international collective in support of fishworkers · it takes two hands to clap and when these...

INTERNATIONAL COLLECTIVE IN SUPPORT OF FISHWORKERS

Focus ON MARiNE STEWARdsliip CouNcilElECTRic FfSliiN~ iN ViETNAM

WOMEN iN Fiji 5 Fi4iERiBNEW SOUTH WAlEs' ENViRONMENTAl DAMAGE

LAkE ViCTORi" TRANSfoRMEdEU's NEW GENERATioN AGREEMENTS

BLuE EuROPEGrr~dER PE~CTivE.s

NEWS Roo ~up

ContentsSAMUDRA No. 15 JULY 1996 TRIANNUAL REPORT OF ICSF

COMMENT 1

VIETNAMShocking fishing 3

AUSTRALIADon’t shoot the messenger 8

INDIAVictory for the fishworkers 13

FOCUSWhole labels? Whose benefit? 15

FOCUSThe mantle of ‘going green’ 21

FOCUSA view from the Third World 22

FIJIUp against several barriers 26

KENYAIn the balance 34

EUROPEAN UNIONOn to the next generation 37

GENDERDifferent voices, similar concerns 46

DOCUMENTRethinking aquaculture 50

REVIEWBeyond scientific gospels 52

NEWS ROUND-UPJapan, British Columbia, Egypt, South KoreaMalaysia, California, Russia, Australia 54

Comment

Going green about the gillsIt takes two hands to clap and when these belong to giants like the multinational Unilever and thehigh-profile World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), the result could be a thunderclap. Precisely such a blastcan be expected from the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) planned by these two organizations.

Unilever, with global sales of US$ 900 million in fish products and a 20 per cent share of the Europeanand us frozen-fish market, is teaming up with an environmental NGO to ‘ensure the long-term viability ofglobal fish populations and the health of the marine ecosystems on which they depend." The move hasreceived great media attention in the UK. A columnist in The Times said that ‘These last years of thecentury are giving birth to a new alliance: a type of ruthless, unsentimental, large-scale action whichentirely bypasses governments. After years of mutual suspicion and tension, the environmentalists andthe industrialists, the sandals and the suits, are working things out together..." The Daily Telegraph hailedthe MSC as “one of the most significant initiatives to halt fish stocks decline since Iceland went to war overcod in the 1970s.”

Are these claims justified? Perhaps in a situation of monopsony, with Unilever the sole buyer of fish, theMSC may help seal up the global wholesale market. Unfortunately, this is not the case in the real world.The Japanese consumer market for fish, by far the world’s largest, remains totally outside the influenceof the Anglo-Dutch giant. So do the retail markets of the ‘Asian Tigers.’ As an initiative to ‘bell’ the marketforlong an elusive link in fisheries managementthe MSC is welcome, especially if it complements existingfisheries regulations and instruments. Arguably, fishers who use ecofriendly gear like gill-nets, long lines,traps and pots might benefit from the MSC. If competitive conditions prevail in their domestic markets,they will realize better incomes from ‘green’ fishing operations.

This, however, does not mean that fish thus caught will replace those caught by non-green, ‘dirty’methods. At best, a niche market for ecoconsumers will develop. Like buying organically grownvegetables, the consumer will be able to choose fish with a ‘green’ stamp. This implies a greater productdifferentiation in the market, though not the elimination of ‘dirty fish. Ultimately, both ‘green’ and ‘dirty’fish will co-exist. Tampering with only the market mechanism, therefore, will produce only partial results.

If the real interest is the long-term sustainability of marine resources, then more needs to be done. Anymeasure of sustainability should also include social criteria that reflect the livelihood interests of themajority in fishing communities. Moreover, it should recognize existing fishing technologies that areselective. The principles of sustainable fisheries ought to be developed through consensus. The MSCshould not unfairly penalize fishers who use ‘dirty’ fishing techniques. It should also give them an incentiveto switch to ecofriendly methods, with perhaps some kind of income support.

The MSC initiative, however, has not won the total confidence of fishing communities, either in the Southor the North, because of their great distrust of Unilever. Many consider the multinational giant to be awolf in sheep’s garb. To be sure, sustainability may make good business sense, but Unilever could justas well have waited for the sustainability criteria to ripen on its own, before exploiting it for its corporateinterests. In any case, the idea would have been taken far more seriously by fish workers’ organizationshad WWF consulted them before plunging in.

It is too early to get overexcited about the MSC or to say if it will actually halt the decline of fish stocks,given that it may finally apply potentially to only about a quarter of global fish production. As onecommentator indicates, the MSC points tome future of fisheries management. So far, such efforts havebeen lackadaisical. Unless the stakeholders, especially fish workers, are consulted and encouraged toparticipate in management programmes, the state and democratic institutions will only get moremarginalized through market-led initiatives. We would like to tether the market and make it moreaccountable, but we can not view market intervention as the only path to sustainable fisheries. Meanwhile,given the ideologically charged arid conflicting stances, it is hardly surprising that both, critics andproponents of the MSC are going green about the gills.

C MENT

SAMUDRA JULY 1996 1

Tam Giang lagoon

Shocking fishing

The Quang Thai Commune has woken up to the problems of using electricity and dynamite for fishing

At the very centre of Vietnam, in theprovince of Thua Thien Hue, liesthe Tam Giang lagoon, which has

two openings to the sea. Actually a systemof lagoons formed by three large riversand powerful sea currents, it producesthree main basins and a narrow channelseparated from the sea by sand dunes.

The total surface area of the lagoon is21,600 sq km. In the rainy season, thewater is fresh and floods prevail. But,normally, the lagoon is shallow, with anaverage depth of 15 m, and is becomingincreasingly so. Both the mouths of thelagoon are unstable. The southern mouthhas been closed on and off for severalyears. Its closure affects the salinity andspecies composition in that section of thelagoon. A more permanent, carefullyengineered, opening was completed inSeptember 1995.

Aquatic resources found in the lagooninclude seaweeds (used to produce agar),sea grasses (used as soil and animal feed),crustaceans (crabs and shrimp of manyspecies), molluscs (clams and mussels),and fish, both freshwater and salt-waterspecies—depending on the season.

A population of about 220,000 livesaround the lagoon, depending on itsresources, as well as on agriculture in thesandy soils around the lagoon, and fromfishing in the sea. One of the biggestproblems they face is the intenseoverexploitation of aquatic resources.According to data compiled by theDepartment of Fisheries, the number offishers in the lagoon rose from 5,575 in1982 to 9,120 in 1993, while the totalproduction dropped from 4,042 tonnes in1966 to 1,973 tonnes in 1994.

Although statistics on artisanal fisheriesare most often unreliable, this data,

nevertheless, does give some indication ofthe status of the lagoon fishery. Personalobservations indeed confirm the high rateof exploitation of aquatic resources fromthe lagoon. Cruising through a smallthree-hectare section of the lagoon, onecould observe dozens of bottom-nets andfish corrals using mesh sizes of five toseven sq mm and even smaller, althoughthe legal size is nine sq mm.

There were six motorized boats raking thelagoon bottom for eels (two to four rakesper boat), while a couple of dozen womenand men waded in chest-deep water usingstrong bamboo push-nets, which can alsocollect sea grasses. Also observed were 12boats engaged in ‘electric fishing’ usingbatteries and transformers to generate 220volts of electric power which stuns allmarine life within a one-metre radius.Simultaneously, seven men on foot,carrying their equipment in backpacks,were also seen using electricity to fish in anearby marsh.

Fixed fishing gear, such as fish corrals,bottom-nets, lift-nets, fish aggregatingdevices (FADs) and other fish traps arescattered throughout the lagoon. Closer tothe shores are net enclosures, shrimp/fishcages and shrimp/fish ponds.Approaching Hue airport and observingthe lagoon from the sky, one gets theimpression that not a single sq m of watersurface is left unused. Mobile fishing gearoperators (using gill-nets, rods, push-nets,drag-nets, etc.) are spread throughout theavailable surface—which is growingsmaller and less accessible each year.

Two-year projectNow, a two-year project aims to researchthe management of the biologicalresources of the Tam Giang Lagoon.Funded by the International DevelopmentResearch Centre (IDRC), Canada and the

V

ietnam

SAMUDRA JULY 1996 3

Vie

tnam

The ban appealQuang Thai People’s Committee SocialistRepublic of Vietnam

No. 17 NO/QO 12 March 1996

To : The people of our commune andneighbouring communes

Regulation to Protect the Environment

This regulation complies with Article No.01/CTUB of Thua Thien Hue Province on thebanning of dynamite arid electric fishing inaquatic exploitation (dated 9 January 1996)and with the Quang Dien People’s Committeeprogramme of banning electric fishing.

Recently, in the lagoon and in the rice fieldsbordering the lagoon in our commune, fish and

shrimp are decreasing, while the environmentand the local economy are badly affected. Themain reason for this is the use of electric.

The whole commune has disapproved of thispractice for a Long time. Some resolutionsregarding the problem have been sent to theconcerned authorities. However, nothing hasbeen done Electric fishing continues, whichmakes the damage all the more serious.

Now, with the assistance of the concernedbodies and organizations, the local governmentthis announcement to ban dynamite andelectric fishing. This programme aims atrestoring our local aquatic resources andimproving the local economy and theenvironment.

In the past Quang Thai Commune investigatedthe use of electric fishing. It was found thatmore than half of the people in Quang LotPhong Chuong, Dir Hos and Dien LocCommunes use this destructive gear. Ricefields close to the lagoon are damaged, aquaticresources exhausted and not allowed todevelop. If this continues, our aquaticresources will soon run out, affecting theeconomy of fishers. Considering theseproblems Quang Thai People’s Committee hasissued the following regulations:

1. The order No. 1 ct/ub of the ProvincialPeople’s Committee on the banning ofdynamite and electric fishing applies to thelocal community.

II. Loudspeaker communication is used toannounce the regulation to families usingelectric fishing. Along with this, the signaturesof all electric fishers will be obtained on a letterof agreement to abandon electric fishing. Thisapplies not only to the people of Quang ThaiCommunes but also to the people ofneighbouring communes.

Ill. Every person using electric fishing mustcomply with this regulation and communicateto, and mobiize others to comply with thisregulation.

IV. After four days of communication andencouraging people to comply with theregulation (16 to 19 March 1996), thecommunes will strictly impose fines on peoplewho do not comply.

V. Anybody caught electric fishing will be takento the Commune by the Guards of the fishingEnvironment.

VI. For a first offence, the transformer andelectric equipment of the fisher will beconfiscated, and the fine will be 70 percent ofthe value of the battery and the boat.

VII. For a second offence, the commune willconfiscate all the equipment and each personwill be fined 200,000 VND. Those refusing topay will be sent to the District People’s Court.

VIII. Every person must comply with theregulations. The commune will riot tolerate anyexceptions and will not be responsible for anylosses.

IX. As enforcers of the programme, the headsof self-managed groups and the guards mustcarry out their assignment radically andcorrectly to ensure fairness to all.

X. This notice appeals to the people of thiscommune and neighbouring communes tostrictly comply with the Provincial Order and theregulation of Quang Thai, in order to graduallyget rid of dynamite and electric fishinggearsthat destroy the environment to improve thelocal ecology.

(Signed and approved by the Chairman of thePeople’s Committee of Quang Thai)

4 SAMUDRA JULY 1996

Vietnam Sustainable EconomicDevelopment agency (VISED), which is anIDRC-CIDA Joint Aid Programme forVietnam, the project is being carried outby the Hue University of Agriculture andForestry (HUAF), Hue University ofSciences (HUS) and the ProvincialDepartment of Fisheries (DF). Nineteenresearchers from the three institutions aregrappling to understand the status ofresource exploitation in the lagoon.

As JDRC’s main objective is tointroduce new researchtechniques—principally using

interdisciplinary and participatoryapproaches—the researchers spend a lotof time in the villages around the lagoon,talking and discussing with fishers,farmers, aqua-culturists, traders andanyone else connected with theexploitation of biological resources. Theproject focuses its activities on threecommunes which are somewhatrepresentative of the lagoon system.Inevitably, since the research is conductedwith the participation of local people, theresearchers often feel they should do morethan just study.

In the village of Trung Lang in the QuangThai Commune, the six researchers (anaquatic biologist, a farming systemsresearcher, a sociologist, a crop scientistand a staff member of the DF) wereconfronted with the fishers’ plea to helpprotect their aquatic resources. The main

complaint was against the ‘electric’fishers, who are mainly farmers lookingfor alternative sources of income in slackemployment periods. Although thisactivity is illegal by government decree,the law is not enforced.

Putting aside their research agenda, theresearchers began to help the villagers getorganized, approach the leaders of thecommune and the district, and design aneffective patrolling schedule for thecommune waters.

The fishers set up a committee, elected aleader, and then began discussions withthe commune leaders. This process wasfacilitated by the researchers. Thecommune instituted a system of fines andpenalties on all fishers disobeying theruling. However, a four-day grace periodgave the ‘electric’ fishers a chance to getused to the new ruling. In those four days,the committee and its leader patrolled thewaters and informed fishers of the newrules.

A notice (see box), written by thecommune’s official guard, incollaboration with the fishers’ Committeefor the Protection of the Environment, wasread out over a loudspeaker from thepatrol boat.

Current situationWhat is the current situation in the TamGiang lagoon? ‘Electric’ fishing during

V

ietnam

SAMUDRA JULY 1996 5

daylight hours has virtually stopped andit has decreased at night too.

The fishers have established asystem of guard duty and theypatrol the area at random on boats.

At night, they find it difficult toapprehend the illegal fishers, particularlythose who exploit the marsh area on foot.

However, neighbouring farming villagesare joining in the action. They aresupporting the ban by expanding theactivities of their night watchmen (whopatrol the fields at night against theft ofcrops) to include patrolling of rice fieldsand marshes to drive off ‘electric’ fishers.Villagers throughout the commune arecontributing funds for increasedsurveillance. Now, even neighbouringcommunes are showing interest and‘electric’ fishing may soon becomeobsolete.

What about the ‘electric’ fishersthemselves? Can they afford to give upthis source of income? The researchers aretrying to find ways to help them findalternative employment. Already, aninternational NGO working in the area hasoffered support by extending credit tothose voluntarily abandoning ‘electric’fishing.

Meanwhile, the research group isstruggling with other issues. The fishingvillage, though wealthier than the

neighbouring farming villages, has less ofinfrastructure and access to schools andhealth clinics. They thus appear muchpoorer. Perhaps one reason for this couldbe that fishers, who compete on water,tend not to be organized on land. Incontrast, the neighbouring farmingcommunity has mobilized and organizedits members to get electricity connection.

The road leading from the communeheadquarters to the fishing village is asingle lane, with only a few planks ofwood serving as a bridge. Since theestablishment of the programme banning‘electric’ fishing, the fishers have startedcontemplating other projects.

The first is for the construction of a properroad that can withstand floods. The fishersthemselves have drafted a proposal, got itapproved by the commune’s People’sCommittee and delivered it to the researchproject office—with a kg of shrimp theyhad caught the previous night.

Community movementThis proposal asks for only a part of thecosts, namely, for the materials toconstruct the bridge and two culverts. Thematerials for the road, as well as all themanual labour needed, would beprovided by the villagers themselves.

Though this activity is not directly relatedto the management of aquatic resources, itis the beginning of an organized

Vie

tnam

6 SAMUDRA JULY 1996

community movement which will notonly improve the social and economiclives of the fishers but will also teach themhow to manage their resources.

Another group of six researchersare doing similar work on anothersection of the lagoon, but with a

different approach.

Their research goal is to collect fisherydata on lagoon resources. These includecatch, fishing effort, mean size of the catch,species and marketing.

Phu Tan, the centre of this activity, islocated near the northern mouth of thelagoon. The research will be extremelyvaluable as it will identify migration itpatterns of aquatic species.

Although their activities are mainlycentred in one commune, the fishers haveenlisted the participation of fiveneighbouring communes to get a morecomprehensive picture of the fishery.

The data of catch is recorded by the fishersthemselves. To avoid imposing animpossible task on them, the fishers weremade instrumental in the design of thedata collection sheet and they areencouraged to modify it as they thinknecessary.

The monthly meeting is a venue for thefishers to discuss improvements to thedata collection activity, validate the datacollected and address issues related to themanagement of lagoon resources.

The 30 ‘fisher-co-researchers’ (a termcoined by the research group leader) arevery keen participants, and discussionsare often quite heated and emotional. Theresearch activity is also used as a tool tobuild awareness on lagoon resources, andto bring fishers together to talk anddiscuss. It hopes to be a forum for thebuilding of a future organization focusedon community-based coastal resourcesmanagement.

The fishers are certainly aware of thedwindling state of the resources, and mostsay they are participating in the researchfor their children’s sake. This activitymight just turn out to be the right catalystfor action.

