|
Overfishing, an indisputable reality
The world-wide coverage a few months ago of the capture
of the Spanish freezer trawler 'Estai' by Canadian coastal guards as it
fished for Greenland halibut in international waters, has drawn public
attention to the increasing international conflicts over marine living
resources. Most of these conflicts are rooted in the fact that fish is
a dwindling resource due to the explosive growth of the amount of fish
which is being pulled out of the water.
Since the late 40s marine fish landings (the amount of
fish brought ashore) have increased almost fivefold from around 18 million
tones to over 86 million tonnes in 1989. The spectacular growth in catches
resulted from technological innovation, greater accessibility to fish
resources and low fuel prices. It derived from a basic assumption that
has proved to be dangerous: the notion of the unlimited marine living
resources as humankind's pantry. This assumption survived until the 1970s
and, unfortunately, still seems to be alive today in the minds of many
managers, scientists, shipowners and fishermen alike.
There are clear signs that the current situation is far
from sustainable. In a report issued in June 1994, the FAO points out
that 69% of the global fish stocks for which assessments are available,
are considered either fully exploited, overfished, depleted or slowly
recovering from depletion. This figure masks regional differences: in
the Northern Pacific, nearly 100% of the studied fish stocks are in those
categories, and more than 60% in the Eastern Atlantic. By 1992, FAO had
recorded 16 major fishery species whose global catch had declined by more
than 50% over the previous three decades. Overall nine of the world's
17 major fishing grounds are now in precipitous decline, and four are
"fished out" totally from a commercial point of view.
This situation is reflected in the increasing difficulty
to keep up with the current fish landings. Since 1989 the growth of total
landings started declining, and by the early 1990s they started showing
a decreasing trend. The message is clear: under current exploitation patterns
we simply do not leave enough fish in the water to regenerate their stocks.
Unless some drastic measures are taken, we will see a further decline
in the amount of fish that can be brought ashore.
All this happens despite -- or perhaps better: because
of -- a tremendous increase in the size of the global fishing fleet. Between
1970 and 1989, fishing fleets grew at twice the rate of fish landings.
In 1993 the FAO estimated that there were 1 million large-scale (more
than 24m long) and 2 million small-scale fishing boats operating around
the world. To some the solution to overfishing is simply the reduction
of the amount of boats out there -- and, as will be seen below, preferably
the smaller ones. But the international fisheries scene is not that simple.
A crucial factor in overfishing is technology. Large modern fishing vessels
-- most of them controlled by large transnational corporations -- started
incorporating improved self positioning, fish detection, fish aggregation,
fish catching and on-board fish preservation technology. This allowed
them to become more efficient hunting machines competing for scarcer fish.
Another factor is the increasing internationalisation of fisheries, turning
fish into a post-GATT international commodity that increasingly features
in import and export statistics. Yet another one is the policy of many
nations to subsidise, at whatever cost, their national fleets, in a race
to continue the depletion of marine biological resources.
Growing fleets, dwindling resources and huge losses of
capital have characterised the fishing industry. The FAO calculates the
overall losses in 1989 amounted to US$ 54.000 million. Some of the losses
are assumed by the agroindustrial corporate interests that control part
of the fleet, which then leave profit-making for the processing and marketing
links of their chains. But most of it is being financed through massive
subsidies from governments of rich and poor countries alike which maintain
over-capacity in an effort to protect employment in the shipyards and
in the fishing industries, and to promote export. The European Union's
support for fisheries rose from $80 million in 1983 to $580 million in
1990, much of it for the construction of new vessels, or for "exit
grants" to get rid of the old ones.
As a whole, fishing fleets are a public money sink in
the industrialised countries. At the same time, the export of surplus
fishing vessels to developing countries, be it direct or through joint
ventures, turns them into dumping sites for fishing over-capacity. In
the pursuit of the development of their own industrial fisheries, many
Southern governments are either unaware of or unwilling to take account
of the fact that when a northern fishing authority subsidises the export
of a fishing vessel, it subsidises the exportation of debt. Fishing industries
from rich countries also benefit from another kind of subsidy: their governments
put pressure on coastal non-industrialised countries in urgent need of
hard currency to provide cheap access to their fishing resources.
