Fishing about and about fishing

WHO’S IN CHARGE?

 

The FISHFOLK Internet discussion list*) is a stage on which current and not so current issues are often thrashed out. The issues discussed are usually very American, as are most of FISHFOLK’s participants. Recently, however, Bill Bartlett, one of the List’s notables, touched a subject, which might be of interest far beyond American fisheries. The issue he raised was who should have the last say in fishery management, and who should participate in the democratic bodies that are vested with the responsibility of advising or deciding on management matters.   

 

Questions to be answered. Some of the questions involved are: 1 – To whom coastal resources belong? 2 – Should the traditional users of such resources have more say than other parties? 3 – Who should sit on fishery management bodies, and who should select their members?  4 – What should be the role and character of litigation on fishery management matters?

 

As far as the first question goes, there seems to be a consensus in most countries that coastal fishery resources belong to the nation and hence should be administered by central governments. This has not always been the case, and still it isn’t in some parts of the world, where local fish resources have been traditionally considered as owned by communities, tribes, etc. In the USA, fishery administration is divided between the States and the Federal governments. But USA is USA and in Europe, much of the national power has been passed to the EU.

 

Selecting the advisors. The second question involves political and ideological persuasions. There’re two extreme views: One - that the management of fisheries should be left with their traditional users, that is artisanal and commercial fishermen, and, if government is in charge, it should consult only those users; the other – that stakeholders and NGO can and should be involved, but not commercial fishermen, “because you don’t let cats to watch the cream”… In between these two extremes there’re many alternatives.

 

The composition of the management and advisory bodies (councils, committees, etc.) would depend on the answer selected for the former question. In the USA, for example, where the States’ management extends from shore out to 3 miles, and the regional Councils manage fisheries in federal waters - 3 to 200 miles, and the Commissions do "migratory" species, the answer is located somewhere between the two extremes. 

 

“There's some fuzziness about who does what, 'cause dem fish, dey don't know federal laws’ – writes me consultant Nils Stolpe, who’s the Communications Director of the Garden State Seafood Association and the FishNet USA, (www.fishingnj.org). – Those advisory bodies generally represent about all the stakeholders, such as commercial and recreational fishermen, the fishfood industry up to consumer level, scientists, green NGOs and government’s managers. Candidates for councils’ members are appointed by the respective governors, but the Secretary of Commerce makes the final selection, and whoever has the political juice gets appointed". 

 

Litigation. Whatever may be the answers to the former questions, in democratic societies citizens have the right to turn to courts if they believe that they’re unduly hurt by governmental decisions. This right extends also to NGOs. Considering some management decisions, it seems that the right to litigation is essential to all stakeholders. The question remains whether every tribunal should be vested with the responsibility for making decisions on fishery and coastal ecosystem management matters.  Some countries have courts of law, which specialize in particular areas, such as traffic, labour, maritime law, family matters, etc., where judges have specific expertise, so that they wouldn’t be taken for a ride by smart lawyers, politicians, and scientists of fortune. So why not having specialized tribunals for coastal resources management?

 

Buyback schemes and fishing communities. I wonder, for example, what the procedure was, and whom the Australian government consulted before deciding to spend over US$100 million for buying the licenses and boats of half Australia's commercial fishermen, and over US$50 million to compensate other fishing businesses and fishing communities affected by reduced landings. The government will also cut TACs by up to 25 percent in 17 fisheries, considered under threat of overfishing.

 

Fisheries Minister Ian Macdonald said, according to the press:-  “We want to save the nation's dwindling fish stocks, to run all commonwealth fisheries sustainably, and to ensure that those remaining in the industry are able to earn a decent living”.” It is restructuring of fisheries so that the owner operator fleet is crushed and replaced by a corporate fleet” - reacted Australian fishery activist Bob McDonald on FISFOLK.

 

The “stronger” fishermen and multiple boat-owners as well as those disheartened by expensive quotas, rising fuel prices, and low fish prices

would welcome the move. But fishing communities would lose business and employment. Some may not survive.

 

Quite incidentally, and almost simultaneously, the Scottish e-mail network www.Fishupdate.com reported on the dire consequences of the EU-sponsored buyback scheme in many fishing ports of Scotland that have lost many fishing vessels:  Buckie - 25; Fraserburgh - 50; Lerwick - 10; and Peterhead – 35, more in others, and a lot of the associated business and employment. “Devastated” – in the words of fishermen’s representatives.

 

Juan C.Sueiro described in SAMUDRA Report No.41, 2005, how ineffective governance in Peruvian fisheries resulted in industrial anchoveta fishery encroaching the 5-mile inshore zone reserved for artisanal fishermen and landing edible fish at fishmeal plants.     

 

Without objecting to the right and duty of governments to administer coastal fishery resources, should we take for granted that they can butt in into a hundred or a thousand years old fishery, and on the basis of often inadequate science and ideological economics, reallocate fishing rights? Or to sell away or open their country’s coastal fishery resources to foreign fleets? Or to allow industrial fleets to exploit inshore waters accessible to and traditionally fished by artisanal and small-scale fishermen? 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

*) To subscribe to FISHFOLK send e-mail to listserv@mitvma.mit.edu: 

No subject. Type text, as follows: - 

subscribe FISHFOLK yourname yourfamilyname 

You’ll receive instructions by e-mail.