I wish to thank the Center for the Study of Marine Policy and the other conference organizers for the privilege of addressing you here in Paris in preparation for the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. I am a commercial fisherman from the west coast of the United States, hailing from a small port in California just south of San Francisco. For nearly a decade I have served as president of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, or "PCFFA," an umbrella organization of fishing associations along the U.S. west coast representing working men and women in the commercial fishing fleet.
By way of introduction, I should tell you that the fishing men and women I have had the honor to represent, are mostly owner-operators of their own vessels; vessels that range in size from 7 to 20 meters in length. The fishing gear used by our members is varied from troll lines to trawl nets, traps, purse seines, gillnets, longlines and even some dive fisheries. Many will use more than one type of gear, depending on the fishery, during the course of a year.
These small businesses are largely family based. Indeed, PCFFA's members are referred to as "family fishermen." While some come from large urban areas, such as San Diego, San Pedro (Port of Los Angeles), San Francisco and Seattle, most live in rural coastal communities where fisheries represent a significant part of the local economies.
The individuals that make up the fleet we represent, like their fishing gear and vessels, are varied. Some are third, fourth or fifth generation fishermen. Others began their fishing careers working on the back decks of fishing vessels as teenagers or college students. Many are "drop-outs" from other professions - civil service, the skilled trades, the law and law enforcement, or, such as myself, from education (teaching). For most of my members, fishing is not the only employment available to them or the only thing they know. Most could probably do much better financially and have more security in other professions. Fishing for them is not the only thing they can do, it is the only thing they want to do.
In our modern technological and highly regimented society, these people have been termed "misfits," but they are, I believe, misfits the world needs more of. They are independent and self-motivated; they savor the freedom and beauty of fishing, while enduring the hard work and danger. They choose to be accountable to no one, save the almighty, but take responsibility for their own actions, the care of their resource, their crews, their families and their communities. Yes, most enjoy catching fish or just "messing about in boats."
Shortly after the founding of PCFFA over 25 years ago, the group adopted as its motto "Stewards of the Fisheries." The term "fisheries" for us has, as it does in the law, a much broader meaning than just fish. The motto was not meant to convey that we were there simply to protect the fish, however, given the failure of governmental agencies to fulfill their trust responsibilities in conserving natural resources, much of PCFFA's effort is in the arena of protecting fish stocks. Nor was the motto meant to convey that we were simply serving up the fish, even though we do provide the public access to their fish and shellfish resources in the marketplace. "Fisheries" for us, rather, is a continuum - a line extending from fish and their habitats in the wild, to the catching and preserving and processing and distributing and marketing and, finally, the preparation and eating. One of the pioneers in the Americanization of the fisheries in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, the late fishing captain Barry Fisher, at a 1973 conference said it best, "it's all related - from the fish in the water to the dinner plate." It's the environment, the boats, the harbors, the coastal communities and the consumer. And, if we, whose livelihoods and lives depend on the fisheries, don't look after them, who will?
I think it's important for what I have to say that you understand the perspective I and my organization are coming from. This perspective, however, is not unique in the fishing community - on the U.S. west coast, in the U.S. or North America or even across much of the globe. In my travels around the U.S. as a member of the Pew Oceans Commission, that is designated with the task or reviewing and making recommendations on U.S. marine policy, I have found mine is a perspective shared by many other American fishermen and fishing groups. As a delegate to the World Forum of Fish Harvesters & Fishworkers, a global organization made up of artisanal and smaller boat commercial fishing men and women and fishery shoreworkers, I have discovered we have so much in common - a shared perspective - across oceans, continents, national boundaries and even barriers of language and culture. So I hope my perspective here today is that of a global one shared by those in my industry with a passion for fisheries and our ancient and honorable profession of 10,000 years.
As we look forward to the Johannesburg session next year, I want to discuss with you from a global fisheries perspective what is necessary in planning for sustainable fisheries and with them sustainable fishing communities to preserve historic fishing cultures, the profession and help assure economic diversity within our coastal zone. I come from a small coastal community that is both vibrant and thriving. What makes it that way, I believe, is a mix of economic activities. In the case of my community it's a combination of commercial fishing, some recreational fishing, high value agriculture, tourism and a smattering of professionals working from their homes or tolerant of a long commute.