V

ietnam

This article is writted by Veronika J.Brzeski, Advisor (IDRC, Canada), TamGiang Lagoon Project on CoastalResources Research Network, LesterPearson International, DalhousieUniversity, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H4JQ Canada. (E-mail:[email protected])

Further information can be obtained from:

Truong van Tuyen, Project Co-coordinator and Quang Thai

Group Leader, Department of Rural Development, HueUniversity of Agriculture and Forestry, 24 Phung Hung,

Hue City, Vietnam.(E-mail:tuyen%tamgiang%sarec%

[email protected])

Ton That Phap, Phu Tan Group Leader, Head of Stationfor Lagoon Resources Management and Environmental

Studies (ΣΛΑΡΜΕΣ), Hue University College of Sciences,

27 Nguyen Hue, Hue City, Vietnam. (E-mail: phap%slarmes%sarec%[email protected])

SAMUDRA JULY 1996 7

New South Wales

Don’t shoot the messenger

Environmental damage is costing the fishing industry of New South Wales dollars and jobs

A sustainable fishing industrydepends as much, if not more, ona clean and healthy environment

as it does on controls on harvestingpressure. In New South Wales (NSW),nearly two-thirds of the fish and shellfishspend some part of their life cycles inestuaries, and the bulk of fishing effort isconcentrated in the nearshore zone.

Fishermen are affected by environmentaldamage in a number of ways. These canbe categorized as follows:

1. Reduction in stock. Pollution andthe loss of vital fish habitats canreduce the numbers of fish beingrecruited into the fishery. There arewell documented cases of reduc-tions in both the number of speciesand individual animals caused byindustrial pollution andurban/agricultural run-off.Floodgates, dams and weirsprevent fish access to spawninggrounds, thus also reducing stockavailability. Sea grass loss in NSW isphenomenal (a 50 per cent loss inthe past 40 years) and this hasreduced the nursery area availablefor juvenile fish and prawns.

2. Contamination and disease. Fishwhich are contaminated or dis-eased are unmarketable and the in-dustry, at times, loses hundreds ofthousands of dollars due to disease.The most common disease is thefungal infection called red spot,which is related to the input of acidwater from overdrained wetlands.Public concern about contamina-tion (even though this is relativelyuncommon) has cost the industrymillions of dollars through lostsales.

3. Loss of access to fishing grounds.Large areas of waterways are nowinaccessible to fishermen due toblockages by weirs, dams andfloodgates. Indeed, some areas thatwere once fishable waterways arenow dry land. Smaller areas nearbig cities have been lost due toclosures arising from con-tamination by substances such asdioxins.

4.Increased pressure for fishery closures.Recreational or sport fishing catch on theNSW coast is at least equal to thecommercial catch. In the estuaries, therecreational catch of some species isalmost 100 times more than thecommercial catch in some areas. As theenvironmental squeeze on fish increases,the pressure for resource re-allocationfrom the recreational sector also increases.Indeed, there are already proposals for thecomplete removal of all commercialfishing within three nautical milesoffshore.

The costs resulting from these problemsare difficult to ascertain but it is notunreasonable to estimate them in theorder of millions of dollars. Thetrickle-down effects into the communityof the loss of commercial fishing activityare also difficult to quantify, but we doknow that each dollar earned by afisherman generates at least anotherdollar in the community.

Costs involvedThe costs to tourism also need to be takeninto consideration, as do the costs toaquaculture operations such as oysterfarming.

What we are experiencing in NSW isunique to neither Australia nor many

Aus

tralia

8 SAMUDRA JULY 1996

other countries of the world. The easternstates of Australia have problems similarto many areas in the US, Europe, theMiddle East and Asia. From experience inthe northern hemisphere, it is clear thatthe costs of repairing the damage arephenomenal, and that a case forpreventing further damage by protectingfish habitats and managing them with along-term view in mind is easier andcheaper to implement. It also makescommon sense.

The NSW commercial fishing industry hasmade a major commitment to protectingfish habitats and the broader aquaticenvironment throughout the state.Fishermen have done this principallythrough the Commercial FishingAdvisory Council and Ocean Watch, butmany have become greatly involved inenvironmental issues personally at a locallevel.

The common goal is to protect andenhance the natural environment andensure that healthy fish stocks areavailable for future generations offishermen (commercial and recreational)as well as seafood consumers.

In terms of fish habitats, there is littledoubt in the minds of fishermen that thesehave been heavily affected over the past100 years and that we are starting fromlow base in trying to both protect what is

left and also restore whatever habitats wecan.

Fish habitats can be broken down into fourregions: inland and three coastal regionsdefined as the areas from the Queenslandborder to the Manning River, the Manningto the Shoalhaven, and the Shoalhaven tothe Victorian border.

Some types of habitat losses are commonto all regions. These include those arisingfrom the impact of urban developmentand the construction of roads andrailways. The latter facilities often haveculverts which block fish passage. Inlandfish habitats are in dire straits andenormous problems have been caused tothe commercial fishing industry largelydue to the huge impact of agriculturalactivities.

Loss of habitatsThe loss of fish habitats has beenattributed to many things, such as, toomuch water being removed from therivers; blockages to fish passage by dams,weirs and river regulators; introducedspecies like carp, trout and redfin; wetlanddrainage; pollution by nutrients andpesticides; prevention of water fromreaching spawning areas such asbillabongs by floods and small rises in theriver; and, reversal of flow seasonality(especially from melting snow into theMurrumbidgee river).

A

ustralia

SAMUDRA JULY 1996 9

It is not surprising that the onlythreatened and endangered fishspecies in NSW, such as trout cod, are

in inland waters. Some species whichwere once commercially valuable havealmost disappeared, despite radicalreduction in the numbers of commercialfishermen. Such species include silverperch and the freshwater catfish. Troutcod continue to disappear, despite beingtotally protected from fishing.

The region from the Manning River northto the Queensland border is characterizedby the existence of large ‘barrier’ riverestuaries, such as the Manning andClarence Rivers. These rivers have largefloodplains which once supportedextensive wetlands.

Over the years, the floodplains have beenheavily modified by land drainage andflood mitigation systems to enableagricultural activities like cattle grazingand sugar cane production. Losses andmodifications to habitats have beenextensive. Wetlands have been lost due todrainage and reclamation and manycreeks have been floodgated.Unrestricted access by cattle to the banksof waterways has resulted in a loss ofriparian vegetation and has acceleratedbank erosion.

Flood mitigation works have reduced thefrequency of wetland inundation,removed riparian vegetation andstraightened waterways, as well asexposed acid sulphate soils. Dams andweirs have blocked access by fish such asmullet and bass, and have led to thedecline in bass numbers in somewaterways.

The drainage and lowering of wetlandwater tables have exposed acid sulphatesoils, which leach huge quantities of acidwater into creeks and waterways. Thiscauses fish kills and loss of foodorganisms and sea grasses. It also leads tofish diseases such as red spot.

The quality of the water in the rivers ishighly variable, but there does seem to bea problem emerging with excess nutrientsand bacteria (F. co/i). These pollutantscome from both agricultural activitiesand sewage disposal. It is somewhat of anirony that the current opposition over

ocean outfall is actually causing moresewage pollution due to the upgrades ofestuarine outfall of sewage disposal.

Excess bacteria are mainly a problem forthe oyster industry but can be a problemwhere prawns are cooked in river water.Nutrients may benefit in small doses, butany further increases may result in bloomsof toxic algae. Minor losses of habitatscontinue to occur via sand and gravelextraction, dredging and reclamation ofwetlands for housing and urban run-off.

The region south from the Manning Riverto the Shoalhaven River is characterizedby a mix of large, shallow estuarine lakesand several drowned river valleys,including Port Stephens and theHawkesbury River.

This region supports the major proportionof NSW’s population and its problemsrelate primarily to the effects of urbandevelopment. Sydney harbourdemonstrates just how hardy manyspecies of fish and shellfish can be. Thefact that it still supports a smallcommercial fishery should be a source ofpride to Sydney-siders, given the abuse offish habitats that has occurred over thepast 200 years.

The harbour has lost many wetlands, andmany tributaries are nothing more thanstorm water drains. Major pollutionproblems exist in some bays, such as theOlympic Games venue of Homebush Bay,where dioxin pollution has closed the finfish fisheries for some six years.

Direct industrial pollution of theParramatta River has been substantiallyreduced (by transferring to ocean sewers),but the critical problem of urban run-offhas not been properly addressed.

Several pollutantsUrban run-off contains a wide variety ofpollutants such as nutrients, F. coli, heavymetals, pesticides and silt. It is a majorproblem in coastal lakes such asTuggerah, Illawarra and Macquarie.Siltation rates are up to 30 times thenatural rate in Lake Illawara, and nutrientinputs have caused excessive algal growth(eutrophication) in Tuggerab andIllawarra. Catchment controls areinadequate and ‘band-aid’ solutions such

Aus

tralia

10 SAMUDRA JULY 1996

as shallow dredging have resulted inlosses of sea grass. Another threat to thesetwo lake systems is sand mining.

Although Wallis Lake does not face theseproblems yet, the continuing urbanizationof the lake, especially on the western side,will result in these problems cropping upin the not too distant future.

The Hawkesbury and Georges Rivershave many similar problems, such as fishmigration blockages, urban run-off andloss of habitats, especially by sandextraction operations. The ShoalhavenRiver shares many of the problems of thenorthern rivers. It too is a barrier riverestuary with an acid soil problem and lossof wetlands due to land drainage foragriculture and flood mitigation. TheShoalhaven also has a major dam(Tallowa) which modifies flows to theriver and prevents fish migration. PortStephens is a fish producing machine thatshould be better looked after.

Wetland losses have been significant andcontinuing. There are huge pressures onthe small villages in the area from tourismdevelopments. Sea grass loss due tomarina developments has alreadyoccurred.

The South Coast is characterized by smallestuaries (except the Clyde) and supportsmany lagoons that may only occasionallyopen to the sea. It is sparsely populated,

but subject to enormous developmentpressure by tourists and retired people.With a few exceptions, most of thewaterways on the south coast appear to bein relatively good shape.

Trunketabells Lagoon, just north ofBodalla, has a serious eutrophicationproblem, but funds have recently beenallocated to assist this, if only byincreasing the flushing of the area.(Eutrophication involves pollution byfertilizers, detergents and other nutrientsthat cause excessive growth of algae andother pest plants.) Wetland losses havealso occurred, but their true extent isunknown.

The major source of concern is theexpansion of urban development aroundthe small estuaries, which have littlecapacity to deal with run-off. Majorexpansion is proposed around St. GeorgesBasin (which may already have nutrientsin excess), Burill Lake and Wallaga Lake,amongst others. Other developmentswhich will affect the area include anexpanded canal estate at Sussex Inlet anda caravan park at Cullendulla Creek.

A major source of concern is themanagement of the opening of the smallcoastal lagoons. Prior to humanintervention, these lagoons closed offduring dry periods and opened up whena mix of high water levels and big sea tidesremoved the sand bar at the entrance.

However, due to the settlement of areaswithin the zone that may be flooded byrising lake levels, these lagoons are nowcommonly opened artificially.

Despite many representations byfishermen and the NSW FisheriesDepartment, the control over suchopenings rests with council and stategovernment engineers, who have refusedto find out which is the most appropriatetime to open these Lagoons. This problemoccurs along the north and central coasts.

Restoration neededThe inland waterways are in urgent needof restoration. Immediate attention to theallocation of environmental flows ofwater and the removal of migrationblockages is needed if fish are to have anychance of recovery.

A

ustralia

SAMUDRA JULY 1996 11

Unfortunately, it appears that thecommercial fishery is to betreated as the sacrificial lamb,

due to the incapacity of the governmentto tackle big problems: better to shoot themessenger than make the hard decisions.

Both the northern and central regions ofthe NSW coast have experiencedsubstantial habitat losses. The priorityhas to be a focus on restoration. There arebig wins to be made for habitatconservation if funds and political willare forthcoming.

Unfortunately, it seems that thegovernment largesse has dried up.Alternative sources of funds need to befound for progress to be made.

The south coast is still in relatively goodshape, but the small size of the estuariescalls for extreme caution if the problemsfound to the north are to be avoided.Good planning and implementation ofworkable catchment run-off controls arevital if estuaries are to be protected.

These environmental consequences canbe summarized as physical impacts(wetland drainage; flood mitigation;dams and weirs; loss of riparianvegetation; dredging and mining;environmental flows, including wetlandflooding) and pollution (sewagepollution; acid soil run-off; agriculturalrun-off)

Ocean Watch believes that an integratedprogram that addresses these issues willgo a long way towards restoring fishhabitats and fish production.

Aus

tralia

This article is by Duncan Leadbitter,Executive Director, Ocean Watch,Australia


Deep-sea joint ventures

Victory for fishworkers

Indian fisher people have rallied round to reverse the government’s policy on deep-sea joint ventures

India has a sea coast of 7,000 km.Indian waters are tropical andtherefore contain multiple species of

fish, but each species occurs only in smallquantities. According to one assessment,3.7 million tonnes of fish are availableannually. Of this, 2.7 million tonnes arecaught by traditional crafts and around40,000 small, mechanized crafts.

There are about two million full-timeactive fishermen, while the number offisher people totals almost eight million.There are about three million part-timefishermen, whose total population is closeto 12 million.

Most of them live below the poverty linein a subsistence economy. They live on thesea coast, with poor housing conditions.Illiteracy among them is about 70 per cent.

The first attempts to develop India’sfisheries introduced bottom trawling inthe 1960s which resulted in greaterpauperization of the traditional sector.This created tensions between the smallmechanized and traditional sectors.

The second stage of fisheries developmentintroduced chartering of foreign vessels inorder to exploit the deep seas. This toocreated havoc.

Bull trawling, which was part of thecharter operations, depleted resourcesheavily. All these vessels were fishing inthe territorial waters.

This led to open clashes between thetraditional and the small, mechanizedsector. Not even a single Indianentrepreneur was able to own a vessel infive years, the period stipulated by thecharter policy. Thus the Government ofIndia scrapped the policy. However, someof these vessels are still in operation.

The third stage of development was theintroduction of 180 foreign trawlersowned by Indian entrepreneurs. Thisproject was a total failure and only 20remain in operation. Several of thecompanies ran up huge debts to theShipping Credit and InvestmentCorporation of India.

This led to the appointment of an FAOcommittee to study Indian deep-seafishing. M. Gudicelli, who conducted thestudy, said that only 164,000 tonnes of fishare commercially viable in the deep seas.The other varieties are of low value, andcatching them would not be profitable. In1991, the Government of India introducedthe joint venture scheme. This led to moreopen clashes between the traditional andmechanized sectors.

Since 1976, the fisher people of India havebeen agitating against these destructivepolicies. However, their campaign took anew turn when they went on a fisheries‘bundh’ (work stoppage) on 4 February1994. Then they organized an all-Indiastrike on 23 and 24 November 1994.

As a result, the Government of India frozethe issue of licences to foreign fishingvessels and appointed a committee toreview the joint venture scheme. Sincethere was no representation for fisherpeople in the committee, they went on anationwide agitation, which included anindefinite hunger strike in Porbunder,Gujarat, the birth place of Gandhi.

Fishers includedSubsequently, representatives of thefisher people and Members of Parliamentrepresenting coastal areas were includedin the review committee. On 8 February1996, this 41-member High PowerCommittee submitted its report to theFood Processing and Industries Minister.

India


It contained 21 recommendations, whichincluded a call for the total cancellation oflicences. Six months have been given tothe Government of India to implement allthe recommendations.

If the government fails to do so, it wasdecided that Thomas Kocherry,co-chairperson of the NationalFishworkers’ Forum (NFF), would go onan indefinite hunger strike at SassoonDock, Mumbal (Bombay) from 7 August1996 onwards.

The NFF requests everyone to support andcollaborate with India’s fisher people tokeep all foreign vessels and industrialfleets out of Indian waters.

Indi

a

This appeal has been issued byThomas Kochery, R. K. Patil andHarekrishna Debnath of theNational Fishworkers’ Forum(41-1771, Veekshanam Road, Kochi682018, India. Tel: 91-484-370617.Fax: 91-484-370914 or F10/12Malaviya Nagar, New Delhi 110017,India. Tel: 91-11- 6426783, Fax:91-11—6426914)


Marine Stewardship Council

New hope for marine fisheries

A new initiative by Unilever and the World Wide Fund for Nature claims that market incentives will lead to sustainable fishing

The market is replacing our democraticInstitutions as the key determinant in oursociety.

—Elizabeth Dowdeswell, Secretary-General, UnitedNations Environment Programme, Cambridge,Massachusetts, 27 October 1995

Two global organizations recently formeda conservation partnership to createmarket incentives for sustainable fishingby establishing an independent MarineStewardship Council (MSC).

The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF),the world’s largest private, non-profitconservation organization, seeks a newapproach to ensure more effectivemanagement of marine fisheries.Anglo-Dutch Unilever, a major buyer offrozen fish and manufacturer of theworld’s best-known frozen-fish productsunder such brands as Iglo, Birds Eye andGorton’s, is interested in long-term fishstock sustainability to ensure a future forits successful fish business.

