Can fisheries and other aquatic foods be “regenerative”?
The concept of regeneration is taking the world by storm, showing up in conversations about food and agriculture, architecture, even fashion. At its most basic, regeneration is about the ability of living systems to grow and heal, to break things down and then build them back up again. When applied to human activities like agriculture, regeneration is about designing our systems in a way that not only doesn’t harm ecosystems or human communities, but actively promotes their health and vibrancy. It is in a sense a successor to, or next version of, sustainability, in that it specifies both the what (health) and the how (regeneration).
In a new perspective piece published in FACETS, I ask the question, “Can fisheries be regenerative?” and with a few small caveats, I answer in the affirmative. Fisheries and other aquatic resources face global demands like never before. Most wild caught fisheries are at or above their sustainable capacity, and there are numerous efforts around the world to leverage ocean resources as climate change solutions, for example through seaweed farming. Discussions around so-called blue foods and the blue economy are not explicitly engaging with the word regenerative, but arguably are adopting its ethos. Given the enormous pressures on aquatic systems that already exist around the world, and given also the specter of corporate greenwashing, being explicit about what regeneration can mean, and if it is attainable as a design principle in these contexts, is warranted.
Read this open access paper on the FACETS website.
In the essay, I step through multiple fundamental differences between terrestrial ecosystem dynamics, such a those on a farm or a forest, and those that happen in the ocean. While much of the cycling of nutrients and energy is within a farmer’s purview, playing out in the soil beneath their crops, in fisheries these cycles play out over vast seascapes and very different time frames. There are some similarities between the regenerative emphasis on biodiversity and ecological communities, and ecosystem-based fisheries management, which has long been a promoted gold standard. Yet, the history of large-scale fisheries management has been characterized by the opposite of regeneration — with fishers either progressively fishing down food webs or coercing the populations of highly valued species such as lobster into extremely vulnerable circumstances.
Nevertheless, I do believe that the principles of regeneration can inform how we design our interactions with aquatic systems. What is necessary is an approach that starts at the level of the regional economy or food system. Rather than focusing on individual fisheries or aquatic resources, we must diversify our portfolios. If we are flexible and willing to diversify our diets, and switch to alternative food resources when our first choices need a respite from harvests, the ecosystems on which they depend can be given an opportunity to respond. There are Indigenous and small-scale fishing systems that successfully embody this approach.
This is no doubt a radically different way to approach the economic development of fisheries. Yet, there is little doubt that current mainstream approaches are falling short. Regeneration as a value and a design principle has promise for empowering us to radically rethink how we foster truly healthful and vibrant relationships among people and aquatic systems.
Read the paper — Can fisheries be “regenerative”? Adapting agroecological concepts for fisheries and the blue economy by Philip A. Loring.
