The Social Impacts of Shrimp Trawling:

46. Because shrimp trawling targets highly valued shrimp, there is high motivation to harvest as much and as fast as possible. This sort of competition for a common resource has led to "overcapitalization" of shrimp fleets globally (with the notable exception of Australia). The fact that there are more boats and gear than economically or ecologically warranted by the productive capacity of the fishery, is a further impulse for overfishing. Since shrimp are most abundant in coastal waters - especially in the tropics, fishing intensity for shrimp is greatest in inshore waters. As these same coastal waters are the traditional grounds of small-scale fishers, shrimp trawling logically leads to serious conflicts. The situation is further complicated as the trawlers fish ever-more intensely in response to declining shrimp stocks, resulting in an upward spiral of conflicts in coastal waters (e.g., Mathew, 1990; McGoodwin, 1990; Pauly, 1995).

47. Conflicts between small-scale fishers and modernized/industrialized/motorized fishers - notably shrimp trawls - are widely documented, and include many nations: e.g., Cameroon (Eyabi-Eyabi, 1995:20, 23); Gambia (Jallow, 1995:32); India (McGoodwin, 1990:130; Debnath, 1994); Indonesia (Mathew, 1990; McGoodwin, 1990); Malaysia (Mathew, 1990); Mexico (McGoodwin, 1990); North Yeman (McGoodwin, 1990:127); Suriname (Lieveld, 1995:80); Thailand (Mathew, 1990; Yamamoto, 1994); Venezuela (Guada, pers. com.); and Viet Nam (Tuoc, 1995:97). Pauly, one of the most respected fisheries biologists in Southeast Asia, has been discussing the problems of conflicts with trawlers in this region for years (Pauly, 1988; 1995; Pauly and Neal, 1985; Pauly and Chua, 1988), and as he has mentioned, there is a voluminous literature on the subject.

48. The pattern in India, for example, is typical of the development of shrimp fisheries in the Tropics. "The mainstay of the Indian fishing industry in economic terms is penaeid shrimp which also forms a major component of the marine products exports from India". (Pillai, 1995). Yet, there are numerous indicators that the main east coast trawler fleet in India is much larger than what the resource base can maintain, resulting in calamitous environmental as well as social and economic events: "In general, as prawn catches have declined as a result of uncontrolled (and often heavily and centrally subsidized) open access, the income derived from bycatch per se becomes proportionately more important to the small-scale operators commonly found around the coasts of India". "Considerable evidence exists that traditional fisheries are increasingly under threat from overfishing and that prawn trawling is much to blame". (Bostock and Ryder, 1995:41-42).

49. There is overwhelming evidence in Southeast Asia that shows that increased fishing effort - notably for shrimp - is to fuel "increasing needs for exports" (Tuoc, 1995). Elsewhere, the same pattern is repeated; in Gambia, where 87 per cent of the licensed industrial fleet in 1992 was foreign, shrimp, soles and cuttlefish were the main target species for export (Jallow, 1995:29-31). In Nigeria the shrimp fishery is also export oriented (Akande and Tobor, 1995:70-71), and in Suriname the fishery is not only for export, but mainly in foreign hands (Lieveld, 1995:77).

50. Not surprisingly, the lure of export earnings has resulted in overcapitalized shrimping fleets, which generally exert severe pressures on fisheries stocks, typically resulting in decreased harvests and rates of capture (presented as "Capture Per Unit Effort" or "CPUE" in studies of fisheries). Information consistent with this scenario comes from many nations, including Cameroon (Eyabi-Eyabi, 1995: Tables 3 and 4), Nigeria (Akande and Tobor, 1995:70, Table 1) and Tanzania (Mgawe, 1995:82). Pauly (1988; 1995; Pauly and Neal, 1985; Pauly and Chua, 1988) has explained the same problem in Southeast Asia.