Different motivations, but a sharedobjective: to ensure the long-term viabilityof global fish populations and the healthof the marine ecosystems on which theydepend.

World fisheries are in crisis. Fish havenever been more popular as seafood, normore threatened as marine wildlife. Onthe one hand, the world demand for fishproducts is steadily rising. On the otherhand, scientists warn that fish populationsand marine ecosystems are in serioustrouble.

The FAO reports that 70 per cent of theworld’s commercially important marinefish stocks are fully fished, overexploited,depleted or slowly recovering. Nearlyeverywhere, fisheries that have sustained

coastal communities for generations havesuffered catastrophic declines. In someareas, excessive fishing has driven staplespecies such as Atlantic cod commerciallyextinct. Clearly, we have exceeded thelimits of the seas.

To make matters worse, modem fisheriesare both heavily subsidized andenormously destructive. Worldwide,governments pay US$54 billion per year infisheries subsidies to an industry thatcatches only US$ 70 billion worth of fish.These payments sustain massive fishingfleets that continue to ‘hoover’ up fish atan alarming rate. Sophisticated vessels,able to stay at sea for months, seekfisheries farther and farther afield, often inthe waters of developing countries, wherethey compete with local fishers.

Contemporary fishing practices kill andwaste an average of 27 million tonnes offish, sea birds, sea turtles, marinemammals and other ocean lifeannually—fully a third of the global catch.Evidence is mounting that fisheriessignificantly affect the ocean environmentand represent a serious threat to marinebiological diversity.

Fishery managers have been unable toprevent the ‘mining’ of fishery resources.Governments have typically devisedpolitically expedient ‘solutions’ and thendescribed them as environmentallynecessary. These efforts have mostly beentoo little, too late.

Short-term needsThe short-term socioeconomic needs of aregion’s commercial fishing industry haverendered long-term sustainability ofcatches a futile management goal. TheNorthern fishing industry, dependent ona steady income to sustain boat mortgagesand marginal businesses, has steadfastly

F

ocus


resisted change. All too often, politicalrealities compel fishery managers ignorethe implications of the best available

science. Politicians, often at the highestlevels, frequently intervene in decisionsabout specific fisheries. Society has simply

Foc

us

Statement of IntentThe Problem

Fish has never been more popular, nor morethreatened. Worldwide consumer demand forfish is steadily rising, but scientists warn thatfish stocks are in serious decline.

In some areas, excessive fishing has drivenstaple species such as Atlantic codcommercially extinct. Nearly everywhere,fisheries that have sustained coastalcommunities for generations have sufferedserious declines. Indiscriminate fishingpractices kill and waste vast amounts of fishand other marine life annually.

A Global Solution

Two global organizations have committed totackling this issue. WWF (the world’s largestnon-profit conservation organization) wants anew approach to ensure more effectivemanagement of marine life. Unilever PLC/NV(amajor buyer of frozen fish and manufacturer ofmany of the world’s best known frozen-fishproducts under such brands as Iglo, Gorton’sand Birds Eyes UK) is committed to long-termfish stock sustainability to ensure a future of itssuccessful fish business.

Different motivations, but a shared objective: toensure the long-term viability of global fishpopulations and the health of the marineecosystems on which they depend.

How Will This Partnership Work?

The end objective of the partnership betweenWWF and Unilever is to establish, throughconsultation, an independent MarineStewardship Council (MSC) which will createmarket-led economic incentives for sustainablefishing.

The MSC will be an independent, non-profitnon-government membership body. It willestablish a broad set of principles forsustainable fishing and set standards forindividual fisheries. Only fisheries meetingthese standards will be eligible for certificationby independent, accredited certifying firms.

Products from certified fisheries will eventuallybe marked with an on-pack logo. This will allowconsumers to select those fish products whichcome from a sustainable source.

Once established, the MSC will be independentof both industry and conservationorganizations, and be governed by a board ofdirectors made up of experts from a variety ofbackgrounds/

The MSC will be modeled on the successfulForest Stewardship Council (FSC), launched byWWF, other conservation groups and timbertraders in 1993 to promote a market-ledsolution towards more sustainable forestrypractices around the world.

To create the MSC, WWF and the Unilever willcontribute matching funds into an extensivescoping exercise to explore how the FSC modelcan be adapted to meet the specificsustainability needs of global marine fisheries.This study will be undertaken by a number ofconsultants, coordinated by an independentproject manager. It will result in a draft set offounding principles for the MSC.

These draft principles will be generated by andcirculated to a broad spectrum of experts infisheries-including fishing and industry groups,conversationalists, regulators and academics.An open series of national and regionalconsultations and workshops around the worldwill then be held to refine and strengthen theprinciples and agree on a process for theinternational implementation.

WWF and Unilever are committed to supportingthe process of agreeing to the principles andestablishing the MSC within two years. They willactively seek the widest possible involvementfrom other organizations in achieving thesegoals.

(Signed by Dr. Robin Pellew, on behalf of WWF

International and Antony Burgmans, Director,Unilever PLC/NV).


lacked the political will to forestall thefishing industry’s tendency to use up allits resources and thereby destroy itself.

To reverse the fisheries crisis, wemust develop long-term solutionsthat are environmentally necessary

and then, through economic incentives,make them politically feasible.Fortunately, an approach is available thathas succeeded in other areas: Working inpartnership to design and implementmarket-driven incentives for sustainablefishing. In order to make this work, theconservation community and progressivemembers of the seafood industry mustforge a strategic alliance. Past experiencesuggests that building such partnershipsand harnessing market forces in favour ofconservation can be very powerful. Onething is certain. Where industry and themarket lead, governments will likelyfollow.

In early 1996, WWF and Unileverannounced their joint commitment toestablish the Marine Stewardship Councilwithin two years. The MSC will be anindependent, non-profit,nongovernmental membership body. Theorganization will establish a broad set ofprinciples for sustainable fishing and setstandards for individual fisheries.

Only fisheries meeting will be eligible forthese standards certification byindependent accredited certifying firms.

Seafood companies will be encouraged tojoin sustainable buyers’ groups and makecommitments to purchase fish productsonly from certified sources.

Ultimately, products from MSC-certifiedfisheries will be marked with an on-packlogo. This will allow seafood consumers toselect fish products with the confidencethat they come from sustainable,well-managed sources.

A project manager will co-ordinate a teamof consultants that will work on thedevelopment of the MSC. The project teamwill combine expertise in certification (orecolabelling) schemes with intimateknowledge of the commercial fishingindustry. Team members will consult abroad range of experts representing allstakeholders in marine fisheries.

Drafting principlesTogether, the team will draft the set ofbroad principles for sustainable fishingthat will underpin the MSC. The team willdraw on the standards and guidelinesembodied in existing internationalagreements, such as the FAO Code ofConduct for Responsible Fisheries and theUN Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocksand Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. Theteam will also enlist new information andexpertise in marine conservation biology,economics, seafood marketing, andcommercial viability, to help movecurrent thinking forward.

F

ocus


Both organizations, WWF and Unilever,will circulate the results of the scopingexercise and draft principles to a broadspectrum of stakeholders in fisheries:conservationists, fishers, seafoodindustry officials, fishery managers,lawmakers, etc.

The partners will then sponsor aseries of national and regionalconsultations and workshops

around the world. The purpose of theseworkshops will be to refine andstrengthen the principles and develop aprocess for internationalimplementation. WWF and Unilever areactively seeking the widest possibleinvolvement of other organizations inthis exciting initiative. The MSC has thepotential to significantly alter worldwidefishing practices in favour of moresustainable, less destructive fisheries.When Unilever and other major seafoodcompanies make commitments to buytheir fish products only fromwell-managed and MSC-certifiedfisheries, the fishing industry will becompelled to modify its current practices.Governments, laws and treaties aside, themarket itself will begin to determine themeans of fish production.

Unilever has pledged to source theirfishery products only from sustainable,well-managed fisheries certified to MSCstandards by the year 2005. As an interimstep, the company recently announcedthat it will cease processing fish oil fromEuropean industrial fisheries by April1997 and re-examine its use of fish oilsfrom other sources. The massiveindustrial ‘hoovering’ of sand eels andother species for fish oil and mealaccounts for over half the total North Seafish catch and affects populations of cod,haddock and sea birds which feed onthem. Sainsbury, the UK’s largest retailgrocery chain, quickly followedUnilever’s lead and agreed to phase outthe use of fish oil from European sourcesin 120 product lines.

We hope these initial steps will stimulateother seafood processors and retailers tojoin in the partnership to harness marketforces and consumer power in favour ofhealthy, well-managed fisheries for thefuture.

Foc

us

This article is written by MichaelSutton, Director, Endangered SeasCampaign, WWF International



Whose labels? Whose benefit?

Quality labels certainly have a future—but only if their modus operandi is sufficiently broadbased

Under the Marine Stewardship Council(MSC), Unilever and WWF (World WideFund for Nature) have decided to create aquality label for fish caught undersustainable conditions and practices. Thismust be viewed as a major landmark forglobal fisheries and the futuredevelopment of agricultural andagribusiness activities as a whole. It showsthat multinational companies (MNCs) areincreasingly aware of conservationprinciples. Unilever’s refusal tohenceforth buy oil from the fish-meal oilindustry must also be hailed as a decisivestep forward.

It is, however, necessary to ponder oversome aspects of this new approach. Forone thing, it will deal a severe blow to theDanish fleets that specialize in suchactivity. They have, for long, beencriticized by the majority of Europeanfishermen. Though these Danish boatsprimarily target fish-meal species, theycan also catch juveniles of other species.When such by-catches occur on a massivescale, the delicate balance of the food chainin the oceans is upset. At first glance,therefore, the move to control fishingactivities is clearly a positive measure forEuropean fisherfolk. However, the jointWWF-Unilever approach raises severalquestions.

First, the agreement between the powerfulMNC and the famous internationalenvironmental organization seems tohave ignored the fisher people, though itis precisely their future which is at stakein this venture. It may be recalled that theBreton fishermen, who targeted tuna withdrift-nets, were outraged when anotherenvironmental group, Greenpeace,campaigned for a ban on that type of gear.These fishermen were, however, able toengage with other organizations in adebate on the matter.

The evolution of the European market,with a bias in favour of industrial fisheries,has been a major factor in the price slumpwhich has affected the welfare offishermen, With initiatives like the MSC,from now on, environmental movementsand MNCs may:’ have a decisive influencenot only on prices but also on theconditions that determine access to themarket.

On the other hand, fishermen will find itmore and more difficult to becomemasters of their own progress. Unileverand WWF, of course, say they will holdconsultations on a broad basis andestablish an independent body for theMSC. But it is most likely that certain actorswill outweigh others. For instance,fishermen will find it more difficult topromote their case than environmentalgroups that are well established in themedia and thus have an easier task to gettheir viewpoints across.

The second area of concern is theprinciples on which the MSC will draw towork out the modalities of such labelling.The joint statement of Unilever and WWFrefers to relevant UN documents such asthe Code of Conduct for ResponsibleFisheries. These documents, however,primarily emphasize the environmentalaspects of resource management, not thesocial aspects.

Welfare ignoredPresent European efforts to save resourcesare based on limiting the number andcapacity of vessels, without dueconsideration for the welfare of fishermenand market conditions. In fact while thenumber of boats and fishermen has beendecreasing, fishing effort has beenincreasing. The workload on board fishingvessels is becoming unbearable andaccidents have also increased.

F

ocus


In such a context, will social aspects beincluded in defining ecolabels? In view ofthe diversity of fishery traditions andsituations around the world, attempts towork out principles at a global level will,by nature, face major problems.

Resource management is a complexmatter, and fisher-people must be closelyand largely involved in the process.Through moves like the MSC, are we notgoing to replace a varied, regionalized,participatory approach withstandardized principles that will applyuniformly to all the seas and oceans,without paying due attention to specificconditions? Think of the campaign for aban on drift-nets.

Finally, trying to influence fishingpractices by introducing new conditionson markets will inevitably lead to a biasin favour of financially sound consumers.The major markets are in Europe, Japanand the US. Consumers and largeproducers in these countries will,therefore, impose their views onresponsible fisheries.

Promoting imports to countries whosefood requirements are already largelymet, while simultaneously refusing toaddress the needs of the moreunderprivileged countries, does notreally exemplify the principles ofsustainable development. Are thecompanies which have embarked on this

new ecolabel venture really blameless?Significantly, Unilever promoted thedevelopment of large-scale salmonfarming. This was not really in tune withthe principles of sustainabledevelopment.

If this policy of awarding quality labels toecofriendly fish is to play a role inpromoting responsible fisheries, thenthere must be wider consultation, withfishermen participating right from theonset of the process.

Such an approach is indeed becomingmore and more frequent. For example,hundreds of Breton fishermen have, foxthe past two years, been furnishing a labelfor sea breams caught by liners. They havethus been able to take on the competitionfrom farmed sea breams.

To be sure, there is most certainly a futurefor quality labels. But the central issueremains the decision-making process.Indeed, the whole MSC affair underscoresthe urgent need for an internationalfishworkers’ organization to work toinfluence the policies of majorenvironmental and industrial groups.

Foc

us

This article is written by Alain LeSann, a member of ICSF from France



The mantle of ‘going green’

Fishworkers’ organizations need to think hard about the merits of associating with corporate environmental ventures

The Anglo-Dutch food giant,Unilever, is going ‘green’. It iscommitting itself to eventually

purchasing only fish caught from fisheriescertified to be conservation-friendly. Thefisheries would be certified, or otherwise,by an ‘independent’ world council beingspearheaded by the World Wide Fund forNature (WWF) and Unilever.

From a Canadian point of view, the call for‘codes of conduct’ and sustainable fishingpractices seems to be coming from thevery industry people most directlyimplicated in the devastation of ourdemersal stocks. The new-found piety andheartfelt concern for the resource is notcompletely credible and the ‘green’mantle seems to be adopted to deflectpublic rage at what has already occurred,while serving to maintain the perpetratorsin the future fishery.

Clearing an ecologically andconservationally sound fishery iseminently sensible and consumers maysupport such certification. However, I amnot sure if Canada’s cod fishery wouldhave been so certified even six monthsbefore its collapse. And I am sure ourherring fishery would be certified atpresent, even though some inshorefishermen have been virtually eliminatedby intense fishing by large purse-seines.

The constituency of inshore and artisanalfishermen faces overwhelming problems,which often arise from the ‘industrialized’fleets’ inefficient, backward, archaic andother low-level features.

So, when the Marine Stewardship Councilclears a fishery as sustainable, will itconsider the co-option of fishing groundsby ‘industrial’ fleets at the expense of thesmall-boat fishers and their communities?Hardly likely. It will be designated as a

political problem and the people atUnilever and WWF selling the ‘new hope’,will look on governments with disdainand label the public sector as venal, whilehappily embracing the market as“replacing our democratic institutions asthe key determinant in our society.”

Goodness knows that there is a need forresource conservation in the marinesector, but fishers in Canada might beexcused if they remain sceptical ofenvironmentalists working through themarketplace to save resources.

At present, a herd of grey seals is growingexponentially on the Eastern Scotian shelf.Scientists calculated that they consume upto 80,000 tonnes of infant and juvenile codeach year, while this area of the shelf isunder a total fishing moratorium and theprognosis for this particular cod species isthe bleakest among all the cod stocks inAtlantic Canada. Yet, whenever a new sealhunt is contemplated for marketpurposes, the WWF takes out hysterical adsin the national newspapers, decrying suchhunts.

I think fishworkers’ organizations haveenough on their tables simply supportingthe organization of inshore fishers. Thereseems no need to get into some sort ofcorporatist venture with agribusinessesand world environmentalists.

F

ocus

This piece is written by MichaelBelliveau, a member of ICSF andExecutive Secretary, MaritimeFisherman’s Union, Shecdiac, NewBrunswick, Canada



A view from the Third World

Under the sanctuary of ‘sustainable fishing’, the MSC could well end up working against the interests of the poor producers of fish

The Marine Stewardship Council(MSC), a collaboration betweenUnilever and the World Wide

Fund for Nature (WWF), is a case of onegiant riding atop another. The resultingbehemoth can either make deepimpressions on the path it traverses orstumble and crash for lack of balance.

There is, therefore, considerableworldwide interest to see how these twomultinational organizations, which, atfirst sight, seem strange bedfellows, planto work out a strategy to “ensure thelong-term viability of global fishpopulations and the health of the marineecosystems on which they depend.”

Congruent to their objectives, bothorganizations are concerned primarilywith the natural resource and theenvironment—fish and oceans—withoutnecessarily having any intrinsic,long-term interest in either.

For Unilever, all actions must be weighedagainst its unfeigned pursuit of profits.The corporation is involved in the MSCbecause it is convinced that sustainablefishing is good business. For WWF, this isbut another specific case of natureconservation taken up in its larger pursuitof mobilizing public appreciation forsuch issues. It feels it has a winner in theMSC initiative. For both organizations, thesuccess of this initiative will be a majorboost to the ‘markets’ to which they cater,that is, consumers and well-wishers in theFirst World.

