With the onset of the many new rules and regulations we propose, the livelihood of fishermen and members of fishing communities are undoubtedly at stake. Implementing quotas or marine protected areas may restrict fishermen's freedom to fish and an elimination of subsidies or restricting technology may increase the costs. It should be noted, however, that the regulations Mission 2011 proposes are not aimed at destroying the fishing industry-- because we, too, realize the importance of fish in our own lives and many of us are not necessarily willing to revert to a fish-free diet ourselves --but rather to transition from depleting fish stocks to sustainable fishing in order to secure the supply of fish and success of the fishing industry in years to come.
That said, change is inevitable, and there is no solution to the global fisheries problem that does not involve reducing the number of fish that is caught, and, in turn, reducing the number of people who make a living through the fishing industry. Just as workers in the auto industry have been displaced by machines, the abacus upgraded to the calculator, and lead in gasoline replaced with hydrocarbons, some fishermen will need to leave the industry and seek a new occupation in the long run. Even without the regulations we are suggesting, fishing can never be as profitable as it was in the past due to declining fish stocks. Communities centered around fishing need to adapt to a system that limits fishing, or risk a sudden, irreparable economic downturn that will result if the fish population collapses.
It should also be noted, that if our plans are carried out and successfully achieve our goals, then the fishing industry will ultimately benefit from these restrictions. In the initial stages fisherman will undoubtedly be hurt by many of the restrictions. However, as populations return to and are sustained at more natural levels, there will be more fish that can be harvested without the fishery threatening to collapse. On the other hand, if fishing continues as it is being done now, populations will go economically extinct, and entire fisheries will be lost.
The plans in this section [WILL ATTEMPT TO (but maybe actually will, once there's CONTENT on this page)] address the struggling fishermen who descend from a line of fishermen, the vessel operators and meat processors, cities and towns that rely heavily on profits from fishing, the islands that have few alternatives, and entire nations whose cultures are heavily integrated with the fishing industry.
Fishermen: Livelihood
The four options for fishermen:
- Job retraining for a new career
- Research
- Transition to sustainable fishing
- Unemployment
Alternative Employment
Mission has compiled several options to provide fishermen, who will be (or already are) displaced by our proposed solution, with employment opportunities in their field of expertise: the sea.
- tagging fish
- collecting data for the "More Research Page"
- hiring them as onboard observers
Transitional Subsidies (check if this matches with the subsidies in the other part of the solution)
Part of our solution calls for subsidizing the transition to sustainable fisheries. In this case, select fishermen who choose to progress fishing technique and abide by the proposed Agreement could qualify for government subsidies.
Currently, the U.S. Magnuson Stevens Act allocated funds to porgrssive fisheries, and when fisheries in a given locale fail to improve, those funds are reallocated to others that are improving. Similar programs like this encourage fishermen to abide by the laws of the sea (CITATION NEEDED).
Elimination of Days at Sea
Many areas have implemented a Days at Sea program to restrict the number of days a year fishermen are allowed to take out their boats. Proponents reason that reducing the time fishermen spend fishing, and thus the number of fish that are caught, will slow the depletion of fish stocks. This has dealt a severe blow to the industry, however, and left many fishermen frustrated and out of work. In Massachusetts, the Days at Sea program has cost the fishing industry $22 million. In response, Senators John Kerry and Edward Kennedy have pushed for a bill that will allot $15 million in aid for fishermen (Maguire, 2007). Earlier this year, the New England Fishery Management Council ruled to continue the Days-at-Sea program, because a better management alternative was not proposed in time.
We propose that the Days at Sea program be terminated and the fishery management rely strictly on quotas instead.
Island Nations and Implications
By advocating the reduction of the consumption of fish in the standard diet, one of the most immediate effects would be felt by island states around the world. Many small island nations depend almost exclusive on fish for food - but more importantly, as a source of protein. Therefore, measures should be taken to support the transition of these island states from relying entirely on fish for protein and energy to other sources of food.
One of the most immediate transitions would be from a fish-based food production to a more agriculturally-based production.
Island nations have generally been weak in the terms of traditional agriculture due to several issues: rampant urbanization, flourishing tourism, and paucity of large-scale arable land. However, island states have proven to be successful at the cultivation of tropical fruits, tuber/root crops, nuts and spices, vegetables, and cut flowers. Moreover, organic farming may be introduced to these small island states, and organic produce may potentially provide investment and revenue value for these nations. The FAO should offer assistance to sustain growth in these areas of development (Special Ministerial Conference, 13).
When the FAO offers assistance to these island nations, the revenue generated from the sale of these locally produced agricultural products may be used to purchase or exchange agricultural products with other nations (protein alternatives such as soybeans), reducing the demands of these island nations for a constant supply of fish to satisfy protein and energy needs. Furthermore, this exchange of food resources may also increase the diversity of the local diet, increasing the nutritional benefits of the local population.
