international collective in support of fishworkersaquaticcommons.org/17569/1/samudra 31.pdf · the...

INTERNATIONAL COLLECTIVE IN SUPPORT OF FISHWORKERS

MicHAEl FRANCis BEllivEAU 1942,2002REd TidE iN KENyA

FisHERiES ANd SubsidiES ANd TRAdECOMMUNlly FisHERiES iN CAMbodiA

SEAWEEd fOR HEAlTHGlobAliZATioN ANd AsiAN FisH RiES

FATE or MARiNE MAMMAlsNEWS RouNd,up

ContentsSAMUDRA No. 31 MARCH 2002 TRIANNUAL REPORT OF ICSF

COMMENT 1

EAST AFRICAHigh hopes, red tides 3

CAMBODIAFishing disarmed 6

WEST AFRICADon’t jump the fence 13

NUTRITIONSeaweed power 19

SENEGALA sea change 21

REPORTGlobally fishy business 24

ANALYSISSome more equal than others 28

ANALYSISGive some, take some 35

REPORTIdes of March 38

NOTICEJust out 43

JAPANSuccess comes calling 44

OBITUARYFarewell, true friend 47

NEWS ROUND-UPPhilippines, Indonesia, MexicoGhana, India, US 50

Comment

Behind bars again

Not so very long ago, we welcomed the unilateral move by the Government of India torelease all Pakistani fishermen from Indian jails, and the decision to turn back, ratherthan arrest, Pakistani fishermen transgressing into Indian waters (Comment, SAMUDRAReport No. 29, August 2001). The subsequent period witnessed the release of arrestedfishermen from both countries. In late October 2001, Pakistan repatriated all 196 Indianfishermen, along with 32 of their boats. Around the same time, the Indian governmentreleased 202 Pakistani fishermen and 21 boats. Many of those released had alreadyspent significant periods of time in prisons, some even a few years. Those held incustody were mostly small-scale fishermen who have traditionally fished these waters,with the primary aim of securing a livelihood. The Indian and Pakistani governments’moves raised hopes of small-scale fishermen being able to return to a ‘normal’ life.

A similar promise seemed to emerge during the Sri Lankan Prime Minister’s visit toIndia in December 2001. Meetings with Indian authorities touched upon the need toevolve a mechanism to ease the harassment of fishermen from both the countries whoinadvertently stray into each other’s waters. A possible long-term solution of creatinga ‘joint fishing zone’ on either side of the maritime boundary was mooted, according tomedia reports.

However, the beginning of 2002 reveals no cause for optimism. The recurrence ofarrests of fishermen in the adjacent waters of India and Pakistan in the early monthsof 2002 is disturbing. According to P. V. Khokhari of the National Fishworkers Forum,as of 27 March 2002, 39 Indian fishing boats with a crew of 229 fishermen, and twoPakistani boats with a crew of 12 fishermen, had been arrested. Similarly, betweenFebruary and March 2002, 29 Indian fishermen were arrested by the Sri Lankan Navy.According to The Hindu, this was the first time in several months that the Sri LankanNavy was once again arresting Indian fishermen in its waters. All these fishermen areinnocent victims of the ongoing political disputes between these neighbouringcountries.

In this context, the new agreement signed between the Philippines and Indonesia isnoteworthy (see News Round-up, pg. 50). Filipino fishermen targeting tuna can now,for the first time in history, legally fish in certain parts of the Sulawesi Sea and the PacificOcean in the east and portions of the Indian Ocean in the west, which form part ofIndonesia’s exclusive economic zone. They can land their catch at several Indonesianports. This agreement benefits both countries.

It is time that South Asian governments respond in similarly constructive ways to theproblems faced by small-scale fishermen from neighbouring countries fishing in theirwaters, constantly exposed to the threat of arrest and imprisonment totally inap-propriate to the ‘offence’ committed by them. Several concrete suggestions wereproposed by participants at the conference Forging Unity: Coastal Communities andthe Indian Ocean’s Future, organized by ICSF and the International Ocean Institute inChennai, India (see Document, SAMUDRA Report No. 30, December 2001, pg. 32).

It is not as if there are no solutions for the woes of small-scale fishers who are detainedand punished for no real blame of their own. It is just that States still do not regard thesemarginalized populations as worthy of serious concern. Small-scale fishers are citizenswith inalienable human rights. States must treat them with honour, dignity and com-passion, and not send them to jail for trying to eke out a living.

COMMENT

SAMUDRA MARCH 2002 1

Fish kills

High hopes, red tides

A ‘red tide’ or Harmful Algal Bloom killed fish along the north coast of Kenya and southern Somalia in the last week of January 2002

The World Wide Fund for Nature(WWF) has been managing theKiunga Marine National Reserve

(KMNR) with the Kenya Wildlife Service(KWS) since 1996, and was extremelyconcerned when reports of dead fishbegan coming in on Friday, 25 January.WWF staff investigated and confirmed thereports, observing so many dead fish thatfisherman were having difficulty steeringtheir boats through them. Reef fish andmoray eels had died in huge numbers, andpelagic species and turtles were alsoaffected. Local fishermen were shockedand confused, and wondered why Allahwas punishing them.

The same thing was happening along thesouthern Somali coast. Rumours aboutAmericans poisoning the water, andSomalia testing biological weaponsspread through the artisanal fishingcommunities in northern Kenya. US forceswere conducting pre-planned exercises inthe area, but had neglected to inform localvillages, adding to their suspicions.

The KMNR is a remote and isolated area,north of Lamu Island and just south of theSomali border. It has been a marineprotected area since 1979, and wasdesignated a UN Biosphere Reserve (withthe nearby Dodori National Reserve) in1980. The 11,000 Bajun and Boni peopleliving in, and adjacent to, the reserve, fishthe local waters for subsistence and trade.They make a living from selling reeffinfish, lobsters, shark and sea cucumbersto dealers from Lamu, Malindi andMombasa, for hotels in Kenya and forinternational markets.

Fishing licences are obtained from theDistrict Fisheries office in Lamu, or otherports along the coast. There are norestrictions on the area that can be fishedor the gear that can be used, so anyone can

fish in the reserve. Commercial trawlersare supposed to stay at least 5 nauticalmiles out, but often claim they haveauthorization to fish inshore. With limitedresources, it is difficult for the DistrictFisheries to challenge this, and restrictlocal resources to local fishers.

The Bajun people are of mixed Swahili,Arab and Bantu ancestry, and live alongthe shores of northern Kenya andsouthern Somalia. During the northeastmonsoon (November to March), theirmain economic activity is fishing, thoughmany turn to subsistence farming(slash-and-burn) or animal husbandryduring the rougher conditions of thesoutheast monsoon. Mangroveharvesting, and collection of lobsters, seacucumbers, and cowries continuesthroughout the year.

As stocks are depleted elsewhere inKenya, there is increasing pressure on thereserve to meet local and internationaldemand. The ’old ways’ have beendiscarded in favour of more fashionablegill-netting, beach- and purse-seiningtechniques with nylon nets (many withundersize mesh that fishers cannot affordto replace). Yet traditional fish trappingmethods using uzio funnels, madema trapsand nets woven from doum palm leaveshave proved more efficient, and are lessdestructive to the reefs and seagrass beds.

Subsistence purposesThe Bajuns use the kimia method to catchlobsters—young men skin dive at low tideto spear octopus, using them to scarelobsters out of their holes. The majority offishers work as teams, but spear-fishingand hand-lining are also practised byindividuals, mainly for subsistencepurposes. Naturally, when localfishermen began to observe fish dying inlarge numbers, they feared for their

E

ast Africa


livelihoods. Within a week of the firstreports, despite protests from localfishermen, the District Fisheries officebanned fishing until the reason for thedeaths could be established. Dealers fromLamu and Malindi tried to bypass thearea and buy fish from Somalia instead.

Meanwhile, WWF/KWS, theFisheries Department andKenya Marine and Fisheries

Research Institute had collected waterand tissue samples to send to Nairobi,Mombasa and South Africa for analysis.A red tide was suspected due todiscolouration of the water, butconditions were unusual. HAB (HarmfulAlgal Bloom) usually occurs when wateris warm and calm, but the weather hadbeen windy, the sea rough, and no rise insea temperature was observed. Indeed,some fishermen had commented on thewater feeling cold. This may have beencaused by upwelling. For most of theyear, the KMNR area experiences anortherly current. However, during thenortheast monsoon, the Somali Currentreverses and flows south, colliding withthe northerly East African CoastalCurrent. The point of the convergence isvariable, but the upwellings generated offthe KMNR are what make the areaecologically unique in Kenya—and createrich fishing grounds.

For the first few days, many thousands offish died in the north of the reserve near

Kiunga, and then hundreds more insoutherly areas like Kiwaiyu andMkokoni a few days later. Much smallernumbers were later reported from Pate,Lamu and Manda islands, but themajority of deaths occurred within aweek.

However, no more dead fish does notequate to no red tide. Harmful algae cankill marine creatures very quickly at theirhighest concentration. When the tidebegins to diminish, the toxins continue toaccumulate in filter feeders such asshellfish, reaching high enoughconcentrations to pose a serious healthrisk to humans, and remaining in the foodchain for some time after the red tidedisperses.

Unfortunately, there is no way to tellcontaminated fish/shellfish fromunaffected ones without laboratory tests.Red tide algae produce neurotoxins,which attack the nervous system, and areamong the most potent known to man.Symptoms of eating contaminatedshellfish may include tingling sensations,nausea, dizziness, diarrhoea, and insevere cases can lead to respiratory failure,paralysis and even death.

Health workersThere are no doctors and only fivequalified nurses, five health workers andfive dispensaries for the 11,000 peopleliving in and adjacent to the KMNR; so it is

Eas

t Afr

ica

4 SAMUDRA MARCH 2002

fortunate that shellfish is not part of thelocal diet. However, it is very popularwith tourists, and local hoteliers andpeople with holidays booked in Kenyawere eager for more information. Fish andcrustaceans rarely accumulate enoughtoxin to cause major health problems, butuntil lab results were received, fishers andconsumers were advised not to take anyrisks.

It was more than two weeks after theinitial reports, that we got someresults. Dr Grant Pitcher at the

University of Western Cape in SouthAfrica, an expert in red tide events, hadidentified in the water samples theGymnodinium species (a dinoflagellatephytoplankton), which is a recognizedfish killer. Fish kills are not a newoccurrence in the western Indian Ocean,and marine scientists and managers fromZanzibar, Réunion and the Shimoni areaof Kenya have recorded several fish andcrustacean kills in the last few years. Mostof these have been associated with veryhigh dissolved oxygen concentrations inthe water rather than red tides.

The real concern is the impact on themarine environment and the local fishingcommunities it supports. The ban onfishing was lifted on 11 February, butshellfish will be off limits for some time.No compensation or assistance has beenoffered, and the media interest generatedmay deter consumers from buying localseafood and tourists from coming to thearea in the future. Local tourism has beenlimited by isolation and security problems(armed Somali bandits roaming inland)and has been low-impactenvironmentally. Hotels have contributedto both employment and education(donating to local primary schools, forexample), as well as providing anadditional market for fish and otherseafood. The long-term damage to theeconomy and ecology is impossible topredict. The fishing ban was imposed bythe Kenya Fisheries Department, but localfishers are suspicious of WWF’s role inhandling the crisis, and some believe itwas a ploy to turn the reserve into amarine park and ban utilization of naturalresources. This has never been theintention. The reserve objective is toconserve the terrestrial, coastal andmarine habitats, flora and fauna of the

KMNR area and maintain theirproductivity in a manner that sustainsboth local livelihoods and the nationaleconomy in the long term. Local peopleare supportive of measures to ensure thelong-term sustainability of theirlivelihoods, but the red tide has dashedsome of their high hopes.

E

ast Africa

This report comes from Deb Pople,a volunteer for WWF Kiunga. Forfurther details, contact Julie Church([email protected] orjulie.chuch@ eikmail.com), ProjectExecutant, WWF Kiunga


Community fisheries

Fishing disarmed

Community fisheries development is taking off in Cambodia, asdemonstrated in the Tonle Sap Lake in the province of Siem Reap

In 2001 the Government of Cambodiaadopted community fisheries as anew form of resource management. A

project called “Participatory NaturalResource Management in the Tonle SapRegion” has been working to develop andpromote community-based naturalresource management on the north shoreof the Tonle Sap lake in the province ofSiem Reap. This project has beeninstrumental in developing thecommunity fisheries approach and hassparked off a reform process within theinland fishery sector that has resulted inaround 536,000 hectares (ha) ofcommercial fishing ground—equivalentto 56 per cent of all commercial fishinggrounds—being released to localcommunities for community fisheriesmanagement.

The Tonle Sap Lake is the “Great Lake” ofCambodia. During the dry season, itcovers some 250,000 ha, but as theMekong River rises at the start of themonsoon, the drainage of the lakereverses direction until some 1.25 millionha are underwater several months later.Surrounding the Tonle Sap Lake areextensive forests and shrub lands, whichprovide food, shelter and spawninghabitat to many of the over 100 fishspecies found in the lake. The uniqueannual hydrological cycle of the lake hascreated an exceptionally productiveecosystem for fish and wildlife. The highproductivity of the lake was central to thedevelopment of the Angkor Empire amillennium ago and today still serves asthe foundation for development in theregion.

The project “Participatory NaturalResource Management in the Tonle SapRegion” was drafted in 1994 to addressconcerns over rapid clearing of theinundated forest ecosystem and

subsequent threats to productivity. Theproject is funded by the Government ofBelgium and implemented through theFood and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations (FAO). The project hasbeen of a pilot nature, with the first phase(1995-1997) focusing on research and datacollection on fishing communities and theflora and fauna of the Tonle Sap Lake(Figure 1).

The second phase (1998-2001) expandedthe target area throughout the provinceand focused on field implementation ofcommunity-based natural resourcemanagement in both the forestry andfishery sectors. The project has nowentered a third phase that will focus onconsolidation and standardization ofapproaches for both community fisheriesand community forestry, and willemphasize training for government stafffrom around the Tonle Sap Lake topromote appropriate strategies andtechniques.

Fisheries on the lake have beentraditionally managed through a systemof fishing concessions (fishing lots), whichwere auctioned at two-year intervals. Thissystem dates back to 100 years of Frenchcolonial occupation. It was a systemdesigned to extract revenue from the lake,while providing some degree ofprotection to the inundated forest habitat.

Harvest mentalityHowever, in practice, the system wasmanaged to generate maximum revenue,which involved sub-leasing andsub-sub-leasing of a given fishing lot. Thelarge amounts of money involved dictateda total harvest mentality. For years, fishinglots were jealously guarded by armedmilitias and a tense armed atmosphereprevailed around the lake. Consequently,the thousands of fishermen living on the

Cam

bodi

a


lake and/or on its borders were subjectedto threats, intimidation and gunfire whenstraying too close to fishing lotboundaries. By the late 1990s, some 80 percent of the entire dry season lakeshore wasunder the control of 18 fishing lots.

In mid-1999, the governmentconverted all the large fishing lots onthe lake into so-called ’research lots’

under four-year contract agreements,without auction. This further empoweredfishing lot operators, and many illegallyexpanded their lot boundaries, furtherdiminishing access to fishing grounds forthe numerous subsistence fishermen.

At the same time, however, thedisintegration of the Khmer Rouge regimeand the cessation of armed conflict in thecountry gave fishing communities theconfidence to speak out against theinjustices of the fishing lot system. Thenumber of conflicts reported increasedexponentially.

In 2000, as more and more conflicts werebeing reported in the news, the issue offisheries management on the lake gainedthe attention of the donor communitythrough their working group on naturalresources. A dialogue was initiatedbetween the donors and the governmentto start addressing the reported problemsassociated with the fishing lots system andthe increasing conflicts between localpeople and fishing lots.

The opportunity for reform opened inOctober 2000, when the Prime Ministervisited Siem Reap to provide aid to floodvictims. After discussions with localofficials regarding conflicts betweenfishermen and fishing lots, the PrimeMinister announced the release of 8,000 ha(from the 84,000 ha under fishing lots inSiem Reap province) to local communitiesfor community management. A complaintagainst this decision from the DirectorGeneral of Fisheries resulted in hisremoval, and a commission wassanctioned to conduct a more thoroughreview of conflicts within the inlandfishery sector. The commission heldmeetings with fishing communities inSiem Reap and, later, around the entirelake, and asked the people what theywanted. Their demands soared and byFebruary it was agreed to release 56 percent of the entire area under fishing lots inCambodia (536,289 ha) at the end of thefishing season in June 2001. Communitiesgained immediate access to fishinggrounds taken from lots that werereduced in size. For lots that were to beabolished entirely, the lot owners werepermitted to fish out the season. Fisheryreform became the mantra of the day.

