Corporatised NGOs say maximum profit saves fisheries

A recent report sets out a global vision for ‘transitioning to sustainable fisheries’. It is an important publication, being the outcome of collaboration among many of the world’s most influential environmental organisations; the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), WWF, Conservation International, the Nature Conservancy and the Wildlife Conservation Society. Other contributors to this report are the World Bank and the Prince of Wales International Sustainability Unit. All of these organisations are now part of a new initiative called 50in10 (also listed as a co-publisher of the report), a Washington based organisation that describes itself as:

“A collaborative initiative among NGOs, businesses, public and private investors, philanthropies, and governments. Driven by their respective mandates and capabilities, these organizations coordinate their activities and share tools and expertise to accelerate fisheries restoration so that communities can prosper”. (emphasis added) 

50in10 is a name chosen because the World Bank’s president demanded in 2012 that in 10 years 50% of the world’s fisheries should be restored, thereby increasing the global contribution made by fisheries to between 20 and $30 billion. On its new website, replete with inspiring photos of small-scale fishers in developing countries, 50in10 describe this new report as ground breaking – for the first time all these organisations have put their heads together to come up with a new framework to increase investments for sustainable fisheries.

But what they are saying in this report is neither new nor ground breaking. It represents the latest in a line of publications by a group of people determined to resolve a host of problems related to fisheries through privatisation and profit maximisation, - what the World Bank celebrates as the ‘Wealth Based Approach’.  These corporatized NGOs believe that capitalism has the power to achieve a triple win scenario – good for the environment, good for communities and good for the “bottom line” of businesses.

The new report describes that through careful research from around the world they have discovered three vital ingredients to ensure fisheries produces maximum wealth, a concept used confusingly as a proxy for sustainable fisheries.

One of these is that fishing should not involve overfishing. This is described as being very important for any investors wanting to get involved in the sector – they must appreciate that taking too many fish from the sea is not good for making profits.

The second ingredient to maximising wealth in fisheries is to make sure fishing companies have secure tenure rights, which means giving companies long term tradable rights for owning fish and parts of the sea. This is a longstanding recommendation made by some fisheries economists and includes implementing ‘catch shares’ or “Individual Transferable Quotas” – something that EDF has been advocating for years. The logic here is bound up with the famous ‘tragedy of the commons’ essay by Garrett Hardin (duly referenced in the report), used to explain the root cause of overfishing; under open access everyone is fighting for their share without any security for the long term. Once companies have long-term ownership over their resource, they become careful stewards of nature and will not want to spoil their cash cow (“secure tenure ties current behaviour to future outcomes and incentivises fishers to invest in long term sustainability…the immediate economic impact of establishing secure tenure can be dramatic”). This is the mantra of self regulating free markets writ large.

The third ingredient is for states to ensure that fisheries have robust monitoring and enforcement. There is an obvious paradox here given that fisheries are supposed to be self regulating if companies have secure tenure – so why the need for state regulation? The answer is that the real problem is with outsiders, including illegal vessels and communities who are not educated about responsible fishing. So regulation is more about providing a secure environment for investments, and policing the private property of companies that may be made less valuable by ignorant outsiders and pirates (“ensuring robust monitoring and enforcement will significantly reduce the risk of investment in the transition, as it either reduces or eliminates existing IUU [illegal, unreported, unregulated] activity and discourages any new IUU activity from starting.”)

These three ingredients to maximising wealth are described as irrefutable based on “research and evidence”.  Yet experiments in transferable quotas have produced widely differing outcomes, and the fable of overfishing being caused by ‘open access’ and the tragedy of the commons is misleading – there are few fisheries that have ever been characterised as open access, and there are countless examples to show that fishing companies with quite secure interests in parts of the sea have plundered this resource with disregard for sustainable ecosystems, making great returns on investments in the process. Corporations do not become good environmental stewards through secure property rights. Where ITQs have coincided with improved fishing practices, this has always relied on a great deal of regulation, which fishing companies tend to fight vigorously against. We expect green NGOs to fight back against this and tackle the major challenge of ‘regulatory capture’ in fisheries – but not 50in10, who prefer instead to depict NGOs as strategic business partners: “NGOs have played and can continue to play an important role in providing investment, education and technical assistance that support industry in increasing their market value” (emphasis added). 

Another point of contention with ‘secure tenure’ is the well-known problem with transferable quota systems – they open the way to financial speculation by investors and concentration of wealth. This is why so many smaller companies and fisher communities dislike them. This may be a policy to maximise economic rents from fisheries, but it can drive inequalities and create the classic winner takes all scenario. EDF knows all about this as it has been subject to fierce criticisms from fishers in the US and Canada where these experiments with investor friendly fisheries have been pushed forward. One hopes the organisations involved in 50in10 read the “The Global Ocean Grab” by another group of organisations more interested in social justice for fishing communities than lining the pockets of big business.

