Table of Some RESISTERS Identified in Turning the Tide and
Defying Oceans End
Prepared by the Steering Committee for Changing Currents: Charting a
Course of Action for the Future of Oceans, February 23-26, 2005, Centre for
Coastal Studies, Simon Fraser University
General
Fisheries
International
Lack of ‘ownership’ – when problems and solutions
are discussed at intl levels, national bodies can lose
interest or become disenfranchised.
Failure for nations to formally declare EEZs – areas
subject to unregulated fisheries regimes
Sovereign rights and responsibilities for use,
conservation and management not clear (eg
migratory stocks)
Fisheries Management
Increased population pressures and conflicts over
natural resources
Inability to develop a common societal vision
Fear of change
Lack of coherence and underplaying role of the
natural environment in sustaining human activities
Lack of credible accounting for the hidden costs to
the environment
Legislation and processes are complex and unable
to protect the wider ecosystem
Strong commercial drive for development and
extractive uses of the environment
Ongoing distrust of governments by fishers
Lack of understanding of the basic issues involved
on the part of many fishermen and managers
Risk perceived by fishermen and other members of
the fishing industry of adopting a new and untried
fisheries management regime
Difficulty in establishing direct relationships
between specific fisheries activities and ecological
effects
Lack of agreement between fishers and scientists on
the state of the marine environment
Disagreements about causes and solutions
Non-compliance or active resistance from
communities who are unable to perceive benefits of
proposed change
Problems with the sea are not visible to the public
Conflict between fishing economic needs and
protection of the environment
Action taken on basis of proof of existing threats or
damage, not in the interests of precaution
Fisheries regulations are complex and change
frequently
Inadequate regulatory review processes
Changes have happened almost unnoticed; changes
occurred slowly and progressively over a long time
Fundamental changes in marine food webs (caused
by fishing and habitat destruction)
The ocean lacks comprehensive ownership rights
like those applicable on land
Conservation is perceived as a luxury except where
tangible benefits can be demonstrated
Regional structure and stakeholder process are not
enough by themselves to ensure that fishing is well
managed - Danger of stakeholder fatigue
Sinking resources into industry through vessel
buybacks and subsidies without receiving return on
the investment and without management reform
Strategies that ignore the human dimension,
particularly the differences that separate the
minority living in high-income societies from the
majority living in low-income societies
Baseline for judging change is an already degraded
system –shifting baseline syndrome
Capacity to predict ecosystem behaviour is limited
The complexity of ecosystems and the mass of data
deriving from their analysis runs the risk of
distracting attention from delivering practical
actions to achieve the required environmental goals
Legislation and processes are complex and unable
to protect the wider ecosystem
Costs
Lack of funding for fisheries reform
Limited alternative employment opportunities
Inadequate technical and administrative abilities to
run a fisheries management system
Lack of funds to finance transition of fishery to
sustainability
High standards of proof are needed to identify sites
and the need for action to prevent damage
Establishing protected areas on an opportunistic
basis can lead to unbalanced conservation priorities
Large short-term infusions of funds do not solve
long-term problems in complex systems
-2-
Enforcement/compliance
Slow progress in implementing the ecosystem-based
approach
Process of deriving any actual objectives and
making them operational remains vague
Policies for marine environment and fisheries
management have been developed largely in
isolation from one another in institutions
Many policies are operating on a very small scale
Lack of a clear policy framework makes it hard for
regulators to check compliance
Policy exists only on paper due to weak
enforcement
Policing of economic incentives and compliance is
poor
Tactics and technologies develop in response to
regulations in order to dilute or circumvent
management measures
Fishers are less likely to report accurate information
if it is against their self-interest.
A department or bureau lacks the financial and
personnel capacity to address marine issues but is
reluctant to relinquish authority to another Minister
Jurisdictional problems – eg when threats to a
marine habitat or species arise from terrestrial
activities
Activities affecting marine environment are
regulated through different agencies and in different
ways
Lack of institutional capacity to support improved
management
Insufficient resource allocation
Fishers will only adopt mitigating technologies if
they also reduce costs or increase income through
larger catches
If technologies hit profits, fishers may avoid using
them
Low probability of detection and prosecution re:
illegal fishing
Inadequate fines
Responses to suggested policy change can be too
tentative and too slow
Incremental approach
Lack of confidence of catching sector in forecast of
fish stocks – negative impacts on compliance
Reluctance to have observers on board
High cost of monitoring technology
Science and Information
Institution/Governance
Scientific advice can carry little weight when there
are high short-term political, social and economic
costs
Pressure to pare down specialist information (ie
scientific data and interpretation) to simple essential
before it can be used in reaching management
decisions
Level of communication and outreach - scientific
community must do a much better job in converting
science to education, public awareness and
environmental action
Capacity in science, funding and communication
Gap between high level policy development and
implementation
Lack of political will
Weak legislature when it comes to practical
application
Rules on transparent decision-making and
governance accountability are weak and poorly
enforced
Absence of well-developed consolidated
relationship between environmental scientists and
decision-makers
Compartmentalization
Key factors that influence the stability of marine
ecosystems are imperfectly understood
-3-
International issues
Science and information cont’d
Presentation of fisheries science data replete with
short-term inadequate answers to complex problems
Programs that invest heavily in descriptive science
that is of marginal usefulness to supporting an
effective course of action
The world’s oceans lack uniform and complete
policy enclosure especially on the high seas
International commitments have been made to
adhere to the principles of the ecosystem approach
in the absence of clear means of implementing the
concept
Little ‘practical’ progress with implementing
conventions and laws
Narrow national interests
Biological information can be difficult and
expensive to collect
Indicators send conflicting messages
Lack of realistic dynamic computational models to
quantify and predict the interactions among
wilderness, humanized and urban domains
Only a few aging deep-diving research submersibles
exist and none can reach full ocean depth
Ecosystems have thresholds and limits which when
exceeded can result in major system restructuring
Geographical connectivity makes boundaries
difficult to define
Marine habitats can be under joint jurisdiction
Nonbinding international ‘soft law’ – specific
conservation and management measure often not
mandated
International law lacks a centralized legislative body
Once some thresholds and limits have been
exceeded some changes can be irreversible
International legal system lacks an executive branch
with powers to implement rules
International law lacks effective law enforcement
mechanisms to monitor infractions and apprehend
offenders
Failure to implement internationally agreed
principles
Individual states or groups of State can opt out of
binding treaties and can refuse to enforce treaty
obligations despite originally agreeing to being
bound by such obligations
States can pick and choose the rules by which they
intend to be bound
Code of practice not mandatory
Community and Education
Lack of funding for education, consensus building
and implementation
Absence of common frameworks for assessing
progress and disseminating innovations
Absence of funding to reward and sustain sound
programs in low-income nations
Absence of global mechanisms to encourage
collaborative learning
Import expensive external specialists to design and
administer externally funded short term projects
Temptation to transfer unsustainable practices and
pressures elsewhere – eg waters around developing
countries - through poor access agreements or onto
high seas fisheries
Community
Distrust of outside expertise by local communities
Changes occur at large scale but effort to change
behaviour often occurs at small scale
Guidelines do not offer an approach that ensures
development of local and regional skills necessary
to instigate behavioural change and appeals to the
needs, values and heritage of the people who will be
most directly affected by the program
-4-