TL: UN Fisheries Conference ECO #4 (GP) 
SO: Greenpeace International
DT: March 26, 1994
Keywords: environment greenpeace un fisheries oceans /

Ships of State on a Collision Course

Occasionally, one hears the phrase, "two ships passing in the
night."  A dangerous, destructive variation on that theme is
being played out, now, in this Fisheries Conference.  Governments
are courting disaster, with their ships of state headed full
steam ahead toward each other, irresponsibly threatening a 
collision that will be heard and felt far beyond their New York
City venue.   
     It would be tragic enough if the "ships" were merely passing
in the night.  But the collision course they're on is far worse.
It's fraught with deadly consequences -- for marine life, for
sure.  But also, without a doubt, for ocean ecosystems, and
fishworkers, coastal communities and others who depend on the
seas for life and livelihood.
     This past Wednesday afternoon's sessions were a microcosm of
how and why these negotiations are deadlocked on key issues.  It
was apparent on two fronts -- in the informal plenary, where the
legal "form" of the possible Conference outcome was
discussed, and in the working group on fisheries management
reference points.
     In the plenary discussion on form, governments were
resorting to half-truths and empty rhetoric.  What seemed more
apparent was that they were scurrying for cover, desperately
groping for words ("spins") in the hope that their constituents
and the media will believe someone else is to blame.
     Toward the end of the "form" discussions, the Chair
suggested that three exit doors might be used to tally the
respective views: coastal states who want a binding, global
treaty or other legal instrument - the dominant view - focused
only on the high seas beyond 200 miles; the distant water fishing
nations who want a result that is not legally binding, cast in as
recommendations or guidelines in relation to a UNGA resolution or
declaration; and those states, most notably the U.S., which say
they're flexible on form, but that first the substance must be
further vetted and agreed.
     None of the adherents to these three perspectives, though,
is making any genuine effort to bridge differences.  In ECO's
view, the end result is pretty obvious.  What's needed is a
globally binding legal instrument, applicable throughout the
range of straddling stocks and highly migratory fish stocks,
including associated and dependent species, habitats and
ecosystems.  In that regard, misguided efforts to use UNCLOS as a
bar to such a regime reflect very regressive, parochial views,
not to mention risk of deadlock that will prevent a useful
outcome from the Conference.
     While those talks were underway, the reference points
working group was wrapping up its three days of deliberations. 
With 2 or 3 hours to go, to the untrained observer it appeared
that the work was proceeding well, and that a consensus text
could be agreed by as early as 5 p.m.  But surprise!  A few key
"coastal" delegations, for inexplicable reasons, brought out
their "end game" working group sabotage strategy.
     "Sabotage" is a strong word, but there is really no other
way to describe what happened.  Several governments advised ECO
after the working group adjourned that the strategy was obvious: 

interject nit-picking concerns, fabricate disagreements, posit
text changes on inconsequential issues, and filibuster.  It
worked, for the moment, at least.  Even at the very end, when
concessions were offered to accommodate the saboteurs, they
awkwardly resorted to some ridiculous alternative reasons for
saying the same thing: "We don't want a consensus text." The
working group finally had to adjourn, around 6:15 p.m., with the
prospect of consensus in disarray.
     Subsequently, the chair of the working group did try to
rescue the situation by noting on the circulated report that
consensus had been achieved on the "concepts" in the report.  We
have yet to see, though, whether this will fly in the plenary.    
 It became increasingly apparent on Wednesday that good faith is
at issue in this Conference, despite the Chair's and others'
understandable efforts to characterise the state of play as
normal and constructive.  Collision course. Deadlock. Sabotage. 
Call it what you want, but the result is the same; the global
fisheries crisis escalates.