51. As described above, on a global level shrimp trawling produces at least 15 times as much discard as food product. Clearly, the relative benefits of shrimp fishing for human food, must be viewed in the context of the ecological costs from discards, bycatch and environmental destruction. Examined more carefully, within a social context, it must be appreciated that the vast majority of shrimp production in the tropics is destined for export to industrialized nations.

52. Hence, the production of shrimp not only entails a relatively high environmental cost, especially when compared to the direct nutritional benefits for humans, but these benefits are not destined for the people and ecosystems who pay the high costs. This is a classic case of one society bearing the costs of another society's benefits.

53. But the social implications are even more complex. What is generally hidden from view and rarely discussed, is the fact that while certain members of the exporting nation reap considerable financial benefit from these commercial activities, there are far more people in the exporting country who not only do not benefit, but whose resource base is depleted and whose already precarious way of life is further complicated and debilitated (Bailey, 1985:1986; 1988a; 1988b; 1988c; 1988d; 1989; Bailey and Zerner, 1988; Bailey and Jentoft, 1990; Bailey et al., 1986; Mathew, 1990).

Concern about Bottom Trawling, Particularly Shrimp Trawling:

54. Considering the above discussion, it is to be expected that there is tremendous concern about bottom trawling, particularly shrimp trawling. This concern has been expressed by specialists from different disciplines, for a variety of reasons.

55. Fisheries managers have pointed out the complexities of understanding and managing fisheries impacted by this type of activity. Bycatch from shrimp trawling yields mainly large numbers of small-sized fishes - individuals that have not yet reached maturity (see section above on Environmental Impacts of Bottom Trawling). However, fish harvesting is usually directed at individuals above a certain minimum size, to allow the animals to grow so that the yield from the fishery will be more productive. Concentrating exploitation on small, immature fish is known by fisheries biologists as "growth overfishing", and it is responsible for "considerable economic waste" (Murawski, 1995:7). However, the complications of managing fisheries impacted by bottom trawlers is even more complex because of the mixed species composition of the catch. "While trawling has increased the catch of shrimp and fish, increases of fishing effort has turned bycatch and discard issues into primarily a multi-species fishery exploitation problem. There may be a large number of species in the catch from these fisheries but the actual quantities of each species may be low making it necessary to understand more fully the nature and composition of the individual components and their interactions of a full assessment of the impact of the fishery is to be made. In essence the entirety of species, coastal and marine habitats appear to be under heavy exploitation but the impacts on sustainable use of resources are unknown". (FAO, 1997a:8). Given that there is a long litany of failed, single species fisheries, for which adequate information has been available to implement effective management (e.g., Ludwig et. al., 1993), the challenges of managing mixed species fisheries, concentrated on "undersized" individuals, are tremendous.

56. Fisheries managers, marine biologists and conservationists have also warned about the large scale environmental impacts from bycatch and alteration of the sea floor (see sections above on Environmental Impacts of Bottom Trawling and The Relevance of Shrimp Trawling to Bycatch Problems). As Norse (1997b) described, "Bottom trawling is scouring continental shelf seabeds from the poles to the tropics". Again, the consequences of these impacts are poorly understood.

57. Conservationists, development specialists and social scientists have tried to alert decision makers in the fishing industry, commercial sector, government authorities, and multilateral agencies of the social risks and dangers of this form of exploitation (see section above on The Social Impacts of Shrimp Trawling). As ever, the difficulty is counterbalancing the head-long drive of profit-oriented activities which extract common resources with the long-term needs of society and the environment (Utting, 1995).

58. In summary, countless problems are attributed to bottom trawling - particularly shrimp trawling, starting with the fact that this is a highly unselective form of extracting renewable resources.

