Mesopelagic-epipelagic fish nexus in viability and feasibility of commercial-scale mesopelagic fisheries

© The Author(s), 2022. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Kourantidou, M., & Jin, D. Mesopelagic-epipelagic fish nexus in viability and feasibility of commercial-scale mesopelagic fisheries. Natural Resource Modeling, 35(4), (2022): e12350, https://doi.org/10.1111/nrm.12350.While considerable scientific uncertainties persist for mesopelagic ecosystems, the fishing industry has developed a great interest in commercial exploitation with improved technologies as part of their search for new sources of feed for fishmeal and fish oil for aquaculture, which will intensify with the planet's growing population. The multiple uncertainties surrounding the ecosystem structure and particularly the size of biomass, hinder a good understanding of the risks associated with large-scale exploitation, which is needed for a management framework for sustainable ocean uses. Despite concerns regarding irreversible losses triggered by commercial fishing, work exploring the vulnerability of mesopelagic fish to harvesting is largely missing. This study investigates the economic feasibility of mesopelagic fishing which is the primary driver for any possible future expansion. Using very limited information currently available, we conduct a high-level assessment focusing on key ecological and economic interactions and develop an initial understanding of the economic feasibility of commercial harvesting for mesopelagic fish in the coming years. We conduct simulations using a classical bioeconomic model that captures two species groups, mesopelagic and epipelagic fish, using a wide range of price and cost parameters. We analyze different scenarios for the economic profitability of the fishery in a regional fishery management context. The results of our study highlight the importance of better understanding key biological and ecological mechanisms and parameters which can in turn help inform policies aimed at protecting the mesopelagic.This study is supported by WHOI's Ocean Twilight Zone program which is part of the Audacious Project, a collaborative endeavor, housed at TED

Equitable allocations in northern fisheries: bridging the divide for Labrador Inuit

© The Author(s), 2021. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Kourantidou, M., Hoagland, P., Dale, A., & Bailey, M. Equitable allocations in northern fisheries: bridging the divide for Labrador Inuit. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8, (2021): 590213, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.590213.Canada has undertaken commitments to recognize the rights of Indigenous Peoples in fisheries through policies and agreements, including Integrated Fishery Management Plans, the Reconciliation Strategy, and Land Claim Agreements (LCAs). In addition to recognizing rights, these commitments were intended to respect geographic adjacency principles, to enhance the economic viability of Indigenous communities, and to be reflective of community dependence on marine resources. We examined the determinants of quota allocations in commercial fisheries involving Nunatsiavut, Northern Labrador, the first self-governing region for the Inuit peoples in Canada. It has been argued that current fishery allocations for Nunatsiavut Inuit have not satisfied federal commitments to recognize Indigenous rights. Indicators that measure equity in commercial allocations for the turbot or Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) and northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis) fisheries were identified and assessed. In these two cases, historical allocations continue to predominate for allocations based upon equity or other social or economic considerations. We illustrate equity-enhancing changes in the quota distribution under scenarios of different levels of inequality aversion, and we make qualitative assessments of the effects of these allocations to Nunatsiavut for socioeconomic welfare. This approach could benefit fisheries governance in Northern Labrador, where federal commitments to equity objectives continue to be endorsed but have not yet been integrated fully into quota allocations.This research was undertaken with funding from the Canada First Research Excellence Fund through the Ocean Frontier Institute (MK and MB) and the Johnson Endowment of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution’s (WHOI) Marine Policy Center (PH)

Nascent Developments in Arctic Fisheries: Managing the Red King Crab in the Barents Sea