EDITORIAL: WE MUST WORK TOGETHER TO SECURE OUR FUTURE

From the well-funded and well-publicized 1992 Earth Summit in Rio
de Janeiro to the UN Fisheries Conference in New York City, the
debate continues over the true meaning of sustainable
development.
     While policy makers fail to address the real problems
confronting marine ecosystems, thousands of tons of fish continue
to be wasted, fishing grounds depleted and tens of thousands of
fisherfolks and their families die in dire hunger and poverty. 
Most coastal areas or major fishing grounds are plagued by
industrial pollution, municipal sewage and toxic waste
discharges, mangrove destruction and destructive fishing
activities. 
     We have some questions.  Is it really that difficult to
understand that our living marine resources have limitations that
will come to an end, if we continue to destroy them, as we are
experiencing in some parts of Philippines?  Is it really
difficult to accept that the poor majority of fisherfolks have a
right to share in living marine resources that are not THE
exclusive property of those who have the technology, the big
fishing fleets and the economic and political capital?
     Today the rich are becoming richer and more powerful while
the poor become poorer.  This trend, at least in part, appears
because a few, including the delegates attending this UN
Fisheries Conference, do not understand  -- or if they do, they
do not agree -- that a right to have life must supersede a right
to fish based on capacity and capability.
     If policy makers in this Conference would have listened to
the non-governmental and citizens organizations during UNCED and
the UN Fisheries Conference, perhaps instead of continuing to
waste time and resources, we would be on the road to truly
implementing sustainable development programs for our present and
our common future.
     There is no time for blaming each other, but instead, this
is the time to understand that we are all caretakers of living
marine resources.   This is the time to accept and respect that
the poor people in this world have a right to a better life.      
 As a fisherman, I appeal to the policy makers in this
Conference, give us a chance to live, so we can give peace a
chance.  Because, we believe that for as long as poverty exists,
there will be no genuine peace.  Respect the right of poor people
in coastal communities to join in enjoying the fruit of our
resources, and we can work hand in hand in protecting straddling
fish stocks, highly migratory fish stocks and all marine
ecosystems, for you, for me and for our future.

Rodolfo C. Sambajon
National Chairman
Pamalakaya-Pilipinas, 
National Federation of
fisherfolks in the Philippines

<PAGE TWO>

NEW ZEALAND:
Orange Roughy: Ownership and the ITQ System  
By Leith Duncan

Privatization based on Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs) is
being widely promoted around the world as the panacea for the
problems of open access fisheries. One country with long, and
possibly the most comprehensive, experience of this system is New
Zealand. The New Zealand fishing industry and the Government are
working together to promote the idea that ITQs will save the
country's fisheries from the global trends of stock declines on
the one hand and serious overcapitalization on the other.
     The current edition of The Economist quotes Philip Major, a
senior official of NZ's Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
(MAF) and one of those attributed with introducing the ITQ
system, as saying that "fishermen are starting to act like owners
and not hunters" because in 1993 fishermen were offered, but
turned down, the chance to catch an extra 50,000 tons of hoki.
"But the market is glutted. So the industry refused, hoping to
catch more hoki in future years," Mr. Major proudly pronounced.   
   However, as Mr. Major should know, this is only part of the
story. Had industry accepted the increase, it would have lost out
on millions of dollars in government compensation for past quota
reductions. Besides, most of the quota is owned, not by
fishermen, but by corporations which are driven by accountants
whose actions are indexed more to market price sensitivity and
returns on investment in newly capitalized fleets than to the
natural productivity of marine ecosystems.  Indeed, the fact that
quotas are private property has, if anything, aggravated the
difficulties in managing deepwater fisheries. 
     New Zealand's Chatham Rise fishery for orange roughy
epitomizes the failure of privatization to conserve marine
resources. Orange roughy is a unique wildlife species, living at
depths in excess of one thousand meters.  It is long lived --
possibly as long as 150 years -- and slow to mature, maybe not
spawning until its early 30s, with a productivity of only 1 - 2%
per year. It is fished, not for any special character but because
its flesh can substitute for any other bland white fillets.       
 In the late 1970s, when the fishery began, this incredible  
species was seen as a bonanza, with an unfished biomass estimated
at 400,000 tonnes. Government scientists now estimate the biomass
after 15 years of overfishing at around 30,000 tonnes and there
are even suggestions it could be as low as 7% of its virgin
state. By many definitions the fishery would be considered
collapsed, especially for a species as slow to replenish as
orange roughy. Yet still the investors in quota resist all
efforts to reduce the catch limits to levels that might be
sustainable. From their market driven perspective, the value of
the catch now is higher than in the future.
     The New Zealand fishing industry is proud that "Orange
Roughy is the engine that has built the deepwater fishery".
Ownership has given the security of access required to finance
deepwater fleets, infrastructure and processing lines and
markets. But with these in place, catch limits must now stay high
to maintain profitability. This immediate incentive overrides
concern for ecological sustainability, intrinsic value and the
needs of future generations. 
     By 1989, when it was clear that quota reductions were
necessary for a number of species including orange roughy and
hoki, the cost of quota had risen so high that the government was
unable or unwilling to buy back what was required. This led to
"The Accord" between the government and the Fishing Industry,
subsequently legislated as the Fisheries Amendment Act 1990. This
changed ITQs to a "right" to harvest a proportion of the Total
Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC), rather than the previous
absolute tonnage. The annual resource rentals that were to be
collected until September 1994, were to be returned to the
industry as compensation for any possible future TACC reductions
which might be necessary. Even with this agreement and the
warning from the collapse of the orange roughy fishery on the
Challenger Plateau, the industry staunchly resisted reducing
orange roughy catch limits to sustainable levels.
     In the stock assessment round for the 1993/94 season, it was
recommended by Government fisheries scientists that orange roughy
catch limits be substantially cut to 3,400-5,900 tonnes in order
to give the Chatham Rise orange roughy population even only a 50%
chance of any rebuilding. Despite this, intensive lobbying by the
quota owners was so successful that the Minister let the TACC
stand at 14,000 tonnes.    
     Privatization will not save the Chatham Rise orange roughy
fishery.  Nor, with the present rate of NZ fleet expansion and
the overriding of prudent science, will the ITQ system save New
Zealand from following the global trend towards depleted
fisheries. 