Fishing out aquatic diversity
There are a whole series of human activities that threat
aquatic biodiversity. Uncontrolled dumping of toxic waste, unsustainable
tourist development, dam construction, nutrient discharges from intensive
agriculture and population concentration, are just some. However, fisheries
and aquaculture are currently the biggest threat to marine biodiversity,
and a serious menace to continental waters ecosystems.
Due to the extension and openness of seas and oceans,
the overfishing extinction of a marine species very rarely occurred until
recent times. Whales were an exception, due to the fact that their hunting
used to be and still is profitable even at very low population numbers.
Today, however, many fish species are known to have been brought to the
verge of extinction by fishing activities. Long-living and slow reproducing
species are particularly sensitive to fishing activities. The living fossil
coelacanth is now threatened because of the impact of small-scale fishing
activities, an indirect result of a EU fisheries development programme.
Commercial fishing has brought common skate to the verge of extenuation,
and it is also believed that several species of shark may soon be endangered
if current exploitation levels are not reduced. Some sessile species
, such as giant clams, have also been decimated by fishing.
Overfishing affects fish populations
in different ways. If a fishery targets a high value species, the fleets
may reduce the fish stocks to a level that leads to depletion and collapse.
At these low levels, the populations are more sensitive to environmental
changes (such as changes in water temperature or salinity). Examples of
such depletion are not infrequent as can be seen in the accompanying table.
Fisheries-induced collapse of a marine population can have two consequences
for biodiversity. First, the population may not recover and re-colonise
its ecological niche. Secondly, rare genes can be lost as result of a
drastic decrease in population numbers. As in agriculture, fish genetic
diversity is the foundation on which the capacity to react to adverse
situations rests.
But then, indiscriminate fishing can have a disastrous
impact on non-target species as well. Recent studies indicate that anything
between one quarter and one third of all caught fish in commercial fisheries
is been thrown back into the water because they are considered undesirable:
the wrong species, the wrong size, etc. These "by-catches" do
not enter official statistics. It is thought that survival of most discarded
species is low. In a sense, "by-caches" is a typical problem
associated with large industrial fishing. Small scale fisheries often
cater for local markets with a demand for a wide variety of fish species
and sizes. The definition of "wanted" for industrialised fisheries
however is much more limited as they are often catering to the specialised
cannery or other processing industries. Tropical shrimp trawling fisheries
(where a sack-shaped net is dragged over the shallow sea bottom shrimp
habitats) are the most unselective in the world, with a ratio between
discarded fish and targeted shrimp as high as 20 to 1, and even 30 to
1! Marine mammal, turtle and bird populations are also harmed by fisheries,
due to their long life-span and low fecundity. For example, the vaquita
is the most endangered marine mammal. It gets entangled in the illegal
gillnets targeting totoaba, which is also an endangered species. In the
Western Mediterranean Sea, the illegal Italian swordfish driftnet fishing
very seriously threatens the striped local dolphin population.
An even more dramatic effect of overfishing arises from
the depletion of prey species populations. North Atlantic seals, Northwest
Atlantic whales and UK seabirds are known to have suffered starvation
and population collapses when the species they relied upon have been depleted
or seriously reduced. This is very much the case with some of the small
fish species which are at the lowest level of the marine trophic web,
such as sand-eels, anchovies, pilchards, capelin, and krill. Overfishing
one of these stocks leads to the decline of other fish stocks which depend
on them (as is the case with predator species such as cod and haddock,
among others).
Fisheries also have an impact on biodiversity through
the degradation of marine habitats. Dynamite-fishing is widespread, and
when it is practised in coral reefs, one of the most diverse ecosystems
in the world, it not only kills fish but also damages and degrades the
reef. Another example is trawling in shallow waters, a common practice
in many areas of the world. Shallow waters host the most complex and diverse
marine ecosystems thanks to the availability of both nutrients and sunlight.
