Saving The Fisheries: An International Environmental Politics Perspective

Saving the Fisheries: An International Environmental Politics Perspective

Sinanian, Michael ESPM 169 (O’Neill/Bullock) November 24, 2009

It might be surprising to state, but environmental management non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) actually encourage the over-utilization of the very resource they were purposefully designed to protect and regulate. In the case of ICCAT, they have failed to protect bluefin tuna, witnessing a reduction in their numbers by nearly 75% over the last 40 years (“Economist”). The precise conditions under which a non-state actor such as ICCAT could allow for such a failure of management are explored and debated in an article by Andresen and Skodvin concerning the role of non-state influence in the International Whaling Commission (IWC) between 1970-2006 and another article by Lars Gulbrandsen discussing the challenges confronted by fishery and forestry eco-labeling. Through the analysis of various sectors of the environmental policy and management spectrum, these articles properly inform the issue of organizations like ICCAT failing to conserve their designated resource. Furthermore, the failure of ICCAT has led the international community to react, calling for a transfer of management to another organization, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which possesses the ability to “ban trade in endangered species such as the bluefin entirely” (“Economist”). Research by Lowenstein, et al. provides an ingenious DNA-based method of identifying fish sold at eateries to check with compliance with CITES, further bolstering the case for a management switch. The IWC article seeks to explain the varying levels of influence non-state actors have on “the international regime for the regulation of whaling” (Andresen & Skodvin 2008: 119). It specifically cites the policy adopted in 1974, which aimed to more strongly link “scientific

assessments of whale stocks and the allocation of catch quotas” as well as the 1982 decision to impose a full moratorium (or ban) on commercial whaling. (Andresen & Skodvin 2008: 120) It then uses these two policy changes to track how the influence of different non-state actors varied through the decades. By defining what qualifies as a non-state actor, the authors state that the main groups with influence are the scientific community, the whaling industry, and the environmental and animal rights movements and their associated NGOs. They then assessed levels of influence and explored explanations for said levels of influence (Andresen & Skodvin 2008: 121). In performing such an analysis of the whaling sector, comparisons can be made to the bluefin tuna issue by way of both species belonging to a common-pool stock of marine-based natural resources that is subject to governmental regulation. In contrast to the events of the 1970s, which witnessed the scientific community gain a “moderate level of influence” in the policy debate, the current level of influence of that community seems to be significantly waned, at least in terms of the bluefin tuna sector, as ICCAT has been “notorious for ignoring the advice of its own scientists” (“Economist”). As the IWC article discusses, in the 1980s, the environmentalists shifted away from the scientific community, pushing for a full moratorium on all whale species, which scientists argued was unnecessary due to what they cited as “new and improved knowledge [indicating] abundance of certain species” (Andresen & Skodvin 2008: 123). The environmentalists in turn rejected these scientific estimates of the whale stock or “opposed whaling more generally for ethical or political reasons” (Andresen & Skodvin 2008: 123). The high demand for “advanced knowledge on stocks and population dynamics” that the scientific community could fulfill in the 1970s had come under severe doubt in the 80s, and this led to the moratorium passing in 1982 and going into effect in 1985/86 (Andresen & Skodvin 2008: 131). The article here foreshadows events in

the tuna sector today, as conservation groups such as the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) have argued that, “even a strictly enforced 8,000-tonne quota would have only a 50% chance of bringing about a recovery by 2023” (“Economist”). This informs why these groups are—as was the case in whaling decades ago—pushing for a moratorium on bluefin tuna, and thus requesting CITES take over bluefin tuna management. Although the whaling convention was designed to conserve whale populations for the purpose of providing security and stability to the whaling industry, this did not stop the body from basing its decisions on, “the best scientific advice” (Andresen & Skodvin 2008: 124). This is where the events covered by the article diverge from what seems to be happening today with ICCAT: the organization simply refuses to work with the scientific community, to the point that even the fishing industry itself is concerned. An important take-away from the IWC article is that alliances play a critical role in international environmental politics. Clearly, the environmental movement could not have secured the moratorium where it not for the support of the US government, which had on its own ceased all commercial whaling operations by 1970 (Andresen & Skodvin 2008: 129 & 145). The importance of alliances is highlighted in the ICCAT case whereby countries such as Monaco, Brazil, and Britain have started to take a strong stance on the bluefin tuna issue, and the support of these governments will be crucial if environmentalists plan on imposing a moratorium on this sector in 2010 or 11 (“Economist”). In “Mark of Sustainability,” Gulbrandsen offers another solution that could be applied to the bluefin tuna case: fishery eco-labels. The article states that “eco-labels … offer information on the environmental impact of particular products or services and are increasingly used to help consumers make informed choices” (Gulbrandsen 2005: 9). It then goes over the history of