“Today we are witnessing a major process of enclosure of the world’s oceans and fisheries resources, including marine, coastal and inland fisheries. Ocean grabbing is occurring mainly through policies, laws, and practices that are (re)defining and (re)allocating access, use and control of fisheries resources away from small-scale fishers and their communities, and often with little concern for the adverse environmental consequences”

The ground breaking report by the world’s largest green NGOs on how to harness private investments to achieve sustainable fisheries disregards these counter arguments emanating from fisher communities. It is also remarkable for not actually being concerned with fishing communities at all. The basic question of how all this extra wealth that is on offer will trickle down to workers and fishers is left out of the equation. Why aren't these organisations questioning the environmental and social impacts of a global economic model dependent on growth and profit maximisation?     

From "Towards Investment In Sustainable Fisheries"

The report continues from the three ingredients for profit maximisation to list the factors that can help increase value for investors in fisheries (although why investors need to be told all this by green NGOs is distinctly odd). This includes reducing “operational inefficiencies” and ensuring "business flexibility", familiar signifiers for reduced pay to workers and labour security ("improving the operational efficiency of a fishery includes any activity that reduces the cost of fishing or delivering seafood through the supply chain. Increasing efficiency and overall profit margins will improve the return on investment"). Then it champions the merits of voluntary certification for fish products such as that provided by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), although again failing to reflect on the full range of debates on eco-labelling, including its ambiguous contribution to sustainable fisheries and potentially negative impact for small-scale fisheries.  Daniel Pauly - one of the most recognised marine biologists in the world criticised the MSC as merely "doing the business for the business community". 

The report then drifts off into several pages of advice on how to build new investment strategies and why it is important that investors consider risks carefully - “a multi-species fishery in a developing country with jurisdictional complexity, limited rule of law and limited access to market" is a particularly risky investment prospect. Investors are also instructed on the pros and cons of “mezzanine”, “anchor equity” or “concessional loan” investments and so on. At this point the report reveals itself for what it is – not a ground breaking report on social and ecological sustainability in fisheries, but a proposal by many large organisations involved in fisheries to get more investors interested in funding their work (“to encourage investors towards this sector, a pipeline of projects needs to be developed”). A wealth based approach indeed. 

Senegal Faces Russian Pressures For Access To Fish: Vigilance Is Required

Since 2010, Senegal is under pressure from Russian pelagic trawlers to access Senegal small pelagic fish. These trawlers are allowed to fish in the Morocco, Mauritania and Guinea Bissau but not in Senegal’s EEZ.

Confronted with the reluctance of the Senegalese authorities to negotiate a fisheries agreement with the Russian Federation, Russian shipowners have found the alternative: use a local co-signatory, and sign private protocols with the Ministry granting them fishing rights.

These protocols between Senegal and foreign private companies do not conform to the legislation in force in Senegal, which States that foreign flagged fishing vessels are allowed to operate in the waters under Senegalese jurisdiction either under a fisheries agreement linking Senegal to the flag State, or the organization that represents this State, or when they are chartered by people of Senegalese nationality.

In other words, the law does not authorize the signature of protocols between Senegal and private companies, as was done with Russian trawlers. In addition, none of these protocols has been ratified by the National Assembly and promulgated by the President of the Republic, let alone published in the Official Journal of the Republic of Senegal.

Illegally, the Minister of Maritime economy in function in 2010 therefore granted abusive benefits to Russian pelagic trawlers, including: the non-obligation to embark Senegalese crew, the non-payment of fees dues in respect of the fishing licenses allocated. The shortfall for the State in this regard, for 29 trawlers involved, was almost 9 million CFA francs on basis of annual licenses.

In addition, at a time when the fight against IUU fishing is a priority for many, some of these vessels arrested for fishing in a prohibited area or for having disguised their markings in order not to be identifiable, saw their fines cancelled by the Minister, although the infractions they committed were most serious.

That was the situation prevailing when the new president of the Republic, Mr Macky Sall, was elected, on 25 March 2012. In line with a commitment made during his electoral campaign, he cancelled all licenses issued on an illegal basis to foreign pelagic trawlers.

But the new Minister in charge of fisheries himself never expressed the wish to put an end to the activities of Russian trawlers in Senegalese waters. Already, end April 2012, he stated that fishing authorisations would continue to be given but taking into account the resources and the interests of the State: ' with experts, we will study the number of fishing authorisations to be granted’.

The issue also invited itself at the Council of Ministers’ table in December 2012, during which the President of the Republic 'decided to extend the biological rest for our maritime spaces, by freezing the granting of fishing licenses to foreign vessels, for a period of at least one year’.

