Here's a remarkable fact: Global fishery collapse is financed with tax money.
You already know that many nations are failing to enforce the laws that are essential to keeping our oceans healthy and abundant forever. Instead, they are presiding over a global ocean collapse. According to a report in Science, 29 percent of the world's commercial fisheries have already collapsed.
This is terrible news for the billion people who turn to the ocean for protein, the hundreds of millions of people who need the sea for a livelihood, and the countless extraordinary marine creatures that don't deserve to go the way of the buffalo.
What you will be surprised to learn is that massive overcapacity in the world's fishing fleet is being paid for by taxes. A study by the University of British Columbia recently revealed that $30 to $40 billion in taxpayer subsidies is paid to the commercial fishing industry worldwide -- $20 billion of which directly promotes the increase of fishing capacity. And the value of the world's catch at dockside is only $80 to $90 billion.
This means that there are fishing companies dragging huge nets through the ocean at a financial loss. The only way they are able to continue to do it is because they are subsidized by taxpayers' yen, euros, yuan, and other currencies.
Indeed, one of the most destructive forms of fishing known to man -- short of dynamite and cyanide -- is bottom trawling. In this form of industrial fishing, hundred-yard-wide weighted nets are dragged along the bottom of the ocean. As you can imagine, it takes big engines that consume a lot of oil to drag these nets. Given the high cost of oil right now, most bottom trawling around the world -- without subsidies -- is unprofitable. The reason it continues is because governments are paying these fleets to keep dragging.
So here's a simple idea: Let's stop paying people to overfish.
Right now, for the first time in the all-too-often dismal story of the global mismanagement of our oceans, we have reason to hope for comprehensive, enforceable cuts in the subsidies that are driving global species to collapse. The World Trade Organization has put this item squarely on its agenda. Oceana, together with its allies like the World Wildlife Federation, has been pushing the WTO to make good on its promise. No nation wants to "unilaterally disarm" in the race to catch the last fish. That's why the WTO is the best place to make this happen. It has the enforceable, multilateral authority needed to get the nations of the world to stop this crazy policy of paying commercial fleets to have too many boats chasing too few fish.
Happily, some of the world's leading nations, among them the United States, have proposed very good language to the WTO that, if adopted, would cut these subsidies. I have the pleasure of chairing the Fisheries Subsidies Task Force, which advises the U.S. Trade Representative, Ambassador Susan Schwab. Last month, at our urging, both houses of Congress passed resolutions strongly supporting cuts in capacity-promoting subsidies.
City preps and countries posture ahead of Copenhagen talks
Is Bill McKibben right to be angry with Obama?
Comments
View as Flat
Jon Rynn Posted 11:34 am
03 Aug 2007
A question: can I trust marine stewardship council approved fish? Thanks
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 3:21 pm
03 Aug 2007
Amazingly, certain EU countries continue to exploit the continental shelves off Africa; Spain is a major offender. I wish I could link you to a story about a fisheries observer that was required to beat over 100 sharks to death with a baseball bat so he could have dinner. Russians visited the salmon fishery off Alaska and wondered aloud why everybody used fishing poles and hooks - "we use huge nets and measure fish in metric tons, not pounds."
By the way, cyanide is used to stun fish so they can be captured for the aquarium industry, not seafood. Thanks to people like that, we now have tropical Lionfish endangering divers and swimmers in US waters on both coasts. They can be lethal.
The sorry thing is that our money goes as "subsidies" to buy out old fishing boats, permits, and help starving fishermen, not to turn a profit. I don't see a problem there, other than if one day the fisheries come back and become sustainable, perhaps in 10-15 years, nobody will be around to do anything about it. /sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 4:59 pm
03 Aug 2007
For an interesting response to overfishing see
http://www.news24.com/News24/Technology/News/0,,2-13-1443 ...
and
http://www.panda.org.za/sassi/index.html
Cheers
Whiskerfish
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 6:04 pm
03 Aug 2007
Permalink
odograph Posted 11:55 pm
03 Aug 2007
It will be nice if the subsidy ban gets support, but ... it's hard to think what will make this catch the public attention (if it hasn't already).
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:46 am
04 Aug 2007
I agree with Odo that this is actually the most pressing issue we now face, -- then in my opinion, perhaps followed closely by forest destruction, then global warming.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:43 am
04 Aug 2007
This is another example (similar to agrofuels) of how government's are funding the destruction of the planet with misplaced subsidies. The question becomes, are all subsidies misplaced? I doubt it but how do you find the wheat for the chaff? Would a shot gun approach to end all subsidies be a better one than having warring parties lobbying a government that their subsidy is justified, letting the dumb bureaucracy decide?
