M. BEN-YAMI COLUMN

                               

World Fishing, November 2003

 

CALL OF THE PEW

 

The Pew Charitable Trusts is an American NGO (non-government organization), which is spending lots of money on environmental causes.

Among other things "the Pew", as it is commonly called, has been helping to finance other NGOs, which deal with marine conservation, and, which in due course have come into public and legal conflicts with the commercial fishing industry, and the U.S fisheries administration. Since the Pew finances originate from a big donation by the Pew family, whose riches have been derived from oil industry, fishermen are concerned about anything coming from that direction.  Their main suspicion is that the Pew is focusing on fisheries to avert public and political attention from industrial pollution, and associated deterioration and destruction of coastal habitats.

 

Some time ago, the Pew established an 18-member Pew Oceans Commission to review the U.S. ocean policies.  This is an independent (except of the Pew itself) body composed of who had been or still are politicians (6), scientists and scholars (4), environmental activists (3), commercial fishermen (2), business executives (2), and one civil servant.  Last May, the Pew Commission published its report, which would probably influence American ocean policies and, hence, the rest of the world.

 

The Pew Commission's report wants the U.S. Congress and other authorities to modify their ocean management system, and is listing what it calls "Major Threats to Our Ocean".  Those are: 1 – nonpoint source pollution; 2 – point source pollution;  3 – invasive species; 

4 – aquaculture;  5 – coastal development;  6 – overfishing;  7 – habitat alteration; 8 - climate change. Of course, one might  add more items, such as, for example, excessive predation by some over-protected, burgeoning populations of marine mammals, but on the whole this list appears to cover indeed the bulk of the factors that affect marine ecosystems

 

So, can American fishermen calm down and stop suspecting the Pew of singling them out in its oceans campaigns?  I wish, I could say so.  Without entering into discussion with the Commission's findings and recommendations, with many of which I fully or partly agree, I cannot but see the lack of balance, quite obvious to anybody reading the Summary Report carefully and intelligently.  This, because, while there are some general recommendations, such as reforming ocean governance, restoring America's fisheries, protecting the coasts, cleaning coastal waters, and guiding sustainable aquaculture, where it comes to specifics, the report restricts it's vision.

 

The Summary Report is spelling out in rather general terms how these threats affect the ocean.  The nonpoint source pollution factor comprises

over 13 million gallons of oil from streets and driveways per year, large and increasing amounts of nutrients, especially nitrogen, that are causing eutrophication of bays and estuaries.

 

Under the point source pollution item, the Commission is listing animal feedlots that produce about 500 million tons of manure, which together with the human population comes to some 700 million tons, and from all other sources it singles out passenger cruise ships.  One, 3,000 passenger ship generates some 40,000-50,000 tons of liquid and a few hundreds tons of solid waste.  Another source of pollution, the Pew commission is pointing out is nutrient releasing marine aquaculture.

Also, agriculture was not forgotten among the polluters.

 

I went through the whole Summary Report in search of other pollution sources.  Although it mentions the "dirty dozen" of toxic chemicals", air pollution and its effect on seawater, and possible effects of sound, the main sources of all these remain anonymous.  Could it be that the authors of the report just forgot to mention that the most deadly water and air pollution that affects the oceans, and in particular, coastal habitats including fish nursery and feeding grounds, comes from industrial sources and, in particular, from the petro-chemical and electro-chemical sectors?  And that the most intensive sound interference in marine ecosystems comes from underwater oil-explorations, along with naval activities?  I wonder. 

 

There's a whole assortment of steps and conditions the Pew Commission thinks should be applied to fisheries: establishment of marine reserves; assigning priority to protecting ecosystem for "long-term health and viability of fisheries" by the precautionary principle, over "short-term social and economic needs"; separation between conservation (by scientists) and allocation decisions, so that allocation decision makers must always succumb to, or be more conservative than the former; the government must determine how and how much fishing can be done, which should be done "before the commencement of fishing"; regulate "destructive" fishing gear; limiting and monitoring bycatch;  and establish a "Permanent Fishery Conservation and Management Trust Fund" fishery-financed by royalties on landings and quotas, fines and penalties.

 

The recommendations regarding aquaculture are also detailed enough:

The government should have the authority over "the siting, design, and operation" of marine farms; moratorium should be placed on expansion of marine finfish farms, and on the use of genetically engineered marine or anadromous species, until an appropriate legislation is enacted and "regulatory review" established, respectively.

 

Isn't it funny that, in view of all these requirements set forth with respect to fisheries, there’s nothing specific about what to do with the unmentioned polluting chemical industries, refineries, oil-powered power plants, and other heavy industries, as well as such upstream polluting activities as logging and pulp industries?  No mention of oil rigs, and nothing specific about oil-spills prevention by, for example, marine areas closed to tanker shipping, and strict observation of double-bottom construction of all tanker ships?  And so on and on, I could continue this list for a whole page.

 

This report won't abate fishermen's perception of the Pew's biases.  Less because of what is in, than because of what is missing, and what's missing is a lot.  Marine pollution and ocean ecosystem health is in interest of everybody.  Therefore, the lopsided focus of the Pew report and of its recommendations should not remain a matter for only fishermen's worry, but strongly pointed out to U.S. legislators who are its main addressees.