Calls to Ban Bottom Trawling:

59. As explained above (section on "Avoidance and Exclusion of Bycatch"), one of the greatest challenges before modern fisheries is to develop and implement selective fishing. The concern is global: for example, experts from the Marine Fishery Resources Development and Management Department, in Malaysia, have described the trawl as "a very destructive gear" and have explained that there is a great need to both reduce this destructiveness and to "strictly enforce the present legislation." (R. Bin Ali, 1995b). Similar sentiments have been expressed by officials from the Department of Fisheries in Thailand (Kungsuwan, 1996). Other enlightened fisheries administrators have warned that: "Unless species and size selectivity of fishing techniques are improved, tough new rules will place additional requirements on existing fisheries or fisheries may be closed all together" and "Once articulated, achieving our bycatch goals may indeed require that some fisheries as we know them will cease to exist." (Murawski, 1995:5 and 9; see also Clucas, 1997c:52).

60. Obviously, bottom trawling is the antithesis of selective fishing, and given the innumerable negative impacts of this form of resource extraction, it is to be expected that there have been many initiatives to prohibit trawling. For example, although infringements are common for lack of enforcement (Mathew, 1990; Pauly, 1995), trawling is legally banned in most of Indonesia (Mathew, 1990) along the Kerala coast of India during the monsoon season (SAMUDRA, 1994:316; Pillai in Prado and Rahman, 1995:10) and in several areas in Thailand (Kungsuwan, 1996). Not surprisingly, "in the trawl fisheries of the Gulf of Thailand there is now an outline proposal for a drastic reduction in capacity (FAO, 1996)". It has been estimated that a reduction of trawler effort by 30 to 40 per cent would result in a 132 per cent increase in trawler catch and a 147 per cent increase in value (Everett, 1997:47, 54-55).

61. Of those technologies introduced into the Third World in an effort to increase fisheries productivity, the bottom (or otter board) trawl is a prime example, and because of the extraordinarily high export value of shrimp and prawn products, shrimp trawling provides one of the clearest examples of unintended (and often unspoken) environmental and social consequences of development (as described in various sections above). Numerous writers have explained that fishing is a way of life and the resource base for millions of small scale fishers - people who have little if any political clout and few economic resources; thus, fisheries resources must be managed for the common good - not just for the elite and transnational export interests (SAMUDRA, 1994). Hence, people who have analysed the impacts of these activities have argued that "No effective fisheries management practices have been applied to trawl fisheries. Monitoring, surveillance and policing have consistently failed to protect resources and the marine environment, or the livelihoods of fishing communities. The battle for fish should be about securing and sustaining livelihoods for fishing communities around the world, and ensuring that important food supplies are maintained. In the countries of the South, more than 100 million of the world's poorest people struggle to survive against an onslaught of Western technology, unleashed by commercial interests and consumer demand in the North". (O'Riordan, 1994).

62. In this light it is important to consider the results of the conference "The Struggles of Fishworkers: New Concerns for Support", which was attended by some 100 people representing 31 countries, including 7 Asian nations, among them India and Thailand. The attendees, including fishworkers, scientists, national and international policy makers, focused on the complex issues involving fisheries, as well as the many and diverse peoples who depend on them. In concluding the week-long meeting, they emitted a Declaration, in which they called for, inter alia, a ban on bottom trawling in tropical waters (SAMUDRA, 1994:321).

63. While banning bottom trawling will not be easy (e.g., R. Bin Ali, 1995b), nor will it occur quickly, there is an ever-growing appreciation of the environmental and social dangers of this form of fishing. Just as international pressure swelled, resulting in a ban on the use of cyanide and dynamite for fish extraction, as well as a UN moratorium on the use of high seas drift nets (Alverson and Hughes, 1995:14; Dilday, 1995:303), there is certain to be continued and greater calls to prohibit bottom trawling.

Alternate Methods for Harvesting Shrimp and Prawns:

64. Shrimp and prawns do not have to be caught in trawls. Certainly, Indonesian fishermen have been harvesting large numbers of shrimp for decades, without bottom trawls; pawn production from gill nets in 1986 was more than 900,000 tons (Mathew, 1990:26). The statistics presented by Kungsuwan (1996: Tables 3 and 4) clearly show that in Thailand, there are several ways to catch shrimp - other than trawling - that are productive and result in little or no bycatch. These include: acetes scoop nets, set bag nets, mullet gill nets, scoop nets, seines and stationary gear. It was reported that in the Andaman sea, set bag nets produced 33,946 tons of shrimp in 1993, out of a total of 55, 251 tons (61 per cent of the total): yet no bycatch at all was reported for this technique.