I have seen similar thriving coastal communities throughout the U.S. and in my international travels and I have also seen devastated coastal communities where natural resource bases were lost. Along the U.S. west coast from northern California up along the Washington coast and even parts of British Columbia, coastal communities have been particularly hard hit by the loss of the timber or fishing industries, or both. Tourism by itself has not proven an adequate substitute. It often makes the economies of these communities highly seasonal, turning proud and skilled labor forces into an obsequious mass relegated to cooking and serving the meals, making the beds and cleaning-up after the tourists. Communities should not have to rely on tips or trinket sales.
The thriving communities I have seen all had this mix of economic activities. In the coastal towns and villages, this mix has always included commercial or artisanal fishing. In many of these coastal communities it has been a mix of commercial and sport fishing, fish processing and tourism. In others it has been a mix of fishing and farming. In Brittany, where I visited for an international conference in October of 2000, the coastal communities were beautiful places with fishing, farming and some tourism. I have seen similar communities in Canada's maritime provinces. In a few California coastal communities, and one in Oregon, we are seeing a new and positive development with a mix of fishing, scientific research (oriented around fisheries and oceans), tourism and professionals who now work from their homes via the internet. Bodega Bay, made famous by Alfred Hitchcock's film "The Birds," is one such example.
Fishing is, I believe, a critical element in the culture, if not the economies, of our coastal communities. It is the most ancient of the endeavors in these communities. Commercial or artisanal fishing spans at least 10,000 years and humans were fishing long before that in their hunting and gathering societies. In the U.S., for example, a relatively young nation, fishing is our oldest industry. The Basques were fishing cod off North America before either Columbus or Cabot. Fishing in the coastal communities is a tie to the past; it is a tie to the environment. It reminds us of our dependence on nature; it reminds us that food does not simply come off a shelf. It reminds us there are endeavors on the water, at sea, that are not tied to computer screens and paper, not sitting at desks or working behind counters, not toiling in factories or fields. It connects man to the sea, making our coasts special places.
The business of fishing is not bread alone. It is part of our history; it is part of most religions and cultures. It is one of the last sources of wild food - relatively free from man's tinkering with nature - a lean source of protein rich in fatty acids. But, as we know, it cannot be taken for granted. If we wish to maintain fishing as part of our coastal life, part of our culture, an essential element of coastal economic diversity, then we must assure fisheries are sustainable. Fish stocks have to be maintained at abundant levels and the business of fishing has to be preserved within the coastal zone. Fish stocks and fishing have to be protected for there to be the fisheries which, in turn, are vital to the culture, economy and life of coastal communities.
In a recent essay I prepared along with two of my colleagues for a fishery trade publication, the fundamentals for commercial fisheries were outlined. The purpose of that paper was to exhort members of my industry to keep focused on what is essential for fisheries, and not become distracted by their detractors or the increasing number of dilettantes dabbling in fishery policy. In that essay, we found three things to be fundamental for fisheries; they were: 1) fish; 2) access to fish; and 3) markets for fish.
THE FISH. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that for the fishing industry to exist, there must be fish. And for there to be sustainable fisheries there must be healthy stocks of fish available that can sustain that amount of harvest that assures the stocks will remain relatively stable at abundant levels over a long period of time, allowing for natural fluctuations in population sizes. This simple truth, however, is too often forgotten. It is often forgotten by those within the industry itself who just presume that the fish will always be there no matter how hard they are fished or whatever happens to their habitats, their environment. It is also forgotten by legislators, administrations, even those agencies charged with the protection of fish, when projects are proposed that pollute waters, destroy habitats, diminish flows or block migratory routes.
For far too long, too many have always assumed the fish would be there no matter what we did to them. Even, as late as the 1970's some fishery scientists, agencies and many within the fishing industry saw the world's fish stocks as infinite and inexhaustible, despite clear evidence from more than a century that fish stocks could be destroyed by overfishing, that they could be lost when their waters were poisoned or there habitats destroyed, such as what happened in the great rivers of Europe and along the Atlantic seaboard of North America. And, as fish stocks declined so did the fisheries dependent on those stocks and, for the most part, the economic value of the fish, thereby affecting whole communities.