In attempting to respond to the MSCinitiative, it is necessary to examineseveral issues:

• How does one view, from a ThirdWorld perspective, an initiative

which places all its faith in themagic of the market?

• How should fishworkers’movements in the Third World,that have been opposingdestructive fishing undertakenprimarily by fleets fishing forexport to the First World, relate tothis initiative?

• Will the dynamics of this novelpartnership intended to modulateinternational trade through theuse of ecolabels result more insustainable profits and assuredfish consumption (for people andpets) in the First World or will itenhance incomes for fishingcommunities and ensure adequateprotein supplies to needyconsumers in the Third World?

• Will this effort be viewed by fishexporting countries in the ThirdWorld as creating technicalbarriers to trade, thus violatingfree trade rules under the WorldTrade Organization (WTO)?

In most Third World countries, the marketis seen as one of the economic institutionsembedded in society. Markets are createdfor society and not the other way around.One, therefore, shudders to think of theday when the prediction of ElizabethDowdeswell that “the market is replacingour democratic institutions as the keydeterminant in our society” becomes validworldwide.

Market no levellerIn democratic institutions, the initialendowments of the participants are thesame. Everybody has one vote. Marketinstitutions are not such levellers.

Foc

us


They function on votes which areexpressed only in money terms(effective purchasing power),

which, as we all know, is hardlydistributed equally. Thus, those whorecommend “free markets as the means toefficiency” forget that one of the basicpremises of that theory is that economicpower is fairly equally distributed amongall the participants.

In the Third World, where assets, incomeand purchasing power are so unequallydistributed, this blind faith in the almightymarket’s ability to correct all economicand environmental ills is a far cry from therealities which people experience.

Consequently, an initiative whichassumes that where the market leads, allelse will follow in setting single,generalized standards for an activityundertaken by millions of smallproducers in diverse circumstances cannot be welcomed without cautiouscircumspection.

The history of unsustainable fishing inThird World tropical waters is closelyrelated to the expansion of the markets inthe First World for fish from these waters.Fishing techniques like bottom trawlingand purse-seining were imposed inpreference to the more seasonal, selectiveand passive techniques used by artisanalfishworkers. The latter were seen to be‘less efficient’, since their unit output from

the sea was small. Today, of course, werealize that this was because they werefishing more sustainably and at rateswhich were in tandem with the naturalrates of regeneration of the stocks.

The struggle of fishworkers in Asiancountries to ensure a future both for thefish and for themselves, has meant aunilateral opposition to destructivefishing techniques. They have achievedpartial successes and, on the face of it, theMSC initiative need not initially be againsttheir interests. In a sense, much of the talkabout sustainable fishing pertains toreverting to, and restoring, this mode offishing.

Where the contradictions will soon arisepertain to the power that those who buythe fish from these fishworkers will beable to exercise in dictating terms ofharvesting and levels of prices. The natureof the trade linkages and tie-ups forsupply of ‘sustainably harvested’ fish canget to be totally determined from theoutside. This could create a complete lossof autonomy for small fishers, withrespect to the pattern of harvest anddisposal of the produce of their labour.

Price premiumsEven assuming that their harvest may becovered by MSC ecolabels, the consumerprice premiums for this may not translateinto higher incomes for dispersedproducers. Ecolabelling of marine fish

F

ocus


must be undertaken with the tacitco-operation of the fishworkers ororganizations which represent theirinterests, and not through the lower-levelfunctionaries of the internationalmarketing chain.

The MSC initiative, by virtue of thefact that it is initiated and fundedby Unilever, one of the largest fish

buyers in the world, will obviously beanathema to such links and concerns. Thecorporation’s influence (invisible control)over the MSC initiative will give it a newchannel of access to the producers overwhom it has had no control until now.

This possibility to make the crucialconnection between the realm ofproduction and the realm of sales can alsolead to the wiping out of all small-scalecommerce which does not fall in line withthe product differentiation processsought to be achieved by Unilever in thename of ecolabels for ‘sustainablefishing.’ With this achieved, Unilever willretain a quasi-monopoly control over alarge segment of the market and can thenset the environmental standards it likesand dictate the prices it wants, both at theconsumer and the producer end.

Additionally, through the MSC initiative,Unilever will have enormous control overinformation on fish harvesting processesand effects on ocean environment whichit can command and disseminate to its

advantage in a wide variety of ways. Thiswill further sully the minds of First Worldconsumers because they have been led tobelieve by the MSC initiative that buyingUnilever brands is the sure way to save thefish and oceans.

In such a market context dominated byone multinational merchant wieldingenormous influence on economic andnon-economic factors, prices will be set toachieve a high rate of profit. They can notbe treated as revealing the ‘true’ economicsignificance of goods or reflect thepreferences of ‘end consumers.

The only way for fishworkers’ movementsto stall this dynamic will be to take theinitiative of sustainable harvestingmethods on to their own turf, at their ownpace and terms, They also need to linkwith consumer movements in the majorconsumption countries to foster greaterdirect trade between organized groups offishworkers from the Third World andconsumer-based institutions in the FirstWorld which are not merely concernedwith consumption per se but also withreassessing lifestyles as well as their ownpatterns of consumption.

Governmental involvementPressure must be exerted to ensuregovernmental involvement in fosteringthis nexus, on the premise that sustainableharvesting and sustainable consumptionare necessary prerequisites for sustainable

Foc

us


trade in which all governments have ahigh stake. Making the MSC initiativerecognize this would be an importantcriteria for fishworkers’ organizations toextend selective support to it.

On the question of the MSC’s role insupplying protein for the poor,we are confronted with the classic

chicken-and-egg dilemma. Which camefirst—unsustainable fishing orunsustainable fish consumption? Andwhich do we tackle first? Behind allboom-and-bust fishery histories of theThird World (and the First World too) liethe attraction and power of strong andusually distant consumption centres towhich fish flow after they are harvested.

The consumers are not necessarily people.They may be pets or animals. The point,however, is that they have greaterpurchasing power than needy peoplecloser to the centres of harvesting, forexample, a fact rarely highlighted in theboom-and-bust story of the Peruviananchovy fishery is that children in coastalPeru suffer malnutrition and blindnessdue to lack of proteins and vitamin A,while the anchovy is fed to pigs and cattlein the us and Europe. Will introducingpassive fishing techniques and providingecolabels to fish-meal made from fish soharvested, address this issue?

As consumers, First World citizens needto be convinced and educated that theanswer to the above question is in thenegative. If they really wish to play acrucial role in halting natural resourcedepletion and environmental destructionaround the world, it will necessarily haveto be through less consumption and agreater emphasis on consumption closerto the point of production.

The easy option of buying productsecolabelled by multinationals, without theparticipation and sanction of the distantproducer, is but a sophisticated techniqueof product and market differentiationmasquerading as sustainability.

Since marine fish form an importantcomponent in the basket of easilyexportable commodities, Third Worldgovernments are unlikely to take to thisMSC initiative with open hands. The recentefforts by the us to unilaterally impose

turtle excluding devices (TEDs) on trawlsas a prerequisite for import of shrimpfrom India created a furore whichprompted the government and theindustry to consider appealing to theWit’s provisions on technical barriers totrade. Though many environmentalistsand academics in India—myselfincluded—are against trawling, they sawthe US initiative as another case of usenvironmental imperialism, which, tothem, was a greater enemy.

Clearly, efforts to impose environmentalstandards of the First World using‘non-market’ methods, which thenprovide obvious advantages to the tradeand consumers of the First World alone,will be resisted, however strong andsensible the environmental logic of theinitiative may be.

A global initiative to achieve sustainablefishing needs to be far more broadbased,with the participatory support of fishproducers, the processing industry,governments and the consumers. Suchinitiatives cannot be “left to the market”,nor do they “just happen.” They have tobe carefully crafted. To the extent that theMSC attempts to make a beginning in thisdirection, it merits the careful attention ofall the fisheries’ stakeholders not involvedin it.

Given Unilever’s economic power and theopinion mobilizing skills of WWF, it wouldbe naive to brush aside this initiative as anon-starter. It is often said withconfidence that “where industry and themarket lead, governments will likelyfollow.” What is still not sure, however, iswhether the people—the millions all overthe world who, on sea and land, toil toharvest and process fish—will obey.Herein lies the weakness of the MSCinitiative and, ironically, the strength ofthe millions, whose food and livelihooddepend on fish and the oceans, to reject theinitiative or shape it to their priorities.

India

This article is written by John Kurien,a member of ICSF, and AssociateFellow of the Centre forDevelopment Studies. Trivandrum,India


Women in fisheries

Up against several barriers

The women of Fiji still remain critically disadvantaged in the country’s fisheries development process

As in other Pacific islands, womenin Fiji dominate subsistencefishing and are also increasingly

involved in the local commercial fishingsector. The importance of women’sfishing activities is evident in the vitalcontribution of the subsistence andsmall-scale commercial fisheries in Fiji.The women’s involvement in otherfisheries sectors is diverse

Their involvement has increasedsignificantly with the emergence of fishprocessing as a growth area within themanufacturing sector in the post-coupyears in Fiji. The expansion in theindustry during this time have largelybeen attributed to the contribution ofwomen workers.

Total employment (staff, workers andmanagement) for the Pacific Fishing andCanning Company (PAFCO) in 1993 wasreportedly over 1,000, with the majoritybeing female production workers paidhourly.

In addition, women’s inclusion in theproduction process—they make up about90 per cent of the total workforce in thecannery—is said to be a replication of thepractice of assembly lines, which utilizewomen’s manual skills, speed andefficiency.

Women form the core of the industrialfisheries labour force through theirinvolvement in post-harvest orprocessing activities. This mode ofinvolvement conforms to perceivedgender biases in development, wherewomen are largely employed in areaspertaining to traditional labour divisions.

Given the increasing emphasis on theexploitation of the migratory tuna and theattempt by Pacific Island countries to

process their own catches, there will mostprobably be greater involvement ofwomen in commercial fishing in the nearfuture.

Women contribute significantly to theartisanal fisheries sector, especiallythrough small-scale village-basedcommercial activities. This increasedparticipation can be attributed to thegrowing commercialization of non-finfish species, especially shellfish.According to the Fisheries DivisionReport for 1993, for the past three years,sales of non-fin fish (shellfish, crustaceans,octopus, bech-de-mer, seaweed, etc.) havetotalled an average of 2,000 tonnes, worthUS$ 4.5 million. Kai or freshwater mussels,which are exclusively harvested andmarketed by women, comprise about 48per cent of this volume.

The main sales outlets for artisanal fishersare municipal markets, hotels, restaurantsand cafes, butchers and fish merchants,retail shops, supermarkets and roadsidestalls, with women dominating sellingactivities. The past years have witnessed adecrease in fin fish sales at municipalmarkets, with non-fin fish becoming morepopular.

Despite the women’s contributions, theirparticipation in the artisanal sector ishardly acknowledged. Except for themention of the 22 non-fish gleaninglicences issued to fisherwomen in theNorthern Division, most women fishwithout licences and are thus largelycategorized in the subsistence sector.

Post-harvest activityIn addition to their own fishing activities,women also provide the necessarypost-harvest activities for men’s catches.Although formal production has, in mostcases, doubled in intensity and volume,

Fiji


processing and preservation activitiesremain unchanged. Hence, majorprocessing activities like smoking, dryingand salting are still traditionally practisedby women.

In addition, the preservation,distribution and marketing of catchesremain the responsibility of women.

Therefore, artisanal fishing could bedescribed as being principally dependenton women’s support. Increasedmodernization and associatedcommercialization in the rural areas of Fijiwill eventually make women get moreinvolved in the future development of theartisanal fisheries sector.

Subsistence fishing is an essentialcomponent of the fishing industry in Fiji.For the substantial rural coastalpopulations and communities situatedalongside inland waters, this fishingsector is a major source of food. Inaddition, increasing urban populationsare also dependent on marine food sold inlocal markets.

Fishing methods employed by the womenon the coastal flats are generally verysimple, with tools and technologiesprimarily traditional. Methods utilizedare diverse, with specific methodsemployed for different species. These areusually simple, on most occasionsinvolving the use of hands and simpletools. These revolve around a few

principles or basic methodologies. Forfreshwater locations, these include nettingactivities and trapping or stupefying fish.

To exploit sea resources, the women net,set up barriers and traps, use hand-linesand glean or collect on the dry reef flats.

Such fishing activities usually requirekeen eyesight and skill with the use ofhands and feet. In addition, the intimateknowledge and understanding thatwomen have of their immediateenvironment enable them to easilyidentify and catch prey.

So, even if the methods used sound andlook simple, they are, in reality,complicated and require extremely adroituse of the senses, and skilful utilization offisheries knowledge.

Net fishing, using small hand-nets andlarger nets, is common in inland areas. Thehand-nets are used for fishing in groupsalong rivers, lakes and ponds. The nets arefirmly lodged in mud or sand, while thewomen feel into holes, under grass orweeds, with their bare hands.

Amazing abilityThe women have the amazing ability togrip and pull fish or eels out of smallcrevices, holes or from under weeds.Those that escape are trapped in waitingnets. Larger nets are used to block off creekor stream openings.

F

iji


Fish are then chased into these netsby splashing on the surface of thewater. Another variation of net

fishing is when a group of about 10 to 16women wade around in a lake, inwaist-deep water, removing weeds andgrass. The activity is continued until thewater becomes muddy, thus stupefyingfish and eels.

Consequently, fish swim either to thesurface to get clearer water, try to escapealong the dry banks or lie still at thebottom of the lake. When a woman stepson a fish, she keeps her feet on it, divesdown, and grips it by the gills, beforekilling it. Fish that escape to the surface ofthe water are caught in nets, while thosethat escape to the banks are caughtbarehanded.

In recent years, large gill-nets areincreasingly used in inland locations.Although the use of large nets in rivers forcommercial purposes is not allowedlegally, the introduction of species such asthe grass carp and the availability offreshwater fin fish in major rivers havemotivated the use of nets,

More recently, the women have movedaway from netting to fishing with lines.Just like their counterparts in coastallocations, the women are familiar withthe best times, winds and weather forfishing. Line fishing is used during, andafter, major flooding, when the fish leave

their abodes and feed in calmer areas ofponds and rivers.

The women often identify fish by howthey bite or nibble on the lines. Forexample, when the women use kneadeddough as bait for mullets (kanace), spottedscat (vetakau), mangrove jack (damn) andtilapia (maleya), they can tell thedifferences in feeding patterns. Forinstance, mullets nibble on the dough,spotted scat touch lightly on the bait,while the mangrove jack and tilapia pullstrongly on the bait.

Sometimes, when the women identify thefish feeding on the Line, they immediatelychange their hooks, bait and lines to suitthe particular fish. Thus, when linefishing, the women are armed with arange of lines and hooks.

Another major resource for inland areas isthe freshwater mussel (kai), which isusually caught by diving to depths of totwo or three meters, using goggles andsmall wire-mesh baskets or pieces of cloth.Once the kai are sighted, the women digthem out with their fingers and fill theirbaskets.

Storage methodMore common for storing kai is the use ofa piece of cloth, called sulu or lavalava,with one end tied around the women’swaist and the other around the neck. Thesulu will then form a sort of space where

Fiji


the kai is stored while the women fish. Iffull, the weight of the sulu could drag thewearer down. In the course of myresearch, a young mother died in Nadalivillage from this practice.

The women’s commercialexploitation of kai has become veryorganized. For instance, some

villages along the Rewa River, the largestriver in Fiji, are entirely dependent on kaias a commercial resource. The villages ofNakini, Naganivatu, Natoalka,Deladamanu, Nacokaika and Kasavuhave, over the years, organized a fishingprogramme whereby villages do not fishat the same time.

The villages are divided into two groups,which take alternate turns at fishing andselling in the market. In this manner, anoversupply in markets is avoided, and thewomen are also free to attend to otherduties during their week off from fishing.

For coastal locations, gleaning andcollecting on the sand flats are thewomen’s major fishing activities. Otherspecific fishing activities differ,depending on the location andaccessibility to urban markets. In fact,there is a marked difference in the use oftime between areas participating in thecommercial economy and those fishingbasically for subsistence.

For example, in Totoya, the women’sactivities are very flexible and selective innature. The species targeted dependprincipally on the season and the weather.For instance, during the south-east tradewinds, the women exploit octopus on thedry reef flats. When it is the season forseaweeds, their collection is the women’smain activity.

Apart from the sporadic nature of fishing,the technology used also differs from thatused in urban areas. For example, nettingis still widely practised in rural isolatedareas, while in urban locations, wherethere is a higher emphasis on selling, thewomen do not net regularly. Surprisingly,netting is still significantly used by thewomen who reside on the coastal fringesof the main towns.

Line fishing is a popular women’s activityin Fiji. It has many variations, depending

on the location and target species. Linefishing can be done from boats, on feet orwhile swimming. In inland areas, shortrods are sometimes used. Baits includeworms, fish pieces, octopus, shellfish suchas kaikoso or hermit crabs (kasikasi).

