TL: Oceans Newsletter, (GP) SO: Greenpeace International (GP) DT: March 15, 1994 Keywords: environment oceans newsletters greenpeace / COMMENTARY Narrow Self-Interest Must Give Way to Fisheries Reforms As delegates and observers gather for the second session of the United Nations Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, ECO believes it would be instructive for everyone to reread the commitments made in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992. Simply stated, the Agenda 21 plan for action, agreed by 172 UN Member States, called for governments to take a number of strong measures to conserve fish stocks. This Conference, which begins its second session today, was mandated by Agenda 21. ECO believes that delegates must, at a minimum, formalize, in a legally binding manner, the principles and commitments to which governments agreed at UNCED. Failure to do so will call into question the credibility of governments' participation, both in Rio and New York, as well as their willingness to exercise sufficient political will to cooperate and negotiate effective international fisheries agreements. It is apparent from the negotiations to date that narrow, national self-interests continue to dominate. Regrettably, the Earth Summit's Agenda 21 mandate on ocean issues which lays down markers for sustainable fisheries is not being taken seriously, while the fisheries crisis worsens around the world. It is essential that the results of the Conference move us away from the brink of fisheries collapse, toward sustainable and equitable fisheries. To achieve this, and in order to implement effectively the fisheries provisions of UNCLOS, the Conference must conclude a legally binding agreement that includes several key demands articulated in the NGO Statement presented during the July, 1993 session and endorsed by more than 140 organizations around the world. The Conference chair, Ambassador Satya Nandan, has said that he wants the three-week session to complete a thorough, "first reading" of the Draft Negotiating Text that was distributed at the close of the July 1993 session of the Conference. ECO believes that this draft puts forward a number of excellent, substantive proposals, and contains several far-reaching and important provisions. However, a number of essential elements that must be included in any final agreement are missing from, or are insufficiently articulated in, the current draft. Legally binding measures will only be effective if they ensure conservation and management for all fish stocks, marine species, ecosystems and habitats that are impacted by fishing effort on straddling fish stocks and highly migratory stocks, regardless of whether they take place on the high seas or within the Exclusive Economic Zones of nations. In addition, there is a necessity for conservation measures to be based on a strong foundation of precaution, and to include ecosystem and habitat protection with adequate enforcement and compliance measures. Socially equitable fisheries can only be achieved by developing public participation mechanisms, means for recognizing the special interests of communities and fishworkers traditionally dependent on fish for survival and dispute resolution mechanisms that NGOs and fishworkers, artisanal, traditional and coastal communities can invoke. Clearly the substantive reforms demanded by many NGOs at this Conference are groundbreaking, paradigm shifting proposals. But if the implications for humanity and the oceans of the current global fisheries crisis are to be avoided - and they must be - the old ways which have brought us to the brink of catastrophe must be discarded for effective, new approaches. EDITORIAL On Precaution, FAO Misses the Boat The FAO has prepared a discussion paper for the Conference, titled "The Precautionary Approach to Fisheries with Reference to Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks." It is such a mixed bag of ideas, some very progressive and some which are quite reactionary, that it gives the impression of having been written by two people. There are some good points made in the paper -- for example, that management measures applied to transboundary resources should be consistent throughout their distribution range -- but these seeds of reason are smothered by the remainder of the document. The paper portrays the "Precautionary Principle" as a very radical, even harmful idea which should rarely, if ever, be applied to fisheries. It then proceeds to present its own "Precautionary Approach" as a more reasoned and flexible alternative: it would interfere with fisheries only when there is a high risk of severe and irreparable harm to the resource or the environment. The FAO approach to precaution has fundamental problems, not least because it is based on some false premises. For example, several times it is mentioned that the biological effects of fishing are usually reversible. But while a few stocks have, indeed, increased quickly following drastic declines, others have increased only slowly and many hardly at all. An assumption of reversibility, either of abundance of depleted stocks or of community structure, is not compatible with the concept of precaution. On the issue of gear selectivity, the paper suggests that it may be desirable to exploit all species in proportion to their abundance, so as to maintain the overall ecosystem