The first fundamental therefore, which should at least be evident to every sentient being is that fisheries need fish. I emphasize that here because considering what is happening today in the world too many don't seem to understand that basic fact, or choose to ignore it.
The United Nations' Food & Agriculture Organization reports depleted and overexploited ocean fish stocks constitute about 28 percent of the fish in the world's oceans. Fully exploited stocks account for another 47 percent, with moderately exploited and underexploited totaling about 25 percent. The FAO statistics, as dismal as they appear, may actually be understating the glum situation facing many of the world's fish stocks. A study published in the 29 November issue of the journal Nature shows that vast over-reporting by the People's Republic of China combined with the large and wildly fluctuating catch of a small fish, the Peruvian anchoveta, have painted a false picture of the health of the oceans by inflating the catch statistics and implying that ''business as usual'' is sustainable.
Overfishing is a serious problem that must be addressed in a number of fisheries. There are some obvious policy changes that need to be made in fisheries management. First and foremost, as the U.S. and a number of other nations have now adopted, overfishing, i.e., fishing at higher levels than abundant levels of stocks can sustain, is prohibited. Carrying out such a policy, I believe, involves a number of steps to make a prohibition on overfishing effective. They are:
A. Redirecting Subsidies and Other Forms of Assistance to Fishing Fleets. I am not suggesting here a cut off of subsidies that may exist in some nations to their fishing fleets, nor other forms of assistance government may provide, because I would like my industry to be on a level playing field with others who do receive massive government subsidies such as agriculture, aquaculture, oil and gas, commercial aviation, timber, merchant shipping, hydropower, and water development.
If in the course of the WTO discussions, negotiators seek to get rid of those subsidies that may exist for fisheries, then let's be certain they get rid of subsidies for all industries, and do not just pick on fishermen. The nature of the subsidies, the assistance to the fishing industry, however, has to change. The era of more and bigger boats, with greater catching capacity is over.
Assistance must be directed away from catching more fish, to catching fish more selectively, with far less bycatch and without damaging fish habitats. This means funding for research to modify existing gear or developing new gear. It means funding gear and equipment that will enable fishermen to harvest and land a higher quality product. Among other things, this would help to lessen the economic impacts of reduced quotas or restricted seasons, whereby such are necessary for rebuilding stocks or assuring sustainable levels of fishing. Finally funding for fishing vessels aimed at improving fuel efficiency is not only good for the planet, it will help fishermen's bottom line, particularly in an era of reduced catches.
B. Better Science. Much of the overfishing did not occur as a result of deliberate acts, but came out of ignorance. More money simply has to be allocated for stock assessments and research if we hope to manage fish at sustainable levels.
This research has to be part of data management systems that assure all information, e.g., GIS, data sets, reports, etc. are available to scientists, fishermen, managers, conservationists, policy makers and the public. By far and away the best system developed to date, and one that I am very familiar with is the Klamath Resource Information System, or "KRIS," that is being developed for fish restoration and basin management in northern California watersheds. This system would readily adapt to the coast and coastal fisheries, the same as it has for coastal watersheds. It would be invaluable for assuring access to all relevant information, identifying where data gaps exist, as well as providing a highly flexible system capable of accepting new data and continually being updated.
Finally, researchers and research institutions - whether government, academic or private - have to be encouraged to work with fishermen, to utilize fishermen's knowledge and even their fishing vessels whenever possible. Fishermen possess a wealth of knowledge - they spend most of their lives at sea, or at least on the water, and scientists could learn from them and they could learn from the scientists. Moreover, their boats provide an inexpensive platform for many types of fish research and even some stock assessments.
C. Better Enforcement. It does no good to put in place policies, regulations, and statutes against overfishing unless they are enforceable. This means enforcement must be given a high priority and funds appropriated where necessary to assure effective enforcement can be carried out. In this regard the developed nations should provide assistance to the developing world to assure compliance with fishery conservation laws toward both foreign and domestic fleets.