New leadershipChanges were occurring rapidly and asthe new leadership in the FisheryDepartment scrambled to address the newchallenges, in February 2001 the PrimeMinister ordered all fishery staff back to

C

ambodia


their offices for two months, effectivelyopening the lake to fishing by anyone andany means.

It was ’open season’ as never seenbefore. No one was permitted toenforce laws against illegal fishing

and any size of gear was acceptable,without licence fees. Everyone wentfishing. People who had never fishedbefore were down on the lake. Push-netsmounted on the front of large boatsbecame standard, and they soon emptiedthe fish sanctuaries. For the fishing lotsthat were to be released, this was theirfinal fishing season and, therefore, “takeeverything” was the attitude. The lakehas never been fished so thoroughly asbetween February and May 2001. Thewealthy fishermen and businessmenbenefited, while the poor fishingcommunities watched their resourcesbeing stripped before their eyes. Therapid depletion of fisheries resourcesaround the lake left the fishingcommunities requesting for assistance toestablish some form of control andmanagement over the resources. Thestage was set for community-basedfishery development.

The FAO project in Siem Reap hadestablished some 33 community forestrysites by early 2001, with seven sites,totaling around 10,000 ha, located in theTonle Sap Lake. These were in theopen-access fishing grounds located

between the seven existing fishing lots. ByFebruary 2001 it was decided that four ofthe seven Siem Reap fishing lots would beabolished and that the remaining threewould be reduced by at least 50 per cent.This meant that around 62,000 ha offishing grounds would be released to thelocal communities.

When the Fishery Department staff wereordered off the Lake and back to theiroffices, the project received permissionfrom the new Director General of Fisheriesto provide facilitator training to thefishery officers from Siem Reap. After aone-week training on facilitationtechniques and concepts of communityresource management, 15 of the 28 officerstrained elected to work in communityfisheries. These 15 were interviewed andseven were selected for further trainingand sent to the field as facilitators,alongside previously trained project staff.Seven two-person teams, one for eachfishing lot, began work in April, and theyhave continued to the present time. Theteams spend Monday through Friday inthe field and return to the ProvincialFishery Department on Friday afternoonsfor a meeting with the Provincial Directorof Fisheries and project staff to discusswhat was accomplished during the weekand to plan the next week’s activities.

Local meetingsThe facilitation teams began by meetingwith local authorities to discuss the

Cam

bodi

a


concept of community fisheries and togather information on who the primaryusers of a specific fishing ground are.

The facilitators then visited eachvillage and held discussions withthe people about resource use to

accurately identify primary andsecondary (seasonal) users. ParticipatoryResource Assessment (PRA) wasconducted in each location, andinformation collected from all segments(old, young, male, female) of each village.Through this exercise, problems,constraints and opportunities wereidentified for each location. Subsequentmeetings and workshops were held ateach village, and, eventually, each villageelected a village fisheries managementcommittee to represent the people of thatspecific village.

After village fisheries managementcommittees were elected and the initialdraft rules and regulations of resource usewere drafted, a large workshop was heldwith all village representatives and localauthorities and a central managementcommittee was elected. Members of thecentral management committee thenelected their own chairman, deputy,secretary and treasurer from amongmembers. Also, some persons from thecentral committee were chosen to be incharge of protection, while others weremade responsible for extension within thecommunity. The project has encouragedthe participation of women in the centralmanagement committees, as well as in thevillage committees. Local commune chiefsserve as advisors but cannot be membersof the committees.

Rules and regulations of resource use areformulated at the village level, and arediscussed and negotiated into a commonset of rules and regulations by the centralcommittee. These by-laws covereverything, from types and size of fishinggear permitted, timing of use andplacement, protection of wildlife and theinundated forest, and associated fines forviolations. Each site is mapped anddemarcated to inform outsiders of theboundaries of the community fishery site.Some communities have divided theprotection responsibilities for the resourceinto village-allocated areas, under acommon set of rules and regulations,

while other sites have agreed to protectand manage the resource in common.

As this process was taking place, projectstaff travelled to meet other secondary orseasonal users in villages and communesat a distance from the resource, in somecases in other provinces. Thedevelopment of community fisheries wasdiscussed with all identified secondaryusers, who were invited to attendworkshops with the primary users toparticipate in the discussion of boundariesand rules and regulations. In all cases, thesecondary users are being permittedaccess, but under the approved rules andregulations of each site.

A key element has been to keep theDistrict Governors involved in all theworkshops and to also have the ProvincialDirector of Fisheries participate in all theworkshops. This establishes legitimacy ofthe community fisheries developmentprocess and builds confidence among theparticipants.

There are now 10 central managementcommittees overseeing protection andmanagement of around 108,000 ha ofinundated forest/fishing grounds withinSiem Reap province (Figure 2). The peopleand committees are taking their newresponsibilities very seriously and areactively patrolling their areas to stopdestructive fishing practices, such aselectric fishing, and other illegal activities,ranging from cutting trees in the forest topoaching wildlife. They have beenconfiscating illegal fishing gear andcharging fines according to their rules andregulations. Provincial FisheryDepartment staff, who are responsible forlaw enforcement in each district, assist thecommunities to enforce their rules andregulations. Tens of thousands of illegallycaptured fish fry have been released backto the lake, as have monkeys, turtles andsnakes that the communities confiscatedfrom poachers.

Political challengeThe communities have gained confidencein their ability to protect and manage theirresources. However, the recent election ofcommune chiefs in February 2002disrupted the development process, as thethree major political parties indirectlyencouraged illegal activities and

C

ambodia


disrespect for law enforcement. Tostrengthen control, the project’s focus, forthe next couple of months, will be onvillage-level extension and expansion ofmanagement committees for greaterinvolvement in both management andenforcement.

Also, during the next couple ofmonths, the facilitators will betrained in preparing

management plans. The first five-yearoperational management plans will bedrafted by June. These plans will assessboth forest and fish resources, and defineactions to not only protect and managethe resources but to increase their overallproductivity.

Community fisheries development ishappening at a rapid pace in response tothe release of over 500,000 ha of fishinggrounds to local communities in 2001.The government wants all of these landsto come under the control of localcommunities and not be left in anopen-resource situation.

The Prime Minister started this processand wants to see it develop successfully.He has instructed the Department ofFisheries to draft a sub-decree forcommunity fisheries, whilesimultaneously telling it to implementcommunity fisheries now and not waitfor the sub-decree to be finalized.

The sub-decree was drafted in mid-2001,through a consultative process withfishing communities and other officialsfrom around the country. The draft is stillbeing discussed and revised.Simultaneously, a new Fishery Law forthe country is being drafted.

The Department of Fisheries hasre-organized itself to address the newdemands of community fisheriesdevelopment. It has established a newcommunity fisheries section in its centraland provincial offices. The government istaking its new responsibilities seriouslyand is seeking additional assistance fromdonors for the extensive amount ofcommunity fisheries developmentrequired around the country.

The project ‘Participatory NaturalResource Management in the Tonle SapRegion’ will continue to supportcommunity fisheries developmentthroughout its third phase through April2004. During this time, the projectobjectives are to:

• support and ensure establishmentof community fisheriesthroughout the province of SiemReap;

• strengthen and standardize theprocess of community forestry inupland forests;

Cam

bodi

a


• provide training to fisheries,forestry and environment stafffrom around the Tonle Sap Lake incommunity-based naturalresource management andextension; and

• implement a focusedenvironmental education andextension programme throughoutthe fisheries domain in support ofcommunity fisheriesdevelopment.

The project will continue implementationof a number of activities in support ofcommunity-based natural resourcemanagement, including aquacultureextension, seedling production andagroforestry extension, horticulturedevelopment, rural credit andincome-generating activities. Within thecommunity fisheries sector, greateremphasis will be placed on fish processingand marketing by local communities. Inall activities, the project emphasizes therole of women.

As always, there are questions regardingthe sustainability of project activities afterthe current phase of the project.Empowerment of the people will last;however, the ability of the government tosupport field activities is questionable.The reality in Cambodia is that thegovernment is poor and is currentlyunable to pay its civil servants sufficientsalaries; nor does it have funds for fieldactivities. Extensive governmentalreforms are under way and are expectedto eventually establish a properfunctioning civil service. However, thiswill take time. For the present, donorsupport is needed. Currently, the AsianDevelopment Bank, in collaboration withUNDP and the Global EnvironmentalFacility, is preparing a proposal to fundthe fourth phase of the FAO Siem Reapproject and to expand activities to theremaining four provinces bordering theTonle Sap Lake. This is needed and timely,as the project in Siem Reap has alwaysbeen considered a pilot activity that mustone day move around the lake.

The process of community fisheriesdevelopment in the Siem Reap provincehas been developed by the project over thepast four years, primarily in the upland

forest areas. It is being adapted to issuesspecific to community fisheries and isbeing applied rapidly due to the urgentneed to establish community control overthe areas released from fishing lots. Insummary, the process is as follows

1) Contact with local authorities: • Letters of authorization are

provided from the provincialauthorities and delivered to thedistrict governors by thefacilitation teams.

• Objectives and work involved areclearly explained.

• The district governor and otherauthorities (military/police) arekept informed and involved in theprocess.

2) Identification of users• Primary and secondary users are

identified through localauthorities, village chiefs and localfishermen.

• Discussions are held to ensureaccuracy of information.

3) Participatory Resource AssessmentFor each site, a PRA is conducted with allthe primary and secondary usersregarding resource use, supply anddemand, conflicts, etc.

4) Village meetingsThese are held in each village to:

• discuss PRA results and reviewsketch maps;

• define the resource area thatindividual villages use and wantto manage;

• elect village representatives to avillage-level community fisherycommittee;

• define objectives of resourcemanagement; and

• draft rules and regulations.

5) Central workshopsThese are held with village committeemembers, commune and provincial

C

ambodia


authorities to elect a central committeewith representatives from each village to:

• clearly define the resourceboundaries; and

• name those responsible forprotection activities and extensionwork.

6) Demarcation and mappingCommunity fisheries resources aredefined and mapped with globalpositioning system (GPS).

Demarcation is done with painted poles,if needed.

7) Rules and regulationsThese are finalized for each communityfisheries site by the central committeesand made public through maps to informall other potential users of the locationand user obligations for a given resource.

The rules and regulations are endorsedand signed by the central committee, thedistrict governor, the Provincial Directorof Fisheries and by the ProvincialDirector of the Ministry of Agriculture,Forestry and Fisheries.

8) Management plansThe central management committee, inconsultation with village committees andfishermen in general, drafts a five-yearoperational plan that defines activitiesand actions related to resourceprotection, management andenhancement as well as benefitdistribution.

The objective of this process is toempower the local communities toprotect and manage the forest and fisheryresources upon which they depend.

The basic strategy in community fisheriesis to transfer responsibility for resourceprotection and management from thegovernment to local residentcommunities. In Cambodia, the actualresource that communities protect andmanage is physical land, thousands ofhectares of seasonally flooded forest andshrub lands, dotted with ponds andstreams in the dry season. The areasrecently released from the fishing lotsystem for community management are

highly productive fishing grounds. Ifmanaged properly, they have greatpotential to ensure food security andstimulate local economic development.Legislation is being formulated to supportthe new policy, and the government isworking to ensure its implementation.This unexpected and massive reformwithin the inland fishery sector ofCambodia will directly benefit manythousands of rural people.

Cam

bodi

a

This article is by Patrick T. Evans([email protected]), TeamLeader, since 1998, of the projectParticipatory Natural ResourceManagement in the Tonle SapRegion


Artisanal fisheries

Don’t jump the fence

Fisheries development and management must choose an integrated approach

In Ghana, as in Senegal, there arehardly any foreign entrants to thenational fishery. The socioeconomic

situation is a lot more precarious, though.Illiteracy rates are very high (over 60 percent), and community organizationbeyond traditional chief systems is veryweak. Many communities live below thepoverty line (often defined as a daily percapita income of less than US$1), sanitaryconditions are daunting, and earlyrecruitment of children into the fisheriesleaves many actors within the sectorwithout any formal educationwhatsoever. Poverty is mainly a result ofbooming coastal populations, increasingnumbers of entrants joining the fishery,dwindling fish stocks and evaporatingresource rent combined with an ofteninherent lack of access to viable economicalternatives.

Cameroon, located at the eastern end ofthe region, yields a completely differentpicture; 70 per cent of the fisher folk activein the sector are immigrants from Ghana,Benin and Nigeria, and harvest anestimated 80 per cent of all landings. Thereare currently no government policies orprogrammes in support of the sector, andweak access to credit facilities is readilyportrayed as the main culprit for failingnational mobilization within the sector.There is no single, properly establishedand managed landing site in the wholecountry, and the national earnings fromthe sector per se, including access feesnegotiated with Senegal and EquatorialGuinea, are low. Out of 63 artisanal fishingcompanies operating seine nets inCameroon’s Exclusive Economic Zone(EEZ) a few years ago, only four wereowned by Cameroonian nationals (andemployed mostly Ghanaian fishermen).

In Liberia, years of civil war havestrip-mined government financial

reserves and contributed to the furtherimpoverishment of communities. Fishingcommunities are portrayed as being verypoor, very traditional, highly illiterate andvery resistant to change. Although thegovernment is paying lip service toconcepts such as participatory approachesand community-based resourcemanagement, there are no functionalprogrammes currently implemented onscales large enough to warrantmodernization and development of thesector. As a result of low levels ofexploitation throughout the war years,Liberian fisheries resources are believed tobe abundant, and able to support majorincreases in fishing pressure—one of thevery few positive outcomes a protractedcivil war may ever be able to boast of.

In terms of food security, artisanalfisheries play an important role in mostcountries of the region, for the coastalpopulations, as well as for importantnumbers of people inland. Per capitaconsumption of fish is very high, andfisheries products form a very prominentcomponent of total protein intake in theregion, next to bushmeat and poultryproducts. In several countries, especiallyalong the Gulf of Guinea, inland andcoastal lagoon fisheries contribute a lot interms of additional fish supplies.

Although a simplification, the resourcesexploited across the region are mainlysmall pelagics, such as sardinellas,ethmalosas and anchovies. Demersals aregenerally exploited by industrial vesselsfurther offshore. The species targeted bythe artisanal fisheries are generallysmall-sized, have short life spans, andrecruit and reproduce early.

Seasonal upwellingSpawning success is largely dependent onill-understood seasonal upwelling

W

est Africa


systems displaying considerablevariation between years, and hence, incombination with the delicate biologicalcharacteristics of the targeted stocks,gives rise to a resource that is highlyvulnerable to stock depletion under ascenario of excessive fishing pressure.

Problems in the sector pertain toovercapitalization and resourcedepletion in a few countries,

generally due to cultural andsocioeconomic factors by and largeunrelated to the resources and theirharvesting as such. This is an importantpoint to remember, since much of theefforts to modernize and develop thesector address resource and resourceexploitation facets, and not the rootcauses for underdevelopment andpoverty.

Ghanaian and Senegalese waters displayrather clear and alarming signs of stockdepletion, and there is an awareness thatremedial action must be taken, if greaterharm is to be avoided. Harm resultingfrom depleting stocks comes in manyforms, the first noticeable effects being theimpoverishment of communities,earning less income for the same amountsof effort expended in catching fish.Pertaining to the migratory aspects of thefisheries in the region, exhaustedresources will engender more migration,and form the basis of conflicts betweennational and immigrant fisher folk inplaces where catches are still good. It iseasily conceivable that regional tensionscould arise in the future, when excessivenumbers of fishers from Senegal orGhana choose to migrate to neighbouringcountries in search of still viable fishinggrounds.

