[R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Kept Afloat on a Tide of Money

[Bill Totten]

Why are governments subsidising the destruction of the marine environment?

by George Monbiot

Published in the Guardian (July 08 2008)


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 an effort 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 fact that 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 demonstrating in scores of maritime countries. Last month in
Brussels they threw rocks and flares at the police, who have been
conspiring with the world's sedimentary basins to keep the price of oil
high. The fishermen warn that if something isn't done to help them,
thousands could be forced to scrap their boats and hang up their nets.
It's an appalling prospect, which we should greet with heartfelt
indifference.

Just as the oil price now seems to be all that stands between us and
runaway climate change, it is also the only factor which offers a
glimmer of hope to the world's marine ecosystems. No East Asian
government was prepared to conserve the stocks of tuna; now one-third of
the tuna boats in Japan, China, Taiwan and South Korea will stay in dock
for the next few months because they can't afford to sail {1}. The
unsustainable quotas set on the US Pacific seaboard won't be met this
year, because the price of oil is rising faster than the price of fish
{2}. The indefinite strike called by Spanish fishermen is the best news
European fisheries have had for years. Beam trawlermen - who trash the
seafloor and scoop up a massive bycatch of unwanted species - warn that
their industry could collapse within a year {3}. Hurray to that too.

It would, of course, be better for everyone if these unsustainable
practices could be shut down gently without the need for a crisis or the
loss of jobs, but this seems to be more than human nature can bear. The
European Union has a programme for taking fishing boats out of service -
the tonnage of the European fleet has fallen by five per cent since 1999
{4} - but the decline in boats is too slow to overtake the decline in
stocks. Every year the EU, like every other fishery authority, tries to
accommodate its surplus boats by setting quotas higher than those
proposed by its scientific advisers, and every year the population of
several species is pressed a little closer to extinction.

The fishermen make two demands, which are taken up by politicians in
coastal regions all over the world: they must be allowed to destroy
their own livelihoods, and the rest of us should pay for it. Over seven
years, European taxpayers will be giving this industry 3.8 billion Euros
{5}. Some of this money is used to take boats out of service and to find
other jobs for fishermen, but the rest is used to equip boats with new
engines and new gear, to keep them on the water, to modernise ports and
landing sites and to promote and market the catch. Except for 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 what
possible argument is there for keeping more fishermen afloat than the
fish population can bear?

The EU says its spending will reduce fishing pressure and help fishermen
adopt greener methods. In reality, it is delaying the decline of the
industry and allowing it to defy ecological limits for as long as
possible. If the member states want to protect the ecosystem, it's a
good deal cheaper to legislate than to pay. Our fishing policies, like
those of almost all maritime nations, are a perfect parable of
commercial stupidity and short-termism, helping an industry to destroy
its long-term prospects for the sake of immediate profit.

But the fishermen only demand more. The headline on this week's Fishing
News is "Thanks for Nothing!", bemoaning the British government's
refusal to follow France, Spain and Italy in handing out fuel subsidies
{6}. But why the heck should it? The Scottish fishing secretary, Richard
Lochhead, demands that the government in Westminster "open the purse
strings". He also insists that new money is "not tied to
decommissioning": in other words no more boats should be taken off the
water {7}. Is this really a service to the industry, or only to its most
short-sighted members?

I have a leaked copy of the draft proposal that European states will
discuss on Thursday {8}. It's a disaster. Some of the boats which, under
existing agreements, will be scrapped and turned into artificial reefs,
permanently reducing the sized of the fleet, can now be replaced with
smaller vessels. The EU will pay costs and salaries for crews stranded
by the fuel crisis, so that they stay in business and can start fishing
again when the price falls. Member states will be able to shell out more
money (100,000 Euros per boat instead of 30,000 Euros) without breaking
state aid rules. They can hand out new grants for replacing old
equipment with more fuel-efficient gear. The proposal seems to be aimed
at ensuring that the industry collapses through lack of fish rather than
lack of fuel. The fishermen won't go down without taking the ecosystem
with them.

What makes the draft document so dumb is that in some regions,
especially in British waters, the industry is just beginning to turn.
While French, Spanish and 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 an association 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 have been harried by
environmental groups, some of the biggest British fisheries have applied
for eco-labels from the Marine Stewardship Council, which sets standards
for how fish are caught {10}. Fishermen around the UK also seem to be
taking the law more seriously, and at last to be showing some interest
in obscure issues such as spawning grounds and juvenile fish (which,
believe it or not, turn out to have a connection to future fish stocks).
By ensuring that far too many boats, and far too many desperate
fishermen, stay on the water, and that the remaining quotas are
stretched too thinly, the EU will slow down or even reverse the greening
of the industry.

Why is this issue so hard to resolve? Why does every representative of a
fishing region believe he must defend his constituents' right to ensure
that their children have nothing to inherit? Why do the leaders of the
fishermen's associations feel the need always to denounce the scientists
who say that fish stocks decline if they are hit too hard? If this is a
microcosm of how human beings engage with the environment, the prospect
for humanity is not a happy one.

www.monbiot.com

References:

1. Tom Seaman, July 2008. Global supply of sushi tuna to plummet on
soaring fuel prices. Intrafish, Vol 6, Issue 7.

2. Steve Quinn, 29th June 2008. Time to jump ship? Almost, say
commercial fishermen. The Associated Press.

3. James Meikle, 23rd May 2008. Fish prices may rise by up to 50%. The
Guardian.

4. European Union, 2008. Evolution of the fleet's number of vessels,
tonnage and engine power.
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng=en

5. European Commission, 2006. The European Fisheries Fund 2007-2013.
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/FEP_EN.pdf

6. Fishing News, 4th July 2008.

7. No author given, 4th July 2008. 'Open the Purse Strings' - Lochhead.
Fishing News.

8. The Council of the European Union, 2008. Proposal for a Council
Regulation instituting a temporary specific action aiming to promote the
restructuring of the European fisheries fleets affected by the economic
crisis.

9. Agence France Press, 17th June 2008. EU rejects calls to drop planned
tuna fishing ban.

10. Severin Carrell, 26th March 2008. British seas turning green, says
watchdog. The Guardian.

Copyright (c) 2006 Monbiot.com

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/07/08/kept-afloat-on-a-tide-of-money/


TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click
on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this
essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/