The FAO earlier this year released its text of the "International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing." Funds need to be expended and there must be an international commitment to enforce this voluntary compliance document that calls on nations to be more rigorous in licensing fishing vessels and by refusing to license owners who have fished illegally in the past. It also calls for increased participation in international agreements by more nations. Countries that import and sell large volumes of fish - the U.S., Canada, the E.U., Japan and China must cooperate. Marketing nations must be more rigorous in getting documentation that catches are legal. We need to stop illegal fishing on the ocean and we've got to stop the marketing of illegally caught fish or that taken by non-sustainable methods.
D. Better Management. Protecting against overfishing also requires better management. Fishery management in most of the world is largely schizophrenic, it either promotes large catches often with little data or knowing it will damage stocks, or it becomes highly restrictive, often following a collapse, and works to usher fishermen out of the fishery rather than give assurances that they will have a fishery tomorrow if they embark on cutback and conservation today. People will sacrifice if they believe there is a future for them, but they will resist and thwart calls for sacrifice where there is no hope for a tomorrow. When fishery managers seek to impose restrictions on fishermen for "conservation" at the same time those managers are promoting sportfishing, or eco-tourism or aquaculture, is it any wonder fishermen are dubious of management. The evidence is clear to them that they've got no future; their sacrifices are for someone else's profit. For conservation to work, for overfishing to be halted, fishermen must be assured their short-term sacrifices will have long-term benefits for them.
Management cannot simply rail against fishermen who they deem to be motivated by short-term gains at the expense of the resource. Management, too, must be focused on the long-term. This can be done by designing fishery management plans that incorporate not just conservation and rebuilding goals, but have within them long-term production goals for sustainable fishing. This allows fishermen to act more prudently, to see if there is a future for them. And where there is excess harvesting capacity, excess vessels or just too many fishermen, then some mechanism must be provided for some to exit the fishery with dignity.
Finally, fishermen have to be involved in management. It is, after all, their livelihoods. They have the most to lose if management fails - not fishery managers, not conservationists. If they are given a stake in the fishery and a seat at the table they will behave responsibly; they'd be fools not to. If they're involved in the actual fishery management, there is greater likelihood they will support the management measures and there will be far greater adherence to regulations. Some may call it the fox guarding the hen house, but suppose the fox were rewarded with a hen a week on a long-term basis for assuring the protection of the remaining hens, that fox would probably be as steadfast and committed guard as a farmer could hire. Some of the experiments taking place, in the State of Maine for example, with fishery co-management should be given careful consideration as a means for improving the management of fisheries.
E. Professionalization. While those of us in the fishing industry consider fishing a profession, the fact is in most nations there is no formal training for men and women engaged in the harvest and landing of fish. In most instances, all that is required is a license or permit, if that. And those usually only require a payment; seldom are there specific skills required for attaining such licenses or permits, unlike those for other professions and many skilled trades. The skills are learned either from other fishermen who have had the lessons passed down to them or they have been self-taught and the degree of skill varies widely as does the expertise in any particular phase of the fishing activity.
Considering the technology that is now available and the vessels at our command - we have the capacity to overharvest virtually every stock of fish on the planet. Consider also the demand placed on fish stocks and all other sources of protein by a growing human population. Finally consider the status of so many of our fish stocks and other marine life today that can easily be seriously depleted or become economically, and even biologically, extinct. Can we afford to leave it to fleets of persons having no formal training or standards of proficiency engaged in the harvest of fish stocks that we seek to manage sustainably? The professional training I refer to here, of course, is not about gaining greater skills to harvest more fish, but attaining skills on the selective harvest of fish, the avoidance of bycatch and damage to habitats, knowledge of the fish and their care once landed - or even their care when released, as well as matters of vessel and crew safety, vessel handling and financial planning.
Japan and France are two nations, for example, that have formal training academies for persons entering fisheries. Canada is now embarking on a fishing professionalization program. At the very least, it would seem to me, that there ought to be some international agreement, even if voluntary, to require professional training and standards of proficiency for fishing men and women. An international agreement is appropriate since so many of our fish populations cross national boundaries - "trans-boundary stocks" - or are taken in international waters. Professional training and standards can and should be an essential element in the prevention of overfishing.