<PAGE 3>

FROM THE FLOOR

STATEMENT DELIVERED BY MAGDALENA INPENGE ON BEHALF OF THE WOMEN'S
CAUCUS AT THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON STRADDLING STOCKS AND
HIGHLY MIGRATORY FISH STOCKS


Mr. Chairman,  I make this statement on behalf of the Women's  
Caucus to draw attention to the important role of women in
fisheries.  Recognition needs to be accorded to the importance of
fisheries to women and the multiple roles women fulfill.  What
happens in this Conference is of vital concern to women.

Remember, this Conference is not an isolated event.  Along with
the Global Conference on the Sustainable Development of Small
Island Developing States, among others, it takes its mandate from
the totality of concerns which gave rise to Agenda 21, committed
to by heads of state of 172 governments at the 1992 Earth Summit
in Rio de Janeiro.  Agenda 21 specifically recognizes the
contributions of women and the need for their full participation.


We welcome the references in Sections I and X of the Draft
Negotiating Text to the special requirements of developing states
whose populations are culturally and economically dependent on
marine resources, especially in terms of the impact on
subsistence fisheries and the nutritional requirements of coastal
communities.  In order for such special requirements to truly be
recognized, this Conference must address the roles of women in
fisheries.

For example, in many communities of the Pacific, Caribbean and
African regions:

* women are as involved in inshore fishing as men;
* women in fisheries contribute an important part of the
subsistence protein needs, food and income of the family.
* women are largely responsible for inshore fish processing and
the marketing of fish products;
* women also provide an important labor force in industrial fish
processing.

These roles are not confined to women in the south.

* Worldwide, it is primarily women who make the choices of what
to feed their families, and therefore, they are the buyers of
fish products.
* Women are involved in the critical support on shore once fish
are landed, handle bookkeeping, provide labor for fish
processing, market fish products and provide shore support.

In spite of these significant contributions and the recognition
accorded women's roles in Agenda 21, there is no mention of these
realities in the Negotiating Text.  States must ensure enhanced
participation of women in management and decision making
processes at all levels if they are serious about sustainable
development.  Currently, the number of women involved in
management and decision-making processes is insignificant.  Women
also must be targeted for development projects, training and
capacity building opportunities.  If women had been more fully
involved, perhaps the global fisheries crisis would not exist
today.

Delegations at this conference have also identified the need to
consider, in the establishment of regional and subregional
 
management organizations and agreements, the relevant
characteristics of the regions, including socio-economic,
cultural, geographical and environmental factors.  The women's
caucus urges the application in every region of the world of
precautionary and ecosystem approaches.  In the interests of
present and future generations, the debate must not be allowed to
be narrowed to the high seas or to targeted stocks, without
addressing the need for conservation throughout the range of fish
stocks or for protection of their habitats and ecosystems.

What is needed is a strong legally binding instrument which will
effectively improve the long term health of our common oceans and
marine life.  Thus, strict principles of international law, the
highest conservation standards and enforcement mechanisms should
apply.  In these regards, we support the relevant amendments
proposed in the Greenpeace/ICSF Critique/Revised Text of the
Chairman's Negotiating Text, which was circulated during the
first week of this session.

We believe that fishing is a privilege not a right.  We are all
caretakers, not owners, of the life of the ocean.  Whatever
adversely impacts the living resources of the oceans will
adversely affect life on earth, including women in coastal
communities, women in fisheries and women throughout the world.

On behalf of the Women's Caucus, I thank you.

<PAGE 4>

WHY DO MEXICAN FISHERMEN PAY THE COST OF FALSE MODERNIZATION?

Allejandro Villamar
Red Mexicana Frente Libre Comercio

Many shoreline communities of Mexico once were tropical
paradises, but today the picture tends to be desolation under oil
slicks, industries of petrochemicals, electric, sugar cane,
timber and great cities of waste.

