SAMUDRA - aquaticcommons.orgaquaticcommons.org/17593/1/Samudra 7.pdf · SAMUDRA 7/93 - Page 3...

SAMUDRA 7/93 -

SAMUDRA

Editorial ........................................................................................................... 3

In Solidarity: Fisheries Treaty at the Global Forum ........................................ 2

Less euphoria, more realism: An ecologist look at aquaculture .................... 7

Deep seas. long hours: The condition of fishworkers

on distant-water vessels ................................................................................. 9

Nothing pretty: South Pacific fishery under threat ......................................... 10

Will european fisheries survive? .................................................................... 12

Legislation on aquaculture: A preliminary review ........................................... 17

Prevention or regulation: The London Dumping Convention

reviews its strategy ......................................................................................... 19

EUS: Mysterious fish disease stalks inland waters ........................................ 20

Burma: Fishing in the time of the military junta .............................................. 23

From south India to Senegal: Technology transfer with a difference ............. 24

The Coalition for Fair Fisheries Agreements - CFFA ..................................... 26

Encounter of Fishing crews of the Southern Cone of Latin America ............. 27

World’s news .................................................................................................. 28

Book’s review .................................................................................................. 36

ADDRESS REDACTION

All correspondence should be addressed to: Editorial BoardSAMUDRA Publications SAMUDRA Publications Michael Belliveau - New Brunswick (Canada)International Collective in c/o CEDIPAC Nenita Cura - Manila (Philippines)Support of Fishworkers Casilla 3776 John Garbutt - Canberra (Australia)Liaison Office Valparaiso Pierre Gillet - Brussels (Belgium)65,rue Grétry CHILE Francisco Gutierrez - Bogotá (Columbia)B-1000 Brussels, BELGIUM South America John Kurien - Trivandrum (India)Fax: 32.2.2181538 Fax: 56.32.232602 Héctor Luis Morales - Santiago (Chile)

Aliou Sall - Dakar (Senegal)Please let us know if you wish to receive our publications Amporn Sugandhavanij - Bangkok (Thailand)SAMUDRA - ReportSAMUDRA - Dossier EditorSAMUDRA - Monograph Héctor Luis Morales

Coordination: Juan Pablo MoralesPlease inform us your change of address Translation: Thomas Connelly

Design and layout: Juan Pablo MoralesLimited circulation Printing: Talleres Grafico UTFSM

Chile. Phone: 56.32.626364

SAMUDRA 7/93 -

Editorial

The United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development ended with declara-tions and agreements which did not meet the expectations generated during the prepara-tory process. Political compromise was the mechanism most often used by participantdiplomats, while the proposals put forward by academic centres and social movementswere, for the most part, postponed for a more propitious occasion- That occasion will surelybe found in those areas of struggle where action is still necessary, given that the poorcontinue to become ever poorer, oceans continue to be contaminated, gasses saturate theatmosphere, and species are led to extinction, while the future of humanity on this planet-ship Earth is uncertain.

The fishworkers of the world have, however, gained a degree of recognition in Chapter 17of Agenda 21 and the door is open for the struggle of their organizations in each country toachieve the application of the agreements signed in the 1992 Rio Conference. Those ac-cords require that fish workers be respected in terms of their own cultures, that there beexclusive fishing zones, special credit mechanisms and technology transfer, representationin decision-making organisms, respect for and participation of women in fishing activitiesand fishworker organizations.

ICSF continues its struggle for those rights in diverse areas of the world, specially in meet-ings of fishing crews in Latin America, in Task Force activities in defense of PhilippineDistant Water Vessel crews in the Taiwanese fleets, in the search for the causes of thediseases which attack the fresh water fish cultivated in Asia, and in the creation of commu-nication networks among French, Irish and British fish workers. The European EconomicCommunity continues to open new fishing zones through so-called “second generation”treaties, notably that established with Argentina in 1992, which will have significant impactboth in Europe and the countries of the South, specially in Latin America and Africa.

Both Peruvian and Mexican artisan fishworkers have made progress toward new forms oforganization and are seeking ways to become truly independent in their decisions. A newartisan fish worker union has been formed in Madagascar, while their fellows in Senegalhave made progress along similar lines.

Renee Conan, European Parliamentary Representative and Green militant, a friend of ours,has left us after a sudden illness and we will miss her clear and inspirational voice to guidethe social fishworker movements. May she rest in peace and inspire us to transcend ourown human shortcomings.

Hector Luis MoralesEditor-in-chief

SAMUDRA 7/93 -

Even as the recent Earth Summit was being widelypublicised, several of the world’s NGOs gathered at acontemporaneous Global Forum in Rio de Janeiro fromJune 1 to 14, 1992, to discuss and debate issues thatthey felt would otherwise have been drowned in theloud rhetoric of the conventional agenda. Among themwere NGOs connected with the fisheries sector whonegotiated a Fisheries Treaty. ICSF was one of the 18signatories to the Treaty. A summary of the treaty:

Fishery resources are not only a vital source of food,they are also an invaluable input to general economicdevelopment. Yet, those for whom these resourcesmatter most -traditional fisher-folk- are among the poor-est and most disadvantaged of society.

They are often denied access to these resources and,moreover, have to compete with industrial and distantwater fleets. Pollution, overfishing and non-discrimi-natory fishing technology combine to destroy the re-source ecosystem itself. The result is a net depletionof resources.

Recognising these problems, fisherfolk organisationsand other NGOs at Rio’s Global Forum pledged to worktowards a twin objective:

Support fishers and fishing communities, and

Conserve and protect aquatic ecosystems.

Principlesof the Fisheries Treaty

The basic rights of fisherfolk, which extend beyondmere human rights, are provided in laws, agreementsand conventions which also deal with minimum stan-dards of sate working conditions. Three important mani-festations of such basic rights far fisherfolk are:

formation of their own organizations which shouldbe allowed to participate in the planning, manage-ment and development process in fisheries;

reservation of marine and inland water zones ex-clusively for artisanal fishing; and

access to credit and social services.

Apart from these basic rights, the Treaty addressesthese concerns:

Artisanal FisheriesThis sector should get priority because it is importantin several ways: as a source of food, income and em-ployment; a means of ensuring community stability; away of promoting resource conservation and environ-mental protection of marine, coastal and inland waterareas.

Ecologically Sound PracticesFisheries should be conducted in an ecologically soundmanner to sustain the resource for the present andfuture generations. It should also be socially lust, show-ing respect for cultural, biological and ecosystem di-versity.

EquityAccess to fishery resources should not be based solelyon political power and the availability of technologyand capital. It should recognise the needs of fisheriescommunities and be based on equitable principles andrespect for the environment.

Ecosystem ApproachManaging fisheries from an ecosystem perspectivecalls for integrated management principles which takeinto account human activities which degrade aquaticecosystems and the environment. These include:

inappropriate and destructive practices of agricul-ture, forestry, aquaculture and fishing.

land-based and sea-based sources of pollution.

urban, industrial and tourism development.

ParticipationOnly the full and meaningful participation of all inter-ests, including fishers (especially those with traditionalknowledge and experience), NGOs and scientists willensure the successful management of fisheries andaquatic environments.

Document

In solidarity:FISHERIES TREATY

AT THE GLOBAL FORUM

SAMUDRA 7/93 -

Women in FisheriesThe vital role of women in fisheries and integrated com-munity development should be recognised and sup-ported and in decisions affecting these matters theyshould participate at all levels.

Precautionary Approach and Environmental ImpactAssessmentsAll decisions which affect fisheries and aquatic envi-ronments, including environmental impact assess-ments, should be taken with caution.

High Seas FishingCoastal states and fishing communities have specialrights and needs with respect to straddling stocks andhighly migratory species under the United Nations Con-vention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Recognisingthis, high seas fishing must be subject to a legally bind-ing regime which takes into account the ecosystemeffects on the high seas as well as the adjacent coastalwaters. Environmental standards for high seas fishingshould apply to fisheries for straddling stocks and highlymigratory species in the EEZs.

Action planTo improve the quality of life of fisherfolk and fish-workers, there is a need for common action based onthese principles and using a comprehensive ecosys-tem approach. The following are specific recommen-dations:

implement and encourage development of tech-nologies which reduce by-catch and protect aquaticecosystems.

restrict or eliminate technologies which are non-selective or otherwise harmful to the aquatic envi-ronment.

incorporate enforcement mechanisms and effec-tive monitoring programs into fisheries manage-ment.

negotiate an internationally binding regime for highseas fisheries, including mechanisms to ensurecompliance with the UN driftnet moratorium.

