Can the United States have its fish and eat it too?

Abstract

As domestic affluence increases, nations advocate for conservation policies to protect domestic biodiversity that often curtail natural resource production activities such as fishing. If concomitant consumption patterns remain unchanged, environmentally-conscious nations with high consumption rates such as the U.S. may only be distancing themselves from the negative environmental impacts associated with consuming resources and commodities produced elsewhere. This unintended displacement of ecosystem impacts, or leakage, associated with conservation policies has not been studied extensively in marine fisheries. This paper examines this topic, drawing on case studies to illustrate the ways in which unilateral marine conservation actions can shift ecosystem impacts elsewhere, as has been documented in land use interventions. The authors argue that the U.S. should recognize these distant ecological consequences and move toward greater self-sufficiency to protect its seafood security and minimize leakage as well as undertake efforts to reduce ecosystem impacts of foreign fisheries on which it relies. Six solutions are suggested for broadening the marine conservation and seafood consumption discussion to address U.S.-induced leakage.

Accounting for unintended consequences of resource policy: Connecting research that addresses displacement of environmental impacts

“…Given the complex connectivity of global markets and ecological systems, it is challenging to directly measure these transferred or displaced impacts. However, recent research has identified displaced environmental impact across a range of natural resource policies, including those governing fisheries management (Chan & Pan, 2016;Helvey, Pomeroy, Pradhan, Squires, & Stohs, 2017;Rausser, Hamilton, Kovach, & Stifter, 2009), biodiversity protection (Lenzen et al, 2012;Weinzettel, Hertwich, Peters, Steen-Olsen, & Galli, 2013), forest preservation (Gan & McCarl, 2007;Mayer, Kauppi, Angelstam, Zhang, & Tikka, 2005;Meyfroidt & Lambin, 2009), and land use (Kastner, Kastner, & Nonhebel, 2011;Meyfroidt, 2017). Despite growing evidence (Box 1), there has been relatively little effort within and across resource sectors to adequately integrate this work into policy discussions in a manner that transcends disciplinary, sectoral, or other boundaries.…”

Defining the economic scope for ecosystem-based fishery management

“…Our analysis includes all Alaska fisheries and is arguably one of the larger analyses of fishing policy outcomes to date. Although not investigated here, there is also evidence that spillover may occur between fishing regions or countries and therefore an even broader scope may be appropriate ( 21 , 41 ).…”

Comparing Dynamic and Static Time-Area Closures for Bycatch Mitigation: A Management Strategy Evaluation of a Swordfish Fishery

“…It is also considered to have contributed to a reduction in effort and landings of swordfish on the U.S. West Coast. Continued assessment of the economic impacts of these (and potential) regulations and closures is important to ensure thorough evaluation of the trade-off between bycatch reduction and economic opportunity; especially in the context of absolute bycatch impact (which for the DGN is comparatively low; Savoca et al, 2020), and considering the potential for "leakage" and "spillover" of the bycatch problem for many HMS (Chan and Pan, 2016;Helvey et al, 2017).…”