The destruction of sea grasses of Posidonia oceanica in the Mediterranean
Sea -- refuge for juveniles of fish species -- is a clear example of habitat
degradation. Shrimp trawling in shallow waters -- mentioned above -- also
erodes the sea bed.
Introducing species: destroying diversity
Problems are not confined to the open seas. Overfishing
in closed systems -- such as rivers or lakes -- has possibly a larger
impact on genetic diversity than in the open seas. In every continental
water system, populations have evolved in relative isolation, in a permanent
process of adaptation to their environment. This has lead to the selection
of particular combinations of genes which result in a maximum adaptation
for a given environment. With the decreasing number of individuals of
the same species, a lot of that genetic diversity is getting lost....without
the possibility for natural refreshment and diverse genetic input from
elsewhere. One could argue that a helping human hand introducing foreign
specimens of the same species would be the solution. But that is highly
questionable as those specimen are not likely to be adapted to the specific
micro environment into which they are introduced. It could result in a
broader gene pool, but not necessarily the one needed.
What normally occurs is the human introduction of new
species foreign to local ecosystems. The introduction of new species in
closed lacustrine systems -- for aquaculture or fishery enhancement --
has been the cause of huge losses of biodiversity. One classic example:
in the 1950s, the Nile perch was introduced in Lake Victoria for sport
fishing. Its voracity and large size has lead to the extinction of many
smaller indigenous species: estimates are that 200-300 fish species may
have been lost. The impact of introduced species can be even more important
if it results in the introduction of new parasites or diseases. Although
the Lake Victoria region has now based it fisheries on the new perch and
has become one of the most productive in the world, the people around
the lake who tended to rely on the extinct fish species, have suffered.
The new fishery industry produces more for export than for local consumption.
Fishing out communities
The results of overfishing and depletion of resources
take their toll not only on biodiversity and marine ecosystems, but also
on peoples livelihoods. Canadians in Newfoundland fishing communities
know this all too well. Northern cod in the North West Atlantic, off Canada,
is commercially extinct. In 1992, Canada closed northern cod fisheries
and they have not been re-opened since then. Over 20,000 people lost their
jobs. The biomass of the stock is estimated to have gone from 400,000
tonnes in 1990 to only 2,700 tonnes by the end of 1994. In Canada and
New England (USA) other groundfish fisheries have also been closed. Bad
news for the 50,000 people out of work in the North West Atlantic fisheries
sector; and also bad news for the tax-payers who must foot the bill for
the urgent corrective measures that Canada has had to apply to alleviate
this difficult situation. The Canadian Fisheries Minister seems to believe
that in order to make fisheries sustainable again, a dramatic decrease
in fishing will be necessary... in the inshore fishing fleet , exploited
by relatively small family enterprises. Newfoundland communities, who
have relied upon cod fisheries for centuries, are now excluded from them.
Small-scale fishermen and fishing communities in the
South are hit even harder by similar marginalisation from control over
the fishery resources they have traditionally depended on. At least 10
million people are traditional full-time fishermen and fisherwomen in
developing countries, with a further 10 million as part-timers. They are
among the poorest social groups. It is estimated that 100 million of the
world's poorest depend on fishing for all or part of their livelihoods.
Small-scale fisheries have played a capital role in supplying internal
markets in developing countries with this protein, traditionally a food
of the poor. Approximately 60% of the people in the Third World obtain
40% or more of their animal protein from fish.
From an environmental perspective, and given their local
ecosystem dependence, many fishing communities have developed a highly
structured approach to marine and fishing activities. They use different
rational exploitation methods, such as the allocation of fishing areas
to particular individuals or groups (more as managers than as owners),
and limitations of time and area for capture of some species. The social
structure of these local communities plays a key role in the management
of economic incentives. These self-regulating systems are very diverse,
and have preserved many marine resources since long. Local communities
are also the first ones to do something about overfishing, long before
their governments realise the extent of the problems and take action.
In a village in Southern Thailand, for example, local fishing families
re-introduced the traditional practice of "uyam", which consists
of building fish refuge along the coast. Traditional uyam, made mainly
by piling up wood or rocks under the see, were destroyed by trawlers,
and stocks had declined dramatically. Now the local fisher families have
started to build new uyam with spectacular results. "This is a
true conservation method" asserts a community member, "we
people need houses to shelter us. So do the fish. Fish I haven't seen
for a long time have come back. The uyam really works."