The Treaty also encourages research to increase un-derstanding of the relationships between aquatic or-ganisms and their environment, which determine eco-logically appropriate fishery yields. Such programsshould be broad-based and recognise traditional andindigenous knowledge.

The Treaty also calf s for networking among fishersand NGOs through information exchange, visits andtraining, and also joint political action. The latest inorder to organize a World Conference on Fisheriesand Environment at Rome, 1994, ten years after the IInternational Conference of Fishworkers and Support-

SAMUDRA 7/93 -

ers held in Rome, 1984, simultaneously with the FAOConference.AOC - American Oceans CampaignAndrew Palmer (USA)

AME - Associacao Matogrossense do EcologiaCarolina Joana da Saliva (Brazil)

Centro Josue de CastroNathanael Maranhao Valle (Brazil)

CISP - Comitato Internazionale per lo Sviluppo deiPopoliCarlo Tassara (Italy)

EarthtrustJim Logan and Emily Gardner (USA)

Federation Regionale des Cooperatives du Sud-KivuCissa Wa Nunbe (Zaire)

Fishermen’s Wife AssociationMade Ne Korsrud (Norway)

Gardner Pinford Consulting Economist Ltd.Michael Gardner (Canada)

Greenpeace InternationalMathew GianniICSF - International Collective in Support ofFishworkersHector Luis Morales (Chile)

MONAPE - Movimento Nacional de PescadoresMarcos do R. Pereira and Joaquim Silva R. (Brazil)

MOVIDA - Movimento pela VidaMaria de Fatima Pereira de Sa (Brazil)

Movimento Ressurgencia Coop. Mista do PescadoresArraial do CaboSergia Henrique de Araujo Costa (Brazil)

Nationwide Coalition of Fisherfolk for Aquatic ReformRodolfo Sambajo and Arturo Oligario (the Philippines)

OIC - Oceans Institute of CanadaDavid Vande-Zwaag and Judith Swan (Canada)

The Presbyterian Church in Taiwan -Fishermen’s Ser-vice CenterLinda Petrucelli (Taiwan)

Box signatories

SAMUDRA 7/93 -

Negotiated at the Global Forum, Rio de Janeiro, Bra-zil, 1-14 June 1992.

Basis for actionMarine fisheries yield 80 to 90 million tons of fish andshellfish per year 95 per cent of which is taken fromwaters under national jurisdiction. Yields have in-creased nearly fivefold over the past four decades.The provisions of the United Nations Convention onthe Law of the sea on marine living resources of theexclusive economic zone and other areas under na-tional jurisdiction set forth rights and obligations ofStates with respect to conservation and utilization ofthose resources.

Marine living resources provide an important sourceof protein in many countries and their use is often ofmajor importance to local communities and indigenouspeople. Such resources provide food and livelihoodsto millions of people and, if sustainably utilized, offerincreased potential to meet nutritional and social needs,particularly in developing countries. To realize this po-tential requires improved knowledge and identificationof marine living resource stocks, particularly ofunderutilized and unutilized stocks and species, useof new technologies, better handling and processingfacilities to avoid wastage, and improved quality andtraining of skilled personnel to manage and conserveeffectively the marine living resources of the exclu-sive economic zone and other areas under nationaljurisdiction. Emphasis should also be on multi-speciesmanagement and other approaches that take into ac-count the relationships among species.

Fisheries in many areas under national jurisdiction facemounting problems, including local over-fishing, un-authorized incursions by foreign fleets, ecosystem deg-radation, overcapitalization and excessive fleet sizes,undervaluation of catch, insufficiently selective gear,unreliable databases, and increasing competition be-tween artisanal and large-scale fishing, and betweenfishing and other types of activities.

Problems extend beyond fisheries. Coral reefs andother marine and coastal habitats, such as mangrovesand estuaries, are among the most highly diverse, in-tegrated and productive of the Earths ecosystems.They often serve important ecological functions, pro-vide coastal protection, and are critical resources forfood, energy, tour the world, such marine and coastal

systems are under stress or are threatened from avariety of sources, both human and natural.

ObjectivesCoastal States, particularly developing countries andStates whose economies are overwhelmingly depen-dent on the exploitation of the marine living resourcesof their exclusive economic zones, should obtain thefull social and economic benefits from sustainable uti-lization of marine living resources within their exclu-sive economic zones and other areas under nationaljurisdiction.

States commit themselves to the conservation andsustainable use of marine living resources under na-tional jurisdiction. To this end, it is necessary to:

Develop and increase the potential of marine living re-sources to meet human nutritional needs, as well associal, economic and development goals;

Take into account traditional knowledge and interests oflocal communities, small-scale artisanal fisheries andindigenous people in development and managementprogrammes;

Maintain or restore populations of marine species at lev-els that can produce the maximum sustainable yield asqualified by relevant environmental and economic fac-tors, taking into consideration relationships among spe-cies;

Promote the development and use of selective fishinggear and practices that minimize waste in the catch oftarget species and minimize by-catch of non-target spe-cies;

Protect and restore endangered marine species;

Preserve rare or fragile ecosystems, as well as habitatsand other ecologically sensitive areas.

Nothing in paragraphs above restricts the right of acoastal State or the competence or an internationalorganization, as appropriate, to prohibit, limit or regu-late the exploitation of marine mammals more strictlythan provided for in that paragraph. States shall co-operate with a view to the conservation of marine mam-mals and in the case of cetaceans shall in particularwork through the appropriate international organiza-tions for their.

Document

SUSTAINABLE USE AND CONSERVATIONOF MARINE LIVING RESOURCESUNDER NATIONAL JURISDICTION

Extracted from UNCED’S Agenda 21, Chapter 17

SAMUDRA 7/93 -

The ability of developing countries to fulfill the aboveobjectives is dependent upon their capabilities, includ-ing the financial, scientific and technological meansat their disposal. Adequate financial, scientific and tech-nological cooperation should be provided to supportacting by them to implement these objectives

Management-related activitiesStates should ensure that marine living resources ofthe exclusive economic zone and other areas undernational jurisdiction are conserved and managed inaccordance with the provisions of the United NationsConvention on the Law of the Sea.

Costal States, individually or through bilateral and/ormultilateral cooperation and with the support, as ap-propriate of international organizations, whether sub-regional, regional or global, should inter alia:

Assess the potential of marine living resources, includ-ing underutilized or unutilized stocks and species, bydeveloping inventories, where necessary, for their con-servation and sustainable use;

Implement strategies for the sustainable use of marineliving resources, taking into account the special needsand interests of small-scale artisanal fisheries, local com-munities and indigenous people to meet human nutri-tional and other development needs;

Implement, particularly in developing countries, mecha-nisms to develop mariculture, aquaculture and small-scale deep-sea and oceanic fisheries within areas un-der national jurisdiction where assessments show thatmarine living resources are potentially available;

Strengthen their legal and regulatory frameworks, whereappropriate, including management, enforcement andsurveillance capabilities, to regulate activities related tothe above strategies;

Take measures to increase the availability of marine liv-ing resources as human food by reducing wastage, post-harvest losses and discards, and improving techniquesof processing, distribution and transportation;

Develop and promote the useof environmentally soundtechnology under criteria compatible with the sustain-able use of marine living resources, including assess-ment of the environmental impact of major new fisherypractices;

Enhance the productivity and utilization of their marineliving resources for food and income.

States, in implementing the provisions of the UnitedNations Convention on the Law of the Sea, should ad-dress the issues of straddling stocks and highly migra-tory species, and taking fully into account the objec-

tive set out above, access to the surplus of allowablecatches.

Coastal States should explore the scope for expand-ing recreational and tourist activities based on marineliving resources, including those for providing alterna-tives sources of income. Such activities should be com-patible with conservation and sustainable developmentpolicies and plans.

Coastal States should support the sustainability ofsmall-scale artisanal fisheries. To this end, they should,as appropriate:

Integrate small-scale artisanal fisheries development inmarine and costal planning, taking into account the in-terests and, where appropriate, encouraging represen-tation of fishermen, small-scale fish workers, women,local communities and indigenous people;

Recognize the rights of small-scale fish workers and thespecial situation of indigenous people and local com-munities, habitats on a sustainable basis;

Develop systems for the acquisition and recording oftraditional knowledge concerning marine living resourcesand environment and promote the incorporation of suchknowledge into management systems.

Coastal States should ensure that, in the negotiationand implementation of international agreements on thedevelopment or conservation of marine living re-sources, the interests of local communities and indig-enous people are taken into account, in particular theirright to subsistence.

Coastal States, with the support, as appropriate, of in-ternational organizations should conduct analyses ofthe potential for aquaculture in marine and coastal ar-eas under national jurisdiction and apply appropriatesafeguards as to the introduction of new species.