65. There is growing international recognition of the need to employ traditional fishing methods - and not just for shrimp (e.g., McGoodwin, 1990; FAO, 1995; Prado and Rahman, 1995:24-25). Indeed, using trawls to catch shrimp - in addition to causing countless environmental and social problems, as mentioned earlier - has definite drawbacks for the shrimp industry. It is noteworthy that the "highest quality [of shrimp] are normally caught from shrimp gill nets" - not in the industrialized trawls in Thailand (Kungsuwan, 1995:87).

Importance of Selective Fishing Gear and Bycatch Exclusion Devices:

66. Until bottom trawling is banned, practical means must be found to reduce the destructiveness of the gear. One of the first places to start is by making it more selective, so that non-target species are less severely impacted. Given the nature of bottom trawls, the simplest way to increase fishing selectivity is by incorporating Bycatch Excluder Devices (BEDs) in the nets (known also as "Bycatch Reduction Devices", or "BRDs").

67. As with other aspects of fisheries management and gear design, there are many questions that need to be worked out before excluder devices can be designed, tested, and finally offered to the industry. To stimulate more work and collaboration on this problem, the FAO has published a 150-page compilation of references on gear selectivity (Prado, 1992). One of the major questions that needs - urgently - to be answered and resolved is: "to what extent can the quantities of by-catch be reduced through activities such as the deployment of exclusion devices, the use of passive gear?" (Bostock and Ryder, 1995:41). Hence, fisheries experts have "...recognized a need for research into the selectivity of fishing gear particularly of trawls used in tropical industrial fisheries". (FAO, 1997a:8, 14).

68. From research already carried out in some areas, it has been established that bycatch exclusion devices, in addition to reducing bycatch, wastage and environmental damage, can provide direct benefits to the fisherman by:

• reducing the time and effort needed to sort the catch (Clucas, 1997a:10; Prado, 1997:39);

• increasing the value of the catch, by reducing damage from bycatch, and increasing efficiency in handling and quality and value of the primary product (Clucas, 1997:10; Prado, 1997:39): for example, in Gambia, shrimp trawlers consider bycatch a problem for it may damage the shrimp, thus lowering the quality of the catch (Jallow, 1995:30);

• increasing the efficiency of fishing by reducing distortion to the gear from the bycatch (Clucas, 1997a:10; Prado, 1997:30).

These points, now being promoted by fisheries experts at the FAO, were described in 1982 when early models of TEDs were tested (Easeley, 1982).

Specialized BEDs - The TED:

69. It is widely recognized by fisheries specialists and conservationists that the capture of endangered species in fishing gear presents special problems for fisheries, and sea turtles are routinely discussed in this light (e.g., Easeley, 1982; National Research Council, 1990; Andrew and Pepperell, 1992; Alverson et al., 1994; FAO, 1994 Dilday, 1995; Everett, 1995; 1997; Hall 1995; Laist, 1995; Romine, 1995; FAO, 1997a; Prado 1997:25).

70. Turtles are caught and drown in different types of fishing gear, but it is often not easy to remove these risks, short of banning the fishery. High seas drift nets are a case in point. This gear was shown to be highly unselective, and a major source of mortality for diverse forms of marine life - including sea turtles and other endangered species; mounting international concern resulted in the United Nations General Assembly adopting, by consensus, a global moratorium on all large-scale pelagic driftnet fishing on the high seas (Alverson and Hughes, 1995:14; Dilday, 1995:302-303). Yet, turtles continue to drown in other fishing gear, such as gill nets, long lines and trawls. In the case of the first two, there is little that has been developed which can be done to abate mortality; reducing bycatch depends on fishers attending the gear at short intervals to remove captured turtles before they drown. However, in the case of trawls, considerable time, effort and resources have been invested over the past two decades in developing specialized BEDs - known variably as "trawl efficiency devices", "trawl excluder devices", "turtle excluder devices" or "TEDs". The TED is simply a BED adapted to exclude sea turtles from trawl nets.

