TL: UN Conf. on Straddling Fish Stocks, ECO#1, SO: Greenpeace International (GP) DT: August, 94 keywords: environment greenpeace oceans fish fisheries un conferences / UN CONFERENCE ON STRADDLING FISH STOCKS AND HIGHLY MIGRATORY FISH STOCKS ECO # 1 15 AUGUST 1994 (GP) Commentary Fast action needed now to save fish stocks "When this session began, it was widely perceived as being the "make or break" phase of this Conference. Almost three weeks later, the Conference is perilously close to palpable failure. Furthermore, there is a clear feeling that some States wish to see it fail." Don't forget the fish, ECO Commentary, March 31, 1994 Several months have passed, and change on the political front has progressed at a snail's pace. Regional fish wars are erupting at sea, but upon the political stage the secret negotiations such as the June intercessional in Buenos Aires remained closed to NGOs or affected communities. From the limited information that has been made available, it appears a tentative agreement has been reached to devote the remaining Conference to negotiating a treaty rather than merely a set of guidelines. Canada has apparently circulated -- only to "key" delegations -- a draft treaty which has since been revised. There also appears to have been agreement to extend the Conference beyond August to allow a treaty to be negotiated. For ECO perhaps a snail's pace is better than an impasse, but more must be accomplished in the remaining sessions if the crisis in global fisheries is to be resolved rather than exacerbated. So the slight progress of the Buenos Aires intercessional is welcome news. ECO has consistently maintained that a legally binding outcome is an essential prerequisite for any conclusion to the Conference. However, a treaty alone will not accomplish much if it does not contain sufficient substance. Basic and indivisible issues such as excess fleet capacity, overcapitalization, the widespread use of destructive fishing technology, the migration of fleets from northern to southern waters, the rights of fishworkers, and fisheries conservation through sound fishing practices and the protection of coastal and marine environments must be effectively addressed and reformed. Delegates may argue that the Conference is limited to the issue of fisheries for straddling and highly migratory fish stocks. Technically, of course, this is true. So far, the Conference has been focused largely on the relative rights of States, and their responsibilities to one another, in terms of jurisdiction over fisheries conducted in both national and international waters. While it is certainly imperative that jurisdictional issues be clarified and resolved, it will all be to no avail unless the more fundamental and underlying problems are also addressed. As recent fisheries conflicts around the world have underlined, there is nothing to be gained from pointing fingers, with each State blaming others for the fisheries crisis. This is just a way of abdicating responsibility that all share. It is time for governments to accept responsibility for their actions or lack of action and use the remaining Conference to cooperate and achieve a legally binding, substantive and comprehensive outcome. Governments, NGOs and other affected stakeholders are all in the same "boat," each and all very dependent on and affected by the outcome of the Conference. We fervently hope that governments, rather than moving like snails to protect short-term political considerations, will focus on achieving a conclusion that is successful, benefiting the health and long-term viability of the oceans and marine life, as well as those whose lives and livelihoods are dependent on the seas. EDITORIAL: HAVES VS. HAVE NOTS IN THE FIGHT FOR FISH In the fishing village of Chetticamp, on the shores of the eastern Canadian province of Nova Scotia, a fishing feud has broken out. Fishermen, idled by the destruction of the cod and other groundfish stocks by overfishing, have used their boats to block the fishing harbor. It was a desperate action taken against their more fortunate neighbors, even relatives, who have licenses to fish the rich snow crab fishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The struggle between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots' which has divided Chetticamp exemplifies conflicts worldwide over access to declining fish resources. This global fisheries crisis and regional fish wars are caused by a cycle of destructive fisheries development in which large scale, unmanaged industrialized fisheries are encouraged and overcapitalized at the expense of the environment and communities. Nations exacerbate the crisis by failing to achieve international systems of fisheries management or conservation in which fisherfolk, fishworkers and their communities are empowered in decision making to protect their futures and the future health of marine life and ocean ecosystems. "If countries continue to favor large-scale, industrial style fishing, some 14-20 million small-scale fishers and their communities are at risk," reports Peter Weber, in Worldwatch paper 120, "Net Loss: Fish, Jobs, and the Marine Environment. The fights over fish are taking place in overcrowded coastal areas and hundreds of miles from shore on the high seas as well, often involving the use of military forces. In the Bay of Biscay, French and British naval vessels have converged on the scene of a charged action by Spanish fishermen embroiled in a tuna war with French, British and Irish driftnetters who are using oversized nets in violation of EU regulations. Not far away, in the English Channel, fisheries protection officers from the Channel Islands were recently forced to run a gauntlet of French trawlermen brandishing boat-hooks and knives in order to board one of their boats over the violation of territorial limits off the islands. In the waters of the South Atlantic off the coast of Argentina and around the Falklands, so-called "squid wars" rage in which numerous fishing boats -- mostly from Asia -- have been