States should prohibit dynamiting, poisoning and othercomparable destructive fishing practices.

States should identify marine ecosystems exhibitinghigh levels of biodiversity and productivity and othercritical habitat areas and provide necessary limitationson use in these areas, through inter alia, designationof protected areas. Priority should be accorded, asappropriate, to:

coral reef ecosystems,estuaries,temperate and tropical wetlands, including mangroves,seagrass beds,other spawning and nursery areas.

SAMUDRA 7/93 -

Less euphoria, more realism

O. Kinne, an ecologist at the Biologische AnstaltHelgoland, Hamburg, Germany, has written extensivelyon aquaculture and marine ecology. The following pieceis paraphrased from his keynote lecture at the WorldConference on Aquaculture in Venice in 1986, wherehe said that ‘the production of food for some 8 billionpeople is a nightmare for an ecologist” Today, with thecurrent global thrust on aquacultural practices, hisviews on the significance and future potential of aquac-ulture acquire a fresh relevance.

Man not only searches for food, he produces food.And to do so, he strives for conditions which favourthe survival, growth and reproduction of a few, selectedorganisms, hoping to reduce his dependence on thevagaries of nature.

However, two fundamental ecological fads are oftenignored:

the flow patterns of energy and matter which arebasic properties in the organization and function-ing of ecosystems: and

a bias in the flow pattern in favour of a single eco-system component, viz, Homo sapiens.

Food is produced in three principal ways: agriculture,aquaculture and fisheries. Though the fisheries domanipulate marine ecosystems, they depend heavilyand directly on natural ecological processes and fluc-tuations. The degree of man induced control is lim-ited, in contrast to agriculture and aquaculture.

At present, there are more favourable prerequisitesfor food production on land, i.e. in agriculture, than inwater, i.e. in aquaculture. Production of human foodfrom aquatic plants is negligible due to man’s nutri-tional habits and the infeasibility of economically har-vesting the greatest living natural resource on earth,the marine phytoplanktons.

Reliable figures on annual rates of food productionworld-wide are difficult to come by, but most food pro-duction evidently comes from agriculture, followed byfisheries. In 1979 aquaculture accounted for only about0.21% of global food production. Of course, there are

exceptions like Japan, Israel and China whereaquacultures share is much higher.

Though food production by aquaculture has certainlyincreased over the years, ‘they remain much lower thanmost of the often euphoric predictions had claimed’.Limitations of area, water quality, feed, energy andseedlings make it unlikely to grow much faster.

Aquaculture has two major social aspects: to makemoney and to combat hunger. In order to make money,the aquaculturist tends to produce high-quality, expen-sive seafood. To combat hunger, on the other hand,cannot very well be the primary responsibility of theprivate entrepreneur. Here government support for re-search and operating pilot plants is required.

Whether in field or culture, we cannot produce food inpurely technical-industrial terms, without the activitiesof living cells. Food is always produced as a result ofecological processes. The food producer tries to con-trol the flow of energy and matter through the livingsystem concerned. The aim is to obtain a maximumof well-marketable food in return for investing a mini-mum of effort and cost. What is good or bad for thetarget organism is what matters most to the producer.

It must be remembered that we do not exploit singleorganisms or populations, but ecosystems. (The onlyexceptions are axenic cultures, i.e. those consistingof individuals of a single, known species.)

Just as there is this ecological basis of food produc-tion, there are ecological limitations to food produc-tion. Man affects ecosystems in four principal ways:

by changing the flow patterns of energy and mat-ter, as well as the structural properties of habitats;

by addition of system-foreign materials (waste dis-posal, pollution);

by mixing components of spatially separate eco-systems; and

by removal of system components, i.e. by harvest-ing selected wild organisms (fisheries) and a vari-ety of non-living materials.

Aqua-food production contributes to all four types of

AN ECOLOGIST LOOKS AT AQUACULTURESebastian Mathew

Analysis

SAMUDRA 7/93 -

ecosystem distortion. Large-scale aquaculture opera-tions tend to deform natural ecosystem dynamics es-pecially through construction and pollution.Construction not only alters the landscape along thecoast of a river, it modifies water-use and water-flowpatterns. In the sea, for instance, artificial reefs changethe density and composition of the local flora and fauna.While they normally increase the local productivity ofthe waters concerned, their consequences on the origi-nal ecological situation remain to be carefully investi-gated.

Pollution from aquaculture farms is caused by feed,metabolites, and therapeutic or prophylactic chemi-cals. Along a river, discharge of wastes and chemicalsupstream may result in chain reactions.

There are other constraints that aquaculture opera-tions have to face: the competitive activities of manfor recreation, land-use etc.; the rising cost of energy;and the problem of feed. “The conduct of feeding fishwith fish and shrimp with shrimp in order to feedHomosapiens does not hold the right key for openingthe door into the future.”

We must attempt to produce food by increasingly em-ploying principles of ecosystem dynamics. We mustlearn from nature. She produces, consumes andremineralizes gigantic amounts of organic materials -thousands of times larger than those produced andutilized by man- without accumulating dangerouswastes, without distorting ecosystem dynamics, andwithout running short of energy or feed. The solutionis re-cycling and large-scale food production from low-

trophic-level organisms. There are two major levels ofrecycling:

transformation of organic wastes into feed for cul-tured animals or into fertilizer for cultured plants;and,

transformation of microorganism protein built fromwastes directly into nutrients utilized as human food.

Agriculture is better suited to produce human food fromlarger-sized animals. But aquaculture is the methodof choice for human nutrients produced from recycling.Some of these are simple, traditional and effectiveroutes, e.g., the use of animal faeces and urine tofertilise fish ponds. With modern advances in sewagetreatment, this could now become an aesthetically ac-ceptable aquatic solution for synthesising a multitudeof different nutritional components.

Man’s nutritional traditions also serve as an obstacleto the ultimate success of recycling. The evolution ofspecific self-perpetuating habits of food consumption(‘nutritional adaptation’) largely determine the trendsand ends of food production.

The necessary new role of man as partner and protec-tor of nature-rather than her mere exploiter- requiresa general, very substantial reorientation in our habitsand behaviour. Within the next five decades or so, wemust learn how to produce healthy foods from our or-ganic wastes which now pollute our lands, rivers andseas—and we must learn to eat these foods with plea-sure.

SAMUDRA 7/93 -

If proof was needed that fishworkers on distant watervessels (DWVs) faced appalling conditions of work,the testimonies and papers presented at ICSF’s inter-national workshop on the subject in January 1991 (Ma-nila-the Philippines) provided it.

Clearly, there was a need to analyse in greater depththe related issues of recruitment, remuneration andwork conditions of fishworkers aboard DWVs. Accord-ingly, ICSF organised a follow-up workshop in Mauritiusfrom 31 August to 5 September 1992. Specifically, ithoped to set up a task force, with scope and objec-tives defined, to go into these issues.

To broaden the scope of reference, the workshop de-cided to use the term industrial fishing vessels (IFVs),rather than distant water vessels. This would includeall vessels employing foreign labour from developingcountries and/or engaged in joint ventures in develop-ing countries and/or fishing in the EEZs of their wa-ters. Also included are vessels operating in nationalwaters, employing at least five workers on board, andwhich are capable of fishing beyond the territorial wa-ters.

As the workshop presentations made clear, no coun-try could claim to be free of exploitation of fishworkerson industrial fishing vessels. The degree of hardshipmight differ, as did the amount of remuneration, butthese did not substantially alter the common fact ofdifficult working conditions.

Filipino fishworkers employed in Taiwan, for instance,work at least 16 hours a day and are of ten cheated oftheir salaries which are paid through intermediary re-cruiting agents. In the Philippines itself, where there isa surplus of trained seafarers, there is no legislation toprotect fishworkers. The government seems interestedonly in earning foreign exchange.

In Madagascar, recruitment is done directly by foreignfishing companies, often through tripartite negotiationsinvolving the workers’ organizations too. But salariesare poor, just as they are in Senegal too.

Reunion, which has adopted the French legislation sys-tem, provides for health insurance, social security andretirement benefits for fishworkers. However, there areinstances of illegal recruitment from Madagascar andMayotte, especially in longlining. The proposed fleetreduction in the EEC countries, local fishermen fear,would lead to the deployment of European vessels inthe underexploited oceans of the world.

In Mauritius, the minority employed on foreign ves-sels are paid boner than South African and Filipinofishworkers. But work conditions are deplorable, es-pecially on Taiwanese longliners. One-sided contracts,old and derelict vessels, and the absence of protec-tive legislation add to the hardship.