71. Often fishers argue that turtle exclusion is not necessary because they see few turtles in their nets. However, fisheries biologists take a different perspective, for they must consider not only single boats, but also entire fleets operating in a country or region. Hence, at a FAO meeting on bycatch problems "... it was noted that examination of the magnitude of total discards can miss catches of special concern that are associated with particular fishing gears and locations. The occurrence of animals, such as reptiles [viz. marine turtles], mammals and birds is often incidental or rare but, over the entire fishery their numbers can be significant". (FAO, 1997a:6).

72. For example, only one turtle was caught in TED trials off the west coast of Peninsular Malaysia (Ali, 1997), and the data yield a CPUE estimate of 0.032258 (turtles caught per hour of trawling), which appears to be a low value. However, this value can be used to calculate the number of turtles caught per boat per year (based on trawl effort data in R. Bin Ali, 1995b), and the estimate is 92 turtles per boat per year. Even if this yearly estimate were off by as much as factor of 10, and only 9 turtles were caught per boat per year, when a fleet of thousands of trawlers is taken into account, the yearly total could be several thousands of turtles caught in trawls per year.

73. TED designs which have been tested and certified by the NMFS have been shown - when properly installed and used - to exclude at least 97 per cent of the sea turtles that enter the net. The value of TEDs, however, goes beyond their function in saving marine turtles from drowning. Excluder devices are designed to exclude bycatch from trawls; not only do TEDs exclude sea turtles, but they are also effective at keeping other kinds of animals and debris out of trawl nets. Indeed, the "Georgia Jumper" - one of the more popular TEDs - was designed by shrimpers in the State of Georgia to exclude large jellyfish (known as "cannonballs") from their nets.

74. An analysis of TEDs done in 1982, using one of the first models, identified several benefits for shrimpers, including bycatch exclusion, reduced sorting and handling time of the catch, potential reduction in fuel usage, and improved dynamics of trawl operation (Easeley, 1982). Now that TEDs have been greatly refined, many former operational problems have been solved.

75. TEDs, depending on the model, can be very effective at excluding bycatch, thereby making shrimp trawls more selective and helping them to comply with one of the most pressing priorities in fisheries today. For example, studies on bycatch reduction have found that a decrease of more than 70 per cent of red snappers (Lutijanidae) in the 0 and 1 year age classes was achieved with certain TEDs (Graham, 1995; Harrington and Vendetti, 1995). These fish - if allowed to grow - would be of considerable commercial importance, but their removal as yearlings in the bycatch is not only unprofitable, but has resulted in the decimation of red snapper stocks in the Gulf of Mexico.

76. At the FAO-organized Expert Consultation on the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing, it was concluded that "in tropical shrimp fishing, the use of Turtle Excluder Devices has not only reduced the by-catch of turtles but further work in similar devices had increased the selectivity of the fishing gear and reduced the number of discards." (FAO, 1994:8). Prado, after reviewing gear modifications, stated that "the reduction of fish bycatch has, in many cases, to be combined with a turtle excluder". He concluded that "... results are, in many cases, excellent with up to 90 to 100 per cent escape of juveniles or 85 per cent escape of flatfish" (1997:29-31). Thus, at a FAO meeting on bycatch, turtle exclusion devices were included in the list of 12 "successful introductions of efficient selective fishing gear and harvesting practices" (FAO, 1997a:10).