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
JMG Posted 3:40 am
04 Aug 2007
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 3:49 am
04 Aug 2007
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:51 am
04 Aug 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 4:34 am
04 Aug 2007
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 7:55 am
04 Aug 2007
You can pass all the environmentally-friendly legislation you want, you can enforce the Laws of the Sea as agressively as you want, you can teach as many people as possible how to live simply, but as long as the human population continues to grow, you're only buying a little time and saving a few things around the edges.
In my relatively short lifetime the world population has doubled. Doubled! Humans were already swarming our planet in record numbers when I was born. Another 3 billion are on their way by mid-century.
Next time you hear a fundie flat-earther snark that Europe has become a 'decadent' and 'selfish' society because several of their countries are no longer increasing in population, please hit that fundie upside the head for me, will ya? They will thank you ... in about 40 years.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 8:11 am
04 Aug 2007
For pelagic species such as blue tuna, that can travel thousands of miles, well, good-bye. We can't protect them when they wander off to Spain or Brazil. I don't have any faith in any organization to control the slaughter outside the US - the submarine idea was hilarious, though.
There are two problems to the success of local fisheries that I see. First is the recreational industry, which has in some cases lobbied for nearly half of the more sought-after fish. The second is Global Warming - slight changes in water temperature are changing entire marine ecosystems.
sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 9:10 am
04 Aug 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 12:22 am
05 Aug 2007
First, the WTO is a member-driven organization -- the members, in this case, being sovereign governments. Whatever rules have been created by and for the WTO have been created by negotiators for those governments. The WTO Secretariat (i.e., the people working in Geneva) are just that: very competent, very smart people who serve the organization in a scrupulously impartial way.
Jon writes,
The WTO has been a very negative force
... Previous to this they would rule things like, "You can't ban certain tuna just because they kill dolphins to get it", and various and sundry other anti-labor and anti-environment rulings, all supposedly in the interest of that greatest of all institutions, "free trade".
I would argue that the WTO has been, on balance, a very positive force. People over-stress international trade over intra-national trade, and anguish over goods being transported by sea from one continent to another. But what about farm produce transported within the protected EU market, by land from southern Spain to Hungary, or ethanol from the Iowa to California?
The WTO is also neither anti-environment nor anti-labor -- or at least no more than its collective membership. And it is awfully rich for U.S. politicians to raise the green and red flags when their particular industry is under threat from imports, considering that the United States is a serial non-ratifier of international environmental and labour agreements and conventions. For example, the USA has ratified neither the Convention on Biological Diversity nor the Kyoto Protocol.
Here is a nifty short information sheet, courtesy of the Feminist Majority Foundation. As they write, "We talk the talk, but we don't walk the walk."
Regarding the famous, or infamous, tuna-dolphin decision, the report of the dispute panel was circulated (in 1991), but never adopted, so it does not have the status of a legal interpretation of GATT law. The US and Mexico settled "out of court". As the WTO web site explains:
If the US arguments were accepted, then any country could ban imports of a product from another country merely because the exporting country has different environmental, health and social policies from its own. This would create a virtually open-ended route for any country to apply trade restrictions unilaterally -- and to do so not just to enforce its own laws domestically, but to impose its own standards on other countries. The door would be opened to a possible flood of protectionist abuses. This would conflict with the main purpose of the multilateral trading system -- to achieve predictability through trade rules.
That predictability should not be sniffed at. Prior to the Second World War, the environment for trade was a free-for-all. Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, passed by the US Congress in 1930, raised import tariffs to an average rate of 60% on many products imported into the US. This sudden raiding of tariffs led quickly to retaliation by foreign countries and may have prolonged the Great Depression.
I think that we can all agree that the fact that WTO is -- has been for more than five years -- working to discipline subsidies to fishing should be seen as a good thing. But wherever those negotiations get to, the new rules will only come into being if the rest of the complete package of negotiations -- the so-called "single undertaking" -- is also agreed to. And that will require developed countries like the USA and the EU to make concessions on agriculture, and developing countries to agree to reduce their bound (maximum allowed) tariffs on industrial goods.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:02 am
05 Aug 2007
I didn't particularly want to get into WTO-bashing, because I think that preventing subsidies for fishing could even be argued to be the single most important policy issue we face. What's actually most disturbing to me in your comment is that I think you implied that the cutting of the fishing subsidies will be dependent on the entire "round" being agreed to.