One central problem in Ghana is thatmany entrants to the fishery do not haveviable alternatives to fishing. Fishing is adeeply traditional activity, which hasbeen carried out along family lines forgenerations unbroken, and to many, a lifeoutside of fisheries is utterlyinconceivable. It is not uncommon, bothon the coast and inland on Lake Volta, tofind children joining the fishery as deckhands or net menders at the age of four orfive. A rather gloomy trade in “slavechildren” exists on Lake Volta, wherechildren from poor families are sold to

gear owners for protracted periods of time(that is, many months or years) to jointheir operations as cheap labour. In asetting of complete lack of formalschooling, and waking up to life as achild-labourer in a rough trade,economically viable re-orientation outand away from this sector in later life canprove very difficult, if not impossible.With an acute lack of basic skills toperform in any other domain, povertymust also be defined as a lack of access toeconomically viable alternatives evenwhere they are given. Inland fisher folkgenerally display a more varied range ofskills in other domains of agricultural andforestry practices. (Lake Volta, forinstance, is artificial and only some 40years old.) By comparison, traditionalcoastal fisher folk display a rather morelimited set of skills, in addition to those ofcatching and processing fish.

A concomitant phenomenon of reducedcatches is the increased use of gear evermore efficient at catching fish. Thisphenomenon is certainly not restricted toindustrial and capital-intensive fisheries.It applies to artisanal fisheries as well.Governments across the region have putin place bodies of law and fisheriesregulations, which often specify inambitious detail which gear, and of whichparticular specifications, can be operatedwhere and when. There is, however, verylittle or no enforcement of laws andregulations by fisheries authorities. Thishas inevitably encouraged the use of evermore indiscriminate gear and shrinkingmesh sizes.

A good example is the now widespreaduse of beach seines. They have beenspread in the region by migratingfishermen, after the Portugueseintroduced the gear to Ghana. Everysingle beach seine operated in Ghana,Togo and Benin today is of illegal meshsize, with a ubiquitous stretched diagonalmesh opening of 10 mm in both the wingsand the central sections.

Deadly netsWhile this gear is a critical income-earnerfor hundreds of communities in theregion, the nets are extremely problematicas they catch anything and everythingmeeting their deadly embrace. I have beenamazed enough earlier this year in Ghana,

Wes

t Afr

ica


to pull a post-larval trevally, all of 9 mmin length, off one of the seines beinghauled in. The damage inflicted to theresource is not only to deplete inshorestocks, but it also affects valuable offshorepelagic and demersal stocks whosejuveniles exploit inshore areas as nurserygrounds, and fall prey to beach-seineinduced recruitment overfishing.

Through its inbound new FisheriesBill, the Ghanaian governmentplans to outlaw beach seining

altogether. Enforcing a radical step such asthis one would inevitably lead toincreased economic hardship andemigration in communities depending onthese catches, and does not unveil itself asa sound substitute for earlier failures toenforce fisheries law at the village level.The rise of political will to properlyintegrate small-scale fisheriesmanagement into national policy, and toinitiate programmes that will bring aboutpondered and gradual solutions are verymuch in need. Introducingcommunity-based fisheries managementschemes is generally perceived as the mostpromising option to start addressing theissues.

Conflicts also besiege the artisanalfisheries sector. They are commonlyencountered amongst artisanal fisher folkthemselves, or arise between artisanalfishermen and industrial vessels.Amongst these we count gear theft at sea,

gear run-ins, and incursion of industrialfishing vessels into artisanal fishing areas.The list is long, and conflicts can result inloss or damage of property, and, moreimportantly, serious injury and loss of life.Mitigation is usually through eithertraditional, and in more serious cases,government bodies. As above, it appearsthat the lack of formal enforcement offisheries regulations throughcommunity-based and/or nationalmonitoring, control and surveillance(MCS) schemes is encouraging fisher folk,through mechanisms inherent to what iscommonly referred to as the “tragedy ofthe commons”, to carry out their fishingoperations by resorting to poor orillegal/criminal practices. It is self-evidentthat laws and byelaws are only as good asthe enforcement that is sent along.Without incentives or deterrents towarrant compliance with the rules, illegalpractices will not cease, stocks will not farebetter, economic hardship will not lessen,and conflicts, in ultimate consequence,will not subside. Conflict managementprogrammes targeting fishingcommunities would be well advised tofocus part of their efforts on these aspects,if they are to have sustainable impact.

Law bodiesEvery government in the region has got aDepartment of Fisheries or a Departmentof Marine Resources. National policies,development strategies and bodies of lawgoverning artisanal fisheries exist in most

W

est Africa


countries. Ghana’s recent move to createa Ministry of Fisheries headed by its ownMinister, separate from Agriculture andForestry Ministries, is meant to indicatethe importance that the governmentattaches to its fisheries sector. Still,political posturing needs to be followedby real political will, clearly defineddevelopment strategies and thoroughlyplanned and consistently executedprogrammes. In many of the countries ofthe region, most of these ingredients arestill lacking.

In countries with very short coastlines,such as The Gambia, counting nomore than 70 km of beachfront and

roughly 2,000 artisanal fishermen, theDepartment of Fisheries has gone a longway in supporting and organizing itscommunities. Infrastructure and facilitieshave been provided a decade ago, andcommunities are today actively engagedin the management of communityfisheries centres. Community-basedFisheries Management (CBFM) isperceived as a successful venture in TheGambia. It is evident, that the scale ofthings in this particular country has beenan enabling factor, and the emergingpicture is a very encouraging one.

CBFM is perceived as the key solution forgovernments that do not manage tohandle the regulation of their artisanalfisheries sector out of their own resources.In West Africa, as in many other places,

Departments of Fisheries are generallyunderstaffed and poorly funded in termsof yearly budgetary allocations. Yet, toturn a centrally managed system on itshead, and to decentralize and devolve theauthority for fisheries management backto the communities, is a very bold andlabour-intensive enterprise. Everybodytalks about CBFM, and many countrieshave policies and strategies for it, butsuccessful schemes remain relatively few.What seems to be lacking is a clearunderstanding that devolvingmanagement authority, and the powers tocreate byelaws to communities, takesmore than a one-off meeting withcommunity leaders and a pat on the back.In countries like Ghana, where gearownership is concentrated in the hands ofthe privileged few, where thecommunities are structured along stifftraditional and hierarchical lines, andwhere the general education and literacylevels of fisher folk are very low,introducing a CBFM scheme on thenational scale is hard work. It wouldrequire both resources, and moreimportantly, a very sound and steppedapproach involving, amongst many otherthings, armies of purpose-trainedextension officers interfacing with everysingle community for months, or evenyears.

Colonial heritageYet, especially in countries endowed witha British colonial heritage, questions of

Wes

t Afr

ica


interfacing between the government andthe communities is a thorny issue. With itslove for academia, Britain has left in itswake scores of former colonies in whichpeople find it difficult today to valorizefield-based jobs and officers; in this casemore specifically educators such asprimary school teachers and extensionofficers.

Both of these have completedsecondary and/or tertiaryeducation, and many were hopeful

of entering a career as high-rankinggovernment officers, or to find their wayinto teaching and working at theuniversity or abroad. In all too many acase, ending up as a teacher or anextension officer in a rural setting has notbeen a career choice; it is the living proofof a failure to make it to Oxford orCambridge. It is a real stigma borne in asociety that has its eyes fast on the highestprofessional ranks, and frowns at the veryessential field-based jobs never properlytaken care of. A real marketing strategy tovalorize these careers is in dire need, inorder to turn them into careers of choice,and to guarantee both commitment andthe quality of the work rendered.

Otherwise, CBFM and other communitydevelopment undertakings might provevery difficult to take off for the pervasivelack of functional interfaces. This is aprime example of a serious stumblingblock, which is difficult to anticipate andto accommodate when designingnation-wide community developmentprogrammes. The problems flowing fromit cannot be solved by the size of thefinancial envelope alone, and may wellprove fatal to the outcome of any suchprogramme.

There are a number of international,bilateral and non-governmentalorganization-funded and executedprogrammes targeting artisanal fisheriesin all of these countries. Currently, theSustainable Fisheries LivelihoodsProgramme (SFLP), funded by the UK’sDepartment for InternationalDevelopment (DFID) and executed by theFood and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations (FAO), is the largestprogramme in the region, endowed witha budget of some US$35 million. In any onegiven country, it is not uncommon to find

a dozen or more donors funding orexecuting projects within the fisheriessector. Sometimes, aid is linked topreferential trade or access agreements;sometimes programmes set specificconditions that have to be met by thegovernment (for example, cross-sectorallyunified extension services, revised texts oflaw, and so on). While these issues wouldlead to a bigger discussion on aid and thebroader philosophy behind it, it isimportant to note two things. TheMinistries and Departments of Fisherieshave to make sure that technical inputsfrom a wide range of sources are coherent,and are in line with sector policy and thelaw. That is not always the case, and it isnot rare at all to find projects operating inthe same country, trying to achieve quiteopposite goals. Secondly, pre-conditionsto receive funds or loans are dangerous, asthey eat away at the ownership principlebehind projects, and endanger thelong-term sustainability of interventions.Problems of the kind are many, andgovernments need to be aware of them ifexternal aid is to have positive andsustainable impacts on the developmentof the sector.

The countries of West Africa are rich innatural resources, both marine andland-based. The poverty encountered onthe coast and inland often seems to standin sharp contradiction with this fact. Theroots of poverty and underdevelopmentare deep, and there is no custom-tailored,or easy way out. Most countries are stillcaught in the transition betweenindependence, functional governance,and their colonial past in search of reliableleadership, a firm national identity andeconomic achievement andindependence. The problems faced in theartisanal fisheries sector can not be viewedby making an abstraction of the entirepicture; they are a function, as much asthey are a consequence, of the wholesetting. For this reason, developmentprogrammes targeting this sector mustinscribe themselves into the developmentefforts involving the nation. There is nosector that can jump the fence, and rushahead.

Few structuresSuch efforts would inevitably be broughtto failure for the acute lack of nationalstructures that are necessary to warrant

W

est Africa


sustained development and sectoralsupport and stability. Free-of-chargepolitical will and enabling sectoralpolicies can go a long way in laying thefoundations for positive development, asSenegal’s case seems to bedemonstrating.

At any rate, it appears that thedevelopment of this sector, asthat of any other sector, needs to

be stepped and built up from the base. Noneed to look for economic alternatives inorder to decrease fishing pressure, whenchildren are not being sent to school. Noneed to talk about reducing fishingpressure, when coastal populationgrowth rates remain astronomical, andfamily planning programmes remainelusive. No need to re-write fisheries bills,when laws have never been enforced. Noneed to talk about initiating communitydevelopment programmes, whenextension services are dysfunctional andunderstaffed. No need to talk aboutnational development, when projectspersistently, or conveniently, target twoor three ‘model communities’, fromwhich ‘lessons’ will flow one day.

Education and health (including familyplanning) are basic essentials, which arelacking badly in many fishingcommunities. Education and health are,in my humble opinion, fundamentalpre-requisites to provide thecommunities with the tools to helpthemselves. In most countries, providingcoastal communities with these twoassets would form a very ambitious targetin its own right. It would entail thebuilding of many more schools, thetraining of teachers, the revision ofnational curricula, the building-up ofefficient and well-staffed nationalextension units, etc. Without them, thefoundation in ‘human capital’ (to useDFID’s Sustainable Livelihoods Approachjargon for a second) upon which to buildis very weak. While talking ofgovernance, of national policies and ofdevelopment strategies, it is eventuallyquite easy to forget that fishing is notdone by governments, bodies of law,regions, fishing gear, or evencommunities; fishing is done by a largepool of very individual fishermendisplaying a range of very humancharacteristics. Ultimately, programmes

must address these very people and theirneeds, engage them in meaningfuldialogues and involve them directly inorder to bring about any hoped-forchanges. Failing to do so will spell failureto deliver change. Overall, it appears thatfew governments or externally funded aidprogrammes in the region are currentlyachieving that goal.

The management of artisanal fisheries hasto start with the people exploiting theresource, and their most basic humanneeds. Fisheries developmentprogrammes might find it difficult to sellthe idea to donors that reducing fishingeffort, for instance, might best be achievedby sending children to school, as such anactivity would not readily be regarded as‘fisheries proper’. Would it be more easilyconsidered ‘fisheries proper’, if progressin fisheries development would be foundunworkable without the same issue beingaddressed first? And would that not be abetter and more pragmatic way to handlesectoral development, guaranteeing moremeaningful and sustainable impacts in thelong run?

Hence remains the need for more holisticperspectives and approaches. Fisheriesdevelopment and management must beintegrated in their approach; not as acatch-phrase, but as a process, and mustmake sure that sound prioritization ofissues to be addressed, and step-wisebottom-up implementation, are takingplace.

This article is by Gilles Hosch([email protected]), now an MCSAdviser to the Government ofAngola, and based in Luanda

Wes

t Afr

ica


Alternative health

Seaweed power

Seaweed has great value in providing low-cost, wholesome nutrition and therapeutic protection

Almost everywhere in the world,from ancient times, people havebeen consuming marine algae.

The Chinese, the Japanese, the Filipinosand the Hawaiians consider seaweed afood of great delicacy and have been usingit in their diets for centuries.Archaeological research has shown thatthe Japanese have been eating seaweed formore than 10,000 years. In Japan and inparts of Southeast Asia, seaweed isconsumed raw, with salads or withcooked vegetables. The Japanese refer toseaweed as ‘sea vegetables’.

In the countries around the Atlantic Oceantoo, people have been eating seaweed forhundreds of years, and, since 1800, aseaweed industry has prospered here.Scientists and industrialists are constantlydeveloping new uses for seaweed—in thefood industry, in chemistry,pharmacology, cosmetology andagriculture, in the paper and textileindustry, in the film industry and inseveral other areas, even in metallurgy.

Seaweed has plenty of essential nutrients,especially trace elements and severalother bioactive substances. That is whytoday seaweed is considered as the foodsupplement for the 21st century,containing proteins, lipids,polysaccharides, minerals, trace elements,vitamins, and enzymes.

Seaweed contains between 7 and 36 percent of proteins by dry weight. The aminoacids they contain are very similar to thoseof vegetables, but they are more complete,comparable to those found in eggs.Almost all edible varieties of seaweedcontain the amino acids that humansneed.

The proteins found in seaweed are of veryhigh quality and have all the essential and

non-essential amino acids. The lipids,which are present in very small amounts,are unsaturated and thus affordprotection against cardiovascularpathologies. The polysaccharides (withalginic acids) have exceptional properties.The high quantities of glucides in algae aremucilaginous and, with the cellulose thatthey also contain, they have a positiveeffect on digestive pathologies. As thesepolysaccharides are not assimilated, evendiabetic patients may consume seaweed.

Seaweed has a very high content ofminerals and trace elements. It is a perfectsource of calcium, phosphorus, iron,sodium, potassium, magnesium, sulphur,copper, zinc, cobalt and iodine. Thecontent of calcium in seaweed is not onlyup to 10 times higher than that in cow’smilk but is also much easier for the bodyto assimilate. Pregnant and lactatingwomen, as well as malnourished children,should thus consume some seaweed dailyto ensure that they get enough of theelement that is found in the greatestquantity in our bodies.

More than one million people are exposedto goitre and related diseases, mainly indeveloping countries. Through iodinedeficiency alone, nearly 20 million youthsuffer severe mental and thyroidproblems. Most algae and seaweedcontain more iodine than sea water andare a much better alternative than iodisedsalt or drugs in regulating the productionof thyroid hormone. Seaweed alsostrengthens the immune system and helpmaintain psycho-emotional equilibriumby increasing physical resistance to stress.

Vitamins aplentySeaweed has abundant vitamins,including betacarotene, which is theprecursor of vitamin A, the vitamins of theB group, including B12, vitamin C, D, E

N

utrition


and K. The very high levels of enzymeactivity in seaweed help the assimilationof all these vital elements.

Seaweed is very rich in betacaroteneand may contain up to 44,500 IU(international units) per 100 g.

Normally, high doses of vitamin A maybe toxic, but the betacarotene found invegetables, spirullina and seaweed istotally safe, because the human bodyconverts betacarotene into vitamin Aonly as needed. Vitamin C is also animportant factor in seaweed. Sea lettuce(ulva lactuca), for instance, contains muchmore vitamin C than oranges.

The most astonishing quality of seaweedis its ability to purge the body ofpollutants. Watanabe, a Japanesescientist, discovered in 1968 that certainalgae may overcome the toxic effects ofnicotine.