77. Developed over the past two decades in the southeast shrimp fishery of the United States, TEDs have attracted interest elsewhere. Dr. E. G. Silas, former Director of the Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin, India, recognized the value of TEDs for reducing mortality in sea turtles in Indian waters, and in 1983 he proposed testing and using TEDs in Indian trawlers (Silas et. al., 1983a; 1983b). Other fisheries specialists and conservationists in India have made similar recommendations (e.g., James et. al., 1989; Department of Fisheries et. al., 1996; Mohanty-Hejmadi, 1996; Sarkar et. al., 1996; Behera, 1997c; Pandav et. al., 1997). In 1995 it was reported that "Experiments are being undertaken by the Central Institute of Fisheries Technology in collaboration with the Marine Products Export Development Authority, Cochin, on the Turtle Excluder Device". (Pillai, 1995).

78. The Marine Fishery Resources Development and Management Department of Malaysia has carried out work, mostly on the east coast of Peninsular Malaysia, to increase selectivity of shrimp trawls. This included tests with bycatch excluder devices (BEDs), which were a "modified version of the US Turtle Excluder device (TED)". The work was conducted in 1986, so the BED would have been based on the early model of the NMFS TED, which was a rigid cage. On the basis of these tests, done over 10 years ago, it was concluded that "BED is not suitable in Malaysian waters." (R. Bin Ali, 1995a; 1995b). However, there were operational problems with the early model of the TED, and during the intervening decade, the gear has been greatly modified and improved, making present-day TEDs much more efficient and easier to use.

79. Specialists from Malaysia have shown that there are clear needs for excluder devices. Studies carried out in Sabah found that "Research on shrimp trawler impacts on the mortality of adult sea turtles in the area has been identified as one of the most urgent aspects to be investigated." Hence, it was concluded that "similar device [TED] should be introduced in Malaysia" (Suliansa et. al., 1996). Furthermore, work done off the east coast of Peninsular Malaysia has emphasized the urgent need to reduce the destructiveness of trawling by using devices and techniques to improve selectivity: it is noteworthy that the possibility of banning trawls was even contemplated - although it was thought to be "almost impossible" (R. Bin Ali, 1995:13).

80. Recently, the Thai Turtle Free Device ("TTFD"), a modified "Super Shooter" (which in turn was developed from the "Georgia Jumper"), was tested off the western coast of Peninsular Malaysia, and it was "found to be suitable for the use by Malaysian fishermen" (Ali, 1997). Similar tests in Philippines (Dickson, 1997) and Thailand (Bundit et. al., 1997) also found that the TTFD TED performed adequately. Recent publications by the FAO have explained the value of trials being undertaken in Thai waters to test turtle excluder devices and bycatch reduction, as well as the need to expand this work to other countries (Everett (1997:55-56); and the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center in Bangkok has been promoting TED testing in the Southeast Asian region (SEAFDEC, 1996; 1997a; 1997b; 1997c).

81. Most of the work on TEDs in Southeast Asia has evaluated the rates of retention for shrimp and food fish, and there has been little attention paid to bycatch exclusion. Given the urgent need to reduce overfishing and to reverse the trend of intense, unselective fisheries in the region - especially from trawling, TEDs can serve an invaluable role in paving the way to more selective fisheries.

Mechanisms for Implementing Selective Fishing:

82. In general, there have been few incentives for "clean fishing" (i.e., using fishing gear and techniques which are least likely to result in bycatch and other environmental problems), but this is now changing (Murawski, 1995:6-7). According to the FAO: "In contrast to the modest successes recorded in developed countries with reducing discards, it was observed that in developing countries the problem of discards, notably from shrimp trawlers, was generally ignored." (FAO, 1997a:8). Although "the history of research regarding selectivity/bycatch reduction dates back almost a century... ", "as far as developing countries are concerned, their participation in research has been mainly limited to the transfer of European or North American technology and testing it under conditions in tropical waters (often without enough consideration to local conditions)". "It should also be pointed out that, up to now, research and implementation of the results on selectivity and bycatch reduction in commercial fisheries has begun, in general, after the introduction of a new regulation. Recently a precautionary approach has been recommended with calls for changes in fishing practices to ensure better selectivity and a reduction of bycatch when a known risk of depleting stocks in any given fishery is thought to exist, even though it has not yet been scientifically proven". (Prado, 1997:26-27).

