China

by

Aggressive ocean grabs: the Sea is not the only loser

The outrage of land grabs pales by comparison to the exploitation of vulnerable and increasingly rare ocean resources by some fishing nations.

As China’s giant fishing fleets plough the ocean unabated, small fishing nations are suffering devastating losses in their own marine capture and processing sectors. Their fishing vessels, not being able to compete with constant and extensive exploitation by Chinese fleets in neighbouring waters, are coming back to their home ports empty-netted.

Fiji has recently reported the closure of important segments of its tuna industry, with expected job losses of about 8,000 and growing concerns over its food security.

Maritime nations, entrusted by international law to be the stewards of the ocean, are in fact the main contributors to its devastation, as they are subsidising their ludicrously oversized and no longer profitable fishing fleets to continue their plunder. The Japanese government spends USD 4.6 Billion in subsidies to unprofitable fishing fleets, whilst China follows closely with subsidies of USD 4.1 Billion. Other States that dangerously subsidise their industrial fishing fleets are the EU (USD 2.7 Billion), the US (USD 1.8 Billion) and the Russian Federation (USD 1.5 Billion).

The impact on the oceans of the relentless overexploitation by the biggest fishing nations is profound. In the Pacific Ocean, valuable commercial species such as Albacore and Bluefin tuna are shrinking at unprecedented rates.

Sources: Pew Environment Group; Undercurrent News.

Some tuna are shrinking rapidly in the Pacific Ocean

Some tuna populations are shrinking rapidly in the Pacific Ocean

by

Big Fishing Nations that won’t Stop Overfishing – Part II

Well, the writing was on the wall. Large fishing nations have long asserted their physical and financial superiority in our shared oceans.  Muscling their way into international negotiations, they have steadfastly refused to lower their quotas, kept their oversized fishing fleets artificially afloat with subsidies and refused to rein in furtive night time poaching by their trawlers, seiners and long liners into waters where they were not welcome.

Time after time we have seen the big bullies assert their dominance over the sea’s living creatures as if they had exclusive right to them.

And now, the consequences are beginning to emerge. There are reports today that the small island nation of Fiji, known for its marine beauty and abundance albacore, may have lost its tuna fishing industry at the hands, nets and hooks of the Chinese (http://fijilive.com/news/2014/01/tuna-fishing-industry-has-collapsed-southwick/56333.Fijilive)

As China keeps its growing fishing fleet awash with State sponsored subsidies, tax waivers and ship construction aid, Fiji’s fishing boats remain today tethered in their harbour, with nothing to catch. China’s predatory fleets are not only decimating a key ocean species, but they are also causing food insecurity in a small, vulnerable coastal nation ( http://www.atuna.com/index.php/2-uncategorised/485-albacore-crisis-can-cause-food-dilemma-in-fiji#.Ut5ZkJE4k18 ).

China is asserting its dominance in the Pacific, as Fiji shuts down one of its key economic sector and faces a dilemma that is likely to have deep repercussions for its economy and its people. Overfishing is the new disease of the small island nations and, as artificially large fleets supported by irresponsible nations continue to plunder the oceans, the cure may not be easy to find.

Unknown

by

Why the fate of small fishing nations is linked to sustainability in fisheries

Industrial fishing is mostly a global industry. Everyone knows that large fishing vessels can circumvent the Earth and harvest all its oceans. Even smaller semi-industrial vessels can reach international waters.

Whilst most commercial fish species live in the exclusive economic zones of coastal States, much of the fish we like to eat (tuna and tuna-like species, swordfish, herring, etc) like to migrate. This means that, inconveniently for regulators and policy-makers, fish can often weave in and out of national boundaries. Logically, the industrial activities of those pursuing these species cannot be regulated by one country alone.

Further, the way that fisheries regulation works means that, as soon as a fishing vessel leaves its country’s exclusive economic zone, it will be regulated not only by the laws of its own country (its ‘flag State’), but also by the laws of the coastal States where it may be aiming to fish and, depending on what species it targets or where in the ocean it operates, the conservation and management measures of RFMOs (regional fisheries management organisation).