Dr Slorvna of McGill University, Canada,discovered that seaweed protects us fromX-rays and even reduce radioactiveheavy-metal contamination. Not onlydoes it prevent absorption but also helpsevacuate toxins, including strontium andother radioactive elements that werealready stored in the body.

In places where people suffer from adeficiency of minerals and vitamins, theconsumption of seaweed seems to be oneof the most natural solutions to thesenutritional deficiencies. Thus,low-income developing countries oughtto propagate the use of seaweed. But thisdoes not seem to be happening.

Consider the case of India. There is plentyof edible seaweed along the coasts ofIndia and Sri Lanka. But the people ofthese countries are not yet familiar withusing seaweed as a food supplement.Only sporadically is awareness impartedof the importance of including seaweedin the daily diet.

In India, where thousands of thepopulation live along the coastal zone,people should use seaweed as one of thevital sources of good nutrition. Since itcan be easily dried and preserves well,seaweed can be easily transported inlandto places where people suffer fromthyroid problems due to lack of iodine

(goitre). In Kanyakumari District of theIndian State of Tamil Nadu, where wehave started awareness programmes onthe value of seaweed, some fishermencollect sea lettuce, which is dried andpowdered at the Community HealthDevelopment Programme (CHDP) centre.People use it as a food supplement or as amedicine, mainly for goitre-relatedproblems. They report very good results,without any side-effects, unlike the casewith most allopathic drugs.

Japan, China, Korea, Taiwan, Philippinesand Indonesia have successfullyproduced a few hundred thousand tonnesof seaweed a year. There is no reason whyIndia should not follow suit. India boastsa wide variety of seaweed along its coasts,mainly in the Gulf of Mannar, as well asaround its several hundred islands. Thehuge stretches of coastal marshy landsand bays are natural centres for seaweedcultivation, which could open newpossibilities of combating malnutrition,poverty and unemployment.

In the Philippines, more than 10,000families earn their living through seaweedcultivation. The government hasencouraged the private sector to invest inseaweed cultivation. It would be good ifthe Indian government took similar stepsto encourage local communities withsubsidies and appropriate technologies,through demonstration and trainingprogrammes.

One reason why India has not, so far,given importance to seaweed cultivationcould be the absence of experiencedcultivators. Philippines and Indonesiahave skilled cultivators, whose servicescould be made available to Indiancultivators through training programmesand demonstrations. India’s Ministry ofAgriculture could be requested to assistsuch projects.

Nut

ritio

n

This piece is by Jacqueline Leyman([email protected]) of theThirumalai Ashram Social Centre([email protected]), Tamil Nadu,India


Artisanal fishing

A sea change

Negotiations between Senegal and the European Union on a new fisheries agreement have hit a deadlock

Over the last few years, fishing hasbecome the most importantprimary economic sector in

Senegal, ahead of phosphates andgroundnuts. In 2000, according to OEPS,the Economic Observatory for Fishing inSenegal, some 330,000 tonnes of fish werecaught, of which the artisanal sectorcontributed 85 per cent.

The 1997 census indicated that more than44,000 artisanal fishers were operatingfrom around 7,600 seagoing pirogues, 90per cent of which were motorized,according to the Directorate ofOceanography and Marine Fisheries andthe Dakar Thiaroye Centre forOceanograohic Research (CRODT).

This situation is the result of the numerouschanges taking place within the artisanalfishery, which has been able to adapt itsgear and strategies to the newrequirements of the sector,notwithstanding ever-increasingconstraints due to, inter alia, growingresource scarcity.

For five years, finding GPSs (globalpositioning systems), echo sounders andmobile phones on board pirogues has nolonger been unusual! What was apioneering exercise at the start of the 1990sis now common practice, even on small8-10 m units like the liners from Kayar, animportant artisanal fishing centre situated30 km to the north of Dakar, or fromSoumbedioune, one of the artisanalfishing ports in the capital’s centre. Fish isscarce, and accuracy and speed areessential to economize on time, but, aboveall, on outboard motor fuel, which hasbecome the most important item in theartisanal fishermen’s daily expenses.

“Today each 18-20 m ice-carrying pirogueis highly equipped, because their trips last

5-10 days, sometimes going as far asGuinea Conakry or Sierra Leone. Precisenavigation is, therefore, very important,”explains Kabou Laye, a navigationequipment salesman. GPS and echosounders have become part of the basicequipment needed to reach these distantfishing zones. GPS co-ordinates for goodfishing positions can be sold for between300,000 and 500,000 CFA francs (456 to 760euro). It’s well worth it, as a 40-kg box oftioff (white grouper) may sell for as muchas 100,000 CFA francs (152 euro) on Hannbeach, near Dakar’s central market.

Sixty per cent of the seafood exported toEuropean and Asian markets fromSenegal comes from the artisanal fishingsector. In order to respond to the demandsof the local fish merchants specializing inhigh-value fish, artisanal fishermen haverapidly integrated and adapted certaintechniques that enable them to respond tothis demand for quality. As soon as fish iscaught, it is sorted by species, graded andpacked with ice in small 8-kg polystyreneboxes. These are only opened after a buyeris found in Dakar, or else in the shoresideshops of local fishmongers, who verify thecontents and weight of the produce. Thefish is then repacked and sent by plane toEurope.

Small units that make day trips have alsoincorporated the use of ice onboard. Thus,fish caught by Senegalese artisanalfishermen is found in perfect condition onthe markets in Rungis, Paris or otherEuropean centres, sometimes within 24hours of it being caught.

Quality reputation“The reputation for the quality of our fishis most important. It is the catch of theday,” says Bassirou Mbaye of the KayarFishermen’s Committee, which bringstogether 600 longline fishermen. “Today

S

enegal


we have to conserve and manage ourresources in a better way,” he adds.

With pressure mounting onresources, conflicts betweensectors are more common,

sometimes developing intointer-communal strife. In Kayar, somefishermen from St Louis, who fishexclusively with nets, have left after theywere excluded from several fishing zonesby the longliners of the village.

In Soubedioune, a landing site in the heartof Dakar, it is the Kayar fishermen whoare the target of criticism. They usedrifting longlines, a technique consideredtoo efficient by the local fishermen.“Large landings upset the market, andthe selling price of fish drops,” argue thelocal fishermen, who prefer to fish lessbut sell their catch at higher prices.

With the help of the fisheriesadministration, some communities havetaken the initiative to establishmanagement rules to control fishingeffort in order to prevent these kinds ofsituations.

The example set by the fishermen ofKayar speaks for itself. They haveelaborated ‘Codes of Good Practice’ fordifferent fishing techniques. Thus, theseiners, which mainly target sardines, canonly make one trip in 24 hours if they findfish, explains Dao Gaye of the NationalCollective of Senegalese Fishermen.Longliners that go after high-valuespecies are limited to three polystyreneboxes per trip. What’s more, they areforbidden to go to sea before five in themorning. This not only allows them tolimit effort by the time fished but alsopromotes safety at the crossing of the bar.

Women processors are not passive actorswhen faced with changing demands indifferent markets. What’s more, somegroups of women processors whoproduce traditionally prepared productslike guedj (dried fermented fish) or kétiakh(cooked, salted and dried sardinella) aretaking up production processes thatallow them to respond to the demands ofspecific markets in the subregion. Theproduction methods differ for smokedcatfish in Gambia, on the one hand, andsaly (dried, salted fish) for Ghana or

Benin, on the other, but the women knowwell that they must respond to consumerdemands.

They are even developing new productslike saly shark filets. “These are appetisersto go with beer. We’ll see if it interests ourclients from Benin,” explains Fatim Diop,President of the Yoff Group at a landingcentre close to Dakar airport.

With the support of developmentprogrammes, some GIEs (EconomicInterest Groups) have considerablyimproved their installations andestablished processing activities that takeinto account current needs of hygiene andquality. The women processors are alsolooking to export to the European Union(EU), where there is a demand fromcommunities of West African origin forthe seafood products needed for theirtraditional dishes.

As SAMUDRA Report goes to press, thefisheries agreement negotiations with theEU are reportedly still deadlocked, afterthe eighth round of negotiations reacheda stalemate in Brussels. Renewal of thefisheries agreement has been held up foralmost 12 months since April 2001. TheSenegalese authorities once again face adelicate choice: how to maintain thedynamism of the national artisanalsubsector and take into account therecommendations of the researchorganizations without having to refuseany kind of fisheries agreement, asMorocco did. Or should they cave in topressure to benefit from financialcompensation?

Happily, the Senegalese authorities aredefending their fisheries wealth. They aredemanding the establishment of atwo-month closed season to protectsensitive fishing zones such as those closeto the Kayar trench, where the artisanalfishermen have taken the initiative toimprove the management of theirresources. But these demands do not suitthe European boatowners, who argue thatany resource management linked to abiological rest period for the subregion’sstraddling stocks will be difficult.

New hopesThough the negotiations are blocked, therepresentatives of the Senegalese fishing

Sen

egal


sector are hopeful because they knowtheir claims are justified. We must hopethat the decisionmakers in Brussels willset an example and assist their Southernpartners, like Senegal, to establishresponsible fishing practices.

S

enegal

This piece has been written byAlexis Fossi ([email protected]), a fisheriesbiologist who has been workingwith communities of artisanalfishermen in Europe and WestAfrica for the past 15 years


Fisher folk conference

Globally fishy business

A recent meet in Thailand focused on Asian fisheries in the era of globalization

Millions of people in Asiadepend on fisheries for aliving, making it a critical

component of economic growth and amajor source of food security in theregion.

According to the Food and AgriculturalOrganization (FAO), in 1990, 84 per cent ofthe world’s fishers were concentrated inAsia—9 million in China, nearly 6 millionin India, and 4 million in Vietnam,Indonesia, Bangladesh and thePhilippines taken together. The majorityare small-scale, artisanal fishers, ekingout a living from coastal and inshoreresources.

A conservative estimate would place thetotal number of people involved infishing, processing, trading and otherfisheries-related activities in Asia at about120 million. For artisanal fishingcommunities, fishing is a source oflivelihood as well as a culture and a wayof life.

Asian fisheries have, however, witnessedmajor changes in the past few decades, asgovernments have sought to modernizethe sector by bringing in more efficientgear and technologies, includingbottom-trawling and purse-seining.

The focus on expanding production andexports has received an impetus in thecurrent phase of globalization. It was todiscuss these developments and theirimplications for the small-scale marineand inland fisheries sector thatrepresentatives of fisherfolk and peasantorganizations as well as NGOs from 11countries in Asia met from 25 to 29January 2002 at Prince of SongklaUniversity, Hat Yai, Thailand for theAsian Fisherfolk Conference: Cut Away theNet of Globalization.

Representatives from the followingcountries were present: Bangladesh,Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Malaysia,Nepal, Pakistan, the Philippines, SriLanka, Thailand and Vietnam, along withrepresentatives from the World Forum ofFisher Peoples (WFFP) and Aotearoa-NewZealand and South Africa.

The conference was organized with thefollowing objectives:

• to analyze the impact ofglobalization, specificallyliberalization, privatization andderegulation, on the small-scalefisheries sector;

• to document initiatives and gainsby Asian fisherfolk to improvetheir situation, such as, but notlimited to, organizing, peoples’campaigns, advocacy, resourcemanagement and lobbying;

• to learn about the role andsituation of women in the fisheriessector; and

• to consolidate networks amongfisherfolk organizations in theAsian region.

Joint effortThe workshop was a joint initiative ofseveral organizations. These included thethe Federation of Fisherfolk of Thailand,the Sustainable Development Foundation(SDF), the Foundation for SustainableAgriculture (FSA), NGO-COD, the WorldWildlife Fund, the Andaman Project, thePrince of Songkhla University and theWaliluk University—all from Thailand, aswell as PAMALAKAYA (the NationalFederation of Fisherfolk Organizations inthe Philippines), the InternationalCollective in Support of Fishworkers

Rep

ort


(ICSF) and the Asia-Pacific Forum onWomen, Law and Development (APWLD).

Participants felt that globalizationprocesses lead to a loss of incomeand livelihood, dislocation from

fishing grounds, denial of access rights,breakup of communities, social problems,loss of traditional systems of knowledgeand wisdom, degradation and destructionof aquatic resources and violations ofhuman rights.

The pressure on women of fishingcommunities has increased in specificways, translating directly into increasedworkloads, stress and pressure to earnhigher incomes. Participants called for areversal of laws, programmes and policiesas well as the dismantling of institutionsof globalization that are primarily attunedto the interests of powerful economicplayers and that marginalize fishingcommunities.

Participants demanded an immediate haltto, among other things, the following:

• destructive use of fishing gear liketrawlers, push-nets, anchovypurse-seines (using lights),fine-meshed nets and othersimilarly destructive practices,that deplete aquatic resources, anddestroy the very livelihood ofartisanal fishers;

• fisheries access agreementsbetween countries, as well as jointventures and other similararrangements for harvesting andutilizing aquatic resources, thatdeplete these resources anddeprive local fishers of theirlivelihoods;

• investment, subsidies and otherforms of State support to theindustrial and large-scale sectorand to non-owner operatedmechanized vessels, that have ledto overcapacity andovercapitalization;

• further growth in capacity ofdomestic industrial fleets inseveral countries of the Asianregion and the export of thisovercapacity (through formal andinformal means) to waters ofneighbouring countries,impacting negatively on artisanalfishers, both of the home countryand of the country they fish in;

• ‘free trade’ in fish and fishproducts, given the overwhelmingevidence from all parts of theworld that free trade in naturalresources leads to the rapiddestruction of resources and oflivelihoods of the majority, even asit brings in profits in the short runfor a few;

R

eport


• imports of fish and fish products,especially of products harvested/processed locally, that push downprices and impact negatively onincomes and livelihoods of localfishers/ processors, including thewomen;

• export-oriented policies ofgovernments, often under thecompulsion of repaying foreigndebts, even as domestic fishsupplies stagnate, and sections ofthe population are malnourished,endangering local food securityand sovereignty;

• export-oriented aquaculture,mariculture and other similarforms of monoculture, notincluding traditional aquaculture,that are displacing localcommunities and destroying theirenvironment;

• collection of live coral fish andcoral reefs for export;

• adoption of technologies,programmes and policies thatmarginalize the role of women inthe fisheries sector;

• big ‘development’ projects, suchas construction of dams, bundsand barriers that destroy thelivelihood of local fishers, both inthe inland and marine sectors,displace local communities anddestroy local habitats such asmangroves;

• the privatization of coastalcommons and water bodiesthrough activities like industrialexpansion, tourism, aquacultureand the establishment of nationalparks, which displace localcommunities and destroy theirway of life;

• polluting activities includingindiscriminate use ofagrochemicals, mining, dumpingand transshipment of toxic andnuclear wastes, that impactnegatively on the health of localpopulations and lead to the

degradation of inland and coastalhabitats;

• introduction of exotic species ininland water bodies foraquaculture, a practice that has ledto the extinction of local speciesand impacted negatively on localecoystems;

• introduction of geneticallymodified fish species in waterbodies, even on an experimentalbasis, in keeping with theinternationally agreed‘precautionary principle’;

• violence against small-scalefishers, including destruction oftheir life and gear by the owners ofindustrial and commercial fleets;

• detention of fishermen byneighbouring countries in theAsian region for alleged illegalfishing; and

• human rights violations by theState, in the form of arrests anddetentions of members of fishingcommunities and theirorganizations.

Participants called for establishingparticipatory mechanisms to ensure thatall decisions related to the use andmanagement of fisheries resources at thelocal, national and international level aremade in partnership with the fisherfolk.

They stressed the need for States in theregion to work out appropriatemechanisms for the release of artisanalfishers who drift into the waters ofneighbouring countries and facepunishments completelydisproportionate to their offense. Theyalso called for an agreement that ensuressafety for artisanal fishers who targetshared stocks between countries, takinginto account traditional rights to accesssuch resources. In this context, theyendorsed Point 7 of the Statement from therecent meeting organized by ICSF, titledForging Unity: Coastal Communities and theIndian Ocean’s Future.

Above all, participants called for thesustainable and non-destructive

Rep

ort


management and use of the resources ofthe lakes, rivers, seas and oceans by allhumankind and asserted that the rights ofartisanal fishing communities—theguardians of these water bodies—to use,manage and benefit from them, must beprotected and accepted.