Even as the role of small-scale fishermen and fisherwomen
is gaining recognition in international fora, they are still disregarded
by their own governments and the international donor community. Often
governments tend to be easily seduced by promises of large income from
export-oriented industrial fisheries development, or by the money that
many Northern countries provide as financial compensation for the access
to their living marine resources. As a rule, small-scale fishermen are
not consulted in fisheries development schemes, and even less in the negotiation
of access agreements. Some fishermen are known to have been killed by
foreign fleets, and many more have suffered the destruction of their fishing
equipment at sea, even in areas supposedly reserved for small-scale fisheries.
The presence of foreign and industrial fleets is not
the only threat to the control of fisheries by local communities. The
increasing accessibility of the international markets, and massive entry
into fishing areas from people who cannot find a livelihood elsewhere,
are powerful forces leading to the over exploitation and depletion of
coastal resources. When the sea cucumber fishery in the Galapagos Islands
off Ecuador was opened last October a limit of 550,000 sea cucumbers was
set for the three month season. Within two months, the limit had been
exceeded by more than 7 million.
In a world where fish demand increases at a rate which
cannot be sustained by production, eating fish caught in the South is
becoming a matter of competition between southern local markets and the
international marketplace. As a recent issue of the Ecologist puts
it: "fish has long been know as the `food for the poor'. Yet increasingly
it is becoming a food of the rich." International trade has been
growing at an annual rate of 18% in the 1970s and at 10% in the 1980s.
Overall, developed and developing countries export roughly the same amount
of fish. However, by the late 1980s developed countries imported three
quarters of the fish traded annually, and the developing countries the
remainder.
 |
While the trade might have boosted foreign exchange earnings
for some Third World governments, their local people have suffered. In
many developing countries, exports increased while total production has
dropped, resulting in significant declines in the amount of fish available
for local consumption. The poor in Kerala in Southern India know what
this means: whilst in 1971 their annual fish intake was 19 kg., ten years
later -- during which a donor- promoted fleet of shrimp trawlers was established
-- they only had 9 kg. per year. In the period 1978-1988, African per
capita supply decreased by 2.9%, and in South America by 7.9%. Today,
more than a third of the fish caught off the West African coast is taken
by foreign fleets and exported to elsewhere. Meanwhile, and in the same
period, European fish consumption rose by 23%. Overall, consumers in the
North eat three times as much fish as those in the South. The internationalisation
of fisheries clearly results in a trend that moves fish away from the
poor towards the rich.
Growing fish: is aquaculture the solution?
Ismael Serageldin, Chair of the Consultative Group on
International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) is on the record as saying
"On the land we have learned to produce food by cultivation. But
in the sea we still act as hunters and gatherers". He continues
stressing that aquaculture -- the domestication of fishing -- should be
the next great leap in producing food. It seems logical. We are overexploiting
a wild resource to meet a growing demand, so why not grow it under controlled
conditions? The move from backward "gatherers" to sophisticated
"growers", just as the world's farmers started doing 12.000
years ago.
 |
This is not a wild cry in the emptiness.
In fisheries documentation from official institutions such as the FAO
and the European Commission, a recurrent theme is the urgent need to develop
aquaculture, given declining fish stocks, expanding population and increasing
demand for fishery products. Intensive, high tech aquaculture seems to
be indicated for high-valued species in northern countries, whose consumers
will be able to pay high prices; and extensive aquaculture is recommended
in order to meet nutritional needs of the poor in the South.
Nevertheless, the projection of aquaculture as another
means to get more fish products to the consumer -- poor and rich -- hides
a number of important problems. First, one of the less publicised aspects
of this proposed solution to the depletion of marine fish stocks is the
fact that intensive aquaculture itself involves the consumption of huge
amounts of protein. Most high-value species are predators which need top-quality
fish protein. About 30% of world fish catches are converted into fish
meal and oils, which are used essentially for animal feeds in agriculture
and aquaculture. Carnivorous aquaculture -- which comprises about a quarter
of all aquaculture -- is expected to consume about 15% of the world fish
mean supply in 1995.