This generally means that when an act of illegal fishing is carried out, the success of an investigation and any subsequent penalty or (where criminal laws have been breached) prosecution, will depend on the willing and active involvement of a number of countries and/or RFMOs. Though international law obligates countries to cooperate in these matters, the truth is that they frequently don’t (with some honourable exceptions).

Everyone involved with international environmental protection laws knows that things are far from simple. No overarching international fisheries body exists that can enforce compliance on fishing nations and so, international requirements tend to be obeyed only when they are beneficial for the fishing nations in question.

What this tends to mean is that big, powerful fishing nations tend to end up making executive decisions that benefit their fleets, whilst ignoring the requests of smaller fishing nations. The trouble with this is that the global fishing fleet is already too big, so if powerful States are getting most of the legal quota (and may I point out that legal does not necessarily equal sustainable), this can leave few agreeable options for small fishing nations.

This situation was exemplified at the meetings held over the past few weeks at the West and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (link: http://www.worldfishing.net/news101/industry-news/commission-disappointed-by-wcpfc-meeting ) where a new depth was reached in the lack of political commitment by some of the most powerful fishing nations to rein in overfishing of tuna.

And whilst legal overfishing carries on, the hidden tragedy of illegal fishing continues undeterred.

The good news is that some markets have begun to equip themselves with methodologies that have the potential to weed out illegal fishing products, and to identify fishing nations that foster or do not make an effort to curb illegal fishing practices.

The bad news is that in order to participate in those markets as ‘good guys’, States have to have certain fleet control tools and methods in place. Many small fishing nations do not have access to this. Some lack the support, whilst others are marred by fragile institutions that interfere with fisheries control processes, disengaging them from the rule of law.

Unfortunately this means that some small nations may not be able to demonstrate sufficient fisheries control to markets that require guarantees of legality, and may eventually get squeezed out. This, coupled with the irresponsible (though sadly legal) overfishing of some larger fishing nations can spell impending disaster for vulnerable States.

A new initiative, the Fair Fisheries And Markets Access (FFAMA) is developing to try to find a solution to this problem. You read it here first!

A perspective of the fishing vessel harbour in Freetown, Sierra Leone

A perspective of the fishing vessel harbour in Freetown, Sierra Leone

by

Big fishing nations that won’t stop overfishing

A recent Guardian article exposes some of the figures behind industrial tuna fishing in the pacific.

The article says that the US, China, South Korea, Japan, Indonesia and Taiwan are responsible for 80% of bigeye tuna caught each year. The remaining 20% is captured by vessels flagged to smaller fishing nations. Some of the smallest nations depend on their fisheries for basic survival.

In 2012, 2.6m tonnes of tuna were extracted from the Pacific – 60% of the global total. Scientists are in agreement that tuna is being overfished at an alarming rate. Some species are practically on the brink, with bluefin tuna populations being currently just 4% of what they were before industrial fishing commenced.

Yet, the organisation that has been entrusted by the international community to be the steward of tuna fisheries in the Pacific ocean, the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, has failed to protect the fish for yet another year.

In spite of clear scientific advice regarding the need to reduce tuna quotas, the large fishing nations that currently haul the most, have point-blank refused to reduce their quota. Small Pacific nations have pointlessly warned of the consequences of overfishing – the big boys won’t budge.

What kind of priorities drive this irresponsible behaviour by fishing nations and those behind their commercial interests?

There is much short-term profit to be made in fisheries and the lack of regulation and enforcement in waters under the stewardship of international management organisations like the above mentioned Commission means that, in the eyes of many, if they don’t take the fish then others will come in to take it in their place.

It looks like, unless a radical change in attitude and innovative approaches to the governance and regulation of international fisheries, we may be headed for a marine version of the tragedy of the commons.

International policy actors are now more than ever before actively looking for solutions. The Global Oceans Commission has issued a call for ideas and possible solutions for the (so far) intractable problems of overfishing, illegal fishing and the governance of ocean resources. Anyone with views and ideas should contact the GOC via this link: http://www.globaloceancommission.org

Image