There are many variations in the methodsused. Some exceptional ones include siwanunu, which is practised in areas such asCicia and Totoya in the Lau group ofislands. In this case, the women holdfishing lines and dive along the reefslopes. When the fish is sighted, the bait isthrown at it, and, as soon as the fish bites,the line is suddenly pulled in. Basikeli(bicycle fishing), which is practised inTotoya, is where the women swim indeeper lagoon areas and fish with lines.Since the water is deep, they stay afloat bytreading water while fishing. This is whythe fishing style is likened to bicycleriding.

The women also have unique ways ofadapting methods and gear to suit theoccasion. In Totoya, during moonlessnights, I saw the huge bay adjacent to thevillage covered with lights. The womenhave recently discovered that certainmackerel species have a taste for flourdough. Coupled with this is a weaknessfor bright lights.

Thus, on such nights, the women are outin punts in the bay, with their pressurelamps suspended from sticks firmlylodged in the boat. The light attracts thesefish and they congregate around the boat.Using kneaded dough as bait, the womendrop their lines over the side of the boatand the fish snap them up. The villagerscall this type of fishing ‘Korea’, because itis likened to the method of Chinese orKorean fishermen who used lights tocatch bait fish in Fiji’s lagoons.

Other methods used include the settingup of barriers, fish fences and traps. Stoneweirs or moka are usually erected withinthe coastal area to catch fish that feed withthe tide, Fish fences are still used,especially along estuarine locations.

Net fishingNet fishing is commonly used in isolatedrural locations and is only occasionallyused near urban areas. The use of largegill-nets has greatly increased with the

F

iji


Fiji

Pacific invisibilityIn documenting women’s participation indevelopment, the status and roles of Pacificwomen have commonly been evaluated usingWestern models and perceptions. When Istarted on this project, I spent substantial timewith women from my village, in Nadali, nearNausori town women who spent endless hoursdiving for freshwater clams (kai) or line fishingfor grass carp (ika droka) or flagrail (Kuhliarepestris), maleya or tilapia (Orechrontismossambica) and duna or eels (Anquilla).

I used these opportunities to engage women ininformal discussions. During one of these, Iwas surprised that many of the women,including my mother, who was a regular fisher,seemed taken aback when I suggested that thefishing activities they engage in were an addedresponsibility to standard domestic chores.

The majority of the women did not see fishingas work, and in response, asked what theywould do for leisure if there was no fishing.Going to the films, visiting relatives, or othersuch social activities were, in most cases,regarded unbecoming in our society. Hence,fishing was the opportune time to spin yarnsand catch up with the news, while also doingsomething useful.

Obviously, from this experience, it is clear thatthe case of women in Pacific has to beaddressed differently, keeping in mind the rolesassigned them within social concepts prevalentin the Pacific Islands.

This is not to say that Pacific societies do notcustomarily recognize women’s rights. InPolynesia, for example, female are notconsidered intrinsically inferior to males. InSamoa, even though women are largelydependent on their husbands for social status,those who are unmarried, divorced or widowedand continue to reside in the village are knownas the ‘ladies of the village’. Such women holdhigh ceremonial status which is independent ofmale rank and which grants importantdecision-making powers within their families. InFiji, women of chieftainly birth also hold specialstatus and can ascend to chieftainly positions ifthey were the first-born ones in their families.

Thus, there is a need for a betterunderstanding of what women actually do andhow they are regarded socially within thecontext of Pacific societies today.

Traditional fishing activities are normallysegregated, with men’s fishing activitiesfocusing on deep-sea areas and women’sactivities confined to shallower, inshore areas.Women, however, generally support men’sfishing activities through preparing andrepairing fishing equipment, cooking food andtaking part in required rituals. Recently, womenhave started to participate in more traditionallymale-dominated activities like offshore fishingin Tonga, Marianas and Fiji.

Such increased women’s workload, resultingfrom the expanded fishing activity, is a removalfrom ‘distinct traditional gender roles existent inPolynesia and Melanesia."

Women’s fishing activities are generallyreferred to as gleaning and collecting on reefflat. This definition does not accurately portraythe immense knowledge and skills thatwomen’s fishing activities entail. Nor does itreflect the importance of women’s fishingactivities, especially to the total householdproduction.

Early Pacific societies were self-sufficient infood, much of which was acquired throughfamily fishing, foraging and collecting efforts.Women’s subsistence fishing activities were amajor component of these activities. Even incurrent times, women fishers are portrayed asbasic providers of family protein through theirfishing ventures.

The advent of commercialization in ruralcommunities has resulted in a greateremphasis on economically viable products.This has motivated the evident shift from theconsumption of local food to less nutritious,imported food. These trends have also beenintensified by the change in emphasis inwomen’s fishing efforts, from subsistence tocommercial.

Women are also the major informal tradersthroughout the region, dominating municipalmarkets and other roadside and street outlets.If the ‘self-employed’ category is used as anindicator of information sector activity, thenalmost a quarter of Pacific women are engagedin informal trade. In Fiji, women operate from ahomes, roadside stalls and streets, selling adiverse range of foodstuff. However, anotherexplanation holds that women’s immenseinvolvement in the informal sector was a


F

ijiresponse to poverty. This significant informalparticipation reinforces women’s undervaluedroles because the formal sector is usually ratedhigher than the informal.

Women also possess an extensive knowledgeof traditional post-harvest activities, which isnot recognized enough. This is because currentfisheries development emphasizes production,with the post-harvest sector being given lowpriority.

As a result, women’s dominant participation inpost-harvest and processing activities isregarded as secondary in fisheriesdevelopment. It has been argues thatpost-harvest activities performed by the womenof Vanuatu contribute very significantly to thenutritional and income levels of households.Modern fisheries development, therefore, needto blend traditional processing knowledge withnew strategies.

The concept of access to resources has beenaddressed only minimally in the literature onthe Pacific. In the majority of the Pacific Islandcountries, resources are clan-owned andmostly through patrilineal descent. Whenwomen marry, they become a part of theirhusbands’ clan but can not own or have legalcontrol over resources in their new home area.At the same time, they lose resource rights intheir places of origin. Thus, in the moderncontext, women are usually landless.

Exceptions occur where there are traditionallymatrilineal descent systems, such as inBougainville in Papua New Guinea and Nauru.These two societies have been affected bymining, which has eroded the control ofresources by women. For example, femalelandowners in Nauru do not have muchinfluence over negotiations for compensationsor for the management of phosphate. Thus,even where women have resource access,they lack economic, political and socialauthority to control it, especially as resourcestake on increasing commercial importance.

In spite of Pacific women’s increasedparticipation in the market economy, they aregenerally regarded as basically involved insubsistence fishing, with minimal definedparticipation in commercial fishing activities.Commercial fishing, in this context, does notregard essential post-harvest activities asactive commercial participation. Neither is

women’s domestic work viewed as necessaryfor the success of men’s commercial fishing.

Another major obstacle in the documentation ofwomen’s economic participation in the fisheriessector is how their fishing activities are notseen as economically productive. The failure torecognize the mixed subsistence nature of thevillage fishery results in an undervaluation oftheir participation.

Apart from this, the involvement of women infisheries is usually not well documented. Forexample, female participation in the fisheriessector in 1993 for Fiji, Samoa and Tonga wererecorded as only 13-17 per cent of the totalworkforce. This low statistical measure of thewomen’s economic participation is due to thesubsistence sector not being enumerated. Theobvious indifference to women’s fishingactivities and the non-recognition of their workin the subsistence sector prompted thedescription of them as “invisible fisherfolk”.

The current industry-oriented fisheriesdevelopment leaves women’s small-scalecommercial and subsistence activitiesunmonitored and undeveloped. Whereverwomen have been incorporated into theindustrial sector, this has been ingender-related types of employment, such asfish processing. Among major constraints towomen’s fisheries development are the lack ofaccess to technology and the absence offisheries extension assistance.

This trend is not surprising, considering that itwas only during the past decade that women’scontribution to fisheries began to berecognized. Recent literature has begun torecord the substantial involvement of women inprocessing and marketing, especially in PapuaNew Guinea and Vanuatu.

Women continue to be largely responsible forpost-harvest activities in all the different sectorsof the fishing industry. This has beenincreasingly so with the establishment of tunacanneries in Fiji, the Solomon Islands andWestern Samoa.

Various international and regionalorganizations specifically address women’sissues throughout regional co-operation andwith assistance from bodies such as the UNDP

and the FAO, research and awareness intowomen’s concerns are being highlighted.


availability of faster and bigger boats, butit is an activity restricted to male fishers.

In areas such as Nukui, where netfishing is an important activity, thereexists a wide range of practices. For

example, qoli rai is when a school of fishis sighted and the nets are put out toencircle the catch. This is usually donewithin the outer reefs.

At other times, large nets are used to catchfish hiding under rocks. For this method,rocks are usually surrounded by netswhile duva, or fish poison, is crushed andsqueezed in to the water around therocks. Since this is practised on the outerreefs, the larger species get trapped in thenet when they try to escape.

The yavi ran, or leaf drag, is widelypractised in Fiji, with variations,depending on the location. Both men andwomen participate in this activity which,in most cases, is for communal purposes.Customarily, men and women swimtowards the shoreline, a few of themholding the drag-net. When they near theshore, those with the drag then close intowards one another. When the shallowerareas are reached, the fish are harvestedusing both hands and scoop-nets.

Gleaning and collecting are the majorfishing activities of women in thesubsistence and small-scale artisanalsector. Surprisingly, these activities are

not confined to women in rural areas, aswomen residing in semi-urban areas alsoextensively gather or collect from urbanforeshore areas.

Gleaning includes collection of a widerange of non-fin fish along the inshorecoastal areas. Bivalves, crustaceans,octopus, seaweeds and othermiscellaneous items are usually the targetof these gleaning activities. Recently,some previously caught species are beingneglected. This decline in harvest isbecause such species now hold littleeconomical value. Examples are ibo andvetuna (both sea worms), dio (oysters) andwoce (a small edible brachiopod). Once,most of these species were coastaldelicacies and were usually eaten raw.

Traditionally, there has been acomplementarity in the organization ofFijian labour, with women being engagedin domestic duties and nearshore fishingor foraging activities, while men farmedand were responsible for deep-sea fishing.

At least in Totoya and Nasau, menworked in gardens and only occasionallyfished. Recent developments have led to atransformation of such roles with theemphasis in production getting focusedprimarily on economically productiveactivities and men engaging more infishing activities. The argument here isthat the traditional context of labourdivision can no longer be casually appliedto all rural situations.

Generally, it can be argued that womenhave been largely disadvantaged ininstitutionalized fisheries development inthe Pacific Islands. Apart from traditionaland social constraints, they are hinderedby technological innovations, whichprincipally target male fishing activitiesand marginalize the participation ofwomen in fishing.

Increased participationAlthough there has been increasedparticipation of women in formalemployment, this has, unfortunately,predominantly been in menial, underpaidjobs. An overview of the Asia-Pacificregion shows that Asia has been moreadvanced in addressing the issue ofwomen in fisheries. This has come aboutthrough government support and the

Fiji


accomplishment of programmes whichtargeted small-scale fishing enterprises.

Tradition is not static, and thus theideologies which revolve aroundits usage are not static either. Due

to women’s dominant role inthesubsistence fishing economy, and theircontribution to the family diet, any shift intheir fishing patterns will have severalkinds of impact on local village societiesand practices.

Despite women’s increased participationin the fisheries sector in the Pacific and inFiji, in particular, their activities remainofficially overshadowed by those of malefishers.

F

iji

This article is based on the draft of aThesis by Aliti Vunisea of theUniversity of South Pacific. Suva, Fiji


Lake Victoria

In the balance

Environmental degradation and human handiwork have combined to destroy the fisheries of Lake Victoria

In Lake Victoria, a combination ofhuman impact and environmentalchanges has transformed fishery

biodiversity beyond all recognition,destabilizing the fishery and degradingaquatic ecosystem.

This has grave implications for themillions of people in the three ripariancountries, namely, Uganda, Tanzania andKenya, who depend on the lake’s fishery.A fishery that once drew on hundreds ofspecies, now depends on just three: theendemic pelagic Rastrineobola argentea,the introduced Nile Perch (Lates niloticus)and the introduced Nile tilapia(Qreochromis niloticus).

Until the 1970s, the Lake Victoria fisherywas dominated by more than 400varieties of haplochromine fish,estimated to comprise over 80 per cent ofthe lake’s total fish biomass. Thecombined influences of environmentalchanges and human impact have led tothe disappearance and possibleextinction of 200 to 300 of these endemicfish varieties, The disappearance of thishuge and varied biomass is the likelycause of cascading changes in theecosystem.

Overfishing of endemic species in the1950s stimulated the introduction ofexotic tilapias, and Nile perch, the latterdespite scientific advice against suchaction. The introduced tilapias have noweffectively replaced the lake’s twoendemic tilapia species.

The haplochromines, many of which feedon bottom sediments and phytoplankton,have been replaced by fish which areessentially secondary and tertiaryconsumers (the endemic pelagic cyprinidRastrineobola argcntea and the carnivorousNile perch, respectively). This has grave

implications for the sustainability of thelake’s fishery. Nile perch now makes upmore than 90 per cent of the demersal fishbiomass, and 60 per cent of the catch.

There are many who argue that theintroduction of the Nile perch to LakeVictoria has generated enormoussocioeconomic benefits. The value of fishproduction and fisheries-relatedemployment has greatly increased forcommunities around the lake, as has thesupply of protein. Due to the Nile perch,more people are eating more fish in moreplaces than was ever the case under theprevious fishery regime. Between 1970and 1990, fish landings have increasedfivefold, from 106,500 tonnes to over500,000 tonnes.

However, a multi-species fishery has beenconverted into one dominated by threespecies. At the same time, the lake isbecoming increasingly eutrophic, withassociated deoxygenation of bottomwaters, thereby reducing fish habitats.The removal of endemic haplochromines,which formerly turned over the bottomdeposits, have contributed to theeutrophication and deoxygenation ofbottom waters. Likewise, thedisappearance of phytoplankton-eatingfish has contributed to increasing algalblooms, and ‘algal mats’, which sink to thebottom, where their decompositionfurther adds to deoxygenation.

Species exploitedIn the beginning, the main speciesexploited were Orcoebrornis esculenta and0. variabilis. These fisheries collapsed,probably due to overfishing, which led toa switch to the smaller and less valuableHaplochromis and Rastrineobola. Until the1970s, the resource base was characterizedby the predominance of Haplochromisstocks.

Ken

ya


Although of great scientific interest,it is claimed that this resource hadvery little socioeconomic value

and remained the food of last resort allround the lake. The fish biomass of thelake also consisted of more valuablespecies groups: Oreochromis/Tilapia,Bagrus, Synodontis, Clarias, Protopterus,and Barbus.

Until the creation of the Nyanza Fishingand Processing Company, which startedwith four trawlers in the mid-1970s, thefisheries remained solely exploited bysmall-scale fishermen.

The Nile perch was introduced, possiblyclandestinely, around 1954, and thendeliberately in 1962 in Entebbe, mainlyfrom Lake Mubutu, but also from LakeTurkana.

For the first 20 years, it remained relativelyunnoticed. In the early 1980s, a hugeexpansion was observed (although therewas a sudden ‘eruption’ in the Winam(Nyanza) Gulf, Kenya in the mid-1970s).

Fish landings under the current regime ofthree dominant species would seem to bemuch higher than under the previousmulti-species regime. However, it isquestionable whether this can besustained, and whether the benefits of thecurrent regime accrue to localcommunities

Can the current regime be sustained orwill the lake’s fishery collapse under thestrain of eutrophication andimpoverished biodiversity? Whatevidence is there for decreasing biomassand increasing yields since the boom ofthe Nile perch?

It is possible to hypothesize that thefishery is headed for collapse due to acombination of environmental or naturalfactors (predator-prey relationships andchanging biological and chemicalbalances in the lake), and human-inducedfactors (pollution and overfishing). It canalso be hypothesized that the catchcomposition is changing or has changed.

What are the economic or nutritionalbenefits accruing to processors andtraders, who are sending fish out of thearea, or to local communities which areeating more fish? It may be conjecturedthat the main economic benefits go to themiddlemen and processing companies.Fishermen may derive some benefits, butthe local diet has deteriorated as aconsequence.

Fewer choicesConsumer choices have been diminished.Instead of being able to choose amongseveral species, there are now effectivelyonly three choices. Has this had anyimpact on the local people’s fish-eatinghabits and diets? The local people do not

K

enya


eat Nile perch, while the omenta is also oflimited use.

The availability of fishery inputs islimited and equipment is costly. Only themore well-off people are able to purchaseequipment. The Nile perch market iscontrolled by large processingcompanies, which pay the highest pricesand monopolize ice.

Eutrophication occurs due to theintensified use of land, humanpopulation growth and increased run-offof nutrients into the lake. Also, urbansewage and industrial pollution from themain population centres contribute toeutrophication.