F. Funding. In developed as well as developing nations, alike, there has been a dearth of funding to support needed research, essential enforcement and effective management. Fisheries are given short shrift in the budgets of most nations as well as by provincial and local governments. Mechanisms need to be developed, including even fee systems that are fair and not financially onerous, for providing the funds for fishery research, development, enforcement, management, and other essential services at adequate levels on a secure basis year by year.
Finally, aid packages to developing coastal nations should include funds for fishery research, enforcement and management, as well as development, to help protect against overfishing.
Threats to fish and shellfish stocks are not simply those associated with fishing, although many nations and their fishery agencies have tended to view fish conservation myopically, looking only at fishing, while ignoring other factors affecting fish stocks, their habitats and aquatic ecosystems. Pollution and the loss of habitats are taking an increasing toll on fish stocks even now as some nations begin to address fishing impacts. Planning for sustainable fisheries has to involve control and reduction of pollutant levels and a halt to fish habitat destruction coupled with programs to restore fish habitats wherever possible.
A. Pollution. In a statement released a few weeks ago, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) stated that four-fifths of all pollution starts on land. The UNEP's report, "Protecting the Oceans from Land-Based Activities," singled out sewage as a "priority pollutant" for urgent action. It said two and a half million people a year get infectious hepatitis from eating sewage-contaminated raw shellfish, and about 25,000 of them die. Other priorities for action, called for in the UNEP report were controls on excessive use of nutrients, the physical alteration or destruction of habitats, and changes in sediment flows.
In the U.S., the Pew Oceans Commission, of which I am a member, has recently released its report "Marine Pollution in the United States" which made findings similar to those from the UNEP report. It identifies toxins (e.g., PCBs, trace minerals), biostimulates (e.g., organic wastes), oil, radioactive isotopes, sediments, plastics and other debris, thermal, noise, human pathogens (e.g., sewage, livestock), and alien species as the major sources of pollutants threatening the marine life and ecosystems. In the U.S., agricultural run-off into the Mississippi River has created massive "dead zones" in the Gulf of Mexico where there is no marine life. Pollution's impacts on fish and shellfish stocks are well-known, from direct fish kills, to affects on fish health, growth and fecundity, to making fish inedible or sources of disease and potential cancers.
The control and elimination of pollution, including that created by other coastal uses such as sewage outfalls, agricultural runoff, cruise ships and tourism facilities in the coastal zone, is essential for sustainable fisheries. Tough controls need to be placed on offshore oil and gas development, both existing and planned - particularly in pristine areas such as the Pacific waters off Sakahlin in the Russian Far East - to protect against oil spills and the discharge of toxic drill muds onto the seabed.
Control and elimination of pollution must be a policy priority in planning for sustainable fisheries.
B. Habitat Loss. In California, where I am from, the state's largest salmon producing river system, and historically the fifth largest in North America - the Sacramento-San Joaquin, had by the early 1970's lost 95 percent of its salmon habitat, most of it behind dams or dried up by water diversions. It is little wonder that most of the fish disappeared. Unfortunately the response by government has largely been, as fishing groups along the west coast of the U.S. and Canada have found, to restrict fishing and ignore habitat destruction and its causes. Today, even with fisheries completely closed, we are watching fish stocks continue to decline due to ongoing habitat destruction. Around the world we are still watching new dam projects being proposed, knowing their impact on fish resources. We are continuing to watch more water being diverted, drying up rivers and destroying estuaries.
The habitat losses are many - from the dams and diversions I have mentioned to the channelization of rivers and the loss of their riparian zones, to dredging and filling projects that do not consider fish resources, to offshore oil drilling, to the affects from certain types of fishing gear, such as damage to coral reefs or the impact on rocky and hard bottom ecosystems from heavy trawl gear.
One of the largest sources of habitat damage in the coastal zone has been the loss of coastal wetlands. According to a 1998 report to the Clean Water Network, "Fisheries, Wetlands and Jobs - The Value of Wetlands to America's Fisheries," some 85 percent of all commercially valuable fish and shellfish stocks are wetland dependent during some period of their lives. Yet, we are destroying coastal wetlands at a staggering pace around the world. Is it any wonder then that many fish stocks and the fisheries they support are in trouble?
