Hello User
Sign in
Hello
Sign Out
Subscribe
Next Story
Business News/ Opinion / Views/  Catch-all controls aren’t likely to end overfishing

Catch-all controls aren’t likely to end overfishing

It’s a grave threat indeed but rich-world excesses got us to this pass and developing countries need local leeway on the global fishing subsidy restrictions being thrashed out at the WTO

Photo: AFP

Coordinated action by countries is essential to tackle common environmental threats and studies have long shown that outcomes can depend on the fairness of how we go about it. In just half a century, overfishing has become a mortal threat to much marine life. Over a third of the world’s fish stock is estimated to have been depleted to a point beyond which it cannot replenish itself, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. Back in 1974, just a tenth of it was deemed a permanent loss. If this exploitation carries on at this rate, fish stocks would collapse, proving disastrous for the roughly 39 million people worldwide who depend on the fishery sector for their livelihood. It would also hurt food security, given that dietary fish fulfils an average fifth of the animal-protein needs of about 42% of the world. Sadly, the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) effort to forge a multilateral pact, delayed already, has still not managed to work out a draft that could clinch a swift consensus on modifying policies to curb the danger. The key would be a fair deal for all. The scenario is analogous to our climate crisis, with emerging economies being asked to bear a burden disproportionately larger than their contribution to the problem. It was mostly industrial-scale fishing by rich nations that brought us to this sorry pass and they must exercise the strictest restraints. The difference is that a climate catastrophe can’t be averted without major polluters like India and China pulling their weight against it, while the depletion of fish stock varies from one part of the globe to another.

Coordinated action by countries is essential to tackle common environmental threats and studies have long shown that outcomes can depend on the fairness of how we go about it. In just half a century, overfishing has become a mortal threat to much marine life. Over a third of the world’s fish stock is estimated to have been depleted to a point beyond which it cannot replenish itself, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. Back in 1974, just a tenth of it was deemed a permanent loss. If this exploitation carries on at this rate, fish stocks would collapse, proving disastrous for the roughly 39 million people worldwide who depend on the fishery sector for their livelihood. It would also hurt food security, given that dietary fish fulfils an average fifth of the animal-protein needs of about 42% of the world. Sadly, the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) effort to forge a multilateral pact, delayed already, has still not managed to work out a draft that could clinch a swift consensus on modifying policies to curb the danger. The key would be a fair deal for all. The scenario is analogous to our climate crisis, with emerging economies being asked to bear a burden disproportionately larger than their contribution to the problem. It was mostly industrial-scale fishing by rich nations that brought us to this sorry pass and they must exercise the strictest restraints. The difference is that a climate catastrophe can’t be averted without major polluters like India and China pulling their weight against it, while the depletion of fish stock varies from one part of the globe to another.

The world needs a flexible approach based on the principle that those who have done the most harm must work hardest to salvage what we can. The WTO agenda focuses on ending subsidies found to encourage fishing. Cheap fuel for vessels that trawl the deep seas—beyond 200 nautical miles from a shore—for example. State support for fishery units face an axe too. Globally, such subsidies are estimated to range from $14 billion to $54 billion per year. Most of the marine damage, however, is done by high-volume mechanized operations that cannot be traced to the policies of countries like India. Between 20% and 50% of all deep-sea fishing is believed to be illegal, unreported and unregulated. Given the uneven actions and stakes involved, India has put forth a proposal for WTO consideration asking for a 25-year moratorium on deep-sea-fishing subsidies by all except the least developed countries and those with an under-1% share of the global fish haul. As for territorial waters—within 12 nautical miles—New Delhi’s stance is that so long as a country is able to sustain its own marine life, no restriction should be placed on subsidies.

Want to read the full story? Login to get exclusive access to this and more such articles.

Login Now

Login To Enjoy A
World Of Benefits

  • Create a watchlist of your favourite stocks
  • Stay updated with breaking news and market alerts
  • Recieve Insightful newsletters right into your inbox
  • Enjoy a newsfeed personalised as per your interests

Separating subsidies that aid fishing in one zone from another may be difficult, but the WTO should take up the idea for the sake of a better-balanced and hence more reachable agreement. In India, as in many other places, fisherfolk of modest means must not find themselves at the raw end of an international bargain aimed at reducing ecological risks they played no part in raising. High-table talks must not be dominated by voices that reveal a poor appreciation of local complexities when it comes to meeting global goals. Perhaps New Delhi could soften its position on deep-sea waivers, but on coastal-zone fishing, we should hold firm. Catch-all controls that apply indiscriminately are unlikely to help the cause.

Catch all the Business News, Market News, Breaking News Events and Latest News Updates on Live Mint. Download The Mint News App to get Daily Market Updates.