structure. How far can you take this argument in terms of maintaining an ecosystem? Would this require that all species of plankton be fished proportionately to other species? This is a simplistic view in that it ignores differences in productivity among species, and so would not maintain the structure. Further, most bycatch problems result from excessive fishing effort, and thus cutbacks in effort would be a far preferable approach, with the added benefit of addressing many other problems. Most serious, though, is the way in which Precaution is to be applied. In the FAO view, it should only be 'imposed' in extraordinary situations in which there was a high risk of severe and irreversible impact. Precaution thus becomes responsive rather than proactive. Experience has shown that measures taken in response of a situation are usually too late and too weak. It was as a direct result of that failing that the concept of precaution has been so widely adopted: to try to prevent degradation rather than having to repair the damage after it has been done. Clearly, the old guard at the FAO have not understood the recent literature on Precaution. Then again, maybe they have. -------------------------------------------------------------- Mexican Shore Fishermen Fight to Preserve Coastal Resources Hilda Salazar Ramirez DEBASE A.C. researcher and member of the Shore Fishermen National Support Group In the 1970s, Lazaro Cardenas, Michoacan, was transformed by the Mexican Government into the biggest industrial port in Latin America. The promise was that it would be a "development pole" that would attract welfare and ameliorate the living conditions of its inhabitants. The benefits would extend to many Mexicans in other parts of the country. But, today, around 25 years later, this assertion is denied by the "Estudio de Evaluacion de Danos al Ambiente en la Region de Lazaro Cardenas, Michoacan" (Study and Evaluation of Environmental Damages in the Lazaro Cardenas, Michoacan region) by the Sistemas de Ingeniera Sanitaria S.A., a sanitary engineering company. This paper says, "The massive installation and the infrastructure growth without planning, according to the natural resources potential modified important zones which represented ecosystems of a high biological and landscape value. The resources were lost in an irreversible way." The loss of biological diversity as well as the deplorable living conditions of the industrial port inhabitants are backed by many other facts: quality of drinkable water is below the minimum norms; solid and dangerous waste from industries and municipalities represent a high risk for health; industries do not carry out the legal provisions for the treatment and elimination of their waste; there is a risk of water stratum pollution; the originally designed canals for water are now used as drainage. Perhaps the best example of this situation is the result that the so-called development brought to the shore fishermen of the region, who are the protagonists in environmental defense. The changes in the natural water courses resulted in irreversible changes in the estuary systems; untreated industrial waste and solid materials have been thrown up to the estuaries, so many have disappeared. The Mexican environmental authorities said, "the estuaries and shore sea water have been polluted by organic material, bacteria, nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) and also some metals, so the ecological criterion for the quality of water in the so-called usages: Protection of the aquatic life in fresh water and protection of aquatic life in sea water" has been exceeded. The Lazaro Cardenas shore fishermen now have a study which certifies something they already know: their sources of work have been severely affected by industrial and urban pollution, their production has fallen in a vertiginous way, but the emitting sources are not controlling their waste. Some facts and tendencies of the fishing capture speak for themselves. From 1989 to 1992 fishing production had fallen 80 percent from 2,500 tons to only 500. Meanwhile, the national and state production remained constant. The reasons behind this drastic fall are very clear to the fishermen, but it seems that the authorities are not, though in the mentioned paper there are other figures on the industrial discharges to the water bodies. For example: * The Grupo Industrial del Bajio (ex FERTIMEX), which produces fertilizers, discharges daily some 6000 tons to the Pacific Ocean and to the canal which gives access to the port. Among the materials found are phosphorus and gypsum, some calcium derivatives, phosphorus pentoxide, fluorine and silica. Furthermore, there is a fishermen report which states that the company duct is damaged and that they are discharged into the estuaries, not into the sea. * Some 1200 tons of iron materials, a hundred tons of grease, oil and iron hydroxide are discharged monthly by Sioartas, a steel industry, to the "Estero El Carolino" canal which goes to the Estero Paso de Burras and to the commercial port canal. The paper states that at least 12 main industries and a similar number of smaller sized ones, among them Petroleos Mexicanos, and some which produce metals and industrial parts, are discharging in the same way. Nevertheless, these facts are not enough for the Mexican government; they are seeking new studies before accepting