Hinweis zum Urheberrecht
Bericht / Forschungsbericht / Abhandlung zugänglich unter
URL: https://epub.sub.uni-hamburg.de/epub/volltexte/2009/1678/
Focus Group Research: Canada's Strategy for International Fisheries Governance and to Combat Global Overfishing – European Attitudes
| Originalveröffentlichung: |
| (2005) http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/por-rop/focus/european_e.pdf |
| pdf-Format:
|
|
|
| BK - Klassifikation: |
| 48.67 , 43.31 |
| Sondersammelgebiete: |
| 21.3 Küsten- und Hochseefischerei |
| DDC-Sachgruppe: |
| Biowissenschaften, Biologie |
| Sonstige beteiligte Institution: |
| Fisheries and Oceans Canada |
| Dokumentart: |
| Bericht / Forschungsbericht / Abhandlung |
| Sprache: |
| Englisch |
| Erstellungsjahr: |
| 2005 |
| Publikationsdatum: |
| 19.05.2009 |
| Kurzfassung auf Deutsch: |
| EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Key Findings and Conclusions
Initial Views on Fisheries
Assessments of the relative importance of fisheries vary by location and by country. It was universally noted that, while fishing was not the most important industry to any European country, it was very important to specific regions and communities. The fishery was also viewed in all locations to have strong historical and traditional ties. This perception was especially apparent in Spain and Portugal where participants considered that the fishery had a cultural and historic importance that transcended simple economic calculations.
Participants were aware that fish stocks were becoming scarcer or even disappearing and that there had been job losses in the fishery sector. Fishing was often described as being an industry in decline.
There were concerns expressed about pollution in the oceans affecting the survival of and health of fish stocks. This came up most often in Stockholm and in Vigo.
Many participants expressed a desire to eat more fish – both for the health benefits and because they enjoyed the taste. But it was invariably mentioned that fish was getting more and more expensive compared to meat. To some, fish was also more difficult and time-consuming to prepare. There were numerous negative comments about farmed salmon not tasting as good and possibly being unsafe to eat.
A common theme in all the locations was the extent to which people saw the growing role for the European Union (EU) in fisheries issues, perhaps at the expense of national considerations. It was suggested that when quotas are cut, jobs are lost and fish disappear. There was also a tendency to see the national government as being relatively powerless in the face of the EU bureaucracy.
Most participants saw the major challenges of the fishery as stemming from shrinking fish stocks, leading to loss of jobs and revenue. The causes were seen to be a combination of factors including owners of fishing vessels too fixed on profit, too much consumer demand for fish, mismanagement by the EU and national governments, overfishing by various countries, pollution killing off fish stocks, and new technology making it possible to catch more fish more efficiently.
There was some acknowledgement by participants that their own country bore some share of the responsibility for the state of the fishery. They also recognized that inappropriate behaviour by some industry participants for economic reasons was an inescapable fact.
The Overfishing Issue
There was widespread belief that certain fish stocks were becoming scarce. This was most commonly seen to be the result of overfishing or "excessive" fishing. Various countries were seen to blame for this problem. There was also a widespread belief by some stakeholder participants that rogue vessels flying "flags of convenience" were a big part of the problem. Moreover, there was a general willingness to admit that participants' own countries had been guilty of overfishing at least in the past, if not currently.
Without using the phrase sustainable development, participants expressed a desire for some balance between the economy and environment. Overfishing was often described as a threat to the global ecosystem and also as a conservation issue since certain species of fish could disappear altogether.
The extent to which overfishing was seen to be more of a national or international problem varied by community. In Stockholm and Vigo, overfishing was seen more as a global conservation issue. In Aveiro, Lisbon and Boulogne, the focus was more on how it was affecting the local or national economy.
Participants, especially in Vigo, had a relatively high level of awareness of the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) around each country. When the topic of overfishing was introduced there was often an initial misconception that that it meant foreign trawlers fishing illegally within their EEZ.
To participants in Boulogne and Lisbon, and especially in Stockholm, overfishing off the Canadian coast was regarded as something very remote and disconnected. In Aveiro and Vigo, there was more of an understanding of the impact of overfishing in this area to their countries.