Fishing wild fish to feed domesticated fish. Thailand,
which has witnessed a spectacular 400% rise in shrimp farming, can serve
as an example of this approach. Over the past decade this country has
increased its forage fishing by 25%. Part of this increase has been possible
through the development of biomass fishing: the sea bed is indiscriminately
dragged not for shrimps and prawns as it used to be, but for anything
that can be turned into fishmeal for shrimp. An environmental and socio-economic
madness, given not only the physical impact of these activities, but also
the importance of some of these "trash species" in the diets
of local communities.
Intensive shrimp aquaculture also has a heavy and direct
impact on marine diversity. It has resulted into the loss of extensive
coastal mangrove forests in order to build ponds: Thailand lost 100.000
hectares of mangrove forests, and Ecuador over 120.000 hectares. Half
of the world's mangrove forests have now been cut down, with aquaculture
being the lead cause. In Guatemala, Costa Rica and other countries of
Central America, larvae fisheries use chemicals that kill any other species
in the mangrove forests, including the mangroves themselves. Other damaging
effects of shrimp farming include the discharge of nutrients and chemicals
to the environment, and the increase of salinity in surface and ground
water.
In many ways, intensive aquaculture suffers from the
same problems as intensive agricultural monocultural production: an uncontrollable
spread of pests and diseases that had never been a problem before. In
Taiwan aquaculture production rose to 95.000 tonnes in 1987, before collapsing
to 20.000 tonnes due to virus outbreaks. In 1993, Chinese farmed prawn
production declined by two thirds due to algae blooms. In the same year,
Ecuadorian prawn production fell to 40 % of its peak because of similar
factors. When governmental officials push outmoded "fish gatherers"
into domestication and intensification, they seem to forget the implications
of the "Green Revolution" in agriculture from which we are still
recovering.
Genetic diversity is suffering as well. Most intensive
aquaculture is based on highly uniform populations, and breeding has focused
mostly on short term yield concerns and nothing else. Only in recent years
-- through the International Centre for Living Aquatic Resources Management
(ICLARM) -- has an aquacultural development programme taken into account
the role of genetic resources, both to obtain improved performance and
to avoid genetic resource erosion. In most other cases however, experimental
genetic management technologies such as hybridisation, ploidy, gynogenesis
and gene transfer have been used as shortcuts to obtain higher yielding
fish.
In this context, biotechnology
is presented as the great promise for the future. Research has focused
on genetic engineering and oriented to obtain fast-growing fish for higher
yields (i.e. carp, salmon and super tilapia), slow growing fish for higher
quality flesh (i.e. salmon), stress-resistant fish (i.e. low temperature
resistant salmon), and disease-resistant fish. The results at the moment
seem to be irregular, as in the case of fast-growing Biogrow Atlantic
Salmon, developed by the Canadian subsidiary of Boston A/F Protein. After
one year, the engineered fish and the control group had the same average
weight and size, but the genetically engineered group contained individuals
that were 11 times heavier than the control group, and one was 37 times
larger than the average of the control group. Even with such irregular
results, the company, which is to receive a CAN$ 265,000 grant from the
Canadian government, has already filed world-wide patents on the gene
and transformation method involved in increasing growth rates, with licensing
under negotiations in New Zealand, Scotland, Canada, the US, Chile, and
possibly other countries. A/F Protein also intends to develop fast-growing
tilapia and catfish.
The problems of wild fish genetic pollution through escape
and interbreeding with cultivated fish -- and even aquaculturists problems
due to small parental stocks -- may be increased by the spreading use
of biotechnology. Some research is being done in order to obtain fish
which can only reproduce in captivity, but the efficiency of such alternatives
remains to be seen. And neither A/F Protein nor other companies
are waiting for the results of such research efforts before embarking
on commercial production.