pursued by fisheries protection vessels. In May, the crew of one illegal Taiwanese fishing vessel escaped in lifeboats when their vessel sank after an Argentine navy corvette opened fire to get the boat out of Argentine waters. These "symptoms" make it clear that the crisis in global fisheries is worsening. In all regions of the world, fish stocks are under serious pressure from overfishing, some ecosystems have been degraded, even collapsed and jobs are being lost by the thousands. The UN Conference on Straddling Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks could conclude in a tragedy of international proportions should governments refuse to act collectively and responsibly to address this global fisheries crisis. What is urgently needed is a legally binding instrument that ensures stringent conservation standards. A precautionary, ecosystem approach to management across the ranges of the stocks, and effective dispute settlement mechanisms are essential ingredients. Mechanisms also must ensure participation of NGOs and recognize the special interests of fisherfolks, fishworkers organizations, coastal communities, women, subsistence and artisanal fishing groups. Otherwise, we risk a future in which regional fishwars will be characterised, like the Chetticamp village saga, as struggles of the "have-nots" vs. the "haves". The ultimate losers in this scenario will be the marine environment, the world's fisheries, and the millions upon millions of people around the world who depend on fishing for their survival. Mike Hagler, Greenpeace International RECALLING THE MARCH 1994 SESSION -- FROM THE FLOOR A True International Agreement Needed The following is excerpted from a statement made on the final day of the March, 1994 session of the United Nations Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. As delegates gather for the third session, ECO believes that this statement is worth revisiting. Thank you Mr. President, The fishers and representatives of both fishery coastal communities and environmental organizations come to this Conference with the hope that our opinions, and the opinions of delegates, will help build a true international fishery agreement. This agreement must necessarily include a series of minimum international obligatory rules that guarantee both the survival of marine resources and the fishers in equitable social conditions between all nations. This is why an agreement cannot omit the enormous differences between rich and poor countries and societies. An agreement cannot strengthen the global imbalance that does exist in fisheries. That is not the spirit of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development or the General Assembly. Amongst other things, the United Nations has a mission to support the creation of International Rights and reject the power of force. This mission is the only real guarantee to maintain a global perspective of peace and sustainable development. I want to express that between us, the fishers of different countries, exists the experience in agreeing to local preservation and cooperation, proving that such agreements are viable even if they affect our short-term interests and require sacrifices. Such agreements have been possible between us when we have understood our common interests and needs for long-term existence. Although most of you may know about this, I want to say that between high seas fishers of our different countries, we know about how hard the conditions are in which we live. We know where we fish and what we fish. We have news of both confidential reports and contracts by our countries and strategies of big fishery companies and some governments. In large measure we believe we understand why the 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone is defended so fervently or why there are attempts to erase the lines that limit national administrations. However, permit me to tell you quite frankly, that we cannot trust false global views about false sovereignty when in the center of these we cannot find the real interests of fishers, communities or conservation of resources. We are not interested in sovereignty used to sell it in little pieces or in licenses or in entertaining global transnational interests. We believe in international rights that pay close attention and assure both the interests of people and resource conservation. Stable international rights are created together with citizens and not against the interests of people and are founded on true international cooperation and not only upon international and national minimal responsibilities. In the coming months, fishers, fishing communities and environmental groups will increase our efforts to combine our actions. We wish that the governments advance constructively too; so that when we meet again, we can come out with an agreement that really is an instrument to advance in order and conservation of marine fisheries within a framework of social balance. This document must also include recommendations to the International Works Organization (IWO), The International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in order to ensure these organizations ensure better working and security conditions for fisheries crews. Thank you Guillermo Risco Uribe, Regional Coordinator of Masrine Fishermen of the South American Southern Cone and President of FETRINECH, Chile Magdalena Katu Impinge, President of the Labor Union on Food and Similars, Namibia Alejandro Villamar, Mexican Network on Free Trade, Fisheries section, Mexico Are Fishworkers to Blame? by Rodolfo C. Sambajon President, PAMALAKAYA, Philippines Our small country was once called the "Pearl of the Orient," rich in all natural resources, from forests to rivers and seas. But now our forests are denuded and most of our people are homeless. Our mountains are destroyed and our gold has gone. What is left to us are the mine tailings that pollute our habitat. The birds and the bees in the green fields are now replaced by building and factories that pollute the air and water. Our