The paper seeks to identify bioeconomic patterns and processes with respect to the Red King Crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) in the Barents Sea. Its dual role (as invasion and market commodity) together with the dynamically evolving Arctic marine environment requires pro-active and multi-faceted approaches. Challenges and uncertainties include data limitations, scientific disagreements, conflicting incentives, and illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, indicating the need for acquiring a better understanding of the current situation and the potential implications of a new management regime. Impacts of the crab invasion can be indeed elusive, granted the uncertainty about the baseline of Barents Sea benthic productivity and the large temporal and spatial scale. Examples of debated impacts include those on soft benthic bottom fauna ecosystems as well as on other commercial stocks of the Barents (capelin, lumpsucker, Chlamys islandica). These are creating acute concerns, also for nations and stakeholders in the affected ecosystems other than Norway and Russia who have direct management of the stocks in their waters. The management challenge is complicated by marked differences in perceptions of net gains and damages when moving east to west. In the Western Barents, external costs hold higher value due not only to greater interspecific competition and greater exhibited preferences for environmental quality, while harvest (market) benefits also differ as functions of regulatory and investment decisions in harvest technology and governance limitations. The movement of the crab to the west leaves the effects of further spread primarily under Norwegian management, creating more differences in management incentives.Proceedings of the Eighteenth Biennial Conference of the International Institute of Fisheries Economics and Trade, held July 11-15, 2016 at Aberdeen Exhibition and Conference Center (AECC), Aberdeen, Scotland, UK

Biological invasions as burdens to primary economic sectors

Many human-introduced alien species economically impact industries worldwide. Management prioritisation and coordination efforts towards biological invasions are hampered by a lack of comprehensive quantification of costs to key economic sectors. Here, we quantify and estimate global invasion costs to seven major sectors and unravel the introduction pathways of species causing these costs — focusing mainly on primary economic sectors: agriculture, fisheries and forestry. From 1970 to 2020, costs reported in the InvaCost database as pertaining to Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry totaled $509 bn,$1.3 bn, and $134 bn, respectively (in 2017 United States dollars). Pathways of costly species were diverse, arising predominantly from cultural and agricultural activities, through unintentional contaminants with trade, and often impacted different sectors than those for which species were initially introduced. Costs to Agriculture were pervasive and greatest in at least 37$365 bn), followed by China ($101 bn), and Australia ($36 bn). We further identified 19 countries highly economically reliant on Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry that are experiencing massive economic impacts from biological invasions, especially in the Global South. Based on an extrapolation to fill cost data gaps, we estimated total global costs ranging from at least $517–1,400 bn for Agriculture,$5.7–6.5 bn for Fisheries, and $142–768 bn for Forestry, evidencing substantial underreporting in the Forestry sector in particular. Burgeoning global invasion costs challenge sustainable development and highlight the need for improved management action to reduce future impacts on industry. Significance: With rapidly rising biological invasion rates, efficient management is critical for economic and environmental impact mitigation. Specifically, improved quantification of the economic cost of biological invasions to the world's primary economic sectors could provide crucial information for policymakers who must prioritise actions to limit ongoing and future impacts. We show that since 1970, over$600 bn in impacts has been incurred across Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, with the largest share reported in Agriculture. We further identify 19 countries, which rely heavily on primary sectors, facing comparatively high impacts from invasions, requiring urgent action. However, gaps in cost reporting across invasive taxa and countries suggest that these impacts are grossly underestimated. Proactive prioritisation by policymakers is needed to mitigate future impacts to primary sectors.</p

Managing biological invasions: the cost of inaction

Ecological and socioeconomic impacts from biological invasions are rapidly escalating worldwide. While effective management underpins impact mitigation, such actions are often delayed, insufficient or entirely absent. Presently, management delays emanate from a lack of monetary rationale to invest at early invasion stages, which precludes effective prevention and eradication. Here, we provide such rationale by developing a conceptual model to quantify the cost of inaction, i.e., the additional expenditure due to delayed management, under varying time delays and management efficiencies. Further, we apply the model to management and damage cost data from a relatively data-rich genus (Aedes mosquitoes). Our model demonstrates that rapid management interventions following invasion drastically minimise costs. We also identify key points in time that differentiate among scenarios of timely, delayed and severely delayed management intervention. Any management action during the severely delayed phase results in substantial losses (>50% of the potential maximum loss). For Aedes spp., we estimate that the existing management delay of 55 years led to an additional total cost of approximately $4.57 billion (14$ 32.31 billion, or more than seven times the observed inaction cost. These results highlight the need for more timely management of invasive alien species—either pre-invasion, or as soon as possible after detection—by demonstrating how early investments rapidly reduce long-term economic impacts

