All over the world, protesters are engaged in a heroic battle with reality.They block roads, picket fuel depots, throw missiles and turn over cars in aneffort to hold it at bay. The oil is running out and governments, they insist,must do something about it. When they’ve sorted it out, what about the factthat the days are getting shorter? What do we pay our taxes for?
The latest people to join these surreal protests are the world’s fishermen.They are on strike in Italy, Spain, Portugal, France and Japan and demonstratingin scores of maritime countries. Last month in Brussels they threw rocks andflares at the police, who have been conspiring with the world’s sedimentarybasins to keep the price of oil high. The fishermen warn that if somethingisn’t done to help them, thousands could be forced to scrap their boats andhang up their nets. It’s an appalling prospect, which we should greet withheartfelt indifference.
Just as the oil price now seems to be all that stands between us and runawayclimate change, it is also the only factor which offers a glimmer of hope to theworld’s marine ecosystems. No East Asian government was prepared to conservethe stocks of tuna; now one-third of the tuna boats in Japan, China, Taiwan andSouth Korea will stay in dock for the next few months because they can’tafford to sail(1). The unsustainable quotas set on the US Pacific seaboardwon’t be met this year, because the price of oil is rising faster than theprice of fish(2). The indefinite strike called by Spanish fishermen is the bestnews European fisheries have had for years. Beam trawlermen – who trash theseafloor and scoop up a massive bycatch of unwanted species - warn that theirindustry could collapse within a year(3). Hurray to that too.
It would, of course, be better for everyone if these unsustainable practicescould be shut down gently without the need for a crisis or the loss of jobs, butthis seems to be more than human nature can bear. The European Union has aprogramme for taking fishing boats out of service – the tonnage of theEuropean fleet has fallen by 5% since 1999(4) - but the decline in boats is tooslow to overtake the decline in stocks. Every year the EU, like every otherfishery authority, tries to accommodate its surplus boats by setting quotashigher than those proposed by its scientific advisers, and every year thepopulation of several species is pressed a little closer to extinction.
The fishermen make two demands, which are taken up by politicians in coastalregions all over the world: they must be allowed to destroy their ownlivelihoods, and the rest of us should pay for it. Over seven years, Europeantaxpayers will be giving this industry E3.8bn(5). Some of this money is used totake boats out of service and to find other jobs for fishermen, but the rest isused to equip boats with new engines and new gear, to keep them on the water, tomodernise ports and landing sites and to promote and market the catch. Exceptfor the funds used to re-train fishermen or help them into early retirement,there is no justification for this spending. At least farmers can argue –often falsely – that they are the "stewards of the countryside". But whatpossible argument is there for keeping more fishermen afloat than the fishpopulation can bear?
The EU says its spending will reduce fishing pressure and help fishermen adoptgreener methods. In reality, it is delaying the decline of the industry andallowing it to defy ecological limits for as long as possible. If the memberstates want to protect the ecosystem, it’s a good deal cheaper to legislatethan to pay. Our fishing policies, like those of almost all maritime nations,are a perfect parable of commercial stupidity and short-termism, helping anindustry to destroy its long-term prospects for the sake of immediate profit.
But the fishermen only demand more. The headline on this week’s FishingNews is "Thanks for Nothing!", bemoaning the British government’srefusal to follow France, Spain and Italy in handing out fuel subsidies(6). Butwhy the heck should it? The Scottish fishing secretary, Richard Lochhead,demands that the government in Westminster "open the purse strings". He alsoinsists that new money is "not tied to decommissioning": in other words nomore boats should be taken off the water(7). Is this really a service to theindustry, or only to its most short-sighted members?
I have a leaked copy of the draft proposal that European states will discuss onThursday(8). It’s a disaster. Some of the boats which, under existingagreements, will be scrapped and turned into artificial reefs, permanentlyreducing the sized of the fleet, can now be replaced with smaller vessels. TheEU will pay costs and salaries for crews stranded by the fuel crisis, so thatthey stay in business and can start fishing again when the price falls. Memberstates will be able to shell out more money (E100,000 per boat instead ofE30,000) without breaking state aid rules. They can hand out new grants forreplacing old equipment with more fuel-efficient gear. The proposal seems to beaimed at ensuring that the industry collapses through lack of fish rather thanlack of fuel. The fishermen won’t go down without taking the ecosystem withthem.
What makes the draft document so dumb is that in some regions, especially inBritish waters, the industry is just beginning to turn. While French, Spanishand Italian fishermen clamour for a resumption of bluefin tuna fishing(9),knowing that if they are allowed to fish now, this will be the last season ever,around the UK it has begun to dawn on some fishermen that there might be anassociation between the survival of the fish and the survival of the fishing.Prompted by Young’s seafood and some of the supermarkets, who in turn havebeen harried by environmental groups, some of the biggest British fisheries haveapplied for eco-labels from the Marine Stewardship Council, which sets standardsfor how fish are caught(10). Fishermen around the UK also seem to be taking thelaw more seriously, and at last to be showing some interest in obscure issuessuch as spawning grounds and juvenile fish (which, believe it or not, turn outto have a connection to future fish stocks). By ensuring that far too manyboats, and far too many desperate fishermen, stay on the water, and that theremaining quotas are stretched too thinly, the EU will slow down or even reversethe greening of the industry.
Why is this issue so hard to resolve? Why does every representative of a fishingregion believe he must defend his constituents’ right to ensure that theirchildren have nothing to inherit? Why do the leaders of the fishermen’sassociations feel the need always to denounce the scientists who say that fishstocks decline if they are hit too hard? If this is a microcosm of how humanbeings engage with the environment, the prospect for humanity is not a happyone.
Advertisement
www.monbiot.com
References:
1. Tom Seaman, July 2008. Global supply of sushi tuna to plummet on soaring fuelprices. Intrafish, Vol 6, Issue 7.
2. Steve Quinn, 29th June 2008. Time to jump ship? Almost, say commercialfishermen. The Associated Press.
3. James Meikle, 23rd May 2008. Fish prices may rise by up to 50%. TheGuardian.
4. European Union, 2008. Evolution of the fleet’s number of vessels, tonnageand engine power. ec.europa.eu
5. European Commission, 2006. TheEuropean Fisheries Fund 2007-2013.
6. Fishing News, 4th July 2008.
7. No author given, 4th July 2008. ‘Open the Purse Strings’ – Lochhead. FishingNews.
8. The Council of the European Union, 2008. Proposal for a Council Regulationinstituting a temporary specific action aiming to promote the restructuring ofthe European fisheries fleets affected by the economic crisis.
9. Agence France Press, 17th June 2008. EU rejects calls to drop plannedtuna fishing ban.
10. Severin Carrell, 26th March 2008. British seas turning green, says watchdog.The Guardian.