These symbols of modernization -- oil towers, electrical or
petrochemical, highways, bridges and great agricultural (water)
systems -- are clear examples of pseudo-modernization the cost of
which is paid by fisherfolks and peasant communities in the form
of damaged environments and lost resources.

Thus in 1993 and 1994, coastal fishing communities increased
their responses to the destruction of coastal areas, joining
peasant mobilizations to demand a halt to the catastrophe and
payment for the damages.

In February and March, the cry of coastal fishermen and farmers
achieved previously unseen dimension in Mexican states such as
Tabasco and Campeche.  More than 5,000 fisherfolks and peasants
closed the exits of 300 oil wells, and organized a strike around
the government offices.  The Mexican army went into action, and
the government initiated negotiations.  In this case, the protest


achieved the liberation of two jailed fisherfolk leaders, whom
the government had accused of attacking the state's property.  In
addition, the fisherfolks received some open-ended promises to
seek resolution.

The coastal fisheries and plantations are contaminated by
frequent oil spills and petrochemical waste leakages.  These
situations are not exclusive to one province or region.  Each
month more slicks occur or the effects of past damage are
acknowledged.  The damage results from the rapid growth of
industries, with few investments in security or maintenance of
equipment, in order to achieve punctual payment of national
external debt.  The company bosses believe that fisherfolk's and
peasants' protests can be quelled with bits of money or by police
and army intimidation.

However, the damage is not restricted to oil waste or to emerging
big marine oil platforms that dislodge traditional and distant
fisheries regions.  Last year, sulfuric acid leaked from the
Norwegian industrial vessel "Betula" along the Pacific Coast of
the Michoacan state.  There also is the waste from a
thermoelectric plant in Petalcalco, Guerreo.  Even before this,
the most productive and important coastal lagoons in the states
of Oaxaca and Chiapas were closed because the natural river ways
were altered by construction of highways, bridges or irrigation
systems planned badly to save money.

Rivers frothing with detergent, excrements, industrial wastes,
including toxic petrochemical and agrotoxic substances, are no
longer found exclusively along the coasts of the Gulf of Mexico. 
Coastlines along the Pacific are increasingly spoiled, as well. 


Information from the Mexican National Water Commission and the
Engineering Institute of the National Autonomous University of
Mexico reveal that national infrastructure for the treatment of
waste water can handle only 35 percent of the total volume of
national waste generated.  The rest of the waste runs untreated
into the estuarian coastal systems and ultimately to the sea. 
Furthermore, the government has only accomplished the weakest
water quality control standards.  This results in great threats
to the main coastal ecosystems, the fish and other marine life
and the fisherfolk and peasant communities.

Closing the eyes to growing damage impedes socially equitable and
environmentally sound fisheries development and increases the
explosive social and political landscape underpinned and
supported by false modernization.

The landscape of this tropical country is of one which sought to
pay its national external debt on time and to achieve
industrialization in a short time and at any price -- even
postponing payment of its social and environmental debts.  Now
Mexico faces an emergency that requires the nation to adopt the
widest means for public participation and transparency and
achieve a precautionary and ecosystem approach to conserving its 

resources.

However, for Mexico to build itself into a real modern -- or
postmodern -- nation does not depend on its actions alone or
those of tropical nations, south or north.  The global crisis in
the fisheries of the world's oceans shows us that a global
agreement is required.  Now, it is clearer that nations of the
north and south are inter-dependent.  Where does the over-
capacity of northern fleets go?  Not only do overcapitalized
fleets sail for high seas fisheries but to the 200 mile Exclusive
Economic Zones of other coastal states. Thus, the necessity is to
achieve a legally binding agreement in order to create real
opportunities to achieve conservation and sustainable development
fisheries worldwide. 


CALENDER

CALENDER OF CONFERENCE AND NGO EVENTS
NEW YORK CITY,
14-31 MARCH

Thursday - Monday 24-28 March

Weekdays: 9:15 a.m.  Regular NGO Network meetings are scheduled
for 9:15 a.m. in Conference Room E. 

Friday, 24: 2 p.m. Meeting with NGOs and delegations from
Philippines and Mexico, Conference Room E.

Saturday and Sunday, 25-26:  The Conference Room (Room 26) at the
Iroquois Hotel, 49 W. 44th, will be available to NGOs interested
in informal meetings or working groups Saturday and Sunday.

Monday, 27: 9 a.m. NGO preparatory meeting on the FAO Code of
Conduct for Responsible Fishing, Conference Room E.

Tuesday, 28: 2 p.m. - 4 p.m. NGO meeting with FAO representatives
to discuss FAO Code of Conduct, Conference Room E.

ENDS