Raül Romeva i Rueda

One of the battles that is shaping up at ICCAT is over a simple yet fundamental question – who should have the right to fish? This is a critical issue, for there are many different ways of catching fish and the choice of who is allowed to fish can determine the sustainability of the fishery.

This sort of discussion is not unique to ICCAT, though, it occurs all the time, at other fisheries management organisations and even within the EU itself.

The normal way of dividing up the fish (referred to as “allocation”) is to base it on historical rights. That means that if you have been in the fishery for awhile, then you can keep on fishing, while new-comers are frowned upon and sometimes actively discouraged, so it can be very difficult to start. A specific historical period is used as a reference, sometimes many years earlier, and the shares of future quotas are based upon average catches in that historical period.

This sort of approach obviously serves the vested interests of those who already fish. Since in many cases it is the developed countries that have been active the longest, developing countries are often disadvantaged. In those cases where a stock is over-exploited or even greatly depleted, this approach often ends up by rewarding those who are responsible for the depletion in the first place!

Discussions along these lines had openly begun in a few fisheries last year, notably bluefin tuna and swordfish. The politics of the two, though, are not the same.

Bluefin tuna is the most high-profile fishery under ICCAT responsibility and it is badly depleted. The NGOs are arguing for dramatic reductions in the total allowable catch (TAC) of bluefin, and most countries in ICCAT are fighting tooth-and-nail to keep any quota reduction to a minimum. In such high stakes battles – recall that a single fish is worth thousands of dollars and the best ones go for up to $100,000 for a single fish – there is no serious discussion on changing the shares of each country that have already been agreed to a few years ago. 

Swordfish is rather different. It was depleted several years ago but has recently recovered. In theory, if a stock is abundant it should be easier to discuss allocation, especially when, as in the case of swordfish, some countries were not catching their full national quota. It would seem normal to let others come into the fishery by giving them some of the quota that was not being used by other countries and this did happen to a limited extent.

But most countries resisted giving up more than token amounts, in case they might want to catch more in future years. So ICCAT did some funny accounting, the fisheries equivalent of printing money – they gave quota to a number of new entrants and increased the allocation to a few others, so that the sum of the national quotas was well in excess of the TAC. Inflation had hit the swordfish fishery! If this sounds like a strange way to manage a fishery, it is.

So now ICCAT is faced with a politically charged situation where they must decide who now has to lose quota.

Predictably enough, everybody is saying that they must keep their current quota and using whatever argument comes to hand. The powerful, developed countries say they have historical rights so should be allowed to continue. A number of developing countries insist that the old guard must give way to the new countries to allow them to develop their fisheries. They also argue, logically, that if the fish is in their waters, they should be able to catch part of the TAC. A third line of argument by a few countries is that they fish in a more environmentally sustainable maner by using gear that catches fewer sharks, turtles and other animals that are caught accidentally and often get discarded.

How to decide?

Greens believe that the right to fish should be based upon a number of environmental and social criteria. Fishing fleets that operate in a more environmentally responsible manner, do not damage the marine environment and make significant contributions to coastal fishing communities should be given priority when deciding how to allocate the right to fish http://www.cfp-reformwatch.eu/2010/09/greens-present-new-idea-on-allocating-access-to-fish-stocks/

Two NGOs have recently published a proposal on how to use this approach in international fisheries, including some of the ones that are managed by ICCAT
http://www.cape-cffa.org/spip.php?article168 .

The allocation question has only begun to be discussed so far this year. There is no guarantee that the problem will be resolved, unfortunately.

(Note: text by Michael Earle, Green adviser on fisheries issues)

Foto: Cadiz tuna Fishermen Font: Brian Skerry, NOAA