A critique of the balanced harvesting approach to fishing

The approach to fisheries termed “balanced harvesting” (BH) calls for fishing across the widest possible range of species, stocks, and sizes in an ecosystem, in proportion to their natural productivity, so that the relative size and species composition is maintained. Such fishing is proposed to result in higher catches with less negative impact on exploited populations and ecosystems. This study examines the models and the empirical evidence put forward in support of BH. It finds that the models used unrealistic settings with regard to life history (peak of cohort biomass at small sizes), response to fishing (strong compensation of fishing mortality by reduced natural mortality), and economics (uniform high cost of fishing and same ex-vessel price for all species and sizes), and that empirical evidence of BH is scarce and questionable. It concludes that evolutionary theory, population dynamics theory, ecosystem models with realistic assumptions and settings, and widespread empirical evidence do not support the BH proposal. Rather, this body of evidence suggests that BH will not help but will hinder the policy changes needed for the rebuilding of ecosystems, healthy fish populations, and sustainable fisheries

Reply to Andersen et al.(2016) "Assumptions behind size-based ecosystem models are realistic"

In a recent publication (Froese et al., ICES Journal of Marine Science; doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsv122), we presented a critique of the balanced harvesting (BH) approach to fishing. A short section dealt with the size-spectrum models used to justify BH, wherein we pointed out the lack of realism of these models, which mostly represented ecosystems as consisting of a single cannibalistic species. Andersen et al. (ICES Journal of Marine Science; doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsv211) commented on our paper and suggested that we criticized size-spectrum models in general and that we supposedly made several erroneous statements. We stress that we only referred to the size-spectrum models that we cited, and we respond to each supposedly erroneous statement. We still believe that the size-spectrum models used to justify BH were highly unrealistic and not suitable for evaluating real-world fishing strategies. We agree with Andersen et al. that BH is unlikely to be a useful guiding principle for ecosystem-based fisheries management, for many reasons. The use of unrealistic models is one of them

That's Where the Money Was: Foreign Bias and English Investment Abroad, 1866-1907

Why did Victorian Britain invest so much capital abroad? We collect over 500,000 monthly returns of British and foreign securities trading in London and the United States between 1866 and 1907. These heretofore-unknown data allow us to better quantify the historical benefits of international diversification and revisit the question of whether British Victorian investor bias starved new domestic industries of capital. We find no evidence of bias. A British investor who increased his investment in new British industry at the expense of foreign diversification would have been worse off. The addition of foreign assets significantly expanded the mean-variance frontier and resulted in utility gains equivalent to a meaningful increase in lifetime consumption

International League for the Protection of Cetaceans

Meeting: World Commission on Environment and Development, Public Hearing, 24-25 June 1985, Oslo, NORelated to DAP 87-4249 under which IDRC supported the WCED to acquire and duplicate original papers, submissions, tapes and transcripts, became the depository of all original archival materials and received the right to microfiche the collection for broader disseminatio