs.un.org/partnerships/reduce-catches-and-discards-fisheries)

Conserve and sustainably use marine resources , oceans and seas- (https://sdgs.un.org/statements/wwf-beyond-2015-coastal-and-marine-union-eucc-diva-global-ocean-commission-high-seas)

Prohibiting certain forms of fisheries subsidies which contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, eliminate subsidies that contribute to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and refrain from introducing new such subsidies- start 1st June 2017, completion 1st December 2020 (https://sdgs.un.org/partnerships/146-2020-prohibit-certain-forms-fisheries-subsidies-which-contribute-overcapacity-and)

Joining forces to shape the fishery sector of tomorrow- (https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/OurWork/Safety/Documents/FAO_IMO-ILO%20brochure-%20Joining%20forces%20in%20fisheries.pdf) - (https://sway.office.com/pGZcJtkSuHNxDzy5)

Previous Attempts to Solve the Issue

One of the previous attempts to solve the issue was when a deal aimed at dissolving fishing subsidies and reducing global overfishing was secured by the World Trade Organisation in June 2022. This agreement, named the ‘Fisheries Agreement‘ , aimed to boost declining fish stocks and protect the communities whose livelihoods depended on marine resources. Also, they aimed to ban IUU fishing and decrease subsidies for stocks that are currently overfished. If existing subsidies remodel their fishing stocks to meet ‘biologically sustainable level,‘ they could remain.

Another one of the previous attempts to clarify this issue was to implement traceability standards which was outlined in the 2022 State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture Report (https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cc0461en/). Traceability systems would allow a product to be tracked all the way from its origin to destination, therefore highlighting the fisheries regulations and food safety. These standards have been established in the past through the catch documentation scheme (CDS) where documents were given to a fishery if the product was legally sourced and met requirements by national authorities.

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) implemented the solution that the top end of fishing nets be placed two metres lower. Moreover, this alternative fishing technique reduced death of marine species and bycatch by 98%. This kept the environments where fisheries operate more sustainable.

WWF has also implemented schemes to solve the issue of bycatch and overfishing, which they named fishery improvement projects, to make fishing more sustainable. One of the ways that they are carrying out this project is by using new technology to decrease the wasted fish caught . They also want to make fishing more traceable, sustainable and responsible. For example, they have implemented remote electronic devices to monitor trawlers working at sea, by installing CCTV cameras on the fishing boats. If boats are caught abiding by the correct rules and regulations they are rewarded. WWF also helped establish the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) where their fish are sourced with minimal environmental damage. An example of where they have helped is in East Africa where they have worked with small fisheries to meet the MSC standards. Another example is where they have worked with the South West Indian Ocean fisheries commission, by agreeing on rules with which foreign fleets should abide by. Lastly, they have worked with the UK and EU to ensure their fisheries are developed to be more sustainable, to help depleted ecosystems to allow their recovery and the fish stock to be boosted.

Possible Solutions

Ban fishing subsidies- subsidies which are given to the fishing industry for fuel and fishing gear help contribute to overfishing. By benefitting from subsidies fishing companies are encouraged to use destructive fishing practices (bycatch and deep-sea trawling). Therefore, by removing these subsidies fishing practices become more sustainable, by meeting implemented regulations and guidelines.
Regulate the size of mesh nets- by regulating the size of mesh nets, it stops bycatch and therefore decreases contribution to overfishing. Therefore, fisheries should use larger mesh nets as it increases selectivity, as fish can’t get their heads and gills stuck if caught intentionally. After this is implemented there should be a search to remove any existing small mesh nets from the ocean, preventing further unwanted deaths.
Decreasing consumption- as consumption of fish has increased due to the suggested health benefits, such as: containing vital minerals and vitamins, and acting as a great source of protein, people need to find alternatives. This is vital as many communities rely on marine resources for food and more. Furthermore, if overfishing continues they will lose their resources and also the coral reefs will become more damaged which half a billion people rely on for their income and food.