Were there such a thing as a world fishing industry, it would clearly be seen to be bent on its own destruction. The annual global catch, a mere three million tons at the beginning of this century, peaked at 82 million tons in 1989. There are no longer "plenty more fish in the sea". Stocks in three of the main fishing grounds in the Atlantic, the most seriously depleted of the oceans, are down by more than 30 per cent. Environmental degradation has contributed to the decline in fish stocks. The destruction of half the world's mangrove swamps, for instance, has reduced potential catches by nearly five million tons. Pollution and the diversion of water for irrigation have deprived the Azov, Caspian and Aral seas of nine-tenths of their sturgeon and other valuable species. But the heart of the problem is overfishing: worldwide, capacity exceeds the sustainable marine catch by 100 per cent.
According to a new report by the Worldwatch Institute, 19 million commercial fishermen will lose their livelihoods within 20 years unless stocks are allowed to rebuild. For all the fuss about the Common Fisheries Policy in the European Union (where capacity exceeds stocks by 40 per cent), the trend is towards still greater subsidy. As fishermen find it harder to make a living, pressures for artificial support multiply. Governments have been nothing if not generous in response, currently paying out $54 billion in subsidies for a marine catch worth $70 billion. With subsidies, fishermen buy more efficient boats and the problem worsens.
Rules set for large-scale commercial fishing, such as the 1992 United Nations moratorium on driftnet fishing, can be helpful. More could be done to set international quotas for the migrating species which are diminishing most sharply. To prevent their circumvention under flags of convenience, such conventions would need to include a ban on imports of designated fish caught by ships flying the flags of non-participating nations. Japan suggested such a regime for the bluefin tuna: the European Union, to its shame, refused.
A global fisheries regime would appear, however, to be inherently impracticable. There is no such thing as a "global" industry. There is little community of interest between the modern trawler industry and those who ply small coastal craft and who make up half the world's fishermen. Governments concerned to protect fishing grounds would press for treaties; but those with large ocean-going fleets would resist anything more than non-binding guidelines.
That leaves national and regional regulation. The potential for this has been greatly enhanced under the Law of the Sea convention, which comes into force in November. By allowing states to claim exclusive economic zones 200 nautical miles out from their coasts, it removes the richest areas of the seas from the global commons. Ninety per cent of fish are caught in the 10 per cent of the oceans closest to land.
States poor in everything but riparian stocks license out fishing grounds to the highest bidder. But pricing alone will not deal with overfishing, and poor countries are often ill-equipped for effective monitoring. There is scope here for responsible bargaining, whereby the European Union, for example, which currently pays African countries $200 million a year in access fees, would agree as part of access rights to set up systems for sustainable management of the fishing grounds. A successful pilot scheme would prompt "host" governments to demand such pacts as standard. The alternative to more imaginative conservation policies is war at sea. Those who doubt it should join the British holidaymakers trying to land at Santander yesterday. The Spanish port was blocked by feuding Spanish and French tuna fishermen.