labeling schemes, such as the first government-sponsored one in Germany. Gulbrandsen states that in the past 10 years, perceived failures in public policy have led to the emergence of “various nonstate certification schemes,” which have become integral to resource management (Gulbrandsen 2005: 10). His article assesses the potential that eco-labeling could have on establishing “credible and effective governance schemes without the backing of governments,” and he discusses this both in terms of forestry and fisheries (Gulbrandsen 2005: 10). Although he covers the development of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and how forest certification was launched as an effort to manage forests more stringently than governments, he also covers the offshoot effort of FSC’s success, the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) (Gulbrandsen 2005: 10, 12) As previously stated, although most forests are managed privately due to their landbased, territorially delineated nature, fish stocks are common-pool resources managed by governments (Gulbrandsen 2005: 12). The author states that while some advances have been made recently, most fish stocks are subject to overwhelming fishing pressure and are woefully managed (Gulbrandsen 2005: 12). Emerging in response to this and what can be seen as a failure of governments to “resolve the fisheries’ management challenges” are the eco-labeling schemes such as MSC (Gulbrandsen 2005: 12). Through a “market-based labeling scheme for fisheries,” the WWF established the MSC in 1996 so as to improve management, operation, and the size of the fish stocks themselves (Gulbrandsen 2005: 12). Gulbrandsen concludes his article by stating that consumers provide the key to sustainable management practices because they can select from products that carry labels that indicate whether it’s from a properly managed resource stock or not. However, he correctly asserts, “unlike FSC, MSC states that its role is to complement international regulations, not

replace or supplant them” (Gulbrandsen 2005: 13). This is crucial to the bluefin tuna case, where the application of an MSC-like eco-labeling scheme could prove effective, but only if it operates within the constraints of either a reformed ICCAT or possibly CITES. Although governments seem to have passed on the management of bluefin tuna largely to ICCAT, they are now poised to take action that is sure to bolster their position as international regulators, confirming Gulbrandsen’s recommendations. Since international regulation is the norm in fisheries, ecolabels for bluefin tuna—if they are to be effective—must conform to the 1995 Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and any other regulations set forth by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (Gulbrandsen 2005: 13). The author further concludes that a handful of third-party studies do seem to confirm that these eco-labeling schemes are effective (Gulbrandsen 2005: 17). Also, because FSC and MSC are small, nonprofit organizations that rely on funding from donors and alliances with more powerful, wealthier groups to promote labeled products in the marketplace, they would benefit strongly by allying with environmental groups (Gulbrandsen 2005: 19). This perfectly complements what Andresen and Skodvin had discussed in their article: alliances are key in international natural resource management, whether it’s between NGos, governments, or any other actor. Although Gulbrandsen is honest about just how effective MSC has been, stating that it’s certified only 3.4% of the, “global marine catch for human consumption,” he does conclude with a strong assessment that eco-labeling (in fisheries) would more than likely bolster compliance with “international and domestic regulations and improve operation methods,” but only if participation in certification programs increases and more eco-labeled products enter the market (Gulbrandsen: 2005: 21). This bold assessment remains to be tested in the various marine species discussed in this piece thus far: whaling and bluefin tuna. However, eco-labeling does at least

offer a chance to enhance management practices far better than what ICCAT has thus far managed to do. Lastly, management efforts of marine species such as bluefin tuna are not entirely in vain, for the scientific community—going far beyond simple assessments of fish stock like the type they would perform during the 70s for the IWC—has responded by engineering real solutions to stop overfishing. As Lowenstein et al. state, “A piece of tuna sushi has the potential to be an endangered species, a fraud, or a health hazard” (Lowenstein, Amato, and Kolokotronis 2009: 1). Using DNA testing, their group has been able to uncover all three of those cases in their study (Lowenstein et al. 2009: 1). They state that almost 20 different restaurants were “unable to clarify or misrepresented what [tuna] species they sold,” with several species turning up as northern bluefin tuna or the endangered southern bluefin tuna (despite these restaurants not stating these species on their menus) (Lowenstein et al. 2009: 1). With a study such as this one, it seems the scientific community is poised to gain the upper hand like they did in the 70s, which, according to the Andresen and Skodvin article, would mean that their policy recommendations would be enacted. However, the more important question becomes whether the scientific community would simply support more stringent standards upon ICCAT or a transfer of authority to CITES and the possibility of a moratorium. It is important to note that CITES requires all listed species to be indefinable in trade, which the research by Lowenstein et al. fulfills for tuna (Lowenstein et al. 2009: 1). The study goes one step further, however, stating that “this research … supports the nomination of northern bluefin tuna for CITES listing in 2010” (Lowenstein et al. 2009: 1). Science seems poised to reemerge after all, either with the support of eco-labeling, governments, NGOs—or without.

Works Cited

Andresen, Steinar and Tora Skodvin. "Non-state Influence in the International Whaling Commission, 1970-2006." NGO Diplomacy: The Influence of Nongovernmental Organizations in International Environmental Negotiations. Ed. Michele M. Betsill. Hong Kong: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2008. 119-147. Print.

Gulbrandsen, Lars H. "Mark of Sustainability? Challenges for Fishery and Forestry Ecolabeling." Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development. 47.5 (2005): 823. Print.

Lowenstein, Jacob H., George Amato, and Sergios-Orestis Kolokotronis. "The Real maccoyii: Identifying Tuna Sushi with DNA Barcodes – Contrasting Characteristic Attributes and Genetic Distances." PLoS ONE 4.11 (2009): 1-14. Web. 24 Nov 2009. .

"Tuna Fishing: Changing tides." Economist 19 Nov 2009: n. pag. Web. 24 Nov 2009. .