In India, where most of the IFVs are trawlers operat-ing in the deep sea prawn fisheries, the workers areusually directly recruited (though of late, recruitingagencies have sprung up for the emerging joint ven-tures). In addition to a salary and a share of the totalcatch, the workers get a month’s holiday. Though In-dian conditions seem currently the best, what is wor-rying is whether these can be maintained in the situa-tion of overfishing.

Apart from India and Reunion, where conditions ap-pear slightly better, it is clear that IFVs of theindustrialised countries tried to maximise profits by hir-ing cheap labour -sometimes through joint venturesand licensing arrangements.

In view of these oppressive and exploitative condi-tions, the workshop proposed the formation of an in-ternational task force to study and document theseconditions as well as to suggest campaign programmesto redress these problems. It will be supported by re-gional task forces in Taiwan, the Philippines andMauritius.

If this effort throws up studied responses to the prob-lems of fishworkers in IFVs, their cause would havebeen well served. And, as concerned people hope, theycan then look forward to a more rewarding livelihood.

Deep seas, long hours

THE CONDITION OF FISHWORKERSON DISTANT WATER VESSELS

Event

SAMUDRA 7/93 -

AnalysisNothing pretty

SOUTH PACIFIC FISHERYUNDER THREAT

To the world outside, mention of South Pacific conjuresup visions of pristine beaches, placid seas and lazy fun-filled days. But for he approximately 5 million populationof the 10,000 islands of the region, life is no pretty jaunt,particularly for the fisherfolk. And that means just abouteveryone, for fishing not only provides the principal meansof subsistence, fish is also the most important part of theislanders’ diet.

The history of the Pacific Islands has been said to be aone of conflict over natural resources. While the focus inthe past was land-based, since the 70s it has shifted tothe ocean resources of fish, seabed minerals and the vastmarine space.

In this period, foreign vessels, particularly from Japan,Korea, Taiwan and the US, have obtained licences forthe exploitation of the islands’ vast tuna resources. Nowlicensing agreements are increasingly being replaced withjoint ventures, with minimal benefits of revenue andemployment. Foreign corporations now control most ofthe resources and the profits they generate.

Over a fourth of the world’s tuna production is currentlyfrom the South Pacific region. Yet, its share of the totalvalue of the catch is abysmally low. In 1989, for instance,when distant water fleets caught tuna worth US $ 700million, the local nations got as access fees only aboutfour per cent of this value.

Unfortunately, small-scale fisheries, which could be asource of fish for domestic consumption, have not ableto develop. Poor management, neglect of local sea tenurepractices, rising costs and weak government support areamong the reasons for this.

On the other hand, the development of commercial fisheryposes a threat to the islanders’ subsistence fishing,depleting the inshore waters. Although reef and lagoonwaters are not leased out to foreigners, tuna long-liningdepends on traditional baitfishery in the inshore waters.

Commercialised baitfishing leads to oil pollution of inshorewaters and other ecological consequences. Localfishermen fear that excessive harvesting of bait fish, whichthey believe form the food for the species they normallycatch, would ultimately decrease the catch potential oftheir own subsistence fishery.

Further, as reported from the Solomon Islands, tuna boatsthat speed past the shore swamp canoes, erodeshorelines and endanger children playing in the lagoons.To worsen matters, poaching and indiscriminatedriftnetting have been on the rise since the 1970s.

The origin of these threats are not confined to the sea.

Land-based development activities have seriousimplications since the islands are small land masses inthe midst of a vast ocean. Mangroves have been removedalong the coconut plantations. Logging and prospectingfor minerals (gold, copper, nickel, silver and manganese)causes sediment pollution, adversely affecting thesustainability of the traditional fishing grounds.

Tourism, especially of the resort variety financed byinternational capital, often shows scant respect fortraditional cultural values and also leads to the theft ofrare shells nad precious corals from the seabed.

Increasing urbanization is another related problem,especially in countries like Kiribati, Marshall Islands andTuvalu.

Sadly, the Pacific has long been an arena for militaryabuse. The establishment of military bases and half acentury of missile and nuclear testing must surely havepermanently contaminated the area and made much ofits waters radioactive. There have also been attempts todump nuclear wastes into the Pacific waters. Though therealready is evidence of food-chain contamination in thisarea, other effects could be concealed or underreported.

The South Pacific region is set to become a major hiveof industrial activity, with foreign companies scramblingfor mining rights, ocean leasing, and oil-gas prospectinglicences. The implications for the region and its peopleare frightening.

As one observer asks, “ The Japanese, the Americans,the South Koreans, the Chinese, the Canadians, someLatin Americans, the West Germans, the French and anumber of ASEAN nations now talk with monotonousregularity about the Pacific century. When the Pacificcentury is over, will it be said that islanders slept throughit al while those who controlled the mechanisms of powerin island states, with few exceptions, danced late into aweary night, celebrating plunder disguised asdevelopment?”

In view of the continuing exploitation of small fishworkersin the South Pacific, ICSF has decided to try and createa network, among them, after identifying local fishworkers’organizations as well as NGOs working with fishingcommunities. This initiative will also attempt to documentthe problems of the region.

Towards this end, a three-member ICSF team will visitcountries from Micronesia, Melanesia and Polynesia, inaddition to New Zealand during January –March 1993.This will hopefully be the first step in a long-term effort tofurther contacts in the Pacific region.

SAMUDRA 7/93 -

SAMUDRA 7/93 -

It’s now almost a month since the French fishermen’sSurvival Committee decided to tour Europe to makecontact with their European counterparts and attemptto establish the basis for common action in the face ofthe present crisis brought on by an unexpectedly steepfall in fish prices in Europe towards the end of Janu-ary.

England and Ireland were to be the first ports of call,followed by Spain and Portugal, and then the rest ofNorthern Europe. Needing an interpreter and consult-ant for organizing the first leg of the trip, they calledon the author of this article at CCFD (The FrenchCatholic Committee against Hunger and for Develop-ment). There had been frequent interaction betweenthe COFO Maritime Programme and the local fisher-ies committee at LE GUILVINEC since the ‘Bateaupour Madagascar’ campaign in 1988 and the ICSF/CCFD symposium in Lisbon in 1989. Rene-PierreCHEVER was also a participant at the ICSF confer-ence at Bangkok in 1990, and has played an impor-tant role in building up a relationship between theFrench and Senegalese fishworkers. There are fewICSF members or fishworkers from other countries whohave not found their way to LE GUILVINEC at somestage, and enjoyed fulsome hospitality there. Of therest of the Breton delegation, Andre LE BERRE hadbeen several limes to Senegal (including to first con-gress of the National Collective of Senegalese Fisher-men in 1991), and Camille GOUZIEN was captain ofthe old trawler that afforded us such welcome recre-ation, with wives and children aboard, at the 1992BREST gathering of tall ships. Together with a youngfisherman horn DOUARNENEZ, Georges GUILCHER,it would be fair to say that the conditions were set forthe trip to take place in the best possible spirits.

Be that as it may, the afore-mentioned are in the fore-front of a last-ditch movement of French fish-workersto make an impression on the European Commissionand obtain redress for a fisheries policy which has donelittle to favour your ordinary local fishworker, but ratherthe large merchants, processors, and conglomeratefishing operators. In fact, a meeting of 600 fishworkersand their wives just outside LE GUILVINEC the Satur-day before the cross-channel trip brought home clearlythat the profession is in a state of shock, with as manyas 50% bankruptcies in the offing, with concommittenthuman distress. The anguish and desperation ex-pressed by the women, especially, was very striking.At the same time there was an overall determination

not to allow the meeting to degenerate into personalrecriminations against the representatives of the CreditMaritime and other Producers’ Organizations present.This hardly masked the general accusation that thetraditional bodies mandated to manage the fisheriessector had failed to anticipate the present crisis andwere incompetent to provide the kind of political musclerequired to make a dent on the awesome behemoth inBrussels.

So the sense of mission was a serious one as we setoff on the first stage of what could conceivably havebeen a series of confrontations, the ingredients beingcomplaints over the destruction of British and Irish fishby rampaging French fishermen, liberally doused withthe kind of jingoistic anti-French feeling which the Brit-ish tabloid papers—and even the British government,on occasion—take a delight in stirring up. After all,hadn’t a British naval vessel been boarded just twodays before off the Channel Islands (lles Anglo-Normandes), Her Majesty’s officers sequestered, and—horror of horrors—the White Ensign burned? ByGeorge, there was a time when this sort of thing wouldhave meant at least a good keel-hauling, or beingthrashed to within an inch of the wretch’s life beforebeing handed back to a shame-faced French admiralwith a stern warning. Or worse, perhaps, Alas, we wouldhave to be content with the British fisheries ministerstating in a televised parliamentary address that, if hehad his way, he would send in the SAS (Special AirService), “and it wouldn’t be against British fishermen”(hear, hear! hear, hear!).