that those who are responsible for the damage, that is to say industrial, municipal, state and federal authorities, have to indemnify fishermen. The debate between social and ecological organizations on the one hand and government and industrial authorities on the other hand is not going to be solved because of the study's conclusion. New mobilizations and negotiations have to be carried out in order to find a real solution to this problem. Shore fishermen from Lazaro Cardenas, who want to preserve their economic activity, their culture and the preservation of the water resources -- inherited from generation to generation -- have exposed a crucial problem. Their vital fight has demonstrated that certain types of unsustainable development are not going to result in social welfare and in a quality of life. Perhaps their fight -- or that of their parents -- should have began 25 years ago, but perhaps it is not too late for them and for us to build a better future for our sons. FISHERIES IN THE MEDITERRANEAN: A LAWLESS SEA By Assumpta Gual Greenpeace International Mediterranean Fisheries Campaign As fishing fleets invade the Mediterranean Sea with increasing disregard for what minor controls exist, it is clear that these waters and marine ecosystems, and the livelihoods of thousands of artisanal fishermen, are under grave threat. Most of the Mediterranean Sea is considered international waters where few controls exist and there is no regional convention to regulate the onslaught of fishing pressure. Nowadays in the Mediterranean even a medium sized fishing vessel can reach international waters in little more than an hour. Many fleets, although not excessively large, have sufficient mobility and autonomy to operate in any part of the Mediterranean. Most Mediterranean countries have expanded their fleets -- or are in the process of doing so -- without taking into account the measures needed to ensure the future of fishing grounds and marine diversity. Parallel with international efforts at this Conference to reverse the global fisheries crisis, Greenpeace believes nations must urgently negotiate a regional fisheries regime, adapted to the specific conditions of the Mediterranean. The only way for nations to change the emerging image of the Mediterranean as a lawless sea, is for them to take seriously their responsibility to advocate and create international and regional fisheries controls. The few conservation and management measures proposed by some bodies - the General Council for Mediterranean Fisheries (CGPM) and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT) - are widely disregarded. For example, since ICCAT recommended in 1975 that fishing effort on bluefin tuna should not be increased, estimated catches have grown by almost 47 percent -- from 11,095 tonnes in 1975 to 16,279 tonnes in 1991. These figures are almost certainly underestimates; ICCAT's own scientific committee has said that unreported catches could account for an additional 20 percent. The increasing appearance in the Mediterranean of large tuna longliners flying flags of convenience makes it even more likely that the impacts of fishing activities will be, within very few years, dramatic and irreversible. There are some Mediterranean fleets which often fish illegally in other countries' waters. For example, Italian trawlers have been detected in Tunisian waters and Spanish fishermen in Algerian waters. The presence of Italian driftnetters operating in Spanish and Greek waters has been documented along with the presence of French tuna purse- seiners fishing in Spanish waters. The sanctions against these illegal activities -- assuming their detection results in sanctions -- do little to dissuade the offenders, given that the majority of these fleets usually resume illegal fishing. Large scale driftnets continue to be used by hundreds of illegal Italian vessels, responsible for a massacre of the cetacean population and many fish species which are discarded as by-catch. Several countries, among them, France, Italy and Spain, take huge catches of juvenile bluefin tuna; furthermore, the swordfish catch size is diminishing alarmingly. In addition to the fleets belonging to Mediterranean coastal states, industrial longliners, whose catches go unreported, also operate, the majority of them under flags of convenience (Honduras, Panama, Sierra Leone, etc). These fleets do not comply with international recommendations on bluefin tuna fishing, increasing the fishing effort and capturing hundreds of spawning adults which annually congregate in the Mediterranean to spawn. Given the current lawless state of the Mediterranean, it is clear that many countries are playing with fire by continuing to develop their fleets, refuse cooperation mechanisms and allow fisheries to operate without adequate regulation and often illegally. A Convention of the Mediterranean is critical for the conservation and protection of marine species and ecosystems, as well as to ensure that fisheries are conducted in an socially responsible manner. Reforms Needed for Ecologically Sound, Socially Equitable Fisheries Today, Greenpeace International and the International Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF) submitted an "indicative" Critique of the Draft Negotiating Text (A/CONF.164/13) that is intended to inform governments of key principles and mechanisms necessary to