Editorials from the New York Times

Troubled seas

One report after another over the last decade has documented the degradation of the world's oceans and predicted a catastrophic decline in important fish species. But in terms of sheer gloom none compares to a recent study in the journal Science.

It asserts that the progressive unraveling of entire marine ecosystems up and down the food chain could lead to the "collapse" of all commercial species, possibly by the middle of this century. The researchers reached their conclusion after analyzing dozens of ecosystems around the world, 48 marine protected areas, and 53 years worth of fishing data provided by the United Nations.

They found that by 2003 - the last year for which data on commercial fish catches was available - 29 percent of all species now being fished had collapsed from overfishing, habitat loss or pollution. The study defined collapse as a 90 percent decline from estimated historical highs.

Earlier work had documented a 90 percent decline in a few commercially important species like cod, tuna and swordfish; the new study includes many more species. Second, the study provides elaboration of how entire ecosystems fall apart, with the decline of one species triggering the decline of another.

Third, it puts the day of reckoning right around the corner - 2048, to be precise. The study says that the situation is not hopeless, but only if the world moves quickly to reduce overfishing and other threats.

Two opportunities for change lie immediately at hand. One is a proposal now before the United Nations that would end unregulated bottom trawling on the high seas. Bottom trawling - essentially the strip-mining of the ocean floor by heavily subsidized foreign fleets - is incredibly destructive. The United Nations banned fishing with huge drift nets years ago; it should do the same with bottom trawling now.

The second is the pending reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act regulating fishing practices in U.S. waters. The Senate has approved a bill that strengthens the act in important ways. It should be an early order of business for the new Congress.

Putin's legacy

The Russian Constitution limits a president to two terms, which would mean a natural conclusion to Vladimir Putin's presidency in 2008, and so far, Mr. Putin says he will abide by the legal limit. But there are growing calls - spontaneous or orchestrated by the Kremlin - to change the Constitution.

Given his sway over the Russian Parliament, Mr. Putin would have no trouble warping the Constitution. It would be a tragic mistake. History will judge him by how well he helps Russia move from its totalitarian past to a democratic future.

His record is not encouraging. Mr. Putin likes to boast about Russia's economy, which will grow - thanks to high oil prices - at 6.6 percent this year. Russia has paid off almost all of its Soviet debt, and life is improving.

All of this has made Mr. Putin very popular with Russians. But many of them seem unconcerned about their declining freedoms. The government has muscled out independent news media and jailed political rivals, and never stops trying to muffle groups that do not follow the Kremlin line.

At his latest three-hour town meeting, Mr. Putin was lionized. Arkady Kokayev, a truck driver, phoned in to ask, "What will happen to us and this country after you leave?" Mr. Putin assured him that all would be well, and that while he would respect the Constitution, he would still "influence the life in our country" after leaving office.

That is an admirable pledge. We hope for the sake of Russia's democracy that he will keep.