The first port of call was a popular 680 televisionprogramme called ‘Kilroy’. There were about 60 peopleon the set which had been carefully organized so thatpotential antagonists could have a good old go at eachother. And so it started “Are the British fishermen yourenemies?“, Camille was asked. “Not at all”, said he,with a refrain that we were to hear often over the next4 days the destruction of British fish was generally ac-cidental, or the result of disputes being settled betweenFrench merchants and French fishermen there wasno desire to hurt European Community fish, but ratherto obtain regulation of extra-community cheap imparts.After all, when 2000 French fishermen had descendedon the Rungis central market outside Paris on a nightthat will remain engraved in peoples minds for many ayear, not so say in a song or two, between 80 and 90%of the fish encountered was from outside the Commu-nity.

Exchange

WILL EUROPEAN FISHERIES SURVIVE?

James Smith

SAMUDRA 7/93 -

There were a few well-placed remarks about how theCommon Fisheries Policy quota system allows theFrench to take 3 or 4 times as much fish off Cornwallthan the Cornishmen themselves, but generally speak-ing, one had the impression that the large majority ofthe audience had not come to add fuel on to a mostlycontrived Anglo-French fish war. After about 5 min-utes, Robert Kilroy went upstage and asked afisherman’s wife what she thought of the Frenchfishermen’s behaviour. In answer, she turned the gunsinward, so to speak, pointing straight at the BritishConservative M.P. present, Mr Gary Streeter. In sub-stance, she said “The French did what was required toattract attention to the plight that we all share, and

which the British government has done nothing to re-lieve”.

From then on, it was all a Britannico-British affair, asthe French would say- At the end of the programme,Kilroy encouraged the audience to congratulate Mr.Streeter on his courage in attending it, as he did in-deed come in for a lot of hometruths. At times, all hellwas let loose, with cries of ‘rubbish’ reverberatingaround the set, Kilroy having some trouble in keepingthe epithets just on the decent side of ‘imbecile’. It allcame out, one might say:

the British government had sold the British fishingprofession down the river at the time of the Icelan-dic Cod War, and were now allowing cut-rate im-ports from Iceland which corresponded to the quo-tas that could have been fished by British fisher-men who had traditionally been fishing them be-fore the Cod War

the British government was about to implement aFish Conservation Act which would unilaterally re-duce fishing effort by British fishermen, withoutcompensation, while the French and others couldsafely continue fishing the same stocks...

Poor brave Mr. Streeter, there was not much that hisone year’s experience in the Commons as a well-groomed young Conservative back-bencher could dofor him, when a fisherman’s wife had actually seenhim support the Fish Conservation Act in a publicmeeting Gone was all hope of deniability’ here I Suchthat the British lion in him could let out no more than apetulant whine. He said, yes, he thought the govern-

ment should consider arming British patrol vessels.And you know, you people - (from the lower-decks thatshould know your place) - have done your cause a lotof harm with the British public by blocking the port ofPlymouth. The trouble is, there are too many fisher-men chasing too few fish, etc, etc.

And what about the flagships, Mr. Streeter? (60 Span-ish vessels are allowed, with approval from the Inter-national Court at the Hague. to fly the British Red En-sign and fish British quotas). How did the British gov-ernment limply allow that to come about? Where wasthe indignation which we have come to expect when itcomes to contempt for the sacrosanct Union Jack?

The trouble is, we’re just not in the nineteenth centuryany more. Attempts to deny the ordinary fisherman aresponsible role in fisheries resource management arenothing but inglorious. The praise of ‘rigid discipline’ in

SAMUDRA 7/93 -

the British maritime tradition that we were taught atschool surely has to be tempered with the fact thatmanagement of a finite resource requires a participa-tive approach.

All in all, this television programme was useful, be-cause it set the scene for what was to come during thenext three hectic days. Our private plane, piloted by ameticulous Biggles-type character, took us to Grimsby,Castletownbere (Co. Cork, Ireland), Dublin,Haverfordwest (near Milford Haven), and finally Ply-mouth, before returning to Quimper. On each of ourstops, the importance of the French market for Britishand Irish fish was always stressed, and more disci-plined demanded of the French comrades. But thedesire to find common ground for a joint Europeanfishermen’s platform in their struggle with Brussels wassincerely shared.

On the market issue, there was concensus on the needfor its regulation as a sine qua non of resource man-agement, a problem which fishermen could seriouslyaddress at a later stage. The French feel that thereneeds to be firm action to regulate the entry of freshfish into the EEC, which represents only about 10% oftotal imports and is the crucial item if local fishermenare to survive. A reference price should be fixed at ahigher level than the price at which locally-producedfish are withdrawn from the market. The British, repre-sented by Richard Banks of the National Federationof Fishermen’s Organisations in Grimsby, would alsowant to impose import quotas of frozen fish for eachcountry, in an attempt to stop illegal imports arriving inthe EEC via member states. Actually, the British wouldwant market regulation to include quantity restrictions,strict quality standards, and reasonable tariff barriersof 15% (which compares to the 5% allowed in a cur-rent joint venture fishing agreement between the EECand Argentina).

Despite the undoubted goodwill, there is obviously dif-ficulty in achieving concensus within the European fish-ing profession on the proposals to be made to the Coun-cil of Ministers in Brussels, which was felt to be thecrucial channel for possible change. The Spanish, Ital-ians and Greeks, in particular, are vociferous in theirclaims for favourable import quotas, since it is largelytheir firms that are responsible for fishing them in for-eign waters. On the other hand, the Irish and British,at least, have little chance of taking up access rightsnegotiated by the EEC in third country waters, as theirboats are too old. Besides, processors and merchantsthroughout the EEC require the imports in order to pro-vide the 50% of the total European consumption of12.million tons that are not covered by production inEuropean Community waters. Low prices for imports,it is often felt by European producers, override the needto maintain quality standards.

One can also get quickly bogged down in technocratic

considerations and end up trapped in a ‘catch-22’ situ-ation the European Commission has instituted rulesthat it is loath to change, such as ‘autonomous importquotas without reciprocal rights’. After all, the EECagreement with the Argentine was only signed lastNovember.. .so how can one now go back on whatwas decided regarding the 5% barrier allowed on aquota of 120.000t of hake? The Commission is equallyloath to institute serious import controls, which meansthat up to a third of fish imports enter the Communityillegally in one way or another. When challenged, theCommission can always say that it has not been pro-vided with the kind of up-to-date data by member stateswhich could justify controls, especially as the GATTacts as a discouragement of market regulation.

The Commission is both rigorous and academic in itsmanagement of procedures, while being lax and un-scrupulous and open to all sorts of political pressurewhen it comes to formulating policy. For instance, theEEC-Senegal fisheries agreement which was beingdebated in the European parliament at the time thisarticle was written had already been sealed with a 16million ECU payment to the Senegalese government,just before the presidential elections in Senegal gotunder way...

As long as the European market is provided with fish,while safeguarding European deep-sea fishing capac-ity, it appears that fish stocks control in Third countrywaters and defense of European fishing communitiesare secondary considerations.. When it comes to thecrunch, what does the European housewife care aboutthe predicament of European fishermen, as long asshe is getting food at the lowest possible price (whichmeans that fish could be competing with substitutessuch as chicken, minced meat, pork, etc)?

Nevertheless, aided by the present recession, the factremains that we are witnessing the worst crisis in theEuropean fishing sector since the European CommonFisheries Policy (CFP) was first drafted. While massbankruptcies loom as an inevitable occurrence withinthe next few months among European fishermen, theirindictment of the CEP is a scathing one:

ruin for the European producers, for the sake of afree market

failure in regulating fish-stocks, especially as thepresent crisis is forcing European fishermen to fishmore to compensate for lower prices

a distorted ‘foreign policy’, since not only has theencouragement of fishing in third country waters(at vast expense to the European taxpayer) donelittle to reduce fishing effort in European waters,but it is encouraging the influx of cheap importsfrom abroad without doing much that is positive forthe development of fishing capacity by Third World

SAMUDRA 7/93 -

operators. Nor is it really providing inexpensive fishto the European housewife.

Which brings us back to the purpose of the Europeantour by the French fisherman’s Survival Committee,as well as to the ‘raison detre of such a committee. Itwas frequently said during the tour that the existingprofessional organizations, such as EUROPECHE orthe Association of European Producers’ Organizations,seem to be too biased towards industrial fisheries, toodivided, or too lacking in mandate, to come up withcommon solutions.

