Privatiser oseanene! er den overraskende amerikanske løsningen på rovfisket.
Karsten Johansen
http://www.enn.com/enn-news-archive/2000/09/09162000/ifq_31532.asp
Deep-sea debate: Should oceans be private?
Saturday, September 16, 2000 By Margot Higgins
Should America's oceans be made private to save dwindling fish stocks? Will
the species of fish that swim in U.S. coastal waters have a better chance at
long-term survival if they belong to a handful of individuals instead of
every individual?
Whatever the answer, conservation groups agree that America's fisheries are
in trouble.
Forty-three percent of the nation's managed fish species are overfished and
fisheries disasters have been declared in Alaska, New England and on the
West Coast. Some fish populations, including Atlantic haddock, cod,
yellowtail flounder and many southeastern Atlantic reef fish — have been
severely depleted.
How these fisheries should be managed in the future is the source of a
heated debate.
By Sept. 30, U.S. Congress will decide whether fisheries will be apportioned
to a limited number of commercial anglers and companies.
A management program known as Individual Fishing Quotas specifies that
commercial fisherman be allowed to catch a certain percentage of the total
allowable catch of a species of fish or shellfish in a specific area within
a designated time frame.
Under the current management scheme, fish are considered a public resource
held in trust by the federal government.
Concerned about the impact of IFQs on fishermen and the marine environment,
Congress in 1996 placed a four-year moratorium on new IFQ programs.
"Postponing the moratorium will mean huge environmental damage," said Pete
Emerson, a senior economist at Environmental Defense, an organization that
promotes economic solutions to environmental problems. "Because the demand
for use of the resource has risen beyond the carrying capacity for fish, it
has to be allocated among the users."
Emerson cited the experience of Felix Cox, who has fished for red snapper in
the Gulf of Mexico for 40 years.
Because of depleted snapper stocks, competition is greater each season for
snapper anglers such as Cox. In the small window of time that the fishery is
open to harvest, Cox and other fishermen compete in a race to catch the most
snapper, driving down market prices and wasting unwanted fish. They buy
bigger boats, use more gear and fish longer hours in frenzied fishing
"derbies," Emerson said.
If each fisherman were assigned an allowance, there would be less reason to
race and more reason to conserve, he added.
(forts.):
Deep-sea debate: Should oceans be private?
Continued from page 1 Page | 1 | 2 |
According to Environmental Defense, lengthening the fishing season would
enable fishermen to fish more safely, preserve ocean habitat and reduce high
rates of wasteful killing of unwanted species.
But other conservation groups argue that better national standards must be
put in place before the moratorium on IFQs is lifted. Such standards include
limiting the percentage of ownership of a particular fishery and reviewing
individual IFQs after five years.
The Marine Conservation Network, a coalition of more than 100 conservation
groups, fishing organizations and scientists, is pushing to extend the
moratorium. The coalition contends that the IFQ management tool, in current
form, will do more harm than good.
Several fishing associations fear that individual fishermen will be pushed
out of the industry by powerful companies that can pay the price for
exclusive rights in a particular fishery.
"This nation was founded by family farmers and fishermen," said Pietro
Parravano, president of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's
Associations. "Now the farmers have been all but wiped out by agribusiness.
Are we going to condemn fishermen to the same fate?"
Those who favor extending the moratorium point to a recent IFQ in New
Jersey, which reduced the number of fishing boats in the area by nearly
two-thirds as large firms stepped into the business.
The IFQ did little to boost conservation, the Marine Conservation Network
claims.
"The bottom line is you can have high grading, bycatch and habitat loss with
or without IFQs," said Paul Parker, executive director of the Cape Cod
Commercial Hook Fisherman's Association. "ITQs are not going to make sure my
grandson has the opportunity to fish."
To guarantee the effectiveness of IFQs, preference should be given to
fishermen who are owner-operators, can demonstrate a record of sound fishing
practices and have a long history of participation in the fishery, say
advocates of the moratorium.
Some groups would like to eliminate IFQs entirely.
"Both globally and domestically, it is hard to find an IFQ that has met up
to its claims," said Niaz Dorry, an oceans campaign leader for Greenpeace.
"We are fundamentally opposed to the idea of anyone owning a natural
resource. This turns fish into dollar bills at the bottom of the ocean and
will do nothing to protect them. We haven't seen the forest improve when
land has been privatized."
According to Dorry, it is impossible to predict the future sustainability of
fish stocks. "To give something away that you don't know will exist is
really foolhardy," she said. "We have a choice: Do we want to support
small-scale, commercially-based fishing operations that have the potential
to become more ecologically responsible, or do we gift the fish to the
cargoes and major accounting firms?"
Parker advocates marine protected areas as a way to manage dwindling fish
stocks. "There are many other management options besides IFQs," he said.
In New England, Parker noted, many stocks such as yellowtail flounder are
starting to rebuild, following the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act.
"There is still a lot more that we need to do, but to paint the picture that
it's a horrible disaster is disingenuous," he said. "It is frustrating that
IFQs are promoted as a conservation strategy when they are all about
short-term economic gains for certain individuals."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 18 2001 - 10:59:30 MET