If you’re anything like me, you enjoy your seafood. Beautiful to look at? Absolutely. But my claim to fame is cooking and eating seafood like a Jedi Master. I bake it, grill it, steam it, sauté it, and sometime even eat it raw. But, you know one thing I never do in regards to my seafood? Ponder whether or not it was caught illegally. Well, that’s all about to change. Now, not only do I have to wonder whether or not my delicious dinner will taste even better with butter, but I also have to take a few minutes to think about if illegally caught seafood is an environmental issue, an economic issue, or both.
At the very least, I’m sure we can all agree that if illegal fishing is indeed a problem, it is a global problem. No one nation is the sole culprit (although some countries do have a much higher illegal fishing rate than others) and can handle it alone; thus, the problem calls for a global tactic in order to resolve it. Towards that end, in 2009 the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization adopted a treaty that the U.S. Congress has been recommended to ratify, called the Port State Measures Agreement, or PSMA. The PSMA, which requires 25 nations to have ratified it in order for the agreement to take effect, would severely impede illegal fisherman from selling their catch through stronger port controls and fewer places in which to unload their bounty, reducing illegal fishing around the world. Ok great, but how exactly is this an environmental issue?
Scientists evaluate the size of fish stocks for many reasons, but what may be the most important reason is to protect a threatened species. If you live in an area like me, you may have heard over the years that hunting licenses are sometimes restricted based upon whether or not the hunted species needs protection due to a dwindling population. For us in Michigan, I hear it about deer all the time. Some years they say go crazy and hunt all they want, while other years there is a limit on licensing. Well, that’s all based on the specific calculations of scientists, determining whether or not we can hunt a species, and if so, how much. The PSMA, which obliges countries that sign it to inspect any vessel suspected of illegal fishing, and empowers them to force the relinquishment of any illegal catch, will help scientists to better monitor fish stocks. This way we may actually avoid “the last buffalo hunt,” and protect our environment by preserving fish populations that need looking out for. But that doesn’t explain the economic problems, does it?
So how does this illegal activity hurt the economy? Well, consider all of the fees that honest fisherman have to pay – taxes, landing fees, licensing fees, etc. Not only are smugglers avoiding those fees, but we are missing out on payment for them. And worse yet, when the legal fishing operators hear about people skirting the law, what’s to stop them from doing so, even if it isn’t at the same level. Then there are the indirect impacts of such illegal activity.
Consider the loss of employment and income in the various related industries. People that may have worked more hours are losing money to those paid “off the books.” Worse yet, they may lose their job entirely if a fishing operator starts to employ illegal fisherman and purchases their smuggled catch. Saving money is always on the mind of employers, and even if they don’t want to, it’s hard to say no when you see how much money you can save by giving in to the dark side. And the numbers don’t lie. Oceana, a conservationist group, has estimated that the global economy loses somewhere between $10 and $23 billion from illegal fishing annually. It doesn’t sound like we can afford to wait around for the PSMA to be ratified. So, are there any tactics we can take in the interim period?
One such tactic is ensuring that major fish importers do not accept smuggled goods. Because every ship needs a port, the current presidential administration has seemingly used this fact to their advantage, while at the same time endowed legitimate fisherman with an opportunity to make some real money by encumbering smuggler’s chances of unloading their wares.
Just this year the Obama Administration laid out a new set of guidelines that aim to be in full effect by the end of 2016, when all seafood intended for the American marketplace must correspond with specific information about the fisherman who caught it, accompanied by the how, when and where the fish were caught. Such a simple plan, and it’s amazing how no one has thought to put it into action until now. While this may be a drop in the bucket as far as solutions go, it shows that we may actually be on the right path, ensuring an honest fisherman can make an honest buck. And now, I can go back to eating my prawns and cuttlefish without feeling guilty.
In addition to being a seafood specialist, Dennis O’Bryan is an experienced maritime lawyer at O’Bryan Law. Contact us today for a free maritime law case consultation – and no, he won’t share his recipes.
