Shifting Baselines Blog

YES, THIS ISSUE IS IMPORTANT.
The fact that there haven't been riots in Sacramento yet doesn't mean people aren't concerned about this issue. I care very deeply about achieving the goals of the Marine Life Protection Act. This has the potential for revolutionizing ocean stewardship in the state, 88% of whose people claim they care a lot about the coast and 75% of whom favor marine reserves.

WHAT SHOULD WE DO?
We should try to get the state to reinstate funding for this important law, but why wait? What if the budget crisis doesn't allow for it? Private citizens and organizations are empowered to create petitions for marine reserves or any kind of custom-tailored marine protected area under the law. Several groups are already deeply engaged in this process. People having dialogue about their real interests and common objectives can lead to creative and effective MPA proposals. For example, some sportfishermen oppose fully protected marine reserves (where all fishing is banned) because they cut off access. Yet, there is strong evidence that such marine reserves protect biodiversity, allow species to recover within the reserve borders, and actually enhance sportfishing by allowing fish to get older and bigger -- then they swim out and get caught by very happy fishermen. At the same time, sportfishermen are angry with commercial fisheries for depleting fish populations.

ONE POSSIBLE SOLUTION
Why not create an MPA with a core no-take area where all fishing is banned (necessary so we can measure the baseline, and make sure it's not shifting too much), surrounded by an area where only controlled sportfishing is allowed (to enhance the sportfishing experience and reduce conflicts with commercial fishing)? With some creativity and work, we the citizens can take matters into our own hands and protect the ocean.

WHY THIS PROBLEM COMES UP
Lots of very important ocean protection initiatives are stalled due to lack of funding, not just the MLPA. One reason is that such funding is regarded as a black hole: the government has spent tens of millions of tax dollars to buy back fishing vessels, only to have more enter the fishery and obliterate the benefits of the buyback. But there's a golden opportunity to create a more economically viable fishing industry, solve the conservation problems associated with overfishing and destructive fishing, AND create a sustainable funding stream for conservation efforts. Fishing is a losing proposition primarily because fisheries are open to all, with no controls on how much an individual can catch. This spurs competition, and the result is predictable: bigger boats, more devastating gear, more sophisticated fish-finding technology, and pressure to overfish. Fishermen under this system face very strong economic incentives to catch as many fish as quickly as possible - any they leave in the water, the next guy can catch. Reducing the allowable catch to protect fish, controlling bycatch, and reducing habitat has been difficult or impossible under such conditions, because all of these measures threaten to put fishermen out of business; so naturally, they fight back vigorously.

THE LONG TERM SOLUTION
The solution to this problem is clear: we need to manage the fisheries so that INDIVIDUALS are accountable and have an incentive to conserve, rather than to overexploit fish. By guaranteeing each fisherman a share of the allowable catch, the competition for fish is immediately eliminated. The fishermen can now plan his or her business around catching his/her share with the LEAST capital investment possible, so as to maximize profits. This results in fewer vessels, and often less destructive gear - because they allow fishermen to catch fish in a way that maximizes value and price, rather than volume. Fishermen have much more time to fish, without the competition. They don't have to go out in all kinds of weather - that's part of what makes fishing the most dangerous occupation in the world. They have time to act on their conservation ethic, and don't just cut snagged gear and run. And their share of the catch increases in value if the fishery becomes sustainable, so they have a direct economic, personal incentive to favor conservation measures. One can argue that fishermen owe society marine reserves and conservation in exchange for the granting of the privilege to harvest OUR fish for profit. And with guaranteed use privileges, they will have far less reason to oppose mariner reserves, plus they will have the financial security to help pay for fisheries management (which the taxpayers currently pay for, mostly). Use privileges can take the form of Individual Fishing Quotas, but they can take other forms too (like cooperatives or community-based management) to fit different cultural, economic, and social conditions. Moreover, the benefits of this approach are not speculative: they have been demonstrated in dozens of fisheries around the world. Increased wealth, much better conservation performance, increased investment in research and management by the industry, and lower opposition to conservation measures like closed areas.

THESE SOLUTIONS CAN WORK
Incredibly, governments are sometimes reluctant to fund the transition of bankrupt, environmentally destructive fisheries to wealth-producing, environmentally sustainable fisheries. In part, this is due to concerns by some that IFQs can unleash market forces and change the nature of fishing communities. But hundreds of fisheries have been transitioned into IFQs, and we have learned how to constrain the market so as to minimize or eliminate most of the adverse social and economic consequences. We should press the government to move forward with this solution where appropriate. But again, private citizens have the wherewithal to do it themselves. Private investors and banks fund the transformation of industries from money-losers to money-makers all the time. Why not invest in fisheries reform? Our calculations suggest that returns on an initial investment could be quite favorable; plus investors would be secure in the knowledge that they helped save the ocean. One major advantage of making fisheries reform and marine conservation an investment is that it creates an opportunity to roll back part of the profits from the reformed fishery back into the reform program, and so fisheries can be tackled sequentially with no further capital needed. We need more mechanisms like this that are self-replicating and feed on themselves if we are ever going to create solutions to ocean conservation on the scale of the ocean itself.

Rod Fujita
Environmental Defense
Author, “Heal the Ocean”

I think it's really bad that he cut the budget like that. But I don't think it's impossible to reverse. Just need to have a lot of people speaking out, and maybe pretty soon before it gets forgotten. There's a good editorial about it at:

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2004/January/25/edit/stories/03edit.htm

With love comes strange currencies.

It looks like Mr. Governator is starting to lose his Hollywood flair:

http://arnold-schwarzenegger.entertainment-news.org