rice fields are gone and what is left to us are bridges, pavements and mountains of garbage. And on the pavements, you will find squatters in our own land. Inside the buildings are men and women who work for the rich, making them richer at the expense of the poor labourers. At night you will see beautiful lights but behind the neon lights are sons and daughters of farmers and fisherfolk who have long been neglected and exploited. This is not the end. Exploitation will continue. In fact, we are now facing a bigger problem which needs to be addressed. Our coastal lands and mangrove forests and even our fishing grounds are subject to massive conversion, also for the interest of the powerful. Some say this is for our development and for the future. But our question is, for whose development? Are we sure of a development imposed by the IMF-World Bank and being implemented by their local collaborators who for a long time exploited our people? We must now learn from our experiences. Who benefited from our resources? Who destroyed our environment? Is it really the fisherfolk whose only means of livlihood depends upon the marine resources or those who have the capacity and capability? Sometimes the fisherfolk are blamed for the destruction of the environment and marine life. Are they really the culprits or are the culprits those who pretend to be environment-friendly and prtective by offering grants and aid to protect the environment? This is not only a question of environmental protection. The problem and struggle still remains between the oppressor and the oppressed. And the oppressor will never place gold on a silver plate and offer it to us. We need to struggle to get it. Maybe we have differences but I believe we have commonalities too. From our common grounds we should unite and fight for our rights and for our future. In this struggle, we may even give up our life but never the lives and destinies of our children who we love the most. We will not allow our loved ones to die of hunger and homelessness. They need to survive for a better life. Once this [Cebu] conference is over, we will go back to our poor fishing communities. Let us build a strong organization of fisherfolk who are determined to defend our rights and committed to building a better society and a peaceful world. From Samudra For Cebu No. 6, (June 1994 Conference of the International Collective in Support of Fishworkers, in Cebu, Philippines.) Greenpeace highlights continued illegal driftnets fishing and protests French assault The fallout of the European Union's ineffective regulations on large scale driftnets, and failure to ban the technology outright has come into clear focus over the summer in the Mediterranean Sea and the Bay of Biscay. Tensions are on the rise, resulting in violent attacks by the French Navy against the peaceful activities of the Rainbow Warrior. To monitor and document the environmental destruction wrought by illegal driftnet fishing, Greenpeace has been observing the Italian fleet of up to 600 vessels, and fleets from France, the U.K. and Ireland. On the morning of August 6, while the Rainbow Warrior was monitoring the French fishing vessel Le Coubertin as it hauled in its nets, the French Navy attacked the Greenpeace ship, blasting it with fire hoses and throwing a stun grenade at a Greenpeace campaigner in an inflatable. "We have been carrying out monitoring, legally on the high seas," said Xavier Pastor, Greenpeace campaigner onboard the Rainbow Warrior. "We are a peaceful vessel in international waters. We should be treated as such and not attacked by the French Navy. We are not here to stop fishing; we are here to monitor illegal fisheries and will continue to do so." Greenpeace has lodged a formal complaint with the French Ministry of Defence following the attack by a French patrol tug and Navy frigate. In a letter sent from the organization's Amsterdam headquarters, Greenpeace demanded that the ministry take disciplinary action against those aboard the Malabar and the Enseigne de Vaisseau Jacoubet. "Without warning or provocation, the Malabar carried out several highly dangerous manoeuvres and then blasted the decks of the Rainbow Warrior with high pressure water hoses," said the letter, signed by the acting executive director of Greenpeace International, Steve D'Esposito. "These were then targeted on the pilot house in a clear attempt to injure crew and destroy vital communication and navigational instruments." The attack occurred as two inflatable boats from the Rainbow Warrior were monitoring the French driftnetter Le Coubertin hauling in its nets. A mile away, the patrol tug Malabar suddenly sailed straight across the bow of the Rainbow Warrior, in an attempt to make the Warrior stop. It repeated this manoeuvre and then unleashed the water hoses. At no time was any radio communication received, despite repeated requests from Greenpeace for an explanation. As the Malabar continued its attack, the Enseigne de Vaisseau Jacoubet moved closer to the scene and worked with the tug to try and sandwich the Warrior between them. When one of the inflatables drove between the Malabar and the Rainbow Warrior, the Malabar crew threw a stun grenade, which hit the inflatable driver in the leg. Speaking from on board the Rainbow Warrior, Pastor completely refuted later French allegations the Warrior's crew had been cutting the net. For years, Greenpeace has monitored and reported its findings of vessels using large scale driftnets on the high seas and within Exclusive Economic Zones. This documentation shows clearly that the EU and member states are undermining the international driftnets ban agreed by the United Nations and European Union regulations banning driftnets of longer than 2.5 kilometers. Rather than resort to short term violent actions, the French and its Navy as well as all the fishing nations in the EU should engage in a process to ban driftnets, provide alternatives for fishers and restore environmental health as well as political and social stability in the region. ENDS