83. Unilateral decisions to reduce bycatch have been taken by several states. For example, it is illegal to discard at sea in Norway, and all fish caught must be landed. This has resulted in the use of separator grid technologies in the shrimp fishery, which are now compulsory. (Olsen, 1995; Clucas, 1997a:14; 1997c). Likewise, square mesh windows, designed to reduce capture of juvenile fishes, are compulsory for certain finfish fisheries in European waters (Prado, 1997:28). Canada and Iceland have also instituted bans for discarding most fish species at sea. The logic behind banning discards is to force fishers to be more selective, so that they will fill their quotas with the most fish that are legal and lucrative (Clucas, 1997c:47-49)

84. Alverson and Hughes (1995:13-14) explained that although the need to solve bycatch problems has been known in fisheries biology for many years, the problem of bycatch has recently become a significant national policy issue in the United States, as in some other countries, due especially to public interest in endangered, charismatic animals - namely whales, dolphins, sea birds and sea turtles. Catalyzed by concerns over these "flagship species", most fisheries have today been scrutinized for their relationship with bycatch. In response to public demand, relayed by government representations, the United Nations General Assembly adopted, by consensus, a resolution on bycatch and discards in 1994, and this issue is now clearly on the international agenda (Dilday, 1995:304; Clucas, 1997a:1-3).

85. While acknowledging "that multilateral, negotiated approaches to fishery bycatch and discard issues are preferable to unilateral pronouncements" (Dilday, 1995:305), "US officials have supported restricting the imports of fishery products from sources which fail to incorporate bycatch reduction so as not to penalize fishers in the US who have modified their fishing" (Murawski, 1995:6-7). Dilday (1995:305) described US diplomatic involvement in fisheries bycatch issues, concluding that "because of the importance of fisheries to many nations, international bycatch policy should minimize social and ecological conflict, be independent of ideological differences, and be based on sound conservation principals".

86. As Everett, from the FAO Department of Fisheries summarized: "Stringent regulations and harsh penalties will not do the whole job of reducing [bycatch or] discards, especially when enforcement is underfunded and/or inept. However good research and statistics, along with a combination of a carrot, a stick, and education, could well be a productive approach" (Everett, 1997:56). Clearly, if answers to seemingly simple biological and fisheries questions are illusive, implementing selective fishing is a complex challenge for many sectors of different societies. What is very clear, however, is that there is great urgency in implementing effective mechanisms for assuring selective fishing, and reducing overfishing - on a global level.

International Accords Regarding Bycatch:

87. Over the last few years the issue of bycatch has become a major concern at both national and global proportions (e.g., Alverson and Hughes, 1995:13; Dilday, 1995; Olsen, 1995). Reviews of the international accords, treaties, resolutions and initiatives to reduce bycatch and wastage in fisheries are discussed in numerous publications, notably diverse reports of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, such as Everett (1995; 1997), Clucas (1997a; 1997c), Prado (1997), and (FAO, 1997a:1). On the basis of these studies, a few of the more salient international accords are summarized below.

88. UN Resolution (AIC.2149.I.50.Rev 1), entitled "Fisheries by-catch and discards and their impact on the sustainable use of the world�s living marine resources" emphasizes that the issue: "warrants serious attention by the international community and a continued and effective response is necessary to ensure the long-term and sustainable development of fisheries" (Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 1995).

Other international resolutions expressing concern for the same issue include:

• UN General Assembly Resolutions 49/116 and 49/118 of December 1994;
• Resolution 50/25 of 5 December 1995;
• Rome Consensus on World Fisheries, March 1995;
• United Nations Agreement for the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, August 1995;
• Kyoto Declaration and Plan of Action, from the International Conference on the Sustainable Contribution of Fisheries to Food Security, December 1995.