Between the 1960s and the 1990s, athreefold increase has been detected inthe nutrient content of rain falling on thelake. This could be the result of increasedburning of grass and bushes around thelake. Further, climatic cycles leading tohigh lake levels, particularly between1961 and 1964, which drowned riparianbushes and swamps may haveaccelerated eutrophication.

Clearing of riparian vegetation hasremoved plants which once acted asnatural filters for nutrients draining intothe lake. There has also been a reductionin silica and sulphate levels. Also seen isa shift in phytoplankton towardsnitrogen fixation, and an increase inchlorophyll and primary productivity.Tree felling for timber, particularly inUganda, has increased siltation.

Effluents enter the lake from paper mills,particularly the Pan African Paper Mills(PANPAPER) at Webuye in Bugoma, alongthe River Nzoia, and sugar factories,particularly in Busia district, and also fishprocessing factories.

The water hyacinth (Eichornia crassipes)has probably been in Lake Victoria for nomore than ten years. It most likely enteredthrough the Kagera River, from Rwandaand through Uganda. In 1989, it wasnoticed in Ugandan waters. It wasintroduced to the African continent at thebeginning of the century, first in Egyptand then in South Africa. It consequentlyspread to other countries in southernAfrica and appeared in the Zaire River

and upper Nile swamps in Sudan in the1950s. About 15 African countries areknown to have problems with waterhyacinth.

The water hyacinth has an impact onfisheries production—by invadingspawning, nursery and feeding areas, andby inhibiting light penetration and thusphotosynthesis and oxygen levels in thewater. By invading and blocking beachareas and harbours, it hinderstransportation. By blocking intakes, damsand pumps, it affects hydroelectric powergeneration and irrigation.

The long-term socioeconomic costs ofwastage in post-harvest fisheries involvemore than the loss of income andnutritional benefits (to the fisherfolkcommunities and their dependentconsumer populations). These are seriouslosses, but traditional methods of fishprocessing place great pressure onvaluable and increasingly scarce timberresources. This too represents a kind ofpost-harvest’ loss. The ‘Nile Perch Effect’also includes a shifting of channels ofproduct distribution and marketing, andthe resultant impact on infrastructure andtechnology development.

Future at stakeThe future of the lake now hangs in thebalance. The clock can not now bereversed, and the Nile perch can not beeradicated. The collapse of the Nile perchfishery—a distinct possibility—will havevery serious socioeconomic consequencesfor the communities and the economies ofthe three riparian countries. Therehabilitation of the lake’s biodiversityand the institution of a management andregulatory framework must now becomethe main priorities for the development ofLake Victoria.

Ken

ya

This piece comes from the Kenyaoffice of the intermediateTechnology Development GroupRugby, UK


Fisheries agreements

On to the next generation

The new set of fisheries agreements with developing countries should be sharply defined and implemented democratically

The classical fisheries agreementsnegotiated by the European Union(EU) with developing countries

have involved the payment of financialcompensation in exchange for access tofish resources. The primary objectives ofthe EU in these arrangements have focusedon supplying the domestic market. Little,if any, attention has been paid to theimpact of fishing upon either theenvironment or the needs and rights oflocal populations.

The fisheries agreement with Senegal is avery good illustration of the effect of theseclassical agreements. Since 1979, the EUfishing industry has benefited from aprofitable access to the once-richSenegalese waters, with few restrictionsimposed by either the EU or the Senegalesegovernment. After over 15 years ofEU-Senegalese ‘co-operation’, theassessment is clearly negative, from botha social and environmental point of view:fish stocks are depleted and theSenegalese artisanal fishery disrupted. Asthere were fewer fish for the Europeanfleets to catch, in 1994, the EU reduced itsfinancial compensation—from 32 millionECU (US$40 million) to 18 million ECU (US$22 million).

The EU has an increasingly long list ofagreements to be negotiated withcountries from different regions of LatinAmerica, Africa, the Caribbean and SouthAsia. There is also the possibility of anagreement with New Zealand. This wouldbe the first step towards the South Pacific,a region to which the EU has long soughtaccess.

The EU Council has even issuednegotiation directives for an agreementwith Somalia, despite the fact that thiscountry is clearly not in a state to negotiatea fisheries agreement, considering all that

such an act involves in terms of stockassessment, etc. But that does not seem tobe a problem for the EU, especially with allthe tuna and other high-value fish speciesswimming in Somali waters. The fact isthat EU vessels have not waited for anagreement, but have been poaching inthese rich waters for some time.

As the EU Fisheries Commissioner hasdeclared on several occasions, the days ofthe classical agreements of the ‘pay, fishand scoot’ type are over. Indeed, a newtype of agreement, the so-calledsecond-generation’ agreement, is nowbeing proposed to various countries, butnot to all. It seems that the EU has certaincriteria to determine who is ‘worthy’ of asecond-generation agreement.

The first of this type was signed in 1993with Argentina. It is still early to fullyevaluate the social and environmentalimpact of this agreement, but certainaspects should cause concern, as theagreement involves much more than asimple exchange of access to fish formoney or markets.

The agreement is based on the creation ofjoint enterprises (a permanentassociation) and joint ventures (atemporary association) between EU vesselowners and fisheries interests inArgentina. In order to transfer theiractivities permanently or temporarily,whether under the EU-Argentinaagreement or under jointenterprises/ventures in general, vesselowners receive subsidies from both the EUand the Member State where the boat isregistered.

Budget allocationThe EU has allocated an important budgetfor this agreement: 162.5 million ECU (US$203 million) for the five-year period

E

uropean Union


1993-1999, most of which is allocated forthe creation of joint enterprises andventures. The main EU beneficiary of theagreement is Spain, but other MemberStates (Portugal, Italy, Greece, France andGermany) are also involved.

Many EU fishing vessels arepermanently transferred andre-flagged to Argentina. These

vessels will, therefore, disappear from EUregisters. EU authorities will no longerbear the responsibility of managing theactivities of these vessels. Neither will theEU Council of Ministers, the EuropeanCommission and Member States beaccountable any more to other EUinstitutions such as the EuropeanParliament and the EU Court of Auditorsfor the financial, social andenvironmental implications of thosefishing activities.

At a time when the EU is obliged todramatically reduce its fishing capacity,this constitutes a painless and evenprofitable way to meet fishing capacityreduction targets and to rid itself of theresponsibilities and financial burdenassociated with these fleets, while stillcontinuing to supply the Europeanmarket.

Indeed, as the vessels no longer fly an EUflag, vessel owners will not be subject toEU regulations. The whole responsibilityfor managing the activities of these

vessels falls on the recipient country, inthis case, Argentina. While Argentina hasappropriate means to ensure control andenforcement in its waters, manydeveloping countries are not so fortunateand will probably not possess sufficientmeans to ensure that ex-EU vessels abideby the relevant fisheries managementregulations.

On the other hand, Miguel Arias Canete,Spanish Conservative Euro-MP andChairman of the European Parliament’sFisheries Committee, has declared that theEU-Argentina fisheries agreementrepresents a model to be copied. He statedthat to demonstrate its importance “it onlyneeds to be pointed out that, in 1994,141,186 tonnes of fish, with a value ofapproximately ECU 248.7 million (US$ 311million), were exported to the EuropeanUnion, the catch comprising higheconomic value species such as hake, forwhich there is abundant demand withinthe Union,”

Not truly jointNonetheless, this new type of agreementis presented as an opportunity for therecipient country to develop its fishingindustry through the EU’s capacity andknow-how.

But, it should be noted that, in many cases,the ‘joint’ enterprises and ventures underthe agreement are totally owned by EUinterests: Europeans form agreements

Eur

opea

n U

nion


with Europeans. Further, much of the fishcaught is destined for the EU market.

The social impact will not only be feltin Argentina. The Spanish crewsworking on board these re-flagged

vessels were not pleased to discoverrecently that, after a certain period, theywould be covered by the localArgentinean social security system, ratherthan that of Spain. Their salaries will alsobe based on local scales.

The EU has recently signed generalco-operation agreements with Morocco,Chile and other member countries of theSouthern Cone Common Market(Mercosur: Argentina, Brazil, Paraguayand Uruguay).

These agreements have, as their primaryobjectives, the liberalization of trade ingoods, services and capital through theestablishment of a free trade area, thepromotion of trade and co-operationbetween the parties and an increase ofinternational competitiveness.

Last year, when Chile refused access to itswaters to more EU fishing vessels, adelegation of the European Commissionwarned Chilean authorities that theconditions of access to the EU market forChilean products might have to bereviewed.

The economic co-operation agreementthat Chile has just signed with the EU islikely to make it even easier for the EU touse the economic stick to win access tofishery resources.

The agreement contains provisionsthrough which parties agree to intensifyco-operation in the fishery sector and inthe management of ‘common’ resources.Some Spanish Euro-MPs have alreadyreferred to the agreement as a means toforce Chile to be more lenient on landingsby Spanish vessels in Chilean harbours.On the other hand, the economicco-operation agreement with Mercosurdid not contain any section on fisheries.This triggered a strong reaction fromArias Canete.

He declared that the Committee ofFisheries is concerned about this lack, andadded that “international agreements

with third countries are one of the keyaspects of the Common Fisheries Policyand their purpose is to help theCommunity fleet to adjust in size, thusenabling the excess capacity thereof to begradually reduced and guaranteeing thatthe Community market will continue to besupplied with the fisheries products forwhich there is consumer demand”. It isdifficult to be more blunt than that!

The trend is clearly toward privatizationof the agreements and liberalization oftrade. It is foreseeable that this process willultimately lead to totally privateagreements between multinationals suchas Pescanova, Unilever, Resource GroupInternational, etc. and theft local partners,in which governments will have doneaway with their role as stewards of whatmany still regard as common resources.

Already, groups such as Pescanova areusing their local presence to influencenational policies. For instance, Namibiahas resisted EU pressure to sign a bilateralagreement and, instead, has negotiatedfisheries access rights directly withPescanova. Namibia has also put in placea very strict fisheries management regime.

Apparently, though, the government hasrecently negotiated with trade unions afive-year moratorium on strikes, in ordernot to frighten off foreign investors.

Will the next step be a loosening offisheries regulations and increase ofquotas under the threat that Pescanovawill take its money and jobs and go whererules are less stringent?

It is clear that the objective of the EU hasremained constant: supply the market atthe lowest possible cost. Only the strategyhas varied on the part of the EU: todecrease or eliminate managementresponsibility, financial burden,accountability and democratic control.The trend appears to be to depart from‘classical’ bilateral fisheries agreements,which have their faults, but which at leasthave been subject to some—although verylimited—form of democratic control andpublic supervision.

Problems remainMajor problems remain in thenew-generation agreements. These

E

uropean Union


include lack of control and enforcement,leading to overexploitation and a neglectof regulations.

They also include the lack ofattention to the needs of localsmall-scale fishing communities

and their food requirements.Unfortunately, whatever limitedtransparency, public scrutiny andparticipation that already existed seemset to disappear.

The EU is a major fishing power in distantwaters and thus contributes to thedwindling of fish stocks in many areasaround the world. These trends infisheries agreements could be viewed, notonly as an abrogation of the EU’sresponsibility, but also as a manifestationof the EU’s determination to continue tosupply its market—one of the biggest inthe world and keep most of its fleetsactive, despite the environmental andsocial costs incurred.

Third-generation agreements are nowbeing mentioned, but no consensus hasyet emerged as to what theft objectivesshould be or how they will differ from theolder generation agreements.

Some contend that they should integrateEU development policy objectives into thecurrent types of fisheries agreements,which are of a purely commercial nature.

However, without clearly defined andagreed objectives, such agreements mightjust end up like their predecessors—onlywith a different label.

Future contextFuture agreements must be placed in thecontext of North-South co-operation,where the development needs of coastalfishing communities and the long-termsustainability of fisheries are notsubordinated to private interests.

They must be based on managementregimes, which ensure that fish stocks arenot depleted, but remain productive andable to support local fisheries.

The whole process-from negotiation ofthe agreement through all aspects of itsimplementation and evaluation—needsto be transparent and democratic.

Eur

opea

n U

nion

This article is by Helene Bours, whocurrently works for GreenpeaceInternational on EU fisheries. It hasbeen written in her personalcapacity


Fisheries policy

How blue will my Europe be?

The grand dream of a ‘Blue Europe’ may mean that fisher people will be forced to relocate to shore-based activities

The European Fishery Commission,headed by Emma Bonino, waged atwo-day charm offensive in

Brittany to gain acceptance for itsdevelopment policy for the ‘Blue Europeof the Future.’ Meeting in Quimper,France, on 13 and 14 May 1996, theDirectorate General for Fisheries (DG XIV)of the European Union (EU), hosted atwo-day seminar on ‘FisheriesAgreements and the Organization of theEuropean Market.’

Hosting the seminar in Brittany was aparticularly brave and significant gesture- brave because, in 1994, rioting Frenchfishworkers in Brittany laid waste to theBrittany Parliament as they vented theiranger against what they regarded asoppressive rules from Brussels.

It was doubly brave because, under theEU’s latest Multi-Annual GuidanceProgramme (MAGP IV), the French fishingsector is required to reduce its capacity by20 per cent. There is, therefore, no love lostbetween the fish-catching sector and theBrussels ‘fishocrats.’

The venue of Brittany was also significantbecause Brittany produces 40 per cent ofthe national fish catch, has a fishingpopulation of around 7,000 fishermen andtheir families, and a sector which directlyemploys 30,000 fishworkers.

The topics chosen for the seminar werecentral elements of a fisheries policygeared towards securing future fishsupplies for Europe’s processingindustries and consumers. In Europe’sfishery, fisheries agreements and fishmarketing are increasingly important.Between 1987 and 1992, the total costs offisheries agreements rose from ECU 88million to ECU 208 million, amounting toover half the budget of the Common

Fisheries Policy (CFP). In this five-yearperiod, the total amount came close to 940million ECU.

The current CFP budget is for around ECU822 million. About ECU 290 million havebeen allocated to nearly 30 fisheriesagreements. Most of this amount is spenton three agreements: ECU 38.7 million onan agreement with Greenland, ECU 32.5million on Argentina and ECU 125 millionon Morocco.

While 40 per cent of Europe’s fish suppliescome from its own waters, 60 per cent areimported. Almost a quarter of fishsupplies are obtained through fisheriesagreements.

However, the logic of fisheriesagreements is essentially flawed. Theircost effectiveness is questionable, withEuropean taxpayers paying hundreds ofmillions of ECUs annually. Thus, theagreement with Morocco, which allowsaccess to 600 Spanish boats employing8,000 fishermen, works out to a cost ofaround ECU 210,000 per boat and ECU15,500 per fisherman.

The negotiations for fisheries agreementsare far from transparent, come under noserious scrutiny and get virtually nomedia attention. According to EUprocedure, all fisheries agreements needto be approved by the EuropeanParliament (EP). The EP is generallyconsulted only after the agreements aresigned.

No coherenceThere is a complete lack between thepractice agreements co-operationagreements development of coherence offisheries and development policy.Examples of contradicting the EU’sco-operation policy include those with

E

urope


Madagascar and Senegal.. The rawmaterial for fish processing obtainedthrough fisheries agreements canundermine the price of fish caught inEurope, and adversely affect Europeanfishermen.

A policy which accords greaterpriority to extraction of fish fromthe waters of developing

countries than supporting thedevelopment of the local fish processingsector, undermines the social andeconomic development of the localfishery. The considerable amounts spenton fisheries agreements would be betterspent on rationalizing the managementand restructuring of the EU’s ownfisheries.

It was clear from the start that thisso-called decentralized seminar—thethird organized on the samesubject—was more about winning heartsand minds, and informing andinfluencing, than about negotiation anddebate. The first day set the tone, withmost of the morning session given over topresentations from DG XIV on fisheries

agreements. The time allotted forquestions and discussions was barelysufficient for the industry representativesto pose their queries, let alone enter intoany exchange of views.

Another clue to the seminar’s purposewas an invited ‘audience’ composedalmost entirely of fishing industryinterests, with very few fishworkerrepresentatives.

Commissioner Bonino’s riposte tofishworker delegates barred from theproceedings was: “The exclusion offishworkers from this meeting hasnothing to do with me. You have yourenemies, go and find them! On thecontrary, I have accepted to come LeGuilvinec to meet you.”

She also denied any responsibility fordeciding fishing policy: “1 don’t get upevery morning, thinking that I am goingto decide on this or that. You mustunderstand that every decision anddirective that arrives from Brussels isagreed by the European Fishery Ministers.I am responsible for certain proposals, but

Eur

ope ‘My goal is not the death of the fishery’

Emma Bonino described her vision for thefuture of Blue Europe in an interview with theFrench Paper Le Telegramme. The following isa translation:

Why is the Commission adopting suchdraconian measures for resourceconservation, yet being so liberal aboutregulating the market?