In June 2013, at the end of an inter-Ministerial Council on fisheries, the following recommendation was adopted: ‘To maintain the discontinuation of licensing pelagic trawlers until an evaluation of this operation is conducted. In particular, this assessment should identify the impacts of these operations on the biological state of resources and on the budget, as well as on the social climate in the fisheries sector'.

The question arises: is an illegal operation something ‘to assess’ in this way?

Currently, the small pelagic fishing season is beginning. To lift the obstacles for obtaining licenses, the representative of the Federal Russian Agency for Fisheries in Senegal, recalled on a local television program that Russia ‘was waiting for the results of the evaluation announced at the occasion of the Inter-ministerial Council on Fisheries held in June 2013'.

Another question arises: for shared resources like small pelagic, what is the pertinence of an evaluation made on Senegal alone, when scientific assessments concerning the entire stocks of these shared resources are available through the FAO/CECAF working group, which since more than 12 years is following the development of the small pelagic resources at the regional level?

We must remain vigilant and hope that the new Minister appointed last September will take into account the recommendations of this FAO/CECAF working group, composed of the most eminent fisheries biologists from the coastal countries and the countries that fish along the northwest coast of Africa. This working group is constantly reminding, over the last years, that coastal pelagic resources are overexploited and recommends that fishing effort should be reduced by at least 50%.

There is no 'surplus', which can be given and the Russians must be gently but firmly invited to go fish elsewhere.

Dr. Sogui DIOUF

Veterinary

soguidiouf@gmail.com

CSOs comment on access conditions for EU fleets fishing outside FPAs

One issue CFFA and other NGOs insisted on in the context of the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, was the need for the EU to ensure all its external fleets respect similar sustainability conditions, including those fishing outside FPAs and RFMOs. Such concern was taken into account in the reformed basic regulation, and the process is now advancing a step further with the revision of the Fishing Authorisations regulation (FAR). Prior to the publication of its review proposal, the EC has organised a consultation, for which Civil Society organisations active in the Long Distance Regional Advisory Committee (LDRAC) have sent joint preliminary comments 

(click here to see the comments).

 8 organisations, including NGOs (Bread For the World, CFFA, Danish Living Seas, Oceana, Seas At Risk, SSNC, WWF) and the trade union ETF insisted that the FAR should ensure that key sustainability rules agreed in the reformed CFP, - in particular the restoration of marine biological resources-, and those specified in binding international agreements, are implemented for all EU flagged vessels fishing outside EU waters. These organisations then make comments and proposals to address, in the FAR review process, the following specific issues: 

•  Abusive reflagging: 

•  The lack of transparency in private arrangements: 

•  The need to ensure that social legislation is properly applied: 

•  The need to monitor private arrangements 

•  Coherence and compliance with Control Regulation, IUU Regulation and Regulation on countries allowing unsustainable fishing

For Mauritanian CSO, Joint scientific committee confirmed FPA protocol orientations

Acknowledging the results of the EU-Mauritania Fisheries Partnership Agreement Joint Scientific Committee meeting, held beginning of April, Mauritanian civil society organisations, as well as organisations supporting them,- including CFFA-, issued a joint communication in which they emphasize these results confirm that the changes introduced in the provisionnally adopted FPA protocol are in support of sustainable fisheries, in particular with regard to the octopus, small pelagics and coastal shrimps resources.

The European Parliament ambitious for the future EU fisheries relations with third countries

The European parliament voted on February 6th 2013 on its report concerning the future CFP legislation (the ‘basic regulation’). The final report was supported by an important majority of parliamentarians (502 in favor; 137 against – a qualified majority is 377). This means that the Parliament is in a relatively strong position to now go and discuss with the Council and EC to get a final agreement about what the future fisheries policy will look like.

In a briefing note, CFFA highlights the elements of the report that will affect the future EU fisheries relations with third countries (click here for CFFA note), whether they are related to future Sustainable Fishing Agreements (SFAs), fishing operations taking place under RFOs or outside the framework of SFAs and RFOs. Important progress are also registered in terms of good governance, transparency in particular.

The European Parliament ambitious for the future EU fisheries relations with third countries

 The European parliament voted on February 6th 2013 on its report concerning the future CFP legislation (the ‘basic regulation’). The final report was supported by an important majority of parliamentarians (502 in favor; 137 against – a qualified majority is 377). This means that the Parliament is in a relatively strong position to now go and discuss with the Council and EC to get a final agreement about what the future fisheries policy will look like.

In a briefing note, CFFA highlights the elements of the report that will affect the future EU fisheries relations with third countries (click here for CFFA note), whether they are related to future Sustainable Fishing Agreements (SFAs), fishing operations taking place under RFOs or outside the framework of SFAs and RFOs. Important progress are also registered in terms of good governance, transparency in particular.