Finally, participants committed toprotecting the rights to life and livelihoodof fishing communities and to protectingand conserving aquatic resources,indigenous species and ecosystems, whiledemonstrating concrete alternativestowards a people-centred development.They also committed to observing WorldFisheries Day on 21 November, theAnti-WTO day on 30 November and theWorld Food Day on 16 October, at theAsian level with a regionally co-ordinatedaction by fishing communities todemonstrate their solidarity.

R

eport

This report has been filed byChandrika Sharma ([email protected])of ICSF, who attended the Hat Yaiconference


Marine mammals

Some more equal than others

Improved status of marine mammals necessitates difficult societal choices

We all know that commercialfisheries are in a sorry stateworldwide. What is perhaps

less well known to the general public,however, is that, in some parts of theglobe, populations of certain marinemammals are in excellent shape or arerecovering rapidly.

Marine mammals include such species aswhales, seals, dolphins and porpoises.For example, the population size of thenorthwest Atlantic harp seal was recentlyestimated at around 5.2 million. Stateslike Canada and Norway, therefore,permit a certain number of marinemammals to be hunted each year. Withinthe International Whaling Commission(IWC), the abundance of species like theminke whale has led to calls to lift themoratorium on commercial whaling forthat species. Japan, one of the mostadamant pro-whaling States, hopes thiswill be accomplished at the 54th AnnualMeeting of the IWC, which takes place inMay 2002, in Shiminoseki, Japan.

The improved status of certainpopulations of marine mammals has alsogenerated extra interest due to thegrowing support for ecosystem-basedfisheries management (EBFM), whichnecessitates that account is taken ofpredator-prey relationships and theinteraction between marine mammalsand commercial fisheries.

Marine mammals and humans are bothsignificant predators in the marineenvironment. Fluctuations in abundance(effort) of both have impacts. This is easilyseen after decades of excess (human)fishing capacity on the world’s fishstocks. Likewise, increased abundance ofmarine mammals means higherconsumption of prey species. Especiallywhen a commercial fishery also targets

these species, it will not take long beforethe question arises whether, in the face ofincreased abundance, preferentialtreatment (ban on hunting) of marinemammals is still warranted. This questionleads to heated debate when preferentialtreatment is not just a pure conservationnecessity but mainly or exclusively basedon ethical values. In many cultures, a’Flipper’ or a ’Willy’ simply has a lot morecharisma than, say, a herring. Or, to quotesome famous words by George Orwell,“All animals are equal, but some animalsare more equal than others”.

Increased abundance of marine mammalscan have direct and indirect economicconsequences. Indirect effects includeinterference with fishing or fishing gear,introduction of diseases and, in placeswith extreme aggregations,eutrophication due to excessiveintroduction of nutrients (excrements). Asregards direct effects, it is hard to denythat these could be caused by predation oncommercially exploited fish species. It is,therefore, no surprise that pro-whalingStates emphasize the need for EBFM andthe significance of predator-preyrelationships. The real question is,however, to what extent their point is welltaken and if these direct economic effectscan automatically be presumed.

Different effectsPotentially, the impact of these direct andindirect effects could be limited by aresumption of hunting for marinemammals. But culling alone should not bethe only argument in favour of hunting.To not use the meat, blubber, skins, fins,tails and other parts would be a waste ofresources, even if their economic value isoften not so high. This is not to say thatnon-lethal uses of marine mammals, suchas whale watching, have no economicvalue. Even just the knowledge that

Ana

lysi

s


whales are left undisturbed would, insome societies, have a value that could bemeasured in economic terms. Whether the(potential) benefits to commercialfisheries and profits from hunting weighheavier than other ’considerations’ is avery subjective issue.

A prominent ’consideration’ inmany Western States is thepowerful charisma of marine

mammals. They are often perceived as ahigher form of life compared to otheranimals and as having ’inherent orintrinsic value’. Western movies haveprobably helped to strengthen thischarisma and so have variousenvironmental non-governmentalorganizations in trying to protect speciesfrom extinction. But it is relatively new.

Whereas humans have, no doubt,admired marine mammals in the past, thishas not stopped Western States, inparticular, from hunting many species tothe brink of extinction and some past that.Awareness of the limits to earth’s plentychanged mindsets but the charisma ofmarine mammals and other animals,which has developed since then, isprobably mainly attributable to thechanged nature of modern societies. Thetrek from the countryside to cities, andindustrial production (and fishing)processes has meant that fewer and fewerpeople deal with animals directly. Whilemost people eat meat or fish, they depend

on others to produce and kill. Inparticular, in Western societies, some mayfeel guilty because of sharedresponsibility for this production andkilling, but only few of these becomevegetarian.

As the great charisma of marine mammalshas been translated into preferentialtreatment, which is maintained despiterebounding numbers, the pro-huntinglobby signals hypocrisy, double standardsand discrimination and ask “Whychickens but not seals?”. If the focus is juston the marine environment, theappropriate question could be phrased as“Why cod but not seals?”. In the ensuingpart of the article, this question will beaddressed in the context of ’Ethics andInternational Law’. Recognition ofpredator-prey relationships in the contextof EBFM means that the question could bereplaced by the statement “Save the cod,eat a seal”. This dimension will be touchedupon in the section on EBFM.

Emotive subjectThe debate on the special status of marinemammals is so controversial due to itshigh ethical content. Whether or notcertain animals should be killed simplytriggers more emotion than, let’s say,whether or not people should be allowedto drive a car without a driver’s licence atleast in many Western societies. Despitethe different subject matter, however,both debates are part of a process of

A

nalysis


law-making, which eventuallyculminates in rules of law. The questionthat will be addressed here is how thislaw-formation works in internationallaw.

One of the main cornerstones onwhich international law is builtis the sovereign equality of States

and the ensuing principle that Statescannot be bound against their will. At thenational level, however, decisions arebinding on all nationals of that State.Individuals are usually not directlyinvolved in the domesticdecision-making process, but onlyindirectly by voting during periodicelections.

At the international level, States onlyrarely delegate such decision-makingpower to an international body. And ifthey do, they usually have the possibilityto terminate this delegation, for instance,by discontinuing membership of theinternational body. More or less the sameapplies to particular rules laid down intreaties. For instance, the 1973Convention on International Trade inEndangered Species of Wild Fauna andFlora (CITES) and the IWC Conventionexplicitly allow reservations to specificrules. This has allowed Norway to avoidbecoming bound by both the moratoriumon commercial whaling and by the ban oninternational trade in certain whalespecies.

Nevertheless, most States are currentlybound to many rules of international lawrelevant to marine mammals, as theseStates have voluntarily become parties tointernational treaties that contain theserules. In addition, on certain norms, thepractice of States has become so uniformand widespread that these norms haveacquired the status of customary law andbind all States. For example, theprohibition on overexploitation of marineliving resources, the duty to co-operate inrelation to transboundary marine livingresources, the duty to conservebiodiversity and the duty to takemeasures to prevent species frombecoming extinct are binding ascustomary law on all States. For Statesparties to the 1982 United NationsConvention on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS), the 1992 Convention onBiological Diversity, and the CITESConvention, these norms are also bindingas treaty-law.

Not uniformInternational law has a dynamic nature. Infact, the very notion of customary law isbased on change brought about by thepractice of States. It can, therefore, not beruled out that this practice becomes sowidespread and uniform that aprohibition on the exploitation of certainor all marine mammals acquirescustomary status. But current Statepractice is far from such uniformity. Somescholars have argued this will change with

Ana

lysi

s


respect to whales, among other things bypointing out that, under the UNCLOSConvention, the objective of optimumutilization of marine living resources isnot applicable to marine mammals. Inresponse, it could be said that it containsno prohibition on exploitation either. Butthat the law may change cannot be denied.While it has taken a long time, certainhuman rights are now universallyaccepted.

The same goes for individualcriminal responsibility forinternational crimes (for example,

genocide). So why not give whales, forinstance, a right to life? That is: a right tolife for individual whales underinternational law, quite apart from theprotection offered by the customary dutyfor States to prevent species frombecoming extinct. This right to life wouldeffectively translate in a “thou shall notkill” command.

While accepting that this is notimpossible, it is, at the same time,submitted that this is not likely to happensoon, primarily due to a lack of logic. Whywhales and not other marine mammals?Why marine mammals and not otherforms of life? Whereas there are numerousdistinctions between different life forms,there are no persuasive objective criteriafor determining which animals (lifeforms?) would be entitled to a right to lifeand which not. Criteria such asintelligence, complexity of behaviour orconsciousness are, after all, verysubjective. It is, therefore, unlikely that theinternational community of States willgrant such a right to a single species or agroup of species.

Another factor relevant to the likelihoodof a customary right to life for whales isthat many States see no immediatebenefits to them. By way of illustration, itcould be argued that, even though it isuniversally recognized that humansshould not kill or eat one another,compliance is, in part, motivated by thebenefits and risks of reciprocity. Suchreciprocal agreement is, of course,impossible between humans andnon-humans. And even if it would be, itwould not be such a good ’deal’ forhumans. The current ratio of humanskilled by non-humans as opposed to

non-humans killed by humans isoutrageously uneven. The issue ofbenefits will be revisited in the section onEBFM.

In view of this lack of logic and immediatebenefits, and in the absence of a threat toextinction, a right to life for whalesbecomes a matter of principle but one thatStates are not likely to agree on soon. It ismore likely that States will agree on aninternational minimum standard for thetreatment of animals in order to avoid’unnecessary suffering’. This will not beeasily achieved either as it will benecessary to determine what constitutes’unnecessary suffering’ in individualcases and which cost-benefit assessmentwould be appropriate. In our context, dolife and death of marine mammals notcompare favorably with intensive pigfarming?

In light of the absence of a rule ofcustomary law, the sensitivity of the issueand the sovereign equality of States, it issubmitted that States should show acertain measure of respect for oneanother’s views. Even though killingmarine mammals is not prohibited byinternational law, States that do prohibitthis within their jurisdiction may regardthe kill of marine mammals by other Statesas disrespect for their views. Thesimilarity with cultural and religioustraditions and beliefs such as reveringcows is striking.

The need for mutual respect is clearlyunder threat if States exert pressure onother States to ensure that the latter aligntheir positions to that of the former. Theobvious example is the United States (US),whose enactments provide for theimposition of bans on the import of fishproducts or deny States fishing access tothe US maritime zones if these States are“diminishing the effectiveness” ofinternational conservation agreements,such as the IWC Convention. It cannot bedenied that unilateral approaches likethese are helpful to force States to complywith international or regionalconservation efforts.

International lawHowever, purely unilateral approacheswill often be inconsistent withinternational trade law. Import

A

nalysis


restrictions imposed by the US to preventby-catch of dolphins in tuna fisheries andturtles in shrimp fisheries werechallenged by a number of States,including Mexico, the EuropeanCommunity, India, Malaysia, Pakistanand Thailand. The rulings of the disputesettlement bodies confirmed that theunilateral stance of the US had violatedinternational trade law and that it was tomake serious good faith efforts to reachmultilateral solutions. If such seriousgood faith efforts do not lead tomultilateral agreement, however, tradesanctions may no longer be in violation ofinternational trade law.

The relationship between otherforms of pressure and the need formutual respect is more difficult.

For example, the Norwegian decision toresume whaling in 1993 was seen ascomplicating its accession to theEuropean Community and of leading topossible boycotts of the 1994 WinterOlympics in Lillehammer. It is difficult tomaintain that such measures areinconsistent with international law. Anargument that such measuresnevertheless reflect a lack of respect can,therefore, only be based on non-legalconsiderations, For instance, the need torespect sociocultural differences betweenStates, as long as the interests of theinternational community are not affected.This is not to say, however, that theaforementioned measures may not havelegal implications.

The practice of States pressured to aligntheir views with those of others may notcount as practice relevant for theformation of customary law. Also, Statesmay be less than enthusiastic in ensuringcompliance with rules they have beenforced to accept. More in general, itcreates an atmosphere of distrust whoseimpact will not remain confined to thefield where the pressure originated.

Ethical clashes and lack of respect foropposing views are also prominentwithin the IWC. The dual objectives of theIWC Convention are the conservation ofwhale stocks and the orderlydevelopment of the whaling industry. Inthe 1970s, however, it became apparentthat the States then participating in theIWC were incapable of avoiding a threat to

the extinction of various whale species.Several States subsequently acceded toensure that there would be a moratoriumon whaling. Gradually, pro-whalingStates were outvoted by anti-whalingStates until the moratorium becameeffective in 1986. But despiteimprovements in the status of some whalespecies, anti-whaling States have sincethen flatly opposed a resumption ofwhaling, largely for ideological reasons.Certain States have even publiclyannounced that they would never agreeon resumption. In view of the IWC’s dualobjectives, this has undermined itscredibility and legitimacy. But theresponse of Japan does not show respectfor the rule of law either. The objectiveneed for the Japanese scientific whalingprogramme is at least questionable.

Similar is its strategy of vote-buying bywhich predominantly Caribbean Statesare given financial aid in exchange foraligning their votes with Japan. Thesituation in the IWC is, to a large extent,similar to CITES, where votes on thedownlisting of relevant species alsodepend more on ideology and politicsthan on science. The credibility andlegitimacy of CITES are, therefore, also atstake.

The need for respect does not preventStates from taking individual or collectivemeasures against States that violateinternational law, for instance, the failureto co-operate, which thereby threatens theconservation of marine mammals or eventheir extinction. Such measures caninclude those that would otherwise havebeen inconsistent with international law(for example, trade sanctions). This isdifferent where measures taken by, orunder, the authority of internationalregulatory bodies are themselves notconsistent with international law. It has,for example, been argued that thedesignation of the Southern OceanSanctuary by the IWC exceeded the latter’sauthority.

Competing bodiesUnder certain conditions, measures likethese would entitle States to withdrawfrom, or continue to operate outside,international regulatory bodies. Otherregulatory bodies could be established ascompetitors. Worth mentioning in this

Ana

lysi

s


respect is the establishment of the NorthAtlantic Marine Mammals Commission(NAMMCO) in 1992, even though itsregulatory scope currently hardlyoverlaps with that of the IWC.

The conservation cause is morelikely to worsen than to benefit ifStates withdraw from, or operate

outside, international regulatory bodies,or establish competing bodies. But eventhough States would be entitled to suchaction, in practice they often join or remainin the ’club’ as a consequence of thevarious forms of pressure exerted onthem, legal or not. Worth noting is thatIceland left the IWC in 1992, became one ofthe founders of NAMMCO that same year,but expressed its intention to rejoin theIWC in 2001. This reflects not only Iceland’shopes that the moratorium on commercialwhaling will soon be lifted but also thatthe IWC will not dissolve in the near future.Time will tell. The future of the IWCdepends on the diligence by which theparticipating States respect each other’sviews and legitimate rights and interestsin light of the overarching need forconservation.

From a scientific perspective single- ormultispecies management areunsatisfactory as they ignore manyrelevant considerations. Theseconsiderations can roughly be divided asrelated or not related to fishing. Thoserelated to fishing include by-catch,

discards, unobserved fishing mortalityand also ’side-effects’ of certain fishingpractices (bottom-trawling, dredging,dynamiting, poisoning). Non-fishingeffects on the marine environment arecaused by human activities such aspollution and coastal zone development.Moreover, large-scale climatic andoceanographic processes such as globalwarming and ENSO (El Niño-SouthernOscillation) also have an impact, althoughnot always human-induced.

As EBFM has a holistic character, the role(s)of marine mammals cannot be ignored.Very famous is the example of sea ottersin the North East Pacific, which werehunted down to near extinction at the endof the 19th century. As sea otters prey onurchins, and urchins feed on kelp, thisresulted in a large-scale loss of kelp-bedsand thereby crucial habitat for fish andinvertebrates. Also, whereas the generalpublic is often aware that seals prey oncommercial fish species, large whales arethought to eat only zooplankton such askrill. However, toothed whales, such assperm whales, eat large quantities of squidand the diet of certain baleen whales alsoincludes herring, capelin, cod andhaddock.