The official producers’ organizations, set up by Brus-sels in the first place, don’t seem to be much morethan instruments of management, and it is no wonderthat fishermen all over Europe are convinced that theirinterests are not being properly represented. In Francethe unions are politicized and have little more than5% representation among the fishing profession skip-pers and crew appear as members of the sameunions... There was a concensus that solutions to thepresent crisis could only come if efforts were made byEuropean producers to apply pressure on their respec-tive governments to defend common positions at Coun-cil of Ministers level on market issues, and, in casesconnected with resource management, to achieve rec-ognition of solutions negotiated by the producers them-selves.

Hence the need for more spectacular action by Euro-pean fishworkers, and the possibility of extending theSurvival Committee to the whole of Europe wasmooted... We have surely not seen the last of portblockages and other mass demonstrations, organizedon a national or international basis. Clearly, this is notquite the British or Irish cup of tea, but they appearedto be prepared to go along with it. There was somecall for advice from the French on mobilization tech-niques for instance, the British and Irish were inter-ested to learn that the French had made every effortto keep fishing, while at the same time instituting asystem, which enabled fishermen to be active in theSurvival Committee during the periods spent on landbetween fishing campaigns.

The fleeting visit to South-West Ireland provided onevery visual example of what artisanal fishing commu-nities are having to face on a world-wide basis. Thiswas the awesome sight of the ‘klondikers’ anchored inBantry Bay upwards of 30 Russian and perhaps Pol-ish factory ships, each with about 120 workers on board,processing pelagic fish fished by European fishermenfor sale in the Third World. These ‘klondikers’ wereapparently hired by 3 British companies. The Irish fish-ermen were resigned to their presence, in the hopethat they brought temporary stimulus to the localeconomy, but there was a sneaking feeling, freely ad-

SAMUDRA 7/93 -

mitted but scarcely fathomed, that somehow the‘klondikers’ were undermining their survival in a round-about way. On this score, could the recent Chileanfisheries law, which bans foreign factory ships fromcoming within 120 miles of the coast, perhaps providea pointer or two?

There was a fitting end to our journey as Biggies treated

us to a nostalgic sight by swooping down low over thebrightly-lit Cinq Ports of Penmarch, St Guenole,Lesconil, Loctudy, and Le Guilvinec. Arguably the best-run and most prosperous ports in Europe, with not alittle help from the government and even from Brus-sels. All the result of 50 years of fighting spirit, thestubble-chinned and ragged-clothed fisherman but amemory on a faded postcard. And what now?

SAMUDRA 7/93 -

While the legal regime of marine fisheries has beenstudied in great depth that of aquaculture has beencomparatively neglected. To partly overcome this la-cuna, the FAQ undertook a study three years ago toexamine the legal regime governing aquaculture.

The study focused on these key legal issues:

the general place of aquaculture in the legal sys-tem

access to and use of water and land

environmental aspects, including fish disease, im-port of live fish and the introduction of non-indig-enous species

Given the vastness of the subject, the comparativestudy was necessarily limited to particular countries.Nonetheless, ft attempted to capture the differencesbetween common law and civil law systems, devel-oped and developing countries, and centrally plannedand capitalist countries.

The Aquaculture Steering Committee of the FisheriesDepartment of FAO defined aquaculture thus:

Aquaculture is the farming of aquatic organisms, in-cluding fish, molluscs, crustaceans and aquatic plants.Farming implies some form of intervention in the rear-ing process to enhance production, such as regularstocking, feeding, protection from predators. etc. Farm-ing also implies individual or corporate ownership ofthe stock being cultivated For statistical purposes,aquatic organisms which are harvested by an individualor corporate body which has owned them throughouttheir rearing period contribute to aquaculture, whileaquatic organisms which are exploitable by the publicas a common property resource, with or without ap-propriate licences, are the harvest of fisheries.

Aquaculture is by nature a multidisciplinary and multi-form activity. There are thus a varying number of waysin which a state and its legal system could deal with it.“Aquaculture lacks a firm legal status of its own, it be-ing classified neither as agriculture, nor animal hus-bandry, nor truly fishing states the African RegionalAquaculture Centre.

There is also a mistaken view that aquaculture is a

new activity and therefore, it is hardly surprising thatcountries have yet to elaborate legal frameworks forit. The fact, however, is that the technique of aquacul-ture has been known and used for centuries. More-over, there is evidence that its legal implications wereat least examined a century ago.

In studying the countries, FAO categorised them intothree, viz, those with a specific set of rules on aquac-ulture; those with some specific aquaculture legisla-tion; and those with an enabling law.

The last category includes most of the countries re-viewed, particularly the developing ones. It covers allthe countries with a basic law (usually the FisheriesAct) for

setting up some principles on aquaculture, or

investing the legitimate authority with the power toregulate aquaculture.

Based on this preliminary analysis of selected legisla-tion on aquaculture, the study arrives at the followingobservations:

Few regulations exist which are purposely designedto protect or allow aquaculture. Provisions foraquaculture are usually incorporated into existinglegislation. The aquaculturist must often cope witha complex network of laws and regulations dealingwith land tenure, water use, environment protec-tion, pollution prevention, public health, and fisher-ies in general. This leads to confusion, conflicts andoverlappings.

Such confusion springs from the difficulty in resolv-ing the problem of conflicting uses of natural re-sources. Many aquaculture activities involve re-sources which other members of society can or al-ready do utilise. Moreover, there are social and cul-tural factors which may impede an effective imple-mentation of legislation.

There is a great global diversity of legal frameworksgoverning aquaculture operations. This is becausethe individual needs of countries vary considerably.Therefore, legislation should consider:

the purposes of the industry (e.g. market - local or

LEGISLATION ON AQUACULTURE:A PRELIMINARY REVIEW

Sebastian Mathew

Analysis

SAMUDRA 7/93 -

export; employment; sport; recreation);the resources or species used;

the system for production (e.g. pond, peal cage,open water etc); and

the environment in which production is done (low-lying inland plains; coastal swamplands, lakes/res-ervoirs, along rivers and streams, in the sea (baysand inlets), along irrigation systems.

However, aquaculture laws are subject to ancillarychanges in the law with regard to water and land,as well as the environment and fiscal matters. (Thisis in contrast to marine fisheries whose laws arenot as affected by these collateral changes.) Hence,it is not realistic to recommend a model aquacul-ture law to cover all circumstances.

Freshwater farming is less closely regulated (thanthat in marine waters) since it is usually conductedon privately owned land, in legally controlled wa-

ter, and without the need for capturing wildbroodstock or seed.

There is a tendency to over-regulate. By creatinglegal uncertainties, some regulations can hamperthe establishment of an aquaculture enterprise orits continued operation.

Lately, the importance of aquaculture has in-creasedin many countries, in terms of both volume of produc-tion and diversity of aquacultural practices. Further-more, for several countries aquaculture is also an im-portant means to raise food production.

However, this importance is not reflected in the legalregimes governing aquaculture. In view of this, it isnecessary to analyse a country’s individual needs andits policy towards the role of aquaculture in its society.Such an analysis would facilitate an examination ofthe existing legal regime. From this could followchanges to the law, and removal of obstacles to de-velopment.

SAMUDRA 7/93 -

The Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollutionby Dumping Wastes and other Matter, known as theLondon Dumping Convention (LDC), is a major globalinstrument that seeks to address the problem of ma-rine pollution, by regulating the disposal of waste atsea from ships, aircrafts and other man-made struc-tures. The LDC was opened for signature in Novem-ber 1972 and has at present 69 countries as contract-ing parties. The fifteenth annual consultative meetingof the LDC (LDC15) is being held in London from 9 to13 November 1992. Taking place in the aftermath ofEarth Summit convened by the United Nations Con-ference on Environment and. Development (UNCED)in Rio de Janeiro, LDC15 is expected to make an ef-fective response to the problems of marine environ-ment.

What makes this meeting potentially significant is itsdecision to review LDC’s long-term strategy and tomake necessary amendments in the convention andits annexes so as to make it a more forceful instru-ment in addressing the issue of dumping. It has beenargued by some that the regulatory approach that theLDC has followed so far has been a major obstacle tobeing effective enough, and that this approach haseven resulted in facilitating rather than combatingdumping. There have been demands for a preventiveor precautionary approach instead of a regulative one.

The meeting will consider an important proposal offar-reaching implications made by Denmark and sup-ported by other Nordic countries. The proposal advo-cates a series of amendments to be adopted ‘in prin-ciple’ at LDCI5 and to be formally adopted in 1993. Ifaccepted, this would result in, among other things, thebanning of:

dumping at sea of radioactive as well as industrialwastes,

ocean incineration of liquid noxious gases,

seabed burial at sea of banned wastes, and

the export of wastes destined for dumping to statesthat are not party to LDC.