Sixty per cent of today’s market is based onimports, while 40 per cent is fish caught in ourown waters. If we take no action to reducecatches to allow the fish to reproduce, thisamount will become even less. Also, quitesimply, I don not know how to make more fish.This is not blind liberalism, this is the reality.Although I try to stop abuses, (on its own) ourcommercial policy is not an effective screen. Ihave a team of only 18 fishery inspectors forthe entire Blue Europe. It is up to the MemberStates and the customs services to look out forfraud.

Apart from imports from third countries, ourfishermen have to suffer unfair competition

from the British, who do not respect thewithdrawal price. Why does theCommission do nothing to stop this?

Because I have no legal basis to do so. TheCouncil of European Fisheries Ministers agreedon a non-binding withdrawal price system.Every time the Commission, my predecessor orI, asked them to take action on it, a majority ofMinisters rejected our proposal.

The Multi-Annual Guidance Programme(MAGP-IV) that you are preparing will furtherreduce the number of fishing boats. Whatdo you have to say to the professionalBrittany fishermen who do not want this tohappen?

I can very well understand how a region suchas yours, which implemented MAGP III very well,is unhappy with a plan for further fleetreductions. I am very much in favour of aregional approach to MAGP IV, and I am going topropose a modification of the rules to this end.But for the moment, it is not up to me to decide.It is easy to say that Brussels is all-powerful,


the Council of Ministers amends, rejects oraccepts them. It is easy to find scapegoats:they will give you some satisfaction, butthey will not lead you far. Do not forgetwho your enemies are!”

The afternoon session was almost acomplete farce, as the sumptuous lunchhosted by DG XIV lasted for nearly threehours. This left delegates with only anhour to discuss the second topic on theagenda: the organization of fishmarketing in Europe.

Despite being billed as a ‘EuropeanParliament Fisheries Seminar,’ the role ofthe European Parliamentarians was alsointeresting. Invited at the last minute, theywere kept in the dark about the completeagenda.

In a speech following a dinner given in herhonour by the fishing community of LeGuilvinec, Commissioner Emma Boninooutlined her vision for the ‘Blue Europe’of the future. It is a future where bothfisheries agreements and the artisanalfisheries sector have roles to play. Theso-called first-generation agreements

(cash for access) will become obsolete.Instead, Europe will access its fishsupplies and deploy its distant-waterfishing fleets through joint venturearrangements, negotiated through secondor third generation fisheries agreements.

The fisheries sector in Europe willcontinue to be cut back and modernized.This means fewer but more efficientfishing vessels. People formerly employedin the artisanal fishing sector (namely, theowner-operators) will be redeployedashore, working in the shore-basedprocessing and marketing sectors.

Although she denies being a decisionmaker, and lays the blame for the currentpolicy muddle on the Council of FisheriesMinisters, it is clear that CommissionerBonino is laying down two veryfundamental policy objectives, which willprovide the main planks to support thenew Blue Europe:

• conservation of resources to beachieved by ruthlessly reducingfishing fleet capacity; and,

E

urope

but the French government must own up to itsresponsibilities for a priority targeting to reduceareas that are over capacity, and reallocatenew efforts to other areas, including Brittany.

In Le Guilvinec and in Concarneau, thefishing sector sees Europe as a machinewhich contributes nothing to the upkeep ofthe fishery, but only to the desertification ofthe coastal zone. What is your view?

My goal is not the death of the fishery, but therestructuring of the fishery sector, which can nolonger rely on fishing. This will be achieved byadding value to fish, that is, through themanufacture of frozen, canned, cooked and allmanner of processed products.

Le Guilvinec provided us with this perspectivethrough their most interesting PESCA proposal,a proposal which Paris turned down. However,with the PESCA budget, and above all, with theStructural Funds of IFOP, there is the meansavailable to undertake a fundamentalrestructuring of the industry-with theunderstanding that every job lost at sea willbecome a job on land, on the docks and on thequays.

This region established a precedent with theCommon Agricultural Policy. Today, the Bretonagrofood industry is high competitive.

To assure a future for its fishery, Brittany mustundertake a painful structural adjustment.However, I am certain that Brittany canestablish itself as a leader in the pro cessingindustry, where consumer demand is the mostimportant factor.

Blue Europe is therefore only a Europe ofprocessors?

I am fully aware that there must be a culturalrevolution for fishermen to accept that theirfuture is onshore. They can refuse, saying thatthe Eurocrats in Brussels are mad, andcontinue as they are, without changing. In thiscase, the processing sector will moveelsewhere, and Brittany will eventually lose itsseas-based work, without having first preparedjobs ashore.There is one country in Europe,Norway, where fishing is a vibrant, traditionalactivity, based on fish catching. Today theNorwegian fleet is considerably reduced, buteven in Tibet, one can eat fish processed inNorway by Norwegians.


• liberalization of fish marketing,and securing fish supplies forEurope’s fish processing industryand consumers.

According to CommissionerBonino’s vision, if these twoobjectives are fulfilled, and

fishermen are not intent on merelyprotecting the harvesting aspect of theindustry, there is a future for the entirefisheries sector.

For all her considerable fervour, charmand rhetoric, Emma Bonino’s vision of afuture Blue Europe is inherently flawed.It is a future in which the people whoselivelihoods depend on the fishery aredisempowered, and where Blue Europewill be dominated by a few largeprocessing companies.

Under the guise of decommissioning andconservation, the Commission isundertaking a programme of socialengineering, where fishing communitieswill become the shore-based workforcefor vertically integrated fishingindustries.

It is a process geared towards thecentralization of ownership andmanagement of fishery resources, and theelimination of small-scale inshorefisheries and associated fishingcommunities.

It is also a policy aimed at making theEuropean fisheries easier to manage forthe Commission. A sector dominated by afew multinational companies, deployingan essentially distant-water fleet, willeliminate the difficulties of having tocontrol many small fishing units.

A French group, called ‘Peche etDeveloppement’ (Fisheries andDevelopment), which represents bothlocal Brittany fishworkers anddevelopment NGO interests, met inQuimper, just prior to Emma Bonino’svisit. This was an open meeting, in whicharound 70 people participated, includingrepresentatives from industry, thefishworker sector, NGOs and the media.The meeting focused on the links betweenfishworkers and issues of mutual concernin the North and South.

There are some issues of particularconcern to fisheries agreements and theorganization of fish markets in Europe.Fisheries agreements amount to hugesubsidies, which benefit a relatively fewlarge fishing companies, to thedisadvantage of many artisanalfishworkers.

Low-cost accessRather than promoting progressive socialand economic development of thefisheries sectors in Europe and partnercountries, the issue is actually about

Eur

eop


accessing low-cost raw material for theEuropean processing industry.

In this way, the EU’s fishery agreementsare actually a substitute for social policiesin European fisheries, and counteract theEU’s development co-operation policyobjectives. The globalization of the fishmarket is effectively undermining theposition of small-scale producers Worldwide.

The alternative vision proposed by themeeting was of a process which prioritizesthe development of fishworkers and theircommunities.

It is a vision based on an understanding offisheries from a community perspective,where social and humanisticconsiderations are held to be as importantas technical and economic ones.

It is a vision which holds that the localknowledge and customary practices offishing communities are needed to ensurethe sustainability of fishery resources.Unless such alternative visions aretranslated into development actions,Commissioner Bonino’s rose-tinted visionof the future will become the bleakly starkreality of tomorrow.

E

urope

This report has been prepared byBrian O’Riordan of the IntermediateTechnology Development Group,Rugby, UK


Women in fisheries

Different voices, similar concerns

Sharing a vision, women from several countries agree to fight to retain their spaces within the world’s fisheries

A workshop on GenderPerspectives in Fisheries washeld in Senegal in West Africa,

between 10 and 18 June 1996, bringing toan ‘official’ end ICSF’s Women in Fisheries(WIF) programme in India, Senegal, thePhilippines and Thailand. The workshopbrought together representatives offishworker organizations, academics andactivists from 13 countries in Asia,Europe, Canada, Africa, South Pacificand Latin America.

The participants shared reports detailingthe role of women in fisheries in theirrespective countries, as well as the role ofwomen in fishworkers’ organizations.Participants from countries where the WIFprogramme had already been under way,namely, Senegal, India, the Philippinesand Thailand, reported on the work doneunder the programme and the processesthat had been initiated as a consequence.The programme has been instrumental in‘visibilizing’ women’s roles in fisheries,in facilitating the organization of womenfishworkers and in increasing theirrepresentation in fishworkerorganizations.

It was observed that various strategiesand organizational forms have beenadopted by women fishworkers toaddress their concerns in differentcountries, each appropriate to theparticular context and situation of thecountry concerned.

In India, for instance, womenfishworkers, rather than formingseparate women’s organizations, arefighting for spaces within mainstreamfishworker organizations to addressissues that concern them. Their basiccontention is that women married tofishermen automatically qualify forunion membership by virtue of the fact

that they look after the household andsustain future generations, even if they arenot directly involved in economicallyrenumerative fishery-related activities.

In Canada, on the other hand, differentstrategies have been employed by womenin fishing communities. Wives offishermen organize as autonomousgroups, join with fishermen’s unions, andget together at the community level toprotect the interests of coastalcommunities.

The discussion on women’s participationin fishworker organizations revealed that,even though women have succeeded infinding a place within mainstreamfishworker organizations in somecountries, as in Senegal and India, theyrarely occupy decision-making positions.

As a consequence, issues specificallyconcerning women are rarely addressedby these organizations. These include, forexample, the problems women face atwork in fisheries, such as the lack ofadequate marketing, transport, storageand processing facilities, or the problemsthat they encounter within the householdand community, such as violence directedat them.

Country reports at the workshop alsorevealed that the extent and form ofwomen’s participation in fishworkerorganizations and movements differ inthe North and South. In the North, womenof fishing communities are organizedprimarily as ‘associations of wives offishermen.

Southern womenIn the South, women participate inorganizations as fishworkers themselves,indicating that women still retain theirspaces in fishing operations, primarily in

Gen

der


the processing and marketing of fish. Thisis also because women and men from theSouth involved in fisheries operations, ona part-time or full-time basis, do notgenerally require licenses to be regardedas fishworkers, unlike in the North.

The issues taken up by women’sorganizations in the North andSouth differ too. In the North, the

artisanal sector and way of life are underthreat, as more and more artisanal fishersare being pushed out of the sector as aresult of state-sponsored policies toreduce fishing capacity and to limitresource exploitation. State policies tendto be geared towards protecting theinterests of large industry.

Under the Individual Transferable Quota(ITQ) system, for instance, licences to fishare often cornered by the more powerfuleconomic interests, while smallerowner-operators are either eased out ofthe sector or forced into jobs on largerindustrial vessels. Working conditionsaboard these vessels are often poor andsocial security benefits inadequate,especially on distant-water fishing vesselsoperating under bilateral fisheryagreements.

Associations of wives of fishermen inEurope, as in Spain and France, aredemanding better working conditionsaboard such vessels. They are alsodemanding better state support for

unemployed fishers or fishers displacedfrom the sector, especially during crisisperiods.

As coastal communities in the North losetraditional access rights to fisheryresources, the very culture and future ofthese communities are under threat. InNorway, the associations of wives offishermen are demanding that coastalcommunities be given back their rights tofish freely in coastal waters, and that thestate recognize the value of coastalcommunities and artisanal fisheries.

In Southern countries, on the other hand,women fishworkers are struggling toretain their spaces within the fisheriessector, in the face of the larger forces ofglobalization and liberalization. They aredemanding access to better facilities formarketing, transport, storage andprocessing of fish. At the same time, theyare joining forces with men in the artisanalsector to fight against the proliferation ofdestructive, super-efficient technologiessuch as trawling, within their waters. InSenegal, for instance, women are playinga prominent role in challenginginequitable agreements between theircountry and the EU, and in securing abetter deal for artisanal fishworkers undersuch agreements.

Areas of convergenceDespite these differences, many areas ofconvergence between the women of the

G

ender


Gender

48SA

MU

DR

A JU

LY

1996

North and the South emerged during thecourse of the workshop.

Participants from several countriesperceived women as being moreconcerned with a broader gamut of issues,relating to fisheries as well as to thecommunity. Participants from Canadastressed that, while men are in theforefront of struggles on fishery-relatedissues, women take the lead on issues thatare central to maintaining the viability ofartisanal fisheries and their communities.

Several other questions were debated anddiscussed during the workshop. Whatsort of alliances need to be formed, andwith whom, to defend artisanal fisheriesand the artisanal way of life, as well as thespaces of women within these? What sortof programme politique is required toaddress these issues?

The participants explored these questionsin the context of the realities within theirown countries. There was a broadconsensus that cross-sectoral alliances ofpeople’s movements need to be formedwith specific objectives, and a positiveprogramme politique needs to emerge, if theartisanal fisheries and their way of lifehave to be sustained.

In Brazil, for instance, the artisanal fisherysector has made alliances with othermarginalized groups such as farmers,landless peasants and indigenous peoples, to struggle for a recognition of their rightsand for the espousal of an indigenouslifestyle. The necessity for regionalalliances, as, for instance, amongassociations of wives of fishermen inEurope, was highlighted.

Southern country participants stressedthe need to question the currentdevelopment paradigm based on colonialand patriarchal values, and production forprofit rather than production forsustenance of life and livelihood.

The impact of globalization on fisheries,on artisanal fishworkers and on womenfishworkers was also debated.Globalization trends are eating intowomen’s spaces in fisheries, oftenconverting them from self-employedentrepreneurs involved in fish marketingand processing into inadequately

renumerated wage labourers in factoriescontrolled by large industrial groups ormultinational companies, trends verymuch in evidence in Thailand, thePhilippines and India.

The workshop ended with a commitmentto continue efforts towards defending andexpanding women’s spaces in fisheriesand in fishworkers’ organizations, infurther developing an understanding ofgender issues in fisheries with a focus onnurture’, rather than on ‘extraction’ and‘exploitation’, and in resolutely workingtowards a sustainable fishery and anartisanal way of life.

G

ender

This report has been written byChandrika Sharma of ICSF’s Madrasoffice


NGO Statement an Unsustainable Aquaculture

Rethinking aquaculture

In a statement to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development several NGOs urged for responsible aquaculture development

In recent years, aquaculturedevelopment has been repeatedlypromoted as a solution to meet

growing world food needs from fish.Traditional forms of aquaculture can, andhave, made substantial contributions tofood supplies in areas of the world wherefood needs are most acute.

However, recent patterns of aquaculturedevelopment have emphasized theproduction of high-value species forexport markets. In particular, the rapiddevelopment and expansion of intensiveaquaculture for shrimp has resulted inwidespread degradation of theenvironment, displacement of coastalfishing and farming communities, and anegative impact on local food suppliesand food security.

The FAO Code of Conduct for ResponsibleFisheries, under Article 9, urgesresponsible aquaculture development.National and regional implementation ofthe FAO Code, the Convention onBiological Diversity and other existinglaws and policies, must be pursued in amanner which ensures thatunsustainable aquaculture is prohibited,before there is more irreversible damage,loss of biodiversity, or harm to coastalcommunities.

The undersigned Non-governmentalOrganizations (NGOs) urge governmentsto:

• ensure that artisanal fisheries anddependent coastal communities,as well as their access tocommunity resources, are notadversely affected by aquaculturedevelopment or operations,including extensive,semi-intensive and intensiveaquaculture methods;

• ensure the use of environmentaland social impact assessmentsprior to aquaculture development,and regular, continuousmonitoring of the environmentaland social impacts of aquacultureoperations;

• ensure the protection of mangroveforests, wetlands and otherecologically sensitive coastalareas;

• prohibit the use of toxic andbio-accumulative compounds inaquaculture operations;

• apply the precautionary approachto aquaculture development;

• prohibit the pollution ofsurrounding areas resulting fromthe excessive discharge of organicwastes;

• prohibit the development and useof genetically modified organisms;

• prohibit the use of exotic or alienspecies;

• prohibit the use or salinization offreshwater supplies, includinggroundwater, important fordrinking or agriculture;

• prohibit the use in aquacultureoperations of feeds consisting offish that is, or could be, used asfood for people;

• prohibit the wholesale conversionof agricultural or cultivable land toaquaculture use;

• ensure that abandoned ordegraded aquaculture sites are

Doc

umen

t


ecologically rehabilitated and thatthe companies or industryresponsible bear the cost ofrehabilitation;

• ensure that the collection of larvaedoes not adversely affect speciesbiodiversity;

• ensure that aquaculture and othercoastal developments areaddressed in integrated coastalmanagement planning, whichshould include the meaningfulparticipation of all coastal usergroups;

• ensure the development ofaquaculture in a manner which iscompatible with the social,cultural and economic interests ofcoastal communities, as well asensure that such developments aresustainable, socially equitable andecologically sound; and,

• ensure that multilateraldevelopment banks, bilateral aidagencies, the UN Food andAgriculture Organization, andother relevant national andinternational organizations orinstitutions do not fund orotherwise promote aquaculturedevelopment inconsistent with theabove criteria.