89. As explained by the FAO (1997a:2-4), it is important to appreciate that "the conservation and management provisions of the Agreement for the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks have been negotiated to implement the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea". As a result, there are "obligations, new to international fisheries law, regarding the conservation and management of straddling and highly migratory fish stock fisheries". States must:

• assess the impacts of fishing ... on target stocks and species belonging to the same ecosystem or dependent upon or associated with the target stocks [5 (d)];
• protect biodiversity in the marine environment [5 (g)];
• minimize pollution, waste, discards, catch by lost or abandoned gear, catch of non-target species, both fish and non-fish species ... and impacts on associated or dependent species, in particular endangered species [5 (f)];
• implement the development and use of selective fishing gear and techniques [5 (f)];
• develop data collection and research programmes to assess the impact of fishing on non-target and associated or dependent species and their environment, and adopt plans which are necessary to ensure the conservation of such species and to protect habitats of special concern [6.3 [d]);
• be more cautious when information is uncertain, unreliable or inadequate. The absence of adequate scientific information shall not be used as a reason for postponing or failing to take conservation and management measures [6.2].

90. The Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (FAO, 1995) - adopted unanimously by the 28th Session of the FAO Conference on 31 October 1995 (Everett, 1997:45), further supports these concepts:

• "... where proper selective and environmentally safe fishing gear and practices exist, they should be recognized and accorded a priority in establishing conservation and management measures for fisheries" [6.6];
• phasing out of fishing gears and practices inconsistent with responsible fishing [7.6.4];
• "States should take appropriate measures to minimise waste, discards, catch by lost or abandoned gear, catch of non-target species, both fish and non-fish species, and negative impacts on associated or dependent species, in particular endangered species" and "... should promote to the extent practicable, the development and use of selective and environmentally safe gear and techniques." [7.6.9];
• "... encourage the development and implementation of technologies and operational methods that reduce discards. The use of fishing gear and practices that lead to the discarding of catch should be discouraged and the use of fishing gear and practices that increase survival rates of escaping fish should be promoted" [8.4.5];
• "Research on the environmental and social impacts of fishing gear and, in particular, on the impact of such gear on biodiversity and coastal fishing communities should be promoted." [8.4.8]
• "... should require that fishing gear, methods and practices, to the extent practicable, are sufficiently selective so as to minimise waste, discards, catch of non-target species ... impacts on associated or dependent species ..." [8.5.1];
• "... should carry out studies on selectivity of fishing gear, the environmental impact of fishing gear on target species and on the behaviour of target and non-target species in relation to such fishing gear as an aid for management decisions and with a view to minimising non-utilised catches as well as safeguarding the biodiversity of ecosystems and the aquatic habitat." [12.10];

91. The Kyoto Declaration and Plan of Action (1995) called, inter alia, to "Promote fisheries through research and development aiming at: ... (iii) reduction of discard mortality; (iv) development and use of selective environmentally safe and cost effective fishing gear and techniques"; [Declaration 15]. The Plan of Action includes points such as: "... increase efforts to estimate the quantity of fish, marine mammals, sea birds, sea turtles and other sea life which are incidentally caught and discarded in fishing operations; assess the effect on the populations or species; take action to minimise waste and discards including, to the extent practicable, the development and use of selective, environmentally safe and cost effective fishing gear and techniques; and exchange information on methods and technologies to minimise waste and discards". [7].

92. The World Food Summit (1996) established accords related to this topic, including: "The resource base for food, agriculture, fisheries and forestry is under stress and is threatened by problems such as desertifiction, deforestation, overfishing, overcapacity and discards in fisheries, losses of biodiversity,... " [24]. Flowing from the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982, the UN Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, the FAO Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas, the World Food Summit Plan of Action further develops these concepts:

In this light, Sr. Joel Prado, of the Fishery Industry Division of FAO, has explained: "In line with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982) and Chapter 17 of Agenda 21, the 1995 UN Agreement Relating to the Conservation and Management of Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (U.N. 1995) specifically refers to the problems of insufficiently selective gear and lack of sufficient co-operation between States". (Prado, 1997:25).

To Continue With Chapter 93