Many of these issues debate in LDC over the conven-tion adopted the first moratorium on marine dumpingof low and intermediate level radioactive waste. In1986, a second moratorium resolution stipulated thatthe moratorium will continue pending the completionof studies and assessments. The intergovernmentalpanel of experts investigating this issue is expected tocomplete its study by the end of next year. This meansthat if LDC15 does not take new decisions, the dump-ing of radioactive waste may resume once the panelsubmits its report. This is particularly worrisome in thelight of the interest expressed in the prospect of dump-ing by Japan, Taiwan, France, United Kingdom andthe United States.

LDC’s scientific group has submitted a report on is-sues raised in earlier consultative meetings, and thishas raised issues for deliberation at LDC15. These in-clude the adoption of a waste assessment framework—a decision-making framework for determining thesuitability of specific wastes proposed for ocean dis-posal.

Green peace has suggested that in tune with the pre-ventive approach’, a stricter reverse listing strategyneeds to be adopted here, which would prohibit alldumping except those wastes listed as suitable forocean disposal. They have also argued that the meet-ing should take adequate measures to prevent the useof hazardous wastes in the construction of artificialreefs and islands.

In the light of the UNCED recommendations, LDC15will consider furthering its efforts to terminate the prac-tice of sea incineration and the sea disposal of indus-trial wastes. In the case of sea incineration, LDC13had targeted its termination by the end of 1994. Re-cently, an immediate ban has been demanded bysome. In addition to the Danish proposal, the meetingwill address other UNCED issues as well, related toNorth-South financial assistance and technology trans-fer. There have been demands for strengthened com-mitments by industrialized countries to assist devel-oping countries in achieving ecologically sound andsocially equitable development.

Prevention or regulation

THE LONDON DUMPING CONVENTIONREVIEWS ITS STRATEGY

Event

SAMUDRA 7/93 -

In the last two decades a serious and severely dam-aging fish disease has been spreading through coun-tries of the Asia-Pacific region with dangerous conse-quences to the fish resources and livelihood of inlandfisherfolk. For a disease which is twenty years old, it isstrange and baffling that the scientific community hasnot been able to pinpoint its causative agent.

Not only is this disease -now officially termed EpizooticUlcerative Syndrome (EUS) - a scientific puzzle or,optimistically speaking, a scientific challenge, it is alsoa worrisome social problem. Hundreds of inland fish-ermen, often the more marginalised amongst thefishworker communities in the affected countries, havebeen overnight deprived of their incomes, as consum-ers began to totally reject the disfigured, disease-stricken fish. There are no signs of an immediate abate-ment of EUS and, worse, there are all indications of apossible spread of the disease.

Though cutaneous ulcerative diseases are commonamongst wild and cultured fish, for the last two de-

cades, regions in Australia and Asia-Pacific have beenwitness to a group of epizootic syndromes, all involv-ing a severe ulcerative mycosis.

As Kamonporn Tonguthai of the Aquatic Animal HealthResearch Institute, Kasetsart University, Bangkok,paints out, there have been several reports of ulcer-ative disease conditions amongst wild and cultured fishin this region. While FUS refers specifically to the Asiancondition, there are great similarities with other fishconditions. However, Tonguthai cautions, only furtherresearch can confirm whether these are indeed thesame disease.

EUS was first reported in March 1972 from centralQueensland, Australia, where several species of es-tuarine fish had developed large shallow circular orirregular skin lesions. Initially named ‘Bundaberg fishdisease’, it displayed a pronounced seasonality andwas soon associated with prolonged periods of rainwhich was thought to alter the quality of water andmake it prone to infection by bacteria. As it spread to

EUS: MYSTERIOUS FISH DISEASESTALKS INLAND WATERS

Event

SAMUDRA 7/93 -

several species of freshwater fish in the river systemsof Papua New Guinea and Western Australia, the dis-ease soon came to be called “red spot”.

In 1980 a similar haemorrhagic condition was seemamong fish, including rice-field fish, in Java, Indone-sia. But pathological and epidemiological differencesseemed to set this apart from the Australian condition.However, subsequent outbreaks of EUS in brackishwater fish in the Philippines and typically ulceratedsnakeheads and catfish in other states of Indonesiahave confirmed the link with the Australian red spot.

In 1986 the FAO’s Consultation of Experts on Ulcer-ative Fish Diseases adopted the name “Epizootic Ul-cerative Syndrome” (EUS) to specifically refer to theAsian condition. The disease is characterised by largecutaneous ulcerative lesions which periodically causethe death of many species of wild and cultured fresh-water fish.

The first reports of classic EUS came from peninsularSouth-East Asia, in 1979-80 from Malaysia’s BekokRiver system and the next year, from its northern ricegrowing states, where freshwater rice-field species offish succumbed to serious ulceration. In the course ofthe decade since then, the disease spread to almostall parts of South and South-East Asia, specificallyThailand, Laos, Myanmar, Vietnam, Cambodia,Bangladesh, India and Sri Lanka. In its westwardspread from Australia, EUS’ latest occurrences havebeen reported from Kerala, Gujarat and Rajasthan inIndia.

The spread of EUS shows a certain pattern. Outbreaksare typically cyclical, with the first occurrence beingparticularly severe and recurrences over the next twoto three years, less so- There is, however, no unifor-mity to this pattern. While the disease spread rapidlyin some areas like Malaysia and Thailand, in otherareas like Indonesia, its progression was slow. More-over, in Malaysia there was a one year gap betweenoutbreaks.

The mechanism of spread is also not clear. The dis-ease has spread rapidly northwards where the riversflow from east to west, and equally rapidly westwardsin areas where the rivers are oriented from north tosouth. It would thus not be possible to attribute thetransport of the pathogens to, say, monsoonal floodplains alone. Also mysterious is the spread of EUS toareas like Sri Lanka and some islands of the Philip-pines. (The unrestricted trade in live fish could be amode of transmission.)

Investigations into the potential causative factors havefocused on viral, fungal and bacterial agents. Envi-ronmental parameters have also been studied. Theseabiotic factors are believed to cause sublethal stressto the fish, initiating disease outbreaks. Potentialcauses of stressful environmental conditions include

temperature, eutrophication, sewage, metabolic prod-ucts of fishes, industrial pollution and pesticides.The quality of water also appears to be significant froman aetiological point of view. Parameters like salinity,alkalinity, temperature, hardness and chloride concen-tration (many of which are seasonally variable) areknown to predispose fish to attacks of EUS. Infectedfish showed signs of improvement when transferredto clean freshwater ponds.

Also, in much of Asia’s paddy field systems, EUS oc-curred towards the end of the paddy cultivation periodwhen the water level is low, decomposition of organicmatter like grass and water weeds is common, andcertain types of ferlilisers accumulate.

Yet, as Tonguthai points out, ultimately no definite con-clusions about the cause of the disease can be drawnsince ‘outbreaks are considered to be a complicationof several factors’.

Correct diagnosis of EUS, focusing on symptoms ofbehaviour, external signs and histopathology, is theprelude to treatment. Both prophylactic and therapeu-tic treatment, usually involving the addition of quick-lime, have reported satisfactory results. Yet, withoutlarge-scale comparative assessments across a vari-ety of affected species, liming cannot be unequivo-cally advocated. In fact, lakes in Kerala, India, withhigh levels of natural deposits of lime, have also beenthe site for EUS outbreaks.

Prophylaxis revolves around good general husbandrypractices including disinfection, opting for water fromtube wells rather than irrigation canals or paddy fields,and ensuring disease-free stock and healthy fry. Apartfrom not overstocking ponds, other preventive mea-sures include the use of antibiotics and chemicals.

Successful prophylactic and therapeutic treatmentshave generally involved the addition of quicklime(CaO), a relatively simple and inexpensive way ofenhancing water quality. This fact only reinforces theneed to overcome the environmentally degrading con-ditions which may predispose fish to disease.

Salt, potassium permanganate, bleaching powder andmalachite green can also be recommended as alter-native, or additional, prophylactic measures. Othersinclude formalin, iodine and the peroxide disinfectantVirkon S. Claims of success have also come from‘traditional’ home-spun remedies like the applicationof crushed tamarind or banana leaves or turmeric pow-der to the infected ponds. These methods, however,have not been scientifically tested. Antibiotics havebeen found useful in controlling secondary bacterialinfections.

The aetiology of EUS is still shrouded in mystery.Clearly, more studies are needed, with particular em-phasis on investigating the role of Oomycete fungi and

SAMUDRA 7/93 -

viruses in the pathogenesis of the disease. Also re-quired are more detailed descriptions of the histopatho-logical characteristics of EUS and similar ulcerativeconditions.