The protection of fish habitats from rivers and lakes, to bays and estuaries, to coastal waters and the open oceans must be a priority in planning for sustainable development, particularly as it applies to fisheries.
Aquaculture, or the raising of fish in captivity to maturity and harvest, has been touted by its proponents, and even some governments, as the answer to static or declining populations of wild fish. Aquaculture is really nothing new, some of it dates back 3,000 years to the raising of carp in ponds in China and the growing of oysters off the coast of Brittany. Aquaculture, while it has the potential to increase the supply of fish to the marketplace, does also, in some forms, pose a serious threat to wild fish stocks and the marine environment. Aquaculture in the coastal zone must be carefully regulated so that it neither displaces existing fisheries, nor destroys fish stocks. Some forms of aquaculture are relatively benign, such as oyster growing and the farming of tilipia. Other forms, however, such as shrimp and salmon have proven highly destructive. The salmon farms in Norway, for example, have destroyed that nation's wild Atlantic salmon populations.
Policies need to be developed to control aquaculture to ensure it does not threaten wild fish populations, displace existing fisheries, and will, in fact, result in a net gain in the amount of fish and shellfish product available in the global marketplace - both for the developing and developed world. Aquaculture development is one place where a precautionary approach is needed, when instead governments and many policy makers are throwing caution to the wind. The issues that a policy or policies on aquaculture must address (and utilizing the Precautionary Principle) when considering sustainable development include:
A. Pollution. Aquaculture can be a source of pollution threatening fish stocks the same as those I have already mentioned. The pollution can emanate from discharges of waste water from fish farm operations, but the biggest source by far is the discharge of fecal material, uneaten food, and pesticide and chemical use all associated with net pen operations.
B. Habitat Loss. Aquaculture operations have resulted in the loss of habitats needed by wild fish. Nowhere has this been more apparent than in the destruction of mangrove habitats to establish shrimp farm operations.
C. Spread of Disease. Aquaculture operations have also led to the spread of disease into wild fish and shellfish populations. In California, disease from abalone aquaculture operations has spread to wild populations, seriously threatening these shellfish stocks along the state's south coast. In British Columbia, disease from salmon farms growing Atlantic salmon has spread to wild Pacific salmon populations.
D. Introduction of Invasives. Escaped fish from aquaculture operations are now a major source now of marine bioinvasions, that according to one expert on alien aquatic species, poses a far greater threat than the spread caused by ship's ballast water or aquaria which I will be discussing shortly. Alaska has reports of Atlantic salmon in its coastal waters and rivers that have escaped from aquaculture operations in British Columbia and Washington State.
E. Displacement of Traditional Fisheries. Another impact of aquaculture operations has been the displacement of traditional fisheries in coastal waters and even in harbors and ports. Chilean fishermen for example have found themselves displaced by the large, corporately held salmon farms now operating in this southern hemisphere nation. An additional impact, of course, has been to the communities that depended on the fish harvested by their artisanal fishermen for food; the salmon and shrimp farms are principally producing for export markets supplying first world nations with a luxury item.
F. Conversion. Finally, there is the issue of conversion. Many forms of aquaculture rely on feeds made from wild fish; most of those wild fish are suitable themselves for human consumption. With conversion ratios of somewhere around four pounds of food for every pound of aquaculture fish produced, where is the gain in protein production? Unless the feeds for the aquaculture operations are made from plant or animal substances (e.g., fish offal) unsuitable for human consumption, or unless the fish or shellfish being grown have exceptional feed conversion ratios, policies for sustainable development should discourage aquaculture operations in the coastal zone and open ocean waters.
One of the newest threats to fish stocks is the influx of non-native aquatic plants and animals into waterways around the world. The principle sources have come from aquaculture, ships and their ballast water, and the disposal of aquaria plants and animals into the wild. How extensive the threat is to native wild populations of fish and shellfish is uncertain at this time. Certainly, we know that some of these alien species can affect ecosystems they are introduced into and compete with or prey on native fish and shellfish. The prevention of the spread of invasive species and their control and eradication in areas where they have become established must be part of any policy aimed at sustainable development for the coast and oceans.