Privatising the commons
If aquaculture is one proposed solution to overfishing,
privatisation of the marine living resources is the other. Fishery policy
makers seem to have reached a dangerous consensus: the basic problem of
the failed management of fishery resources is the fact that they are commons,
which automatically leads to a race for the last fish. Theoretically,
the assignation of property rights would prevent such a race, on the assumption
that, free of competition, the resource owners would ensure their conservation
by the means of (hypothetical) correct management. Privatisation, it is
argued, could be the solution to the long-standing fishery problems of
overfishing, overcapitalisation resulting in low economic efficiency,
and fishing overcapacity. Moreover, the resources owners' interest in
conserving their stocks would allow for a decrease in the costs of public
surveillance and control of fishing operations since the management of
the resources would be left to their owners.
Not much of this seems to have happened in New Zealand,
where fisheries management has been based on a privatisation scheme ,
the ITQ (Individual Transferable Quotas) system. In that country, fisheries
investments have increased, and overfishing is rampant because of the
need to maintain international market share. Yet privatisation has been
very efficient in putting the small fisherpeople out of business. This
measure had a severe impact on Maori fishermen in small communities and
fishing ports, on part-time workers, and also on subsistence fishers,
who in many cases have become cheap labour for the quota owners. Quotas
have concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer fishing corporations,
and have become themselves a commodity subject to heavy speculation, which
in turn increases the pressure on the stocks backing them. However, in
many international fora the case of New Zealand is widely invoked as the
big success in fisheries management, and privatisation is being promoted
to such an extent that the World Bank has already conditioned its loans
to the fishing sector to the privatisation of marine resources. The US
Federal Government is planning to introduce an ITQ system in its fisheries
system.
The privatisation of marine living resources is much
more the result of the absorption by the market of scarce resources than
a move towards efficient fishing management. Moreover, this system paradoxically
rewards the major contributors to stock depletion: the large companies
that have accumulated enough capital through overfishing to buy the remaining
resources from the governments. Furthermore, privatisation comes from
and promotes a particular kind of ethic, which assumes that the most legitimate
use of the marine ecosystems and their diversity is exploitation in order
to maximise profits. Any other value or use has to be subordinated to
the right of fishermen -- or should it be said companies? -- to maximise
profits. Privatisation is presented as a way to prevent overfishing, but
in essence it is a way to control the resources in the hands of big industry.
No one can explain that better than the industry itself. Mark Lundstein
of the USA Fishing Vessels Owners' Association, puts it like this: "ITQs
are a natural solution to our overcrowded, inefficient open-access system.
They will promote the efficiency of American fishing companies, `big business'
companies, by providing a market-driven harvesting rights plant".
What he forgets to mention is that some 100 million of the world's
poorest people depend on this "inefficient" system, and they
are not the ones that caused the problem of overfishing in the first place.
They will be the ones filtered out in the move towards "efficiency".
If the privatisation of marine living resources extended
world-wide under the current international trends in industry concentration
and trade liberalisation, nothing would be able to prevent the largest
fishing corporations from buying these kinds of assets and exploiting
them in the way that best suits their market interests. Once the public
is set apart from control of what is still our commons, companies would
be free to modify the marine ecosystem in order to maximise the profits
from their investments by culling predators or restocking with species
of high commercial value. With time, they could develop the necessary
technology to 'agriculturalise' our planet's oceans, turning wild ecosystems
into domesticated fields. This is, in our opinion, the biggest threat
to marine biodiversity and for the self-determination of fishing communities
in the future.
In fact, the whole argumentation to move towards the
privatisation of the world's fishing grounds is based upon a totally wrong
assumption: that the "commons" is a free-for-all system. As
pointed out earlier, coastal commons traditionally have been carefully
managed and controlled by local fishing communities, with specific rules
on access and with regulations on who can fish, where and how. Their knowledge
and practices have maintained sustainable fishing stocks for millennia.
Rather than excluding them through privatisation schemes, action should
be taken to return control to their communities. Through the FAO, the
international community agreed on the concept of Farmers' Rights as a
recognition of the contribution of farming communities to the conservation
and use of plant genetic resources in the past, present and future. It
is high time that the same international community establishes and implements
a parallel "Fisherpeople Rights" to recognise their contribution
to sustainable fishing, and to return the control over marine resources
to their communities.
