This article highlights the revenue that the European Union
loses due to the exploitation of fisheries every year. The research published
by NEF states that restoring just 43 of over 150 overharvested fisheries would
generate 3.5 million tons of fish and over 100,000 jobs. This research is
extremely important and the responses from officials show that the EU may
finally be ready to incorporate maximum sustainable yields as part of their
fishing practices throughout the union. This type of research is crucial to
show the EU the concrete amount of money it loses by allowing the exploitation
of fisheries to occur under their leadership. The amount the EU loses due to
overharvested fisheries is 2.7 billion pounds or 3.2 billion euros every year.
This article is a prime example for analysis under political
ecology. The environmental aspect of the problem is clear, however the
political landscape is fairly complex. No good solution can come about unless the
situation is understood from multiple disciplines and points of view. Another
study mentioned in the article found that half of fishermen in developed nations
would not wish to abandon fishing for another occupation, even if their catch
declined by 50%. The fishermen in developed countries are actually less likely to give up fishing than
their counterparts in developing areas in Africa and Asia. The common belief
that poorer communities are less likely to give up their livelihoods is
actually reversed in this case. One
reason for this trend is that fishermen in developed nations receive subsidies
and thus have a greater incentive to stay the course, even with declining
yields. If this situation was taken as just political, just cultural, or just
environmental a great amount of insight would be lost. The fishermen’s attitude
to their tradition and culture is influenced by the political actions of
subsidies and leniency in harvesting practices. Political leaders thus far have
allowed less expensive short term harvesting, and in return have decimated an
ecosystem service and lost (and continue losing) billions of euros in potential
revenue in the long term. The tone of the article is hopeful however,
highlighting the new research being done on overharvesting and maximum
sustainable yields. The article also mentions important political leaders, like
the Prince of Wales and his think-tank International Sustainability Unit, who
are working on reforming fish harvesting practices throughout Europe. This would
not be possible without the intersection of science and policy and the broad view
that a framework like political ecology provides.
It’s exciting to read about some semi-positive happenings in the world of environmental justice! I think that the EU is doing good things by trying to manage these fisheries, but I also have to wonder about just how much it will do. Even by restoring these fisheries there is no guarantee that fishers will be able to compete with other, non-participatory fisheries who are exploiting their resources (unfortunately). I think, however, that these are good steps to getting there, especially if it includes educating fishers on positive economic and biological practices. I feel, though, that many fishers already have an idea about maximum sustainable yield, even if they do not practice fishing with it (the Main lobsters example is always a popular one of self-monitoring harvests).
ReplyDeleteHopefully the EU will be able to keep up the positive changes that this could potentially make. Fishing is going to be a key staple in many economies for quite some time, and if the EU can manage to establish good practices that can be maintained in this century’s economy, perhaps the rest of the world—including the United States—can adopt more sustainable practices as well, which could in turn perpetuate a cycle of more positive environmental practices. Hopefully the EU can do this!
I find it very peculiar that those who are dependent upon fishing as their main source of income would not be able to see the potentially devastating long term effects of their practices. It seems as though these fishermen, who are unwilling to give up their trade, have only the short term in mind. Sure, the subsidies are a motivating factor to stay in the industry, but there may not be an industry if overfishing continues.
ReplyDeleteAnother intriguing aspect of this issue is the need for immediacy in finding a solution. From an economic stand point, an entire industry is being threatened. From an ecological standpoint, fish populations are on the verge of devastation, which has the potential to disrupt many other marine ecological systems.
I feel that any regulation that is to be made in regards to the fishing industry needs to permanent. It does no good to bring the fish population up to a profitable number only to over exploit it, and then find ourselves in the same predicament. I think that the solution lies in changing fishing methods or creating a set number that each company can catch. Yes, these regulations may drive some fishermen into the ground, but fishermen have the option of finding other modes of survival; an area in which the fish seem to be at a disadvantage.
A very important article, and one of prime significance for the world today. Excellent post and comments.
ReplyDelete