Despite the hype and rhetoric surrounding the various three letter cures for what ails fisheries or fish stocks from IFQs (Individual Fishing Quotas) to MPAs (Marine Protected Areas), there are no simple, easy, "one-shot" solutions for addressing fisheries. The solutions often will require multiple actions, from sound fishing regulations to tough habitat protections and strong pollution abatement programs. All require hard work and political will. IFQs, to date, have been problematic often creating more problems than they solve.
MPAs may have some limited value - for establishing control areas for baseline research, to providing no take zones for specific resident species of fish or shellfish, to protecting sensitive habitats from certain types of fishing gear - but they are not a substitute for fishery management or the regulation of water quality. Moreover, any establishment of MPAs must be made with the clear understanding, that waters outside of an MPA are not protected. The better answer it would seem, is ocean zoning, but then that takes hard work and political will we have yet to see from either governments, scientists or most conservation groups all clamoring for easy answers and 15 second sound bites, rather than well-researched and well-conceived solutions.
Let me conclude this part on fish stocks by saying that fishery management does work, or at least it can when there is good science and that science is adhered to. The Pacific halibut fishery is a classic example of fishery management that works and it has worked for the last 70 years. Nothing magic, no MPAs, no ITQs (until a few years ago). The herring fishery in San Francisco Bay is another management success story. So to is the Alaskan salmon fishery. Indeed, salmon management along the rest of the Pacific coast would be a success as well were it not for the massive in-river habitat losses that were allowed to occur over the last century. Conservation of fish stocks, assuring sustainable populations, is usually not a one-step process, but requires multiple actions and not all of them easy. Policies aimed at sustainable fisheries should reflect the multiplicity of actions as opposed to the cure du jour.
ACCESS. Fisheries cannot exist, even where stocks are abundant and healthy, if there is no access to the fish. Impediments to access can come in a number of forms from fishing regulations to a lack of port infrastructure or harbors unsuitable or unsafe for fishing vessels. Policies for sustainable fisheries must be mindful that it is not enough just to assure there are abundant fish populations, access by fishing vessels to those stocks must also be provided.
Fishing regulations are important to assure fish stocks are protected from overfishing, or unacceptable levels of bycatch, or the destruction of fish habitat. But they also must be designed to allow fishing for on those stocks that are healthy provided of course the regulations are designed for a sustainable fishery. I bring this up because of a problem many of my members had this year in their salmon fishery. We had regulations in place designed to protect salmon runs of concern and allow a harvest on an abundant run. The problem was that the fish didn't go where they were expected and, as a result, we suffered one of our worst seasons in history, when it should, based on the fish population size, have been one of our best. There was no one really to blame for what happened but it does point out the need to carefully develop regulations, including utilizing modern scientific stock identification methods, with access as well as protection in mind.
Even when regulations allow for access to the harvestable surplus of a fish stock, there must also be in place the fleet, the harbors, the supply and processing/distribution facilities for a fishery to take place. This means, among other things, that fishing facilities within along our coasts must be protected and upgraded. Indeed, those are the words in the California's Coastal Act to protect fisheries in this state's coastal zone. Those types of protections are needed to assure fishing facilities are not pushed out or displaced by other activities clamoring for locations in coastal areas. Policies for sustainable development along coasts must address the need to protect, as well as allow for upgrading, fishing facilities - be it berths and moorings, docks, fish unloading, vessel repair and supply, and fuel, ice and gear. In California and other parts of the U.S. action was taken to protect fishing facilities. In many nations, however, especially those in tropical locations where tourism is being promoted we are seeing traditional fishing communities being displaced to service a foreign tourist trade.