Poor understandingEcosystems are highly dynamic, likeshifting mosaics, with many factorsplaying variable roles. Current scientificunderstanding of marine ecosystem

A

nalysis


processes is simply not sophisticatedenough to make reliable predictions. Arealistic approach towards EBFM should,therefore, emphasize the need to broadenscientific knowledge and to graduallytake account of more and more ecosystemconsiderations. Much research is neededto actually prove that a reduction ofpredators that compete with humansleads to so-called ‘surplus yields’ forhumans. Some Japanese scientists claimthat whales consume worldwide three tosix times the amount taken in marinecapture fisheries. Even if this werecorrect, this does not mean that withoutwhales this amount would be availablefor humans, or that it would becommercially interesting.

But one fundamental point that eventhose supporting preferential treatmentfor marine mammals must acknowledgeis that they do play a role. At the sametime, it should also be recognized thathuman activities are the main, if not only,reason for the current status of fish stocksworldwide. Marine mammals should,therefore, not be treated as scapegoats forhuman failure.

As a concluding remark, it seems that thethreat of extinction is currently the onlyground for prohibiting the exploitation ofmarine mammals that enjoys the supportof the entire community of States. In viewof the appalling conservation history,however, hunting for marine mammals

should be science-based, with a strongemphasis on the precautionary approach,risk assessment and other guarantees,such as a reliable enforcement frameworkin its broadest sense. Without these, arehearsal of past tragedies is inevitable.

Ana

lysi

s

This article is by Erik Jaap Molenaar(e.molenaar@ law.uu.ni), ResearchAssociate, University of Utrecht,NILOS, The Netherlands


WTO negotiations

Give some, take some

In the new round of WTO negotiations, the issue of fisheries subsidies will have to fit into a mosaic of national trading interests

The Geneva-based World TradeOrganization (WTO) is essentially aforum where countries engage in

an ’institutionalized’ tussle for access toone another’s markets. This mercantilistbehaviour sees governments bargainingfor access to export markets, even as theyseek to protect their own markets fromimports. Since governments cannot expectgreater access to foreign markets, withoutgiving, in exchange, others access to theirown markets, the WTO negotiations boildown to a give-and-take in products andmarkets. Countries will demand marketaccess for products that they think theycan export, and they will, in return, giveother countries access to their ownmarkets for products that they think areunimportant or that they are inefficient inproducing.

The result of all these negotiations getsformalized in WTO agreements. So,whatever the claims and counterclaimsabout trade and efficiency, trade andwelfare, and trade and economic growth,the WTO is, ultimately, an overseer ofmercantilist arrangements ininternational trade between countries.

Earlier, market access was typically aboutlowering import duties (tariff barriers) ordismantling import restrictions, whichtook the form of standards and quantityrestrictions (non-tariff barriers). As thenature of world trade changed and asgovernments looked to use the WTO toexpand the definition of ’market access,’new ’products’ and national policies thatwere traditionally not considered to bewithin the purview of the GeneralAgreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT),the precursor to the WTO, or the WTO itself,were brought into the ambit of theorganization. To give two examples,Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs, a new’product’) came under the province of the

WTO in the 1990s, as did national laws onenvironment, which were subject todiscussion, if not negotiation.

As give-and-take, reciprocity andnegotiations became increasinglycomplex, the WTO processes began to becharacterized by twofeatures—cross-sectoral linkages and the‘single undertaking’ of agreements. Thismeant, for example, that a governmentwould offer to reduce its import tariffs onagricultural products and, in return,demand (usually implicitly) of its tradingpartners that they lower non-tariffbarriers on trade in industrial products.Negotiations, in this example, then cutacross the two sectors of agriculture andindustry; they were not confined toreciprocal offers within each sector.

The second and related feature was thenotion of ‘single undertaking’. This, insimple language, means that allagreements negotiated in a particularround are to be treated as one package. Forexample, negotiations in the UruguayRound of 1986-93 led to a WTO agreementon agriculture, an agreement on IPRs and14 other individual agreements. Each ofthese was legally separate, butgovernments could not pick and choose tosign those they liked and reject the onesthey disliked. They had to take the entireset as one package, even if each treaty wasratified separately. The idea behind thesingle undertaking approach is tofacilitate (some would say to tie in)countries to engage in cross-sectoral offerson market access.

Uruguay RoundOne past example of cross-sectorallinkages in the WTO was the UruguayRound negotiations on IPRs and textiles.Developing countries, which hadopposed the inclusion of IPRs in the former

A

nalysis


GATT, were finally offered the prospect ofa dismantling of the MultifibreAgreement (MFA) on textiles, if they wereto agree to a treaty on IPRs. Some of thedeveloping countries had been separatelyseeking an abolition of the MFA, a demandopposed by the United States (US),European Union (EU), Canada and Japan.

The final outcome was that theUruguay Round package had anagreement on IPRs and another on

removal of textile quotas as contained inthe MFA. The terms of the two may havebeen different, and some see animbalance in the two agreements; butcross-sectoral linkages did lead to thesetwo agreements. That one (IPRs) wasstrong and the other (textiles) weakreflects on the relative bargaining powerof the two groups. The cross-sectorallinkages were institutionalized in theUruguay Round package of agreements,which all WTO member-countries had toaccept as ’a single undertaking’.

Likewise, the agenda of the new WTOround that is now under way is itself theresult of cross-sectoral negotiations. TheEU finally agreed to negotiate a furtherliberalization of trade in agriculture onceit was also able to place foreigninvestment, competition policies andaspects of the environment on thenegotiating agenda. The EU sawagriculture as a possible ’loss’, and,therefore, identified other areas where itcould ’gain’. In much the same fashion,fisheries subsidies came to be placed onthe agenda as part of the negotiations on’WTO Rules’.

Fisheries subsidies had been discussedfor years at the WTO, largely in theCommittee on Trade and Environment. Itwas argued that subsidies hadcontributed to overcapacity, which, inturn, was causing overfishing. In 1999, agroup of countries had, in fact, asked thata WTO working group be set up to firststudy these issues and then draw up WTOcommitments on these subsidies. Thecountries that, at the time, wanted thisissue to be negotiated included Australia,New Zealand, Iceland and the US. Thosewho explicitly opposed it were Japan andSouth Korea. This demand fornegotiations was contained in the draftministerial declaration, which finally

could not be passed at the 1999 SeattleMinisterial Conference of WTO.

While fisheries subsidies have beenstrongly discussed at the WTO, they werealways located in the context ofenvironmental issues. The way they cameto be included in the Doha Agenda under’WTO Rules’ illustrates cross-sectorallinkages. WTO Rules refer to the clauses onanti-dumping duties, subsidies andcountervailing measures. The provisionsand application of anti-dumping dutieshave always been a source of controversyamong developed and developingcountries. But the biggest tension isbetween Japan and the US, with the formeraccusing the latter of a lack oftransparency in its use of anti-dumpingduties. Japan has, for years, been askingfor fresh negotiations on the WTO clauseson anti-dumping duties so that they canbe made more transparent and cannot beused as an instrument of protection.

During the last stage of negotiations in thesecond half of 2002 during thepreparations for Doha, the US,presumably, found that the tide in the WTOwas in favour of new negotiations onanti-dumping duties. It then obtained thespecific mention of fishing subsidies in thedraft agenda section on WTO Rules. Thiswas the first time that these subsidiescame to be mentioned under WTO Rules.The intention of the US here was clearly toneutralize Japanese demands onanti-dumping duties with its owndemand on fisheries subsidies. And the USwas able to enlist the support of Iceland,New Zealand and Australia, who were allkeen on negotiating rules on fisheriessubsidies.

Japan’s agendaAfter initially voicing its opposition,Japan finally agreed to an agenda thatmentions fisheries subsidies as well. Onecan only presume that in Japan’scalculation, it had a stronger interest inanti-dumping duties and was, therefore,willing to consider negotiating rules onfisheries subsidies. Alternatively, it mayhave felt that it would be able to stalldemands on fisheries subsidies during theactual negotiations. Similarly, the UScalculation may have been that by raisingthe fisheries issue, it could bog Japandown in the WTO Rules negotiations and

Ana

lysi

s


thereby continue with the presentpractices on anti-dumping duties.

In the early skirmishes of actualnegotiations, Iceland has attempted totake fisheries subsidies out of the

larger WTO Rules talks and put them on a’separate track’. The aim is self-evident. Byremoving any possibility of cross-sectorallinkages within the WTO Rules area,Iceland hopes to focus talks on thissubject, neutralizing the possibility of itbeing held hostage to progress in the areaof anti-dumping duties, and therebypossibly obtaining a clear set of rules onfisheries subsidies and their reduction.Iceland’s proposal has not been passed, atleast not by March 2002.

One can only speculate on how the talkson fisheries subsidies will evolve. There isnow a larger grouping of rich and poorcountries, called the ’Friends of Fish’,comprising Australia, Bangladesh, Chile,Ecuador, Iceland, New Zealand, Peru,Philippines, Thailand, US and Venezeula.On the other side are Japan and SouthKorea, with the EU reportedly beinginternally divided on pitching in.

During the negotiations, proposals andcounter-proposals will be made onclarifying the disciplines on fisheriessubsidies, which, in common language,means developing rules and agreementsto govern fisheries subsidies. Progress onthe negotiations will depend on thestrength of each side to advance or blockproposals. What happens in fisheriessubsidies will depend on progress onanti-dumping duties, subsidies andcountervailing measures—all the WTORules. The shape the final agreement takeswill also depend on what happens in theother subjects on the agenda of the newWTO Round.

Consider a completely hypotheticalsituation. If the lines are only being drawnon fisheries subsidies, they are evensharper in agriculture. For decades, the EU,Japan and South Korea have sought toprotect their agriculture with largesubsidies, high tariffs and non-tariffbarriers. Ranged against them are Canada,Australia, New Zealand and somedeveloping countries. The US is now onthe side of the liberalizers. Agriculture isbeing negotiated again in the new round.

Suppose, for a variety of reasons, the EU,Japan and South Korea agree to open uptheir agriculture to foreign trade to someextent, and suppose too that this offer isultimately acceptable to the US and theother farm liberalizers of Australia andNew Zealand. It is quite possible that, insuch a situation, Japan may demand aprice in the form of either a postponementof the fisheries subsidies issue or theenactment of a WTO agreement with veryweak disciplines. The farm liberalizersmay well agree to pay this price, whichwould leave Iceland in the cold. Fisheriessubsidies may not then disappear fromthe WTO agenda; it may only be postponedto the next round. This, in fact, is the storyof agricultural subsidies, which werepapered over in the Uruguay Round andhave now surfaced with new vigour.

Such are the negotiating processes at theWTO that the final outcome depends somuch on each country’s economicstrength and how it can set one issue offagainst another, play one country againstanother, and build cross-sectoralalliances. The legitimacy of the proposals,and the rights and wrongs do not,ultimately, matter. It is these processesthat will determine the final result, both infisheries subsidies and tariffs on fish andfish products.

A

nalysis

This piece is by C. RammanoharReddy ([email protected]),Deputy Editor of The Hindu,Chennai, India


Report

Ides of March

A recent workshop of the United Nations Environment Programme focusedon trade-related policies and measures for sustainable fisheries management

Four months after the World TradeOrganization (WTO) MinisterialDeclaration at Doha to, inter alia,

clarify and improve subsidies in fisheries(see SAMUDRA Report 30, December 2001),the United Nations EnvironmentProgramme (UNEP) organized aworkshop, arguably the first of its kindsince Doha, on the impacts oftrade-related policies on fisheries andmeasures for sustainable fisheriesmanagement at the Palais des Nations,Geneva, on 15 March 2002.

Participants included representatives ofgovernments, multilateral organizationslike WTO, the Organization for EconomicCo-operation and Development (OECD)and the Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations(FAO), and NGOs like World Wide Fundfor Nature (WWF), GreenpeaceInternational, International Centre forTrade and Sustainable Development(ICTSD) and ICSF. The EuropeanParliament was also represented. Themain focus of the workshop was onfisheries subsidies.

Opening the workshop, Alejandro Jara,the Chilean representative to the WTO,highlighted the importance of fish tradefor developing countries. Fisheriessubsidies, he said, were part and parcel oftrade negotiations, and notenvironmental ones. Reflecting the viewsof ‘Friends of Fish’, he observed that theWTO Agreement on Subsidies andCountervailing Measures (SCM) was notdesigned to take into account the specificproblems of the fisheries sector.Negotiating fisheries subsidies as aseparate agenda item, therefore, wasimportant, he said.

In the introduction to the workshop, theChief of UNEP’s Division of Technology,

Industry and Economics talked of a rangeof financial transfers (read subsidies)provided by governments that eithercontributed to enhancing fishing capacity,or provided infrastructure that explicitlybenefited the fisheries sector, orcontributed to fisheries management. Itwas suggested that the economic, socialand environmental effects of subsidiesshould be properly categorized, thatparticular conditions and needs ofdeveloping countries, especially those ofsmall-scale fisheries, should be taken intoaccount, and that the role of subsidies inachieving sustainable development oughtto be considered.

To address challenges and key concerns,especially to reduce trade distortions andto protect the marine environment, it wasproposed that the fisheries impacts ondifferent fish stocks be studied to identifyappropriate action on subsidies,especially to understand the linksbetween subsidies, overcapacity andoverfishing, on the one hand, andsubsidies and fisheries management, onthe other.

More workshopsIt was further proposed to analyze theeffect of trade liberalization on thefisheries sector. Workshops involvingdifferent stakeholders were proposed tobetter define the problem and to buildpartnerships. The need for greatertransparency in fisheries subsidies wasalso highlighted. UNEP said it wouldundertake more country studies to betterdefine and categorize subsidies and theireffects—for example, the impact ofsubsidies in open-access, unregulated andoverexploited fisheries. It proposed a’matrix approach’ to categorize subsidies,and sought international co-operation tomanage fisheries that were believed to beunsustainable.

Rep

ort


The workshop had four sessions.The first was on nationalexperiences, assessing the impacts

of trade and trade-related policies andsustainable fisheries management. Thesecond was on the role of internationalorganizations in advancing sustainablefisheries policies through addressingsubsidies. The third session focused onsubsidies and trade-related issues insustainable fisheries management. Andthe final one listed the workshop’s mainconclusions and recommendations forfollow-up.

The first case study on Bangladeshshowed that subsidies were quite low as ashare of the landed value of the country’scatch, and the status of marine fisherieswas argued to be healthy.

At the current level of marine fishproduction, which was far below theestimated Maximum Sustainable Yield(MSY), it was proposed that theinternational community should assistBangladesh to protect its marine fisheriesresources from poaching by neighbouringcountries and to further assist it to harvestsurplus fisheries resources. There was,however, no disaggregated analysis of thestatus of fish stocks that catered to theexport and domestic markets.

In the discussion that followed, therepresentative of the EuropeanParliament raised some reservationsabout the usefulness of MSY as a tool forestimating fisheries resource potential. Hehighlighted the importance of using aprecautionary approach in estimatingfisheries resource potential.

Mauritania, the second case studypresented, is principally dependent onfisheries resources for employment andforeign exchange. The development offisheries, which started in the mid-1980s,was synonymous with development oftrade opportunities, since most of the fishproduced was exported.

The fisheries sector contributed to morethan 50 per cent of export earnings and 12per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).Demersal stocks, especially of octopus,were overexploited, while the largepelagic resources were stillunderexploited. Fishing capacity was

high for demersal stocks and low forpelagic ones.

While Mauritania did not subsidize itsdomestic fishing fleet, the EuropeanUnion (EU) fleet in Mauritanian waterswas subsidized, and posed unhealthycompetition to the domestic fleet, causedoverfishing of demersal stocks anddistorted trade. It was, however, pointedout that there was room for fishingcapacity in pelagic fisheries, especially forthe EU fishing fleets. In addition to the EU,foreign fleet in Mauritanian waters camefrom China and Eastern Europe. Toprotect demersal stocks and biodiversity,and to develop artisanal fisheries,Mauritania was planning to forbidbottom-trawling within the 20-m isobath.The domestic market could absorb onlyone-sixth of the potential for pelagic fishproduction. Although Mauritania hadmany fish processing plants, access tomarkets for processed fish, whichgenerates local employment, was not asgood as that for raw fish.

The Japanese presentation highlightedhow price incentives in the Japanesemarket has acted as an incentive forheightened fishing pressure andoverfishing of bigeye tuna in the IndianOcean, from non-member countries of theIndian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC).Since 1998, the catch of non-membersexceeded that of member countries. Theimportance of adopting andimplementing tangible managementmeasures to prevent overfishing at theregional level was highlighted.