The informal sector calls
for action
Around the world, small-scale fishermen are not meekly
accepting an ever-decreasing share of the 'fish-cake'. Nor are they resigned
to increased poverty and lack of control over their life and to the depletion
of the resources they have relied upon for centuries. Small-scale fishermen
are getting organised. In November 1994, seven-and-a-half million Indian
fishworkers staged a two-day national strike protesting their government's
new deep sea policy. The government wanted to open access to Indian fishing
grounds and bring in up to 2,600 large-scale, highly mechanised foreign
fishing vessels. As a result of the strike, these plans were at least
temporally stopped. In Senegal, small-scale fisherpeople are fighting
for the right to consultation in the negotiations of a new EU-Senegal
fisheries agreement. And Spanish small-scale fishermen targeting albacore
in the North East Atlantic using trolls and life bait are fighting to
maintain their traditional, sustainable, and profitable fishing methods.
In the search of common objectives, fisherpeople, environmental
and development organisations met in the Alternative Forum which took
place parallel to the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. As a result,
the NGO Fisheries Treaty was negotiated and a growing number of organisations
network and co-operate to implement it. The Treaty contains some principles
that could guide a more sound and accountable fisheries management.
As members of the global civil society, we confront a
choice. We may go for the cheapest immediate fish supply, thus allowing
economic efficiency to stand as the central strength behind fisheries
development in a world where free trade puts slow- growing and fast-growing
species, big corporations and small fishing communities into direct competition.
This would undoubtedly lead to the concentration of access to and harvest
of marine resources -- the oceans wealth -- in the hands of an ever smaller
number of companies. It would limit our role to that of passive consumers
of an ever decreasing variety and quality of marine products and expensive
aquaculture-reared fish. Or we may choose to exercise democratic control
over marine ecosystems and the wealth they provide, ensuring people's
participation not only in access to those resources but also in the decision-making
processes. We can convert our oceans into fish farms or share them with
the very diversity of species that has created the oceans' wealth we rely
upon.
Selected sources:
* ALVERSON et al., 1994. A Global Assessment of Fisheries
Bycatch and Discards. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 339. FAO, Rome,
Italy.
* THE ECOLOGIST, "Overfishing", Special Double
Issue, The Ecologist, Vol. 25, No 2/3, 1995
* FAO, 1992. Report of the Expert Consultation on
Utilization and Conservation of Aquatic Genetic Resources. Grottaferrata,
Italy, 9-13 November 1992. FAO Fisheries Report No. 491. FAO Fisheries
Department, Rome, Italy.
* FAO. 1993. Marine Fisheries and The Law Of The Sea:
A Decade of Change. Special chapter (revised) of The State of Food
and Agriculture 1992. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 853. FAO Fisheries Department,
Rome, Italy.
* GARCIA, NEWTON, C., 1994. Current Situation, Trends
and Prospects in World Capture Fisheries. Paper presented at the Conference
on Fisheries Management. Global Trends. Seattle (Washington, USA), 14-16
June 1994. FAO Fisheries Department, Rome, Italy.
* GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL, 1993. It Can't Go On Forever.
Greenpeace International. Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
* GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL, 1995. Fishing out our
future. Greenpeace International, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
* SMITH, P.J., 1995. Genetic Diversity of Marine
Fisheries Resources: Possible Impacts of Fishing. FAO Fisheries Technical
Paper 344. FAO , Rome, Italy.
* HINDAR, RYMAN, N. UTTER, F., 1991. Genetic effects
of cultured fish on natural fish populations. Can. J. Fish. Aquat.
Sci. 48: 945-957
* PULLIN, 1992. Aquaculture and biodiversity.
International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARM).
Paper presented at the Centenary Symposium of the Port Erin Marine Biological
Station (University of Liverpool), Isle of M an, Sept. 17-18, 1992.
* SAMUDRA, the quarterly report of the International
Coalition in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF).27 College Road, Madras 600
006, India. Fax: (91) 44 825 4457
|
Print