The last point I wish to make about access, is that preference to fish stocks has to be given to local fishing fleets; those fleets that serve the coastal communities. In India and Pakistan and along parts of the coast of Africa we have witnessed cash poor governments willing to sell the quotas to their nation's fish stocks to foreign interests such as large factory trawl operators from Europe, leaving the locally-based traditional - often artisanal fishermen - with little or no fish available for them to harvest or to sell in their local communities for processing and consumption. The practice of selling quotas to other nations, usually factory trawl operators, has denied peoples in developing nations their traditional access to fish in order to supply cheap product to developed nations, most of which have other sources of fish or other protein already available to them. Policies aimed at sustainable development in coastal areas need to address this issue with strong language giving preference to traditional, locally based fishing fleets. Moreover, there should be policies adopted identifying those companies engaged in conducting operations in foreign waters detrimental to local fisheries in order to stop those practices.
MARKETS. Last among the fundamentals of any commercial fishery is a marketplace. In order to generate economic activity, fishing men and women must have harvestable surpluses of fish, access to those fish and markets to sell those fish into. There are four areas here that policies aimed at sustainable development must take into account. They are:
In addition to the infrastructure necessary to afford access to fish stocks, there is also an infrastructure needed to assure access to markets. This can involve, depending on the fishery and the location, an ability for fishing men and women to sell their catches from their vessels or in local markets, the availability of unloading and processing or distribution facilities, and a means for preserving the quality of the fish for it to reach the market, whether local or half the world away, in a desirable form. One of the major impediments for fishing men and women to getting the full value for their catch is the lack of either processing, refrigeration or distribution services needed to get their fish to market. Development policies should target infrastructure to facilitate quality control and efficient distribution and sales of fish. This is especially true in remote coastal areas.
In order to assure some level of prosperity among fishing men and women, as well as offset conservation cutbacks in harvest levels to assure sustainability, methods need to be explored to assure the maximum value is achieved for every pound of fish landed. Development policy for coastal areas, as well as other renewable natural resources, needs to address methods for local fish harvesters and their coastal communities to gain the most value, including local processing, of all fish landed. This may involve direct sales, or additional processing (e.g., smoking and curing, custom packs), or utilizing those parts of the fish previously discarded. Lower volumes of fish harvested can be compensated by higher value products.
With an increasing push by government leaders to reduce trade barriers and foster greater trade among nations, it will be important to assure that environmental and labor standards are not undercut, that fishing men and women are not forced to compete with fish products from those nations with poor records of fish conservation or marine life protection, or with abysmal wage and labor conditions. Fishing men and women willing to accept tough environmental protections for themselves and fighting for the conservation of their fish stocks should be rewarded, not penalized, in the marketplace. Instead, recent trade negotiations are going in the opposite direction, rewarding those who flaunt environmental and labor protections. Development policies for the coastal areas cannot ignore this issue. Trade rules are not, should not, be there to award the biggest corporations with the most egregious labor and environmental practices. Trade rules should be there to serve people, in the developing world and the developed world, including the smallest of companies, the smallest of producers. And, trade should not undermine the health of the planet. Let's not forget that.
A little over a month ago the European Union adopted new regulations, requiring the labeling of all seafood sold in EU member states. These regulations, to take effect in January, require the correct name of the fish, where it was caught and how it was produced. The regulations are very similar to those my organization drafted and sponsored two decades ago in the California Legislature that were opposed by the organizations representing fish importers and processors and restaurants. We thought it was the right thing to do then and the EU apparently does today. We agree with the EU. One way to protect local based fishing fleets and those working to fish responsibly and sustainably is to allow the consumer to know. Labeling provides an effective way to reward those in the fishing industry who are doing the right thing. Labeling provides consumers a way to support their local fishing fleets. Policies aimed at sustainable development are not complete without some method for consumers to know about the product they are buying, whether it is organic vegetables or wild, sustainably harvested fish. Indeed, whether or not it is genetically modified. Moreover, labeling provides the marketplace mechanism encouraging sustainable practices.
******************
So there you have it. Conserving fisheries preserves fishing cultures and, in turn, helps protect coastal communities. I have given you an outline of what I believe, as do many other fishing men and women around the globe, is necessary for sustainable fisheries, from the ocean to the plate. I hope I have provided you thought, from a fishery perspective, for the development of policies for sustainable development as we prepare for Johannesburg next September. Thank you once again.