Participating in the discussion, therepresentative of GreenpeaceInternational drew attention to thetrade-related measures adopted by theInternational Commission for theConservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) toclose the markets of its member countriesto Atlantic bigeye tuna caught by illegal,unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishingvessels, and asked for similar measures tobe adopted by the IOTC.

Japan’s positionJapan stressed the importance ofcapacity-building at the national level forfisheries management and advocatedstringent management measures for bothmember and non-member countries of

R

eport


IOTC. The Japanese presentation furtherstressed the need for a case-by-caseapproach, arguing that each fishery has adifferent background and that an a prioriapproach (read: fisheries subsidies as themain cause of overcapacity andoverfishing) cannot work in the fisheriessector.

In the second session on the role ofinternational organizations inadvancing sustainable fisheries

policies through addressing subsidies,WTO, OECD, FAO and WWF participated.The WTO representative said fisheries wasalready part of the natural resourcesgroup during the Uruguay Roundnegotiations and that various groups ofcountries have various approaches, andthat “nothing is agreed until everythingis agreed”.

Instead of the term ‘subsidies’, OECD uses‘government financial transfers’. Theextent of congruence of the OECDdefinition of government financialtransfers with the definition of subsidiesunder the SCM Agreement was yet notclear. The WTO definition is more legal,while the OECD definition is moreeconomic. OECD gathers information ongovernment financial transfers of its 30member countries.

Seventy per cent of such transfers werefor general services, which includedexpenditure on infrastructure; fisheries

management costs; and fisheries researchcosts. The most significant were thefinancial transfers that went forenforcement and surveillance—severalmember countries cannot recall howmuch was spent on enforcement andsurveillance because these items fellunder their defence budgets—followedby fisheries research. Some of the missingdata on government financial transfers,according to OECD, included regional andlocal transfers, non-budget transfers(through provisions in tax laws), marketprice support, and uneven coverageacross countries.

Acknowledging ambiguities in thedefinition of fisheries subsidies, the thirdsession of the workshop focused onsubsidies and trade-related issues insustainable fisheries management andwhether or not to have a workingdefinition of subsidies. Four options wereproposed:

• the adequacy of existingdefinitions under SCM Agreement;

• making sector-specificclarifications on the SCM definitionby including indirect, but explicit,subsidies like provision offisheries infrastructure projects;

• whether or not to include the costsof fisheries management services;and

Rep

ort


• whether or not failure bygovernment to enforce adequatelysustainable fishing practicesshould be treated as a subsidy.

Categorization of subsidies asharmful or otherwise, and impactof subsidy removal on fish stocks

were also raised for discussion. Jamaicawas concerned that only the impact ofsubsidies on fisheries, and not on fishers,was being discussed and wondered if WTOindeed was the place to discuss issuesother than international trade.

Canada was not happy with the proposedworking definition. Giving the example ofecosystem-based approach to fisheriesmanagement, Canada said suchmanagement measures would benefit theocean in general, not just fisheries inparticular, and wondered which part ofthe subsidies on such fisheriesmanagement would go to the fisheriesand which part to the oceans

Japan said no concrete examples wereprovided for subsidies in the case studiesconducted by UNEP. There was no cleardefinition that partially explained whyonly a few countries, that too from theindustrialized countries, notifiedsubsidies to WTO. Japan, for example, doesnot notify its subsidies to WTO for lack ofclear definition. It did not like the idea oftreating fishing ports as subsidies becausethe SCM Agreement has excludedinfrastructure from the purview ofsubsidies. It also agreed with theCanadian position that fisheriesmanagement costs should not be treatedas subsidies. What was more important,from the Japanese point of view, weretrade distortions caused by non-bindingbehaviour of fishing nations. Japanfurther observed that financial assistancegiven to developing countries do notfigure as subsidies under the SCMAgreement, and argued that if fisheriesresources were not well managed, fishingvessels should not be given to developingcountries as donor assistance.

The United States (US) proposed aconsultation of economists and legalexperts to ascertain whether or not SCMcovers fisheries subsidies. The OECD saidtrade and resource impacts should be puttogether, and observed that different

subsidies can have different outcomes,depending on the status of fisheries. Itasked for greater clarity on the objective oflooking at subsidies regimes. Korea wasalso concerned about the third and fourthoptions discussed above, observing that(a) fisheries management services weregenerally regarded as environmentallyfriendly and contributing tosustainability; and (b) it was notpracticable to identify failures bygovernments to enforce sustainablefishing practices.

New Zealand wanted to look at the tradeand environment impacts of the first tofourth options mentioned above. Francesaid subsidies that contributed to fishers’security are important. Jamaica supportedthe position of Japan, Canada and Koreain relation to the third and fourth options,and said it was also important to look atpolitical and social structures indeveloping countries, as well as to takeinto account cultural aspects.

The European Commission (EC) said theSCM Agreement applied to fish and fishproducts, and it disagreed with NewZealand. The EC argued that instead ofhaving visions of ‘green’ vs ‘red’, the bestapproach to subsidies issues in fisherieswould be to adopt a holistic approach tofisheries that addressed both trade andsustainable development.

All development aid should be consideredas subsidies, said EC, adding that aidshould be for sustainability anddevelopment. Referring to the EuropeanDevelopment Fund (EDF), the EC said thedevelopment of artisanal fisheries andfisheries management is part of theassistance that Europe provides todeveloping countries. It further said thatit helps, inter alia, infrastructuredevelopment of fishing communities, andmonitoring, control and surveillance(MCS) of fishing fleet in developingcountries.

MethodologiesThe third session of the workshop thendiscussed establishing causal linkagesbetween types of subsidies, conditions ofmanagement and the state of fish stocks.How to disentangle the impact ofsubsidies from the impact of open accesswas asked, and it was proposed that there

R

eport


are methodologies to achieve this goal.Spain was not happy with theproposition from UNEP, arguing that itwas difficult to imagine a totallyopen-access fisheries or a totallyimpregnable property regime.

Jamaica was worried that looking atcausal linkages between types ofsubsidies, conditions of management

and the state of fish stocks would erodecertain types of assistance to fisheries ofdeveloping countries from theindustrialized countries. Countries likeCanada and EC, however, did not want tolook at fisheries subsidies in isolation.The US, on the other hand, felt it might beuseful, considering that the SCMAgreement was limited in scope as far asfisheries subsidies were concerned. Itfurther observed that, in WTO, themembers were getting closer to a ‘red’ listof fisheries subsidies. New Zealand saida multistrand approach to fisheriessubsidies issues would not be aproductive approach.

The discussion moved to specialtreatment for developing countries ininternational policy on fisheries subsidyreform. The priorities of developingcountries—whether to developunderexploited fisheries resources or toreplace foreign fishing fleet with theirown domestic fishing fleet or to build upfisheries that were overexploited—wereraised.

ICSF stressed the importance of givingspecial emphasis to small-scale fisheries.It highlighted the need to use subsidiesregimes not only in relation tofishery-dependent priorities, but also tohelp fishers to move from one fishery toanother, or from fishing to non-fishingactivities as a result offishery-independent factors like El Ninoor habitat degradation. It also raised theimportance of lowering tariffs in the EUand US markets for processed fish and fishproducts, arguing that facilitating suchaccess would not only createemployment opportunities in developingcountries, but also contribute to betterconservation of fisheries resourcesbecause, as domestic processing cancontribute to greater efficiency in theconversion of live-weight toproduct-weight.

Venezuela asked if industrializedcountries could promote fisheries indeveloping countries that wouldcontribute to exports from developingcountries. The US said the World Bankshould collaborate with developingcountries to implement the FAO Code ofConduct for Responsible Fisheries.

The fourth, and final, session was rathershort. UNEP said it would continue casestudies and organize workshops that willbe linked closely with the WTO events ofrelevance to fisheries. It observed thatthere is a need to move from national toregional levels, and to look at theinternational dimension of fisheriesdebates. UNEP considered it important todevelop a positive agenda for leastdeveloped countries (LDCs) anddeveloping countries to enable them toreflect on the social and economic impactof the Doha Round.

The debate at the workshop clearlyrevealed divisions, and gave clearindications of how polarized this debatecould become in future, even leading to asituation with no tangible outcome. Onelesson that LDCs and developing countriesshould keep in mind is that, in future,international aid programmes in fisherieswould be increasingly linked togovernance issues that, in turn, are linkedto better management of water bodies andfisheries resources.

Rep

ort

This report has been written bySebastian Mathew ([email protected])of ICSF


ICSF Documentation Centre

Just out

ICSF’s Documentation Centre has recently brought out some productions on fisheries in the Indian Ocean and Sub-Saharan Africa

An interactive CD, Indian Ocean2001, providing information ondifferent aspects of the fisheries

and resources of 16 countries in the IndianOcean region was produced for theconference Forging Unity: CoastalCommunities and the Indian Ocean’sFuture, organized by ICSF and theInternational Ocean Institute at Chennai,India, from 9 to 13 October 2001.

The CD has an overview, in the form of an8-minute video, of the major fisheriesissues relating to the region. It alsoprovides demographic data,socioeconomic indicators, fisheriesstatistics, information on fish resources,agreements and organizations in theIndian Ocean region, in the form of PDF(Portable Document Format) files,photographs and dynamic graphs andmaps. Also included is a section on theconference, which carries the paperspresented, a list of participants, newsclippings and photographs of theconference. The CD was distributed to all50 participants of the conference on thelast day.

Smoke in the Water is a 14-minute videoexposition (in English and French) onproblems and prospects for developingartisanal fish trade in West Africa. Itprovides an overview of the issuesinvolved, and highlights many of theconcerns of the actors in the sector, with abrief report on the workshop and fair onartisanal fish trade in West Africa, held atDakar, Senegal, from 30 May to 3 June2001.

Fisheries in Sub-Saharan Africa, aninteractive CD, delves into fisheryresources and fishing communities in 25countries of Sub-Saharan Africa.Exhaustive information—in the form ofover 400 PDF documents, over 250

photographs and approximately 10minutes of video clips, as well as maps,graphs and tables—gives users insightsinto the regions fishworkers, fishprocessing and trade.

It also carries ICSF’s reports on Workshopsorganized in the region as well as a reportof a study on artisanal fish trade in WestAfrica.

ICSFs website is now available in a Frenchflavour as well. Check out www.icsf.net orwww.icsf.org.

N

otice

This notice comes from RamyaRajagopalan ([email protected]) ofICSF’s Documentation Centre


Fishery co-operatives

Success comes calling

The pioneer of Japan’s fishery co-operative movement recalls how modernmanagement techniques and skills were introduced

The New Fishery Co-operative Lawwas enacted in 1949, incorporatingthe internationally accepted

principles of co-operatives. This lawgreatly facilitated the establishment ofFisheries Co-operative Associations(FCA)s; if more than 20 fishermen wantedto unite by establishing an FCA, theprefectural government would officiallyapprove the establishment of the FCA ifthey composed and ratified the necessaryarticles of the association for the FCA, ifthey submitted the business plan of theFCA to the government, and if theyexercised proper control of the fishingrights. Shortly after this law was passed,206 FCAs were re-established inHokkaido.

Many of these early FCAs were small inscale and poorly managed due to the lackof experience of the leaders. Eventually, anumber of those early FCAs weredissolved and some were amalgamatedwith other FCAs, with the result that todaythere are only 129 FCAs in Hokkaido.

Immediately after the war, thegovernment encouraged fishermen toincrease their production in order tosupply more of food, which was so badlyneeded by the nation. This led to greaterdevelopment of offshore and deep-seafisheries. The established coastalfisheries, on the other hand, did notdevelop in line with these new ventures.There were too many fishermenstruggling to catch the limited stocks offish in the small coastal areas. Thisnaturally led to smaller catches anddecreased incomes for the fishermen.Most of them could hardly make endsmeet.

By 1960, the Japanese economy hadbecome very vibrant. Development hadbeen particularly noticeable in the

secondary industries such as steel, textileand shipbuilding. The primary industriessuch as agriculture and fisheries,however, still lagged far behind in termsof their development.

The central government was well aware ofthis fact and in 1960 introduced anIndustrial Structure Improvement Policywhereby it encouraged people working inthe primary industries to shift to the fieldof industry so as to provide a solid base forthe continued growth of the economy. Asthere were many unemployed fishermen,they, in particular, were lured to shift toindustry. This, of course, does not meanthat the government attached noimportance to fisheries. On the contrary,this programme was promoted to achievebalanced development of primary,secondary, and tertiary industries.

The government realized that the FCAswould play an indispensable role inachieving the objective of theaforementioned policy, and in 1960 ittherefore enacted the FisheryCo-operative Association Restructuringand Management Improvement Act,through which the FCAs would berevitalized.

Also enacted that year was the CoastalFisheries Promotion Act, which facilitatedthe building of larger vessels and theintroduction of such modern equipmentas radars and fish finders. Furthermore,the government subsidized theconstruction of cold storage facilities andmarkets in the landing areas, as well asother infrastructure.

Co-operative strengthAs a result of these acts of the governmentand because of the strength of theco-operatives, the FCAs experiencedtremendous growth during the 1960s, and

Japa

n


they have continued to thrive on the basisof these foundations.

Towards the end of the 1950s, thedirectors of both Dogyoren andShingyoren realized that it was

becoming increasingly important tomodernize the management systems ofthe FCAs.

The government had been trying toreorganize and strengthen themanagement structure of the FCAs. Inorder to take full advantage of thegovernment support, the leaders inHokkaido determined that educationregarding the objectives, structure andmanagement of the FCAs was necessary toensure their success.

After much discussion, the directorsdecided to establish an independentorganization to deal exclusively with theeducation of FCA members. In 1961,Shidoren, (the Educational Federation ofFCAs) was established, with 15 staffmembers transferred from the otherfederations and five newly recruitedemployees. I was one of the latter five.

We studied all aspects of the managementof FCAs in Hokkaido, in particular thecauses of, and solutions for, poormanagement.

We then determined that the two majorfunctions of Shidoren would be:

• to provide comprehensiveeducational services not only tothe directors and staff members ofthe FCAs, but also to the memberfishermen, the members of thecommunity youth groups, and themembers of the communitywomen’s groups.

• to promote the propermanagement of FCAs byintroducing modern managementtechniques and skills.

Shidoren also promoted the establishmentof women’s groups and youth groups inthe fishing villages, and these groups wereencouraged to become involved in theFCAs operations.

In Japan, it is usually the women whocontrol the household finances, and,therefore, the women’s groups, inparticular, became involved in thepromotion of savings.

As fishery production tends to fluctuateyearly, it is necessary for fishinghouseholds to accumulate savings to seethem through bad years.

We stimulated the youth groups byproviding opportunities for them to studyadvanced fishery production technology,and engage in fish farming and other suchactivities. By introducing newmanagement techniques and the latest

Japan


developments in fisheries to the youths,the FCAs have advanced with the times.

We in the prefectural federationstill had to deal with manyproblems. Even as late as the

1960s, certain member fishermen of someof the FCAs shipped less than half theirproducts through the FCA. To makematters worse, the members depositedonly a small percentage of their savingsinto their FCA accounts. That was no wayto operate an FCA, so the threefederations—Dogyoren, Shidoren, andShingyoren—discussed measures torectify the situation. They decided toemphasize two points, the first being jointmarketing of the products and thesecond, deposit of their savings into theFCA.

In other words, it was decided that thetwo important elements—the productsand the income—had to be channelledthrough the FCAs. In this way, the FCAswould become economically strong.

A Joint Marketing Promotion Committeewas established with members from thelocal FCAs. Dogyoren organized trainingcourses in which it disseminatedimportant information relevant tomarketing, and, in particular,emphasized the necessity of jointmarketing.

A savings promotion committee was alsoestablished with members from localFCAs. Shingyoren provided training forthem regarding financial affairs.Shidoren has increased the range of itswork to include not only theaforementioned two functions, but alsocampaigns against environmentalpollution and a movement to restructurethe management of fisheries to deal withthe conditions of the 200-mile fisheryzone.

The three prefecturalfederations—Dogyoren, Shingyoren andShidoren—hold symposiums in Sapporoevery year. These symposiums areattended by over 300 representativesfrom among the two aforementionedcommittees. The co-operative movementbenefits greatly from discussions andexchanges of views, which result fromthese gatherings.