As you pointed out, the developed countries have been forcefully resisting agriculture imports, which the poor countries desperately need, because as we have been observing on this site, the agricultural industry of this (and other countries, witness the EU) are for socialism for themselves and capitalism for everyone else. But the rounds have foundered because of this conflict, and I fear for the agreement on cutting fishing subsidies.
The entire discussion of using environmental and labor standards in trade I think is an important one, and cannot be dismissed simply because it is complicated -- lord knows the other trade issues are complicated. It seems to me that environmental and labor issues can be made concrete enough to not allow other issues to intervene (you can see anti-WTO arguments here, and wikipedia seems to do a decent job of presenting both sides.)
As I explained in our earlier discussion, I think that every region of the world should emulate the EU and form a free trade zone within its borders, but be much more circumspect when trading among regions. In fact, the WTO could usefully attempt to push the regionalization of trade along.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:45 am
05 Aug 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 5:08 am
05 Aug 2007
Although it is fashionable to complain that the WTO is to blame for the resulting travesties of simple justice or common sense, these rules have been negotiated and agreed by the signatory countries. The WTO is simply responsible for implementing and policing these rules. It follows that dissatisfaction or complaint about the WTO should be addressed to the signatory states, to whom the WTO is ultimately answerable.
OK, that's probably a cop-out. So let me quote instead from the decision of the Appellate Body in the shrimp-turtle case -- a more recent, and more significant, case than tuna-dolphin:
185. In reaching these conclusions, we wish to underscore what we have not decided in this appeal. We have not decided that the protection and preservation of the environment is of no significance to the Members of the WTO. Clearly, it is. We have not decided that the sovereign nations that are Members of the WTO cannot adopt effective measures to protect endangered species, such as sea turtles. Clearly, they can and should. And we have not decided that sovereign states should not act together bilaterally, plurilaterally or multilaterally, either within the WTO or in other international fora, to protect endangered species or to otherwise protect the environment. Clearly, they should and do.
186. What we have decided in this appeal is simply this: although the measure of the United States in dispute in this appeal serves an environmental objective that is recognized as legitimate under paragraph (g) of Article XX of the GATT 1994, this measure has been applied by the United States in a manner which constitutes arbitrary and unjustifiable discrimination between Members of the WTO, contrary to the requirements of the chapeau of Article XX.
In other words, there is nothing preventing the Netherlands or any other country from pursuing a multilateral agreed standard for the sustainable production of biofuels. If such an internationally agreed standard existed, and formed the basis of national regulations, exporting countries would be much less likely to be able to mount a successful challenge to import discrimination on the basis of how the biofuel had been produced than is the situation now.
But I hope people can appreciate the downside to unilateral discrimination on the basis of how a good is produced or processed. If there were no checks on that, many countries would quickly fashion regulations that specified procedures or criteria that arbitrarily ruled out other countries as potential suppliers. The hoops that the European Commission has made developing-country exporters of organic produce jump through in order that the produce can be sold in the EU as certified organic ought to provide a salient enough of an example.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 5:42 am
05 Aug 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 5:59 am
05 Aug 2007
First, I happen to know that many countries don't subsidize fishing boats directly. On the other hand, they don't have stringent fishing regulations as in the US, and labor is much cheaper. Example, we sold a long-line snapper/grouper boat to someone in Honduras; we scrapped all the equipment and last I heard the boat crew was fishing for reef fish with nothing but hand lines - and making a ton of money. The fish sold to US markets from places like Honduras is so cheap the Fed has called it "dumping," selling product for cheaper than it is worth.
Second, the US has retaliated against foreign shrimp imports as "dumping" although the agreements didn't really work in the least, and was viewed as US imperial protectionism (especially by Vietnam and other Oriental countries). I am not sure is this was negotiated via WTO and GATT but nearly all US shrimpers in the trade call it "a day late and a dollar short." They're right: the agreement did absolutely nothing because of contradicting US policies that were forcing them out of business, anyway.
Let's talk the United States of America. I want to protect our fish resources here and could give a darn about other areas, as I don't think that our country should be a "global nanny" or moral arbiter except in cases where it affects our trade. I'm all for a good mixture of marine sanctuaries, recreational fishing, and commercial fishing within the US waters based upon the best science.
So far that has not happened.
/sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 6:07 am
05 Aug 2007
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 6:54 am
05 Aug 2007
(I once had my name proposed to be on a panel for a case that would have pitted the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) against the GATT; the dispute was settled "out of court", however, and never ended up in a full-blown dispute.)
The blueprint for the current negotiations, the so-called Doha Development Agenda, states:
31. With a view to enhancing the mutual supportiveness of trade and environment, we agree to negotiations, without prejudging their outcome, on:
(i) the relationship between existing WTO rules and specific trade obligations set out in multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). The negotiations shall be limited in scope to the applicability of such existing WTO rules as among parties to the MEA in question. The negotiations shall not prejudice the WTO rights of any Member that is not a party to the MEA in question;
Unfortunately, these negotiations have proceeded at a snails' pace, and will probably not resolve the big question.
An example of where trade procedures are pretty close to PPMs, however, is CITES -- the Convention on International trade in Endangered Species. CITES is one of the oldest MEAs, and works reasonably well. CITES requires that all import, export, re-export and introduction of specimens of species covered by the Convention has to be authorized through a permitting system. As far as I am aware, there have been no cases brought to the WTO in connection with CITES.
Both the tuna-dolphin case and the shrimp-turtle cases had reasonably happy endings, by the way. The USA worked with Latin American countries on ways to reduce dolphin mortality in the eastern Pacific, through the The International Dolphin Conservation Programme Agreement (IDCPA), and similarly helped shrimp-exporting countries to install turtle-excluder devices (TEDs) in their nets.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 7:38 am
05 Aug 2007
I many countries outside the US, the locals EAT dolphin. Protein, mon.
-sam
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 8:14 am
05 Aug 2007
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 9:10 am
05 Aug 2007
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 9:44 am
05 Aug 2007
A few years ago, Canada did try to challenge a French law banning the importation of all products containing asbestos. Canada lost.
Here is an article that discusses these issues in greater depth.
Permalink
PermieWriter Posted 9:58 am
05 Aug 2007
Eat what you grow, grow what you eat
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 10:34 am
05 Aug 2007
As to tilapia, it is a wonderfully fast-growing farm pond fish with absolutely no taste or texture, IMHO. Try wild salmon from sustainable fisheries in Alaska for a real treat. Before it vanishes. /sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 11:02 am
05 Aug 2007
Sam -- I like tilapia, it's easy to flavor it with sauces, and also catfish is a good, domestic, low-on-the-food chain seafood, and they are both relatively cheap. And a long time ago John Todd had visions of cleaning urban water with water hyacinths and tilapia. So, here's to U.S farm grown tilapia and catfish!
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 1:23 pm
05 Aug 2007
As to the water hyacinth, come on down to Lake Caddo in East Texas and grab all you want. They're trying to kill the hyacinth before the hyacinth kills the entire lake, the only natural one in Texas. /sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 5:46 pm
05 Aug 2007
Except that biofuels have made catfish more expensive. As this article describes,
U.S. producers will be planting more corn in 2007 to take advantage of the high market value, which will remove more soybean acreage from production. Soybeans are another major ingredient in catfish feed.
"That will increase the supply of corn, but it leaves us short in the soybean area, which is another major input," [Mississippi State University agricultural economist Terry] Hanson said. "So probably we're going to see an increase in soybean costs as well. With these two going up, our catfish feed is probably going to go up in price."
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:51 am
06 Aug 2007
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 1:14 am
06 Aug 2007
As to subsidies in general, readers of this site know that this is an issue I talk about at every opportunity: there is simply no better way to improve the environment than to eliminate natural resource subsidies of ALL kinds. To Biod, the negatives so far outweigh the positives that yes, we should talk a shotgun approach and eliminate as many as possible.
JMG I can't resist: Perkins is a scoundrel and a hack with not an ounce of credibility. He's practically gone from snake-oil salesman to lefty celebrity overnight on nothing but his word, without any corroborating evidence whatsoever. That people take him seriously is a sign of how low our media culture has sunk and how gullible so many people are.
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
amc89 Posted 2:31 am
06 Aug 2007
I agree with the above poster who pointed out that the problem of over-fishing won't get any better if the human population isn't stabilized. In addition, we need campaigns to encourage people to eat less fish. Protein and omega 3 fatty acids can be found in many plant-based foods. Try some ground flax or hemp seed. We just don't need to eat as much fish as we currently do. In fact, eating too much fish can have negative impacts on your health, because of the high content of mercury and other pollutants in seafood.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 3:20 am
06 Aug 2007
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink