Questions to be answered involved include: 1 – To whom do 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. It still 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 State and Federal governments. 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 are two extreme views: first, that the management of fisheries should be left with their traditional users. That means artisanal and commercial fishermen, and, if government is in charge, it should consult only those users. The second view is that stakeholders and NGOs can and should be involved, but not commercial fishermen, “because you don’t let cats watch the cream”… In between these two extremes there’re many alternatives.
The composition of the management and advisory bodies (councils, committees etc.) depends on how you answer the related question. In the USA, where the States’ management extends from the shore out to three miles, and the regional Councils manage fisheries in federal waters (three to 200 miles), and that leaves the Commissions doing “migratory” species, the answer is located somewhere between the two extremes.
“There’s some fuzziness about who does what, ‘cause fish don’t know federal laws”, according to consultant Nils Stolpe, communications director of the Garden State Seafood Association and FishNet USA, (www.fishingnj.org). “Those advisory bodies generally represent about all the stakeholders, such as commercial and recreational fishermen, the seafood 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”, he adds.
Litigation
Litigation
Whatever answers turn up to our questions, in democratic societies citizens have the right to turn to courts if they believe that they have been unduly hurt by governmental decisions. This right extends also to NGOs. In the light of the impact which some management decisions have on us, it would seem that the right to litigation is essential to all stakeholders.
The question remains: should every tribunal be vested with the responsibility for making decisions on fishery and coastal ecosystem management matters. Some countries have courts of law, which specialise in particular areas, such as traffic, labour, maritime law, family matters, etc.. Their judges have specific expertise, to make sure they are not taken for a ride by smart lawyers, politicians and scientists of fortune. So why not have specialised tribunals for coastal resource management?
I wonder, for example, what the procedure was, and whom the Australian government consulted, before deciding to spend more than US$100 million on buy the licenses and boats of half of Australia’s commercial fishermen, and more than 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 per cent in 17 fisheries considered under threat of overfishing. Press reports have fisheries minister Ian Macdonald saying: “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”.
Australian fishery activist Bob McDonald reacted on FISHFOLK saying “It is restructuring of fisheries so that the owner operator fleet is crushed and replaced by a corporate fleet”.
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, reports came from Scotland saying that the consequences of the EU-sponsored buyback scheme in many fishing ports of Scotland has caused many vessel losses: Buckie – 25; Fraserburgh – 50; Lerwick – 10