In addition, since many of these island nations depend on tourism for the generation of revenue, these island nations inevitably would have to import food to feed their tourists. For example, Caribbean island nations imported $2.3 billion of food products annually to feed their tourists, while generating a negative trade deficit of $0.45 billion (Plan of Action Project). Therefore, the tourism sector should pick out more of the bill, perhaps moving the costs over to the tourists. In essence, these island nations are generating debt in return for tourism, and tourism is not helping the nation (even placing the nation further into the food problem). Thus, tourism should be friendly to the welfare of these island states and generate mutual benefits, rather than polarizing the economic circumstances of these island nations. With aid from the tourism industry and the FAO in promoting local agricultural projects, the small island nations may reduce dependence on fish as a source of protein and look for other alternatives.
Japan: A Special Case
Japan is an especially tough country in which to implement our solutions for the following reasons:
- The Japanese have a culture deeply embedded in fish consumption, with a seafood per capita of 70 kg per year (Kakuchi, 2003) and several fishing villages' traditional customs surrounding whaling and fish consumptions ("Japan defends whaling 'tradition'," 2007). They currently consume a total of 6.5 million tons of biomass per year, the second largest of any nation ("Japan - Fishing").
- Japan, with a small land area, has already maximized terrestrial food production, including a widespread aquaculture program totaling 1.5 million tons of biomass per year, or 30% of their total ingested biomass ("Japan - Fishing").
- Japan is extremely resistant to international methods to reduce fishing. Currently, Japan is set to ignore the International Whaling Commission (IWC) ban on whaling and target the killing of 1000+ whales ("Japan defends whaling 'tradition'," 2007) . It also is reported to physically deter attempts by ecological organizations to intervene with its methods ("Japan's Whaling Fleet Sails Despite International Censure," 2007).
In order to reach Japan, we intend to employ positive aspects of Japan, notably:
- Japan is able to conscientiously and unilaterally proceed towards a national goal as exemplified by its quick modernization ("Japan :: The Modernization of Japan (1853-1905) ").
- Japan does not appear to be disregarding the value of maintaining its fisheries; it appears to be forming an independent opinion as to the state of its fisheries and disregarding all other estimates, especially in the case of the whaling ban. When the IWC imposed its ban on whaling, Japan initially disagreed; however, after further research, they decided to agree ("International Whaling Commission "). Currently, they believe that whale species have returned to sustainable levels, and disregard the IWC as being being too environmentally zealous ("Japan's Whaling Fleet Sails Despite International Censure," 2007).
Therefore, we propose collaboration and mutual research between the UN and Japan to maintain Japan's fisheries; we hope to reach a commonly acceptable level of sustainable fishing not contradicting international levels. This research should be done as objectively as possible, and on a UN-regulated regular basis in order to expedite a common solution.
ase address Scotland: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/ssi2003/20030066.htm
Cultural Implications
Discussion of culture here
Kesich, G.D. & Bell, T. (2007). "Fishery council keeps limits on days at sea." Portland Press Herald. Retrieved November 18, 2007, from http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=116294&ac=PHnws
Maguire, K. (2007). "U.S. denies request to aid fishermen." The Boston Globe. Retrieved November 18, 2007, from
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/10/23/us_denies_request_to_aid_fishermen/
Rejobbing and Retraining
As of 2004, there are approximately 38,000 people working as fishermen in the United States, making between $322 and $775 a week.
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos177.htm
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos177.htm
Small Island States
Small Island Developing States (1999). "Special Ministeral Conference On Agriculture in Small Developing States." Food And Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2003.
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (2000). "Plan of Action Project for Agriculture in the Small Developing Nations." Food and Agricultural Organizations of the United Nations, 2000. Retrieved November 21, 2007, from http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/X4444E.htm
International Whaling Commission . Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved November 22, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Whaling_Commission
Japan - Fishing. Retrieved November 22, 2007, from http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Asia-and-Oceania/Japan-FISHING.html Japan :: The Modernization of Japan (1853-1905) . Britannica Student Encyclopedia. Retrieved November 22, 2007, from http://student.britannica.com/comptons/article-203219/Japan Japan defends whaling 'tradition'. (2007). CNN. Retrieved November 22, 2007, from http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/11/18/japan.whale.ap/ Japan's Whaling Fleet Sails Despite International Censure. (2007). Enviornment News Service. Retrieved November 22, 2007, from http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2007/2007-11-20-01.asp Kakuchi, S. (2003). Japan's fishing industry in peril. Asia Times. Retrieved November 22, 2007, from http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/EF28Dh03.html