Shidoren also runs the Hokkaido FCACollege in Saporo. The school recruitshigh school graduates from the fishingvillages, teaches them for one yearregarding the business aspects of the FCA,and then helps them find employment inone of the FCAs.

Dogyoren, Shingyoren, Shidoren and thelocal FCAs have accomplished manythings in Hokkaido and are well knownthroughout Japan for the work they havedone in promoting the fisheryco-operative movement. They haveencouraged fishermen to be strong and tounite and to promote savings in thehouseholds, and they have encouragedthe youth of the fishing communities todevelop their skills.

Japa

n

This instalment, the eleventh, isexcerpted from the Autobiographyof Takatoshi Ando, translated byNaoyuki Tao and James Colyn


Michael Belliveau 1942 - 2002

Farewell, true friend

Michael Belliveau, Executive Secretary of the Maritime Fishermen’s Union, passed away on 26 January 2002 in Moncton, Canada, aged 60

It is hard to believe—and even moredifficult to accept—that MichaelBelliveau has bid us a final goodbye.

Although far away in the Maritimes, aname and a region he familiarized us with,his close association with us at ICSF sprungfrom our conviction that his was a firm,clear and committed voice in the sector ofthe inshore fisheries.

A Canadian woman friend of mine, whohad worked in a fishing village outsideTrivandrum in the mid-1960s and whohad, subsequently, met Mike through herwork in Development and Peace, Canadarecommended Mike’s participation at thefounding meeting of ICSF in Trivandrum,India in 1986. Although ICSF has remained,from its inception, an international NGOwith a Southern bias, Mike’s commitmentto the inshore fishery and his sensitivity todevelopment issues were so perceptiblethat he was requested to be a member ofICSF’s first Animation Team. He acceptedreluctantly, wondering whether he wouldbe able to do justice to the task.

Having myself had, by that time, almost adecade of experience in mass mobilizationwork in the Indian fishworkers’movement and being someone withprofessional training in organization, Ifound in Mike a trade union leader of adifferent sort. He seemed to ideally, andsimultaneously, blend the aspects of aprofessional trade organization withthose of a political trade union; in India, Ihad experienced these aspects as runningparallel and quite apart from each other.

Although we constantly kept discussingthese issues between ourselves and hadwild dreams of opening the debate forwider participation through SAMUDRAReport, that never happened because oflack of time. It was only years later, in1999, that both of us, along with Aliou Sall

of Senegal, got the opportunity to sittogether for ten days and share ourexperiences more intensely. Only then didI begin to understand Mike’s life-longsearch for, and commitment to, the issuesof the working class. I could only respectand admire the objectivity and integritywith which he worked through issues andtried to find answers.

My other colleagues in ICSF and theNational Fishworkers’ Forum (NFF) hadtold me about Mike’s day-to-day life in theMaritime Fishermen’s Union (MFU), ofwhich he was the Executive Secretary.MFU’s activities spread over thousands ofkilometres in the Maritimes and Mike hadto spend long hours on the road to keep intouch with its members. He wasconvinced about the importance of beingclose to them, as he believed they were thebest judges of how the MFU should forgeahead. When Mike spoke to us about theMFU, he talked about the people in it andits perservering founders, who gaveeverything they had to make the MFU arepresentative movement, even as itworked on a shoe-string budget up to themid-1990s.

I finally got to visit Mike and the MFU onlyin 2000. That was a troubled period for theMFU, and tension was brewing in severalof the coastal communities after theMarshall Judgement. Mike had kept usinformed of the issues at stake and, whileI was there, I got a better understanding ofthe problem. Far from ’influencing’ me,Mike wanted me to get a first-handunderstanding of the problem.

Mike’s positionsWhen his attempts to organize a meetingwith the First Nation leaders failed, heaccepted that I could meet them throughother contacts. It was through thisinteraction with the First Nation groups

O

bituary


that I understood how, in such a complexsocial and economic stalemate, Mike’sposition to accommodate all the rightfulinterests was based on his profoundassessment of the inshore fishery and thepossibility of sharing and sustaining thisresource both justly and viably.

I also realized he was being attackedfor his positions. But he continued tohold his ground not just because of

personal interest but in the larger interestof the inshore fishers and fishery as awhole. Only years of experience in thefishery and a conviction about socialjustice could have been the source of suchwisdom.

As a member of ICSF and ExecutiveSecretary of the MFU, Mike spared nooccasion to deepen solidarity between thefishworkers of the Maritimes and theSouthern world. The MFU related veryclosely with the Collective Nationale duPecheures du Senegal (CNPS), trying tounderstand the issues of the Southernfishworkers and the impact of fisheriesaccess agreements on the South.

The challenging questions that Mikeposed to us always made us reflect on ourown strategies in organizational work.The aspect that worried him most wasthat fishworker organizations in theSouth had not yet moved constructivelyinto management of the inshore fisheries.He firmly believed that it was thefishermen of the Maritimes, through theMFU, who had actually managed andconserved their fisheries, while the‘scientifically’ State-managed cod fisherycollapsed.

Similarly, on the question of women infisheries, I admit that I also learnt fromMike’s analysis. Initially, I had felt that hewas not particularly sensitive to the issue,and I would chide him about it. I tendedto think he avoided any discussion on thetopic.

In fact, after reading Sue Calhoun’s bookon the MFU, A Word to Say, which hehimself had given me in 1989, I asked himwhether the fishermen in the Maritimeshad any womenfolk at all. He responded:“You’re right to ask that question, Nalini.Several women were involved in thestruggles of the coastal communities in

the early stages, but they have alldisappeared. I don’t know why.”

While we worked on ICSF’s Women andFisheries Programme, Mike did not getinvolved—which made me angry. I laterrealized that he had been attentive to allthe discussions and analyses, but couldnot fit it into his analysis of the evolvingfishery.

Nevertheless, through efforts of womenlike Chantal Abord-Hugon and MaureenLarkin, as women in the coastalcommunities in the Maritimes and PrinceEdward Island (PEI) began to mobilize,they also began to participate in theannual congresses of the MFU and I feelMike surely had a lot to do with that.

In 1999, we sat down for our longconversation, where we took up thesubject again. (This will soon be published byICSF as a volume titled Conversations: ATrialogue on Organization, Power andIntervention in Fisheries—Ed.)

Although we did not arrive at anyamicable and clear conclusion, Mike’sinsights threw enormous light on theprocess of marginalization of womenthrough the ’professionalization’ of thefishery. That helped me to interact moremeaningfully with fisherwomen ofAtlantic Canada the next year.

Mike was subsequently ready to see thatthe MFU provided a platform for thewomen in the Maritimes and PEI tointeract amongst themselves, so that theycould not only build up solidarity but alsocome up with strategies to tackle thegrowing withdrawal of the State, and thusdefend the rights of the coastalcommunities.

Another time when Mike’s wisdomsounded caution was during the creationof the World Forum of Fishworkers andFish Harvesters (WFF). Knowing very wellthe founding partners of WFF, and being,in a way, responsible for them meetingeach other at the 50th Anniversary of FAO,Mike foresaw that any close collaborationbetween them would be problematic.

Issue-basedHe had advised that collaboration shouldbe issue-based and that any kind of

Obi

tuar

y


structured organization would bepremature and unviable.

As the process of globalization draws uscloser through common problems indefending our rights against theonslaught of global capital, Mike’sabsence creates an irreconcilable vacuum.

I mourn the loss of this wise and truefriend with a sense of disbelief. I cannothelp feeling that his departure, at thisparticular time, is a tremendous blow toinshore fishers and inshore fisheries theworld over.

O

bituary

This tribute comes from NaliniNayak ([email protected]),a Member of ICSF


ILO Standard

SAMUDRA Report hasreliably learnt thatthe 283rd Session ofthe InternationalLabour Organization(ILO) General Body,held in Genevabetween 7 and 22March 2002, hasmade a historicdecision: for the firsttime, the scope offisheries has beenbroadened to includelarge- and small-scalefishing operations.

The Session decidedto include, in theagenda of the 2004International LabourConference, a“comprehensivestandard (aConventionsupplemented by aRecommendation) onwork in the fishingsector”.

According to the ILO,such standards areproposed because,while the fishingsector shares many ofthe specialcharacteristics of theshipping sector, thereare enoughdifferences to warrantseparateconsideration and

distinct standards.ILO belives that it isalso important toconvene a tripartitemeeting of experts tohelp in thepreparation of suchfishing sector labourstandards.

Tuna deal

The Philippines andIndonesia have comeup with a new tunadeal. Filipinofishermen can now,for the first time inhistory, fish in certainparts of the SulawesiSea and the PacificOcean in the east andportions of the IndianOcean in the west,which form part ofIndonesia’s exclusiveeconomic zone.

Philippine boats cannow dock and landtheir catch at theIndonesian ports ofBitung, Manokswari,Sorong, Biak andJayapura, all towardsthe Pacific Ocean, aswell as the ports ofSabang, Bungus,Jakarta, Surabaya andBahyuwangi, alltowards the IndianOcean. The ports ofBitung, Biak, Sorong,Surabaya and Jakartaare especiallyimportant for theIndonesian tunacanning industry.

By signing thisagreement, theIndonesiangovernment has beenable to secure the

supply of competitiveraw material for thelocal canningindustry.

Label babel

If a new law ispassed, all seafoodsold in USsupermarkets—domestic andimported—will soonhave to carry newlabels indicatingwhether the fish orshellfish is

farm-raised orwild-caught and thecountry of origin ofthe product.

Alaska Senator TedStevens’ provision,part of the Farm Billpassed earlier in theSenate, builds onSenator PaulWellstone’scountry-of-originlabeling amendment.The Farm Bill passedby the Housecontains acountry-of-originlabeling provision forfruits and vegetablesbut not seafood.

According toWorldCatch NewsNetwork, fishproducts harvestedby US flag fishing

vessels on the highseas are not eligible tobe labeled ’Product ofthe USA’, nor are fishproducts harvested inthe US and partiallyprocessed in anothercountry.

The NationalFisheries Institute(NFI), the US seafoodindustry’s largesttrade association,opposes mandatorycountry-of-originlabeling for seafood.NFI officials arguesuch requirementsconvey no uniquehealth or safetyinformation toconsumers.

The fisheriesassociation cites areport by the GeneralAccountingOffice—released inApril 1999—thatraised numerousquestions about theeffectiveness, cost,and enforceability ofmandatorycountry-of-originlabels.

Citizens only

Trawling for fish interritorial waters ofGhana is nowreserved solely forGhanaians under anew fisheries lawrecently passed bythe country’sparliament.

The law alsostipulates that 50 percent of investment intuna fishing isreserved forGhanaians, instead of25 per cent, as in thepast. Foreigners caninvest in theremaining 50 percent. The Ghanaian

News Round-up


government hasalready promised tobring in some fishingvessels to enableGhanaians toproduce fish locallythis year.

The governmenthopes that foreignparticipation willincrease annual tunaproduction from

70,000 to 100,000tonnes. The country’sexports of frozenwhole round tuna tothe European Unionhas increased overthe past three years to45,000 tonnes.

Sea cops

Hundreds offishermen on theisland of Batam,neighbouringSingapore, inIndonesia have setup a private taskforce to combatillegal fishing,smuggling andpiracy.

In an effort to end therampant sea-crimesin the waterssurrounding Batam,855 km northwest ofJakarta, anassociation of Batamfishermen haslaunched a specialpatrol task force thatwill operate withvolunteers.

Initially, thevolunteers at sea will

receive training fromIndonesian marinepolice and the navy.

Their targets willinclude foreignfishing boatsengaging in illegalfishing in Indonesianterritorial waters, orin other illicitactivities such assmuggling and piracy.

Shrimp embargo

After a decade oflitigation, the UnitedStates Court ofAppeals for theFederal Circuit hasreversed an opinionof the Court ofInternational Tradethat would haveexpanded the presentUS embargo onimported shrimp inviolation ofinternational tradeagreements,according toWorldCatch NewsNetwork, quotingpress statement fromthe National FisheriesInstitute.

NFI, the US’ largest

seafood tradeassociation, hadbattled the suit by theTurtle IslandRestoration Network,the ASPCA, theHumane Society andthe Sierra Club, inwhat the court calleda long and torturedhistory of litigation.

In its decision, theCourt upheld theview supported bythe NFI that a countrymay export shrimp tothe US by requiringTurtle ExcluderDevices (TEDs) onthose vessels catchingshrimp destined forthe US market.

This position isconsistent with arecent WTO decisionthat such a policy ispermissible underinternational tradeagreements.

Concluding that theUS State Department’sinterpretation of USlaw is the correct one,the court said in itsfinal decision, “Wetherefore reverse theCourt of InternationalTrade’s judgementthat the government’sdecision to permit theimportation ofTED-caught shrimpfrom uncertifiednations is not inaccordance withSection 609(b) of Pub.L. 101-162, and affirmthe Court ofInternational Trade’sdenial of injunctiverelief and attorneyfees.”

NFI President RichardE. Gutting, Jr said,“The court rulingensures that USshrimp vessels willcontinue to have alevel playing fieldwith foreignshrimpers, and thatthe many companiesaround the nationthat export seafoodwill not face foreignretaliation for whatmight have been anillegal US tradebarrier.

Charter

At its General Bodymeeting, held from 6to 19 December 2001,at Arjappally, Orissa,India, the NationalFishworkers Forum(NFF) brought out a42-point Charter ofDemands that seeksto bring about a truedevelopment of thefishing communitiesin India.

The charter calls forregulations ondeep-sea fishing,subsidies for thesmall-scale fisheriessector, controls onaquaculture, and theimplementation of

the CoastalRegulation Zonenotification of 1991.

NFF has alsodemanded lifting ofthe recent ban onfishing certain speciesof shark, imposed bythe Ministry ofEnvironment andForests.

The charter also callsfor welfare and socialsecurity measures forfishworkers and theirfamilies. It furtherdemands the releaseof innocent fishermenbeing held indifferent jails ofBangladesh, India,Maldives, Pakistanand Sri Lanka.


Mine is the migrating bird

Winging over perilous regions of the ocean,

Ever tracing out the age-old path of the

Wandering waves...

— from a fangu, or sacred chant, of ancient Tuamotuan,an Austronesian or Malayo-Polynesian language

spoken throughout the Tuamotu Islands,part of French Polynesia in the South Pacific.

Quoted in We, the Navigators: the Ancient Art ofLandfinding in the Pacific

by David Lewis

ICSF is an international NGOworking on issues that concernfishworkers the world oyer. It isin status with the Economic andSocial Council of the UN and ison ItO'S Special List of NonGovernmental International Organizations. It also has LiaisonStatus with FAO. Registered inGeneva, ICSF has offices inChenna], India and Brussels,Belgium. As aglobal network ofcommunity organizers,teachers, technicians. researchers and scientists, ICSPSactivities encompass monitoring and research, exchangeand training, campaigns andaction, as well as communicatlons.5AMUDRA REPORT Invitescontributions and responses.Correspondence should be addressed to the Chennai office.

The opinions and positionsexpressed in the articles arethose of the authors concemedand do not necessarily represent the official views ot ICSF.

SAMUDAA REPORT can now be accessed on ICSFS home page onthe World Wide Web athttp://www.iest.net orhttp://www.icsf.org

Published bySebastian Mathew lor

Intemational Collective In Support 01 Flshworkers27 College Road, Chennai 600 006, India

Telephone (91) 44-827 5303 Facsimile (91) 44-825 4457E-mail: [email protected]

ICSF Brussels Office:Rue du Midi 165, B-1 000 Brussels, Belgium

Telephone (32) 2 - 5131565 Facsimile (32) 2-513 7343E-mail: [email protected]

Edited byKG Kumar

Designed bySa1ishBabu

CoverBreakfast;n the Andamans

Oil on canvas by Prelas HUlangkura

Photographs courtesy ofCCAMlR,lntemational Harpoon

AGR, Chandrlka Sharma, Brian O'Riordan, Beatrice GorezToshiya Unno/Shizuoka Shimbun, Sebastian Mathew

Additional news courtesy ofRsh Information &Services

WorldCatch.com. Alunacom

Printed alNagaraj and Company Pvt. Ltd.. Chenna!

SAMUDRA REPORT No. 31 March 2002FOR lIMITEO CJRCULAT10N ONLY

international collective in support of fishworkersaquaticcommons.org/17569/1/samudra 31.pdf · the...

Documents