However, there was a universal understanding in all locations that fish had no boundaries; and that the activities within and outside EEZs had an effect on global fish stocks in general.
Role of Governments
European participants had a somewhat negative view of the performance of their national governments in handling the fisheries issue. For the most part, participants thought that their national governments tended to neglect the long-term issues and challenges facing the fisheries in favour of short-term political and economic gains. However, in Vigo participants suggested the Spanish government's performance was improving.
The general understanding of participants was that national governments and the EU managed the fishery by establishing quotas, levying fines for exceeding quotas, shortening the season for certain species and restricting the types of nets allowed. At the same time, some wondered how these policies were enforced – given shrinking fish stocks and a seeming worsening problem of overfishing.
The EU was seen to be the level of government with the most responsibility for fisheries; which had both positive and negative outcomes. Some participants thought the EU level of government would have better control over an area as broad as Europe's EEZ. There was also much support for the EU to have as much standardization as possible in terms of rules for fishing and keeping the industry sustainable.
A common criticism of the EU was that it did not and could not always take into consideration the specific needs of each country. The priorities of smaller countries such as Portugal and Sweden were thought to be usually ignored.
Attitudes Toward Canada's Role
There was little or no initial awareness of Canada's activities on the issue of international overfishing, apart from some of the environmental stakeholders in Stockholm and in Vigo, where awareness was quite high.
The initial background document that was circulated on the state of the global fishery and the fishery in Canada sparked a variety of reactions. Many were surprised that Canada had such a large fishing industry that employed so many people. Most thought that this demonstrated why Canada had a stake in doing something about overfishing.
That 30 per cent of fish caught in the world is believed to be illegal, unregulated or unreported came as a surprise to most participants and was seen as indicative of the seriousness of the overfishing problem.
Some participants were suspicious of Canada's motives in taking a high profile on this issue. In Vigo and Aveiro, for example, there were some negative comments about the idea of Canada trying to extend its economic zone to include the whole of the Grand Banks instead of the current 90 per cent.
There was also some suspicion that if Canada had such a large fishing industry, it must also be guilty of some of the overfishing in the world. A number of stakeholders and others thought that Canada had "fished out" its own cod stocks; but several noted that Canada had perhaps learned from its mistakes and was now trying to do something.
A commonly held view was that Canada had the power to take action on this issue in a way that European countries could not because Canada was not part of a broader union (like the EU). Participants tended to feel that their national governments were restricted and that consensus was almost impossible to achieve in the EU.
Among participants, Canada generally has a very positive image as a country. It is regarded as a modern, democratic, peaceful country.
There were some concerns expressed about Canada portraying itself too much as a leader on this issue as opposed to working as an equal partner with other countries. Some participants responded favourably to the fact that Canada had initiated activity to address this issue.
Views on NAFO
Stakeholders were generally aware of the existence of NAFO and other regional fisheries management bodies. Among the general public, awareness of these organizations was almost non-existent, though many participants assumed that there must be some sort of international organization to regulate fishing in international waters.
Participants wanted to understand more about which countries belonged to NAFO and which did not, and also what happened to non-member countries that tried to fish in the NRA. Many were under the impression that non-signatories of NAFO could do as they pleased in terms of fishing in international waters.
The general public assumed that NAFO regulations were too weak and not being enforced aggressively enough.
The idea that violating vessels were punished by their home countries was considered to be open to abuse and probably leading to penalties that were far too lenient. It was universally agreed that a 5000 Euro fine for overfishing was ridiculously low. To deter overfishing, the majority of participants believed that the punishment must 'fit the crime' or be greater than the value of the illegally caught fish.
A host of ideas for harsher punishments were offered by participants, including jail sentences for owners and licence suspensions to fish for a specified period of time. In France, participants also focused on the importance of quick follow through on punishments.
Some participants supported punishments that were directed to the owners of offending vessels and/or the decision-makers, and not the fishers who work on-board.
Terminology
"Sustainable development" has a very positive connotation and is a well-understood concept. Many participants believed that it should be the principle underpinning any global fisheries policy. The official definition of sustainable development almost always met with nods of approval.
"Fisheries management" is associated with economic and quota management of the resource and with multilateral bodies setting common rules. |
