Globalisation and fish stocks

There are clear and obvious effects from globalisation. We have seen them in the form of companies outsourcing their fish processing, or getting their fishing gear and vessels made in countries where labour is cheap. The low-wage, foreign sailors on board go hand in hand with the purchase of fishing rights from vessels operating under flags of convenience (FOC) or national owners of fishing quotas who charter foreign vessels.

But there is a largely unnoticed 'effect' taking place which goes beyond the visible factors mentioned above. This is the way these factors influence the state of the world's fish stocks, many of which are in urgent need of national and international attention and protection.

Unfortunately, unsustainable fishing practice is often exported in various forms to the poor countries of the South. For example, the EU has just agreed to pay the Mauritanian government £300m to fish in its waters between 2001 and 2006 -- although the stocks are already depleted. Negotiations continue with Senegal, which had a similar agreement with the EU. But the focus is now on better management rather on financial terms. Two-thirds of Senegal's export earnings come from fish exported to Europe.

According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), foreign fleets, including those from Europe, are causing alarming reductions in fish stocks off West Africa and South America. They are putting local fishermen out of business and removing a vital food item from local markets. Governments of poor countries are selling fishing rights in a way that harms both their own fish stocks and coastal communities.

Dr. Andrew A. Rosenberg, of the University of New Hampshire used to be deputy director of the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). He thinks that the problem of declining stocks can't be fixed 'one fishery at a time because the boats move around. The effort simply shifts to somewhere else and makes the problems worse'.

Over the summer, the UN held a conference in Geneva with 100 delegates from the states involved, plus environmental groups, the World Trade Organisation and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

The conference was told, that country after country has been plundered by foreign fleets, which then moved on to new areas. While such pronouncements might have appeared to some to have been overstated, such countries definitely have a problem in protecting their national fisheries. But the issue touches all countries when it comes to fishing in international waters. It is the fleets from the strongest fishing countries which tend to go where management is weakest or non-existent. This also aggravates the problem of IUU fishing. It would do more good than harm if a lot more countries followed Australia's tough tactics of tracking and intercepting poaching vessels.

Enforcement

We need effective regulations which prevent fishing fleets being motivated purely by big profits and so to move to foreign countries. We need a ban on reflagging vessels to nations which do not enforce such regulations. Enforcement has its own problems where management methodology encourages 'black' landings. Just as bad, and another direct effect, is the dumping of bycatch because it might alert inspectors to the illegal landing of supposed 'clean', allowed catch. Managing such fisheries by the weakest species may cause more damage than benefit, particularly in the case of those species that compete for food and habitat and even prey on each other's offspring.

Existing laws and international pacts are often circumvented by industrial fleets and this produces illegal markets. Following a series of seizures this summer, Norwegian patrol inspectors estimated that fish worth NOK1.5 bn (US$235 mn) are being illegally fished in the Barents Sea every year. Among the poachers were several Russian vessels found offloading fish for buyers in the Netherlands, England and Germany. We should remember also that it takes two to tango - there is no market for a bent seller without a bent buyer.

Is CoFEZ the answer?

The fact of the matter is that the world's fish resources are only partly managed. Those which are managed at all may also be the victims of poor management based on inadequate and flawed scientific data and analysis. Hence, if the situation we see emerging continues, things will only get worse. So, is there anything nations can do, at least to sustain their inshore and coastal fisheries? Firstly, they might establish new Coastal Fisheries Exclusive Zones (CoFEZ), tailored to every particular case, within and beyond their Economic Exclusion Zones (EEZs). In the management of fisheries, the standard 200-mile EEZ pattern, in spite of its legal convenience, has proved inappropriate in more than one case. It may be too wide in some oceanic countries with a narrow continental shelf. They are unable to protect and develop their own deep-sea fisheries in the foreseeable future. On the other hand, 200 miles may be inadequate. This is as obvious as a whale dangling on a hook and line -- the worst case being the Grand Banks, where "Nose and Tail" have been partly left beyond the Canadian EEZ's boundary, thus preventing Canada from effective control of their cod stocks. And everyone failed to sustain the cod on the other side of the Canadian line.

So, a CoFEZ will spring naturally from local geographical, biological, administrative, and political conditions and there is every reason why it should differ from one part of a country to another. Then nations could formulate national fishery protection laws. These would allocate exclusive fishing rights to very well-defined groups of users and also specifically name those who are to be excluded.

Those allowed to fish could include: (i) local recreational fishermen; (ii) locally-based and that means artisanal and small-scale commercial fishermen using small open, semi-decked boats or from the shoreline (they should not be allowed in from outside the CoFEZ on the decks of "motherships"); (iii) locally-based small and medium-scale fishing vessels which employ local or indigenous crews. If there is a shortage of indigenous citizens, then they could take on migrating fishermen but those would get the same pay and have the same labour rights and working conditions as indigenous nationals. It is simple to limit vessels in terms of size, engine power, and/or fish-hold capacity. You need a range of criteria to make sure the right people are granted fishing rights -- we have all seen short, little, but over-fat gas-guzzling "mini-monster-trawlers", which have been deliberately designed to get round the length-limit rules. In case of effort management, the number of the boats should also be limited.

No fisheries management system can be a one-size fits all. It needs to be able to differentiate, be flexible and local.