achieve ecologically sound and socially equitable world fisheries. This Revised Text incorporates relevant provisions of Agenda 21, adopted by 172 governments at the 1992 Earth Summit (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro. Two prior documents -- which have been endorsed by nearly 140 environmental, fish worker and women organizations around the world --serve as a foundation for the Revised Text: the "NGO Alternative Fisheries Treaty," negotiated during the Earth Summit, and the "NGO Statement: A Call for Global Fisheries Reform" presented to the July 1993 session of the Conference. In summary, the Revised Text includes details for achieving a legally binding outcome; comprehensive conservation and management throughout the range of straddling and highly migratory stocks; protection of ecosystems and habitats; precautionary approaches; compliance and enforcement; public participation; rights for communities dependent on fishing for survival and funding and coordination mechanisms. CALENDAR OF CONFERENCE AND NGO EVENTS NEW YORK CITY, 14-31 MARCH Monday, 14 March 10 a.m.: World Wildlife Fund will host a press briefing with U.S. non-governmental organizations at the Church Center, in the Daghammarskjold Lounge, 12th floor, 777 United Nations Plaza, corner of 44th and 1st avenues. Speakers will include representatives World Wildlife Fund, National Audoban Society and National Resources Defense Council. Tuesday, 15 March 2:15 p.m.: The International Collective in Support of Fish Workers (ICSF) and Greenpeace International (GPI) will host a press briefing in Conference Room E to discuss the state of world fisheries, the communities that depend on fish for survival and the urgent measures needed. 6:15 p.m. (tentative): Government delegations are invited to hear NGO views on the Precautionary Approach during a briefing and discussion in Conference Room E. Monday-Thursday, 14-17 March 9 a.m. daily: NGO network meeting, Conference Room E. Information sharing. 1:30 p.m. days to be announced: Roundtable discussion, Conference Room E. 6 p.m., (or 30 min. after close of afternoon session) daily: NGO network meeting, information sharing, informal briefings by government representatives. OPEN FORUM Each issue of ECO will carry space for letters from NGOs to delegates. All correspondence intended for publication should be given to the editors at least two days before publication days. To reach the editors of ECO, contact Kieran Mulvaney and Traci Romine in Conference Room E or at the Iroquois Hotel, (212) 840-3080. A TIME TO BE OPEN An Open Letter to Dr. W. Krone, Assistant Director-General for Fisheries, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. Dear Dr. Krone, Following conversations in New York with FAO representatives at the July 1993 session of the United Nations Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, we are writing to express our continued concern over the failure of the FAO with respect to NGO participation in the drafting of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. In light of the agreement reached at the March 1993 session of FAO COFI and subsequent concerns expressed by NGOs we had expected, at the very least, to be periodically informed of the process and progress in the drafting of the Code to date. The work of the FAO in drafting the Code is of extreme importance to NGOs with an interest in marine and coastal fisheries, particularly those NGOs working directly with or in coastal fishing communities. The March session of the UN Conference is upon us and yet we've still had no word concerning NGO participation in the drafting of the Code. Oceans Caucus has not been afforded even the minimum courtesy of being provided with information from the FAO and has had to rely upon second- hand information from the Canadian department of Fisheries and Oceans. Greenpeace International has managed, with considerable difficulty, to obtain some insight into the process but has only received a one page fax (sent February 1994) in response to queries. Clearly the FAO has failed to abide by the mandate, from COFI, to seek the "active participation of...non-governmental organizations...in the preparation of the Code." The Canadian Oceans Caucus, Greenpeace International and other NGOs and networks such as the International Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF) expect, at a minimum, to be advised of timelines and workplans and periodically updated on the contents or draft text of the various components of the Code. We further expect to be afforded the opportunity to participate in the expert consultations planned in association with the Code, including any consultations conducted in New York in conjunction with the UN Conference this month. Through our international NGO networks, we can identify organizations interested in attending these consultations in almost any major city in the world. Further, we wish to arrange a formal meeting between the FAO and representative organizations from the NGO community, possibly toward the end of this year, to provide our input and ensure our participation in this process. In the meantime, as mentioned earlier, we would expect written documentation of results to date and the agenda and timelines for future work. Sincerely, Dr. Irene Novaczek Matthew Gianni Chair, Canadian Oceans Caucus Greenpeace International Fisheries Campaign