The end of the line for wild tuna

8 June was marked as the first United Nations’ World Oceans Day.  This despite the UN’s  ICCAT (International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas) being called the International Conspiracy to Catch All Tuna by environmental groups.

There are 34 million people employed in commercial fishing around the world.  They catch 93 million tons of fish a year, worth $ 80 billion, from 1.3 million boats. 

Despite regular treaties being signed to limit fish catches, over-fishing continues, often with full state support.  Like agriculture or motor manufacturing, commercial fishing often receives state subsidies and is considered critical for job creation. 

The ICCAT limit for the annual blue fin tuna catch is 22,000 tons.  Conservationists believe the actual take to be four times higher, closer to 60,000 tons.  Wild fish stocks are expected to drop below harvestable levels within the next 40 years.

Environmentalists blame the “greed” of fisherman and the multinational companies that employ them for the problem.  That, as always, is a gross simplification.

In 1961, the average person ate only 9 kilograms of fish per year.  Now, it is well over 16 kilograms.  It is consumer demand driving this engine.  People who want to watch their weight, or who enjoy sushi, or have become environmentally conscious vegetarians, have created demand for wild fish.

It is becoming ever more expensive to go out and get these fish.  There are fewer of them and they are further away.  But the fish don’t have much chance.  Companies use massive purse nets and employ helicopters to spot fish movements from above.

This is an expensive business.  Yet fish prices, as expensive as they are, don’t really reflect this labour- and equipment-intensive production process.  That is because governments subsidise the cost.

Commercial whaling is banned, yet the Japanese and Norwegians still subsidise their fleets even as they have scaled down their operations to “research” levels.

The divide between the stated intentions of consumers and governments, and the reality, is not unique to fishing.  The current Australian prime minister, Kevin Rudd, was elected on a platform of dealing with global warming.  Voters seemed to agree, but now that their extremely large and lucrative coal-mining industry is threatened with higher tariffs and 24,000 jobs may be lost, opposition is rife.

Climate change, over fishing, over capacity in the textiles and motor manufacturing industries; these are all complex problems.  They are made even more intractable when consumers and voters both recognise the scale of the problem, but don’t want to pay for it or adjust their lifestyles.

It would help if politicians and action groups were more honest about what such changes are likely to cost but, ultimately, it is a political decision, not a consumer one. 

Only governments can commit to pay for the retraining and redevelopment necessary when entire industries are shut down and thousands lose their jobs.  Only governments can commit to deciding that international waters must be policed by armed naval vessels.

If governments fail to act, fish stocks will collapse and jobs will be lost anyway, just as they are as local textiles production collapses.  The difference between acting now and not acting at all is more about how to handle the human fallout in job losses and consumer choice.

A taste of how effective such action could be is being experienced as a result of Somali pirate activity.  Fewer fishermen are willing to risk the dangerous waters off Somalia’s coast where over 60% of Indian Ocean tuna, some $ 6 billion worth, is caught.  The Seychelles, which most of the vessels use as a base, has experienced foreign revenue declines of 40% as a result.

Closing down industries is always painful.  Jobs will be lost.  Lifestyles will change.  Prices could go up until alternatives come along.  This will happen anyway.

The question is this: should we control this process, or not?