NGOs’ briefing on CFP reform to be discussed in plenary session in the Parliament on February the 5th

With regards to the plenary vote on the future CFP Basic regulation, which will take place on February the 5th, the consolidated version of the ‘Rodust report’, as adopted by the European Parliament Fisheries committee, made some amendments to the Commission’s proposition. NGOs concerned made a briefing ‘Overfishing: you can end it!’ regarding this report and the future vote, highlighting elements to support, strengthen and reject (see briefing in joint document). CFFA wishes to insist on elements regarding external dimension: MEPs should support: 
  The promotion of sustainable fisheries in external fisheries, as it is promoted in internal fisheries. 
  The discard ban, to be implemented in external fisheries by January 2017. The discard ban in these fisheries shouldn’t lead to massive dumping of fish by EU vessels in developing countries. Like it is the case for internal waters, the priority should be given to measures that help avoid unwanted catches in the first place. 
  The reference made to Aarhus Convention for accessing information as a very important element in terms of transparency + SFAs evaluations should be made public. 
  Also, measures to be taken, in the Common Market Organization regulation, so that internationally recognized social and environmental standards are applied to imports. 
  Improved measures related to SFAs such as an exclusivity clause to be introduced in SFAs, a human rights conditionality, the financial compensation to be used for development purpose, etc. 
  There are also several amendments supporting small scale fisheries which could be also promoted at the external level.

However, there are some issues needing further input in the basic regulation, which should be improved and then supported: 
  The need to take into account developing countries nutritional needs. Reference to article 62 (2) and 62 (3) – referring to art. 70 – of UNCLOS, which highlight this issue should be made (see:https://www.un.org/depts/los/conven...). 
  Regarding stakeholders participation, nothing is proposed concretely for the external dimension. A new amendment 167 bis, should be added, which would call for : Delegations from the European Parliament and the Advisory Councils shall be present when SFA are negotiated. 
  Several articles deal with the covering of activities outside the scope of SFAs and RFMOs. However, what is proposed is not sufficient enough. It should be insisted on the fact that those good intentions (that EU vessels fishing outside SFAs/RFMOs must follow the same sustainability principles) will have to be adequately reflected in the conditions made for fishing authorizations (regulation 1006/2008)

At last, one element should be rejected: 
  Providing fishing opportunities for a recreational sector that opposes to be regulated under CFP should not be an objective

See joint NGO position in joint document

EU/Morocco FPA: ongoing negotiations of a new protocol

The third round of negotiations on a new protocol of the Fisheries Agreement between EU and Morocco took place in Rabat on 15 and 16 January 2013. Following two rounds essentially dealing with the technical conditions that would apply to the EU fleet under the new protocol, the discussions dealt with financial aspects as well as with political issues. At this stage, the parties agreed to consider an increase of fishing opportunities, whereas technical conditions are being revised for certain fishing categories, with a view to optimise future fishing effort. Exchange of views has also taken place about the envisaged financial support of fishing sector in regard with programming, implementation and reporting conditions. The previous protocol had been signed in 2011 but rejected by the European Parliament.

Source: http://ec.europa.eu/information_soc...

Protocol to the EU-Mauritania FPA: CFFA requests that the Parliament supports the text

CFFA share its view on the EU-Mauritania fisheries agreement protocol, prior to the hearing organised on January 21st in the European Parliament on this issue, in a note attached to this article.

Together with Mauritanian partners from the civil society and fishing communities, CFFA is mainly concerned about the environmental sustainability, the support to local fishing communities and the governance aspects of the FPA protocol proposed.

Based on the analysis of the protocol by partners during a round table discussion held in Nouakchott last October, CFFA feels the protocol that has been negotiated should be supported by the Parliament, as it largely answers many of those concerns:

 The principle of access to surplus is respected, particularly for the octopus, which is a strategic resource for Mauritanian artisanal fishermen; 
 the new zoning, pushing the trawlers away from the coast, will better protect ecosystems and local fishing activities; 
 the obligation to land the catches locally will give a boost to onshore activities, and related job creation 
 the new basis for calculation of access will ensure there is a better idea about what is caught 
 the possibilities for opening up the attendance of the Joint committee to stakeholders representatives will help improve transparency and participation

Some EU vessels have started fishing under the new proposed protocol, but most European fleets involved in Mauritania do not agree with the technical conditions and/or the financial conditions provided by the protocol, and are proposing to reject the agreeement, a position that is followed by the EP rapporteur in its proposed report http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetd...

CFFA feels there is sufficient scope in the terms of the protocol, – in particular provisions for the Joint Committee and its mandate-, to accomodate EU sector’s concerns, provided those concerns are in line with sustainable fisheries, local development needs and good governance.

The representative of the Mauritanian artisanal fishermen, Mr Sid’ahmed Abeid, will give his views at the hearing next Monday. The debate can be followed live, between 3 PM and 5 PM, on http://www.europarl.europa.eu/commi... (click on ‘Today’s broadcasts’)

See CFFA’s note in joint document