Knowledge gaps in economic costs of invasive alien fish worldwide

Peer reviewe

Benefits do not balance costs of biological invasions

Acknowledgments LC was supported by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior—Brasil (Capes)—(001). RNC is funded by the Leverhulme Trust (grant no. ECF-2021-001). CJAB is supported by the Australian Research Council (grant no. CE170100015). SB was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation through grants no. 31003A_179491 and no. 31BD30_184114. FC is supported by the Biological Invasion Chair of the AXA Research Fund of University Paris Saclay and a salary from the French CNRS.Peer reviewe

Biological invasion costs reveal insufficient proactive management worldwide

Funding Information: The authors thank the French National Research Agency (ANR-14-CE02-0021) and the BNP-Paribas Foundation Climate Initiative for funding the InvaCost project and the work on InvaCost database development. The present work was conducted in the frame of InvaCost workshop carried in November 2019 (Paris, France) and funded by the AXA Research Fund Chair of Invasion Biology and is part of the AlienScenario project funded by BiodivERsA and Belmont-Forum call 2018 on biodiversity scenarios. RNC was funded through a Leverhulme Early Career Fellowship (ECF-2021-001) from the Leverhulme Trust and a Humboldt Postdoctoral Fellowship from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. DAA is funded by the Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences (KFAS) (PR1914SM-01) and the Gulf University for Science and Technology (GUST) internal seed funds (187092 & 234597). CA was funded by the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS). TWB acknowledges funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme Marie Skodowska-Curie fellowship (Grant No. 747120). FE was funded through the 2017?2018 Belmont Forum and BiodivERsA joint call for research proposals, under the BiodivScen ERA-Net COFUND programme, and with the funding organisation Austrian Science Foundation FWF (grant I 4011-B32). NK is funded by the basic project of Sukachev Institute of Forest SB RAS, Russia (Project No. 0287-2021-0011; data mining) and the Russian Science Foundation (project No. 21-16-00050; data analysis).Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Damage costs from invasive species exceed management expenditure in nations experiencing lower economic activity

Financial disclosure The InvaCost project was funded by the French National Research Agency (ANR-14-CE02-0021), the BNP-Paribas Foundation Climate Initiative, the AXA Research Fund Chair of Invasion Biology of University Paris Saclay and by the BiodivERsA and Belmont-Forum call 2018 on biodiversity scenarios (AlienScenarios; BMBF/PT DLR 01LC1807C). M.K. received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research programme under a Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement 899546. C.J.A.B. acknowledges the Australian Research Council (CE170100015) for support. A.B. acknowledges Azim Premji University's grants programme (UNIV-RC00326) for support.Peer reviewe

Global economic costs of aquatic invasive alien species

Much research effort has been invested in understanding ecological impacts of invasive alien species (IAS) across ecosystems and taxonomic groups, but empirical studies about economic effects lack synthesis. Using a comprehensive global database, we determine patterns and trends in economic costs of aquatic IAS by examining: (i) the distribution of these costs across taxa, geographic regions and cost types; (ii) the temporal dynamics of global costs; and (iii) knowledge gaps, especially compared to terrestrial IAS. Based on the costs recorded from the existing literature, the global cost of aquatic IAS conservatively summed to US$345 billion, with the majority attributed to invertebrates (62$23 billion in 2020. Costs are likely considerably underrepresented compared to terrestrial IAS; only 5% of reported costs were from aquatic species, despite 26% of known invaders being aquatic. Additionally, only 1% of aquatic invasion costs were from marine species. Costs of aquatic IAS are thus substantial, but likely underreported. Costs have increased over time and are expected to continue rising with future invasions. We urge increased and improved cost reporting by managers, practitioners and researchers to reduce knowledge gaps. Few costs are proactive investments; increased management spending is urgently needed to prevent and limit current and future aquatic IAS damages. (c) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).Peer reviewe