This statement was presented onbehalf of the above mentionedNGOs by Sebastian Mathew of ICSFat the UN on I May 1996

R

eview

This statement has been endorsed by thefollowing NGOs:

• Accion Ecologica (Ecuador) • Christian Aid (UK)• Coalition of Environmental NGOs in

Bangladesh• Consumers Association of Penang

(Malaysia)• CODDEFFAGOLF (Honduras)• Desarrollo Ambiente y Sociedad

(Mexico)• Earth Island Institute (USA)• Environmental Defense Fund (USA)• Greenpeace International• Indigenous and Community Rights

Advocacy Forum (Papua NewGuinea)

• International Collective in Supportof Fishworkers

• International Network AgainstUnsustainable Aquaculture

• Mangrove Action Project• Movimento Nacional de Pescadores

Riberenos (Mexico)• Nijero Kori (Bangladesh)• Ocean Advocates (USA)• Orissa Krushak Mahasangh (India)• People’s Action Against Shrimp

Industry (India)• PREPARE (India)• Sahabat Alam Malaysia• Sierra Club Canada• Sea Turtle Restoration Project (USA)• Swedish Society for Nature

Conservation• Third World Network


FISHING FOR TRUTH: A Sociological Analysis of Northern Cod Stock Assessments from 1977-1990.Alan Christopher Finlayson. Institute of Social and Economic Research Publications.Newfoundland.1994. Pages 186.

Beyond scientific gospels

Fisheries science needs to be situated in a social context, if fisheries management is to work

In the 1980s, while they struggled to banshrimp trawling during the fish breedingseason of June, July and August, artisanalfishworkers in Kerala State, India used toask rhetorically: “What is the mostpolitically vexing question in Keraladuring the monsoon?” The answer wasanother question: “Where do the fisheslay their eggs?”

Whatever be the scientific ‘truth’ to thisquestion, any scientist who dared toventure an answer would risk stirring upa major confrontation between themilitant artisanal fishworkers’ unionsand the trawler owner lobby, much to thedislike of the politicians in the state whohad to please both groups to stay inpower. The result was that the questionnever got answered, although manyscientists working in government-fundedresearch organizations had worked fortheir Ph.Ds on this subject. This stoicsilence of the scientific communityprovoked the artisanal fishworkers todemonstrate before the country’s largeststate-supported fisheries researchinstitution with the chant:

You white-elephant scientists andresearchers You servants of capitalism The research you conduct: Is it to save the workers Or to serve the capitalists?

Chorus:We are the children of the seaWe know the secrets of the seaWe don’t need to be taught by anyone

Another country, another culture,another time. Yet Finlayson’s book isabout a similar context and similarconfrontation set in Canada. It is a

complex story of the role of science in thedecline of the Northern cod stocks. Themain claim of this brilliant work of‘forensic sociology’ is that all knowledge,including scientific knowledge, isinfluenced by social processes, making‘truth’ an elusive concept.

In eight dense but readable chapters, theauthor examines how presumablyobjective observations about the marinebiomass are mediated by what he calls‘interpretative flexibility’—the possibilityof reading different but, a priori, equallyplausible conclusions into a single dataset—because of the degree of uncertaintyabout the estimates of physical reality.

Through a wide range of searchingquestions during interviews, the author isable to elicit almost a collective confessionfrom fishery scientists that social andpolitical compulsions played a big role intheir interpretations. The author pointsout that one important reason for this isthat when big science is paid for by thestate, certain irrational social forces actstrongly on the scientists. They are notsure on whose side they are on, nor canthey act independently.

Views disregardedThe chapter I liked most is titled ‘Is Therea Place for Fishermen in FisheriesScience?’ In it, the author explains howCanadian scientists totally disregardedthe views of the inshore fishermen aboutthe state of the fish stocks because they feltthat “the inshore fishermen have verylittle to contribute to the solutions of thefundamental problems of stockassessment”, but considered the data fromthe offshore fishery to be “plentiful, denseand efficiently and inexpensivelycollected (and) easily quantified.”

Rev

iew


The author says that this attitude isnot because the individualscientists wanted to “wilfully

disregard” the views of the inshorefishermen as a “litany of mumbo-jumbowhich they bring forth each time they talkto you.” It was rather because the verycognitive structure of their modernscience did not permit them to incorporatesuch knowledge into their framework. Itis this epistemological superiority whichalienated the vast majority of the activeparticipants in the fishery from theinstitution which presumably had thepower to predict the future state of thefishery resources.

With the collapse of the Canadian codfishery in 1992, the warnings andpredictions of the inshore fishermen hadcome true. For scientists, this currentimpasse is more a “crisis of their ownexpectations (of their science), not a crisisin the state of the stocks.” For the inshorefishermen, it was a validation of theirmore holistic understanding of theecosystem and their prey-in-context.

Finlayson’s methodology of research and,more importantly, the way the materialcollected has been written up also deservea special word of praise. Finlayson hasvery ably used lengthy quotations fromthe persons he interviewed in the courseof his study.

Particularly noteworthy is the adroitmanner in which he has incorporated thewords of fishery scientist Jake Rice, whoprovided an extensive and challengingcritique of Finlayson in defence of thework and motivations of the Canadianfishery scientists. By appropriatelyreproducing transcripts of interviews,Finlayson preserves the context, flavourand nuances of arguments. Critics are thusgiven ample occasion to ‘talk’ to the readerand present their side of the story.

An important point which Finlaysonbrings out in the conclusion of his studymerits careful consideration. He feels thata complex social structure such as afishery has uncertainty writ large in everyaspect—be it stock predictions; theecological soundness of technologies; orthe way politicians talk and act. For sucha system to function effectively, theremust either be coercive authority or

substantial agreement among its membersabout both the policy and parameterswithin which issues will be resolved.Neither of these situations exists in mostof the crisis- and conflict-ridden fisheriesin the world today.

Moving towards a context of consensusshould be the aim. Fishery scientists maynever be able to know enough about fishand their ecosystems to make ‘correct’estimates and predictions. It wouldfollowfrom this that fisheriesmanagement can not be based onbiological sciences alone and should beacknowledged as a social process, wherethe essential problems are sociologicaland political.

It will not be necessary to recommend thisbook as essential reading for fishworkers.They have said all this in their ownlanguage several ‘times over in coastalcommunities worldwide—in Canada,Senegal, Norway, India and thePhilippines, to name a few countries.

But every fishery scientist would do wellto read this book because it does notdebunk fisheries science, but emphasizesthe need to place it within its socialcontext.

New understandingSuch an understanding will go miles increating the basis for an essential andrenewed co-operation between those wholabour to catch the fish and those whomake a living studying the fruits of thislabour.

This review by John Kurien, amember of ICSF, and AssociateFellow of the Centre forDevelopment Studies, Trivandrum,India

R

eview


Dying out

Optimists, stop smiling.If any confirmation isneeded that the world’smarine resources arestill threatened, in earlyMay, the World WideFund for Natureannounced the findingsof a workshop of 32scientists in London.

According to them, 131of the 152 fish speciesdiscussed faced possibleextinction, with 15considered criticallyendangered.

The workshop resultswill go into the 1996Red List of ThreatenedAnimals, to be issuedlater this year b theInternational Union forthe Conservation ofNature and NaturalResources.

Dwindling

As worried are officialsof the Ministry ofAgriculture, Forestry,and Fisheries of Japan.

They have justannounced that thecountry’s fisheryproduction declined in1995 for the seventhconsecutive year.

The total production in1995 was 7.47 milliontones, about 8 per centless than in 1994. Most

of this drop sprungfrom huge declines insardine and mackerelcatch.

Bye-bye, catch

No wonder resourcesare being fast depleted.According topreliminary data leakedfrom a report ontrawlers, beingprepared under contractfor the CanadianDepartment of Fisheriesand Oceans, the BritishColumbia trawl fleethas been responsible forexcessive by-catch.

Activists of theenvironmental group,Greenpeace, used thispiece of information tocriticize the Canadiangovernment.

IIIiquidity

Overfishing alone isclearly not the problem.In a recent report titled‘Liquid Assets’, the USEnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA)stated that 40 per cent ofAmerican rivers, lakesand streams are toopolluted for fishing orswimming and thatone-third of all shellfishbeds are closed due tocontamination.

Recoupingelsewhere

To let fish stocksrecover, the Egyptiangovernment announceda ban on all fishingwithin the 12-mileterritorial waters of theMediterranean Sea inEgypt during May.

And, to make sureEgyptian fishermen do

not suffer too much, thegovernment proposedto compensate for anyloss of fishing time.

According to officials,the government offeredto buy fish from thesefishermen at higherprices, once fishingresumed in June.

Rush! FreeSalmon !

The poor prices offeredby processors wereenough to make salmon

fishers in Californiaprotest.

Rather than sell at lowprices, they stoppedfishing and even gavesalmon away free to thepublic. Processors saythat the price slump isbecause of too muchsalmon in the worldmarket.

Cut down

Too many cooks spoilthe broth. Equally, toomany agencies spoilsupervision. That seemsto be the thinking of theGovernment of SouthKorea.

If recently announcedthat it will merge threeexisting bodies- theMaritime and PortAdministration, theFisheriesAdministration, and theMaritime Police

Administration-to forma new Ministry ofMaritime Affairs.

Turtles, comehome

The Philippines andMalaysia haveconcluded an agreementon a new internationalsanctuary for sea turtlesin the Turtle Islands onthe Malaysia-Philippineborder, 25 milesnorthwest of Sandakanin Malaysia’s SabahState. This area is animportant nesting sitefor green and hawksbillturtles.

Russian rights

Last month, Russiasigned a bilateralagreement with the USwhich recognizes thatall fishing within theinternational waters(’peanut hole’) in thecentral Sea of Okhotsk,completely surroundedby the Russian EEZ,should be conducted inline with RussianFederation rights, dutiesand interests,

The US also agreed toobserve all Russianefforts to preservefishery resources in thearea and co-operatewith Russia in actionsagainst fishing vesselsof third countries.

Scallop follow-up

To accommodate userconflicts at theoriginally proposed site,the New Englandfishery ManagementCouncil has approved

News Round-up


an alternative locationfor the Westport SeaScallop Project of theMassachusetts InstituteGrant Program.

Final regulations on thenine sq.mile site in theoffshore EEZ areexpected soon. Theapproval process for theproject spanned morethan two years.

Chinese checker

Don’t even think aboutfishing in areas of thesouthern Yellow andChina Seas. The ChineseMinistry of Agriculturehas clamped amoratorium on alloffshore fishing in theseparts during July andAugust. The aim is toprotect fish stocks,especially hairtail. Asimilar ban wasimposed last year too.

Sharing herring

The negotiations did notinclude quota claimedunilaterally by theEuropean Union (EU).

Norway, Russia,Iceland and the FaroeIslands have signed anagreement on this year’sharvest quotas forfishing in internationalwaters.

These quotas relate tostocks of herring whichspawn in Norwegianwaters. Under thisagreement, a total of 1.1million tones will beharvested.

Drifting intotrouble

The EU FisheriesCommissioner, EmmaBonino, has asked Italyto respect internationalregulations onlarge-scale drift-nets orface possible US tradesanctions on Italianfishery products.Bonino reported that,

during June, EU fisheryenforcement patrolsfound that 15 of 16Italian vessels inspectedwere using drift-netsaveraging twice thepermissible length.

Reclaiming the sea

Off the tiny island ofMer in the Torres Straitoff northern Australia,the islanders havestarted to reclaim theirrights to the seasurrounding their home.

Commercial fishermenfrom Australia whocome seeking coral troutin the reefs around Merare chased away by Merinhabitants, members ofthe powerfulMalo-Bomai cult.

Other parts of theTorres Strait have beenoverfished and so, theMer islanders are keento protect what is left.Only then will they beable to sustain acommercial fishingventure and hope forself-sufficiency.

A Conference thatWas...

The beautiful island ofVega in Norway wasthe setting for aconference late lastmonth on Local,Regional and GlobalManagement andDistribution of MarineResources.

Organized by EUROSTEP,a coalition of secularNGOs of Europe, andNorwegian People’sAid, it attracted around50 participants

representing countrieslike India, Nicaragua,Senegal, South Africa,Chile, Iceland,Netherlands, Irelandand Norway, as well asthe FAO.

Their discussionsfocused on the EU’sCommon FisheriesPolicy and the role ofNGOs in ensuringchanges in worldfisheries, apart fromgeneral overviews of theglobal fisheries crisisand developmentprogrammes.

...a workshop tocome

ICSF plans to hold aSouth Asian Workshopon Coastal AreaManagement in Madras,India between 26September and 1October to focus on theinstitutional, legal andpolicy dimensions of thesubject.

Apart fromdocumentation, theworkshop will reviewlegislation andinstitutions relevant tocoastal resourcesmanagement, from theperspective ofsmall-scale fisheries.

The six-day programmewill be split into twoparts. The first willcomprise a four-dayinteractive session.

The second will be atwo-day symposium,which will attempt tohelp start a dialoguebetween policymakersand fishworkers.

The workshop will tryto conclude with acommon statement ofconcern.

...and yet anotherone

The World AquacultureSociety (WAS) is

organizing a specialsession on sustainabilityas part of the WorldAqua.‘97 Conference inSeattle, Washington, US.

The two-day conferencewill concentrate on fourtopics of interest:integrated coastal zonemanagement; policyguidelines, regulationsand environmentalimpact statements;sustainability indicesand the quantification ofsustainability; and bestmanagement practices.

In conducting thisconference, WAS hopesto bring together thebroadest possiblespectrum ofperspectives andinterests on the subject.

Giant moves

Growing into a fishinggiant is Resource GroupInternational (RGI),based in Norway andsteered by partners KjellInge Rokke and BjornRune Gjelsten, who tookthe company to aturnover of US$ onebillion last year.

On the heels of a spateof acquisitions, RGI’srecent US$ 28.5 millionissue of shares washeavily oversubscribed.

Especially strong in thesurimi market, RGI hasvessels operating fromthe Russian Far East tothe South Atlantic.

Rokke believes that theseafood business is acyclical one and RGI’sstrength lies in itsdiversified productrange.


~ oO!Jsgo to sea as soon as tfteJ can oe ofany service to tfieir

fat1iers... ~t 18years ofage, tfteJ oecome men aruf, wnenever tfteJacquire tfie sfiare ofaooat, tfteJ marry, as it is a TrUl)(jm Witli tIiem

'that no man can oe a fisher, aruf want a Wife.' '1Jiey marry,

t1ierifore, at an earCy age, aruf tIie ooject of tlieir cfwice is a[wags

afisnerman 's aaugfiter, wfio isgeneralfyfrom18 to 22years ofage.

'1fiese women feaJiamost faoorious life, aruffrequentCygofrom 10

to25mires into tfie country, Witli afieavy loaaoffisfi. .. '1Jiey assist

in a[[ tIie faoour connecteiWitli tfie ooats on sfiore, arufsfiowgreat

a~ty in oaiting tfie fiooR§ arufarranging tIie lines.

- from an account from Ralhven in Banffshire. in 1842,quoted in Fishing and Whaling by Angus Martin

•

ICSF 1$ an international HGOworking on issues that COI1CE1mlistlworkers tle world over. It IsatIilaled to the Economic andSoaal Coln:::iI 01 tle UN and ison lO'S Speaal lJsl 01 NonGcwerme1IalInlemaln'lalOr·garizabons. It has also beenW'anted lialSOfl Slalus by fACI.Registered IIGeneva, ICSf hasoffices J1 Madras and Brussels.As a global network 01 commU1ll1y organizers. teachers.\ectrlicians. researchers a-Jdsc:ientists. CSF"S ac:Iivities ~canpass ITlOfUlomg an::l At

searc:h,~ aM tranng.eatllIil91Sand actICflprogrownmes,and alsocomrmncatbns.SAMUORA REPORT invites coo'trlbutions and responses. All(Xlrrespondence shook! be addressedlo IC$F's Madras otfioB

The opnalS and posrtms~essed iI 1he articles aselhose oIlhe authors c:oocemedand 00 not necessariry represent the official views 01 lCS~

PublisMdbysebastian Mathew lor

International CoIlecti'1e in Support 01 Fishworkers27 College Road, Madras 600 006, India

Telephone (91) 44-827 5303 Facsmie (91) 44-825 4457E-rnatmadfas.IistJleIOaxcessJl8lil

CSF Brussels Office:65 Rue GriWy, 8-1000 Brussels, BeIgun

Telephone (32)2-2181538 Facsinlle (32)2·2178305E·ma~:gillelpOmail.interpac.be

Edited bySoI.IIUlll4 Edilonal

Illustrated byJames S. Jairaj

Cover photograph:

r~ """""'"Photogr8phs courtesy of

Brian O'RiOrdan, llOBf'JoI'n Kurien, sebastian Matnew

Additional news courtesy ofGene 8u<:X, Ccngressioflll Researdl service

Printed atNagar.Jjand~. Ma<hs

SAfIIIIOAA Ra'OIlT No. 15 July 1996FaA lJI,llTEC C~cut.AT1OI'l ONlY

.~....... .... ...~;

international collective in support of fishworkers · it takes two hands to clap and when these...

Documents