Experience points to the need for an integrated ap-proach to fish health, particularly general husbandryand management techniques. This, however, calls formore detailed studies quantifying preventive and cura-tive treatments. Only such studies will produce work-able techniques to control EUS in cultured fish popu-lations, and perhaps in wild fish populations in enclosedand semi-enclosed waters.

Environmental factors like temperature, alkalinity, hard-ness and pH, are important in initiating EUS. But again,only further, more rigorous, experimental work can de-termine which ones are really relevant.

The absence of adequate data on the relationship be-tween EUS and the environment. In this context, con-tinuous and region-wide monitoring programme of se-lected environmental parameters, ought to help in elu-cidating these variables.

As a devastatingly chronic syndrome, EUS has fewparallels in the history of fish diseases in inland waterbodies in the Asia-Pacific region. Its seemingly relent-less spread has only fuelled panic and despair amongstinland fisherfolk and aquaculturists.

While scientists are yet to come to firm grips with the

aetiology of EUS, experiences from the affected re-gions suggest simple and invariably effective measuresfor treatment and prophylaxis.

Evidently, however, much more scientific research re-mains to be done on the aetiology and histopathologyof EUS. Equally important would be further socio-eco-nomic analyses of its impact on the livelihood and work-ing conditions of affected fisherfolk.

Significantly, the experience of affected countries re-veal certain institutional and organizational lacunae.Few governments have any ready-made, adequatelyresponsive institutional arrangements in the fisheriessector to tackle as major a crisis situation as that cre-ated by EUS. Not strangely therefore, action is oftencontradictory—at times slow and at other times, hastyand misdirected.

However, the experience of Kerala, India demonstratesthe power of mass-based campaigns and agitationprogrammes by fishworkers organizations. Such grass-roots action forcibly elicited responses from the state.These may not have been as effective as manyfishworkers would pave desired. However, they cer-tainly represented some form of redressal.

In this perhaps lies a pointer to the future of collectiveaction. As the tides of confusion and ignorance con-tinue to retard scientific progress in unraveling the mys-tery of EUS, only such campaigns can hope to bringsuccour to the affected fisherfolk.

SAMUDRA 7/93 -

As the civil war rages on in Burma, the ruling military junta(SLORC) is locked in a struggle with ethnic minority groupsand other opposition parties which make up the Demo-cratic Alliance of Burma. Frightening stories of human rightsviolations are now regularly pouring out of the country.Meanwhile, following the September 1988 military coup,Burma’s doors have been flung open to foreign compa-nies. The one area which is attracting global capital is fish-eries. Leases for offshore fishing are now offered to for-eign vessels. Foreign aid and loans have increasedBurma’s catching, storage and processing facilities.

According to The Economist Intelligence Unit, the statePearl and Fishery Corporation has acquired new trawlers,taking its fleet size to 68. In 1989-90 the corporation pro-duced about 13,438 tons of fish. Burma’s principal fishingareas are in the delta region, the southern coastal regionsand the Bengal Gulf.

Today the most important player in the Burmese fishingindustry is Thailand. Though co-operation between the twocountries began over 20 years ago, when Thai compa-nies were allowed to fish in Burmese waters in 1968, theinexperience of both countries led to the abolition of thisco-operation. However, in 1988 SLORC began to revivethat policy, eager to earn foreign exchange to fund pur-chase of weapons from China, as alleged by human rightsactivists. Initially, only three Thai companies were allowedto send their trawlers into Burmese waters. But by mid-1989, there were 241 Thai trawlers legally fishing there.

Since 1990 Thai fishing companies have been rampantlyexploiting Burmese marine waters. Thailand’s largest sup-ply of shrimp comes from Burma, to be exported to theUS and Japan. According to the Burma Rights Movementfor Action (B.U.R.M.A.), many Thai boats get illegal entryinto restricted coastal waters by bribing the Burmese navy.The Thai companies are said to earn thrice as much prof-its from illegal fishing boats as from those legally permit-ted inside.

All this activity has depleted fish stocks for local traditionalfishermen, impoverishing many, especially in areas of theTennaserin coast, forcing them to cross the border to en-ter Thailand illegally in search of jobs. Each day an aver-age of 30 people from Mon State and Karen State leavefor Thailand illegally. Most end up working as cheaplabourers in building construction sites. According to one

estimate, each month around 700 Burmese (not all fish-ermen) legally leave the country.The poor traditional fishermen are also forced to pay theBurmese army the ‘porter tee to avoid having to serve asporters and human mine sweepers. The first fishing agree-ment between Thailand and SLORC, signed on April 13,1990, was a joint investment project for one year (of apotentially ten-year contract). This led to the creation of anew joint venture company, the Thai Myanmar FisheriesCo., comprising members of the Thai Fisheries Associa-tion and the Myanmar Fishing Enterprise. With a total in-vestment of about US$ 24 million, the project allowed 165Thai vessels to operate legally in Thai waters.

SLORC favoured Thai investment because of the needfor foreign currency, Thai expertise in fishing technology,and the hope of new jobs from these joint ventures. Afterthe agreement, however, twice as many illegal Thai ves-sels began to fish in Burmese waters too. Subsequently,the joint venture was extended both in time and scope toinclude fish-meal and canned tuna factories, as well asice and cold storage facilities. The ownership pattern waschanged to 50/50 from the previous 51/49 in favour ofSLORC.

Foreign investment is not confined to Thailand. Countrieslike Singapore, Japan, China, South Korea and even theUS (with one fishing company, MMA Finance Inc.) have apresence in Burma. Such investments have led to strongand demonstrative reactions, particularly by those who viewthem as an interference in Burma’s struggle for freedomand democracy. In one instance, Burmese student activ-ists captured and later destroyed one large Thai trawlerwhich was fishing well within the area declared oft-limitsto foreign boats.

Activists are also appealing for international protests. SinceAugust 1991, US Senator Patrick Moynihan has askedfor sanctions against shrimp imports to the US from Thai-land. Explaining the rationale for sanctions, one Burmesedissident said, “By importing sea foods from Thailand whichare harvested in Burmese waters, the US, Japan and othermarine food importers are indirectly placing money in thehands of SLORC, and are also supporting the severe ex-ploitation of small local Burmese fishermen who can nolonger make their living and must become refugees andillegal immigrants”.

Burma

FISHING IN THE TIMEOF THE MILITARY JUNTA

Sebastian Mathew

Analysis

SAMUDRA 7/93 -

When Malick Gueye, a master fisherman from GuetN’Dar (St Louis), Senegal, dropped in at Manakkudi, afishing village of South India, to renew acquaintancewith Mariadas, a fishworker he had met at an ICSFconference in Thailand, little did either one realise thatthat was the beginning of a surprising and fruitful rela-tionship.

The only language they shared was that of fishing.Malick was intrigued by the trammel net at Mariadas’home. He had never seen one before. Made of threelayers of nylon mesh - the middle one loose, with small,50 mm meshes and two narrower ones with biggermesh size of 240 mm-these are locally called ‘disco’nets, after the music style then popular in India whenthe trammel net was introduced.

Used mainly to catch prawns during the July-Augustseason, the South Indian fishermen fabricate thesenets at home. Malick soon wanted to know everything

about this net, which he felt would be very useful backhome in Senegal, where prawns were plenty but ex-ploited only by the industrial trawlers. Only river fish-ermen caught prawns, of the smallest variety, in shal-low areas of the river at night with a dragnet. If only 2the local fishworkers could learn to catch prawns atsea and compete with the trawlers!

ICSF agreed to Malick’s request for a demonstrationof the trammel net in Senegal, in collaboration withAliou Sall and his centre CREDETIP. Who better todemonstrate the net than Mariadas? Mariadas waskeen to go, provided a Tamil interpreter could be takenalong. ICSF arranged for FMT Raj (Raju), technicalmanager, Boat Building Centre, Muttom, Tamil Nadu,India and Pierre Gillet, Secretary, ICSF Brussels Of-fice to be pad of the team.

Mariadas and Raju first sent CREDETIP samples ofthe materials required to ascertain that they were avail-able in Senegal. They then prepared four sets of tram-mel nets without the lead weights, to facilitate air trans-port. They also took along material for a fifth net aswell as enough floats.

Meanwhile, in Senegal, Malick and the National Col-lective of Senegalese Fishworkers were preparing toreceive the team from India. When they finally arrivedin Dakar, Senegal on 12 May, problems arose. Theycould not procure the necessary materials which wereout of stock and would have to be imported, meaninga wait of two months. Making the lead locally wouldtake at least a fortnight.

Raju suggested a solution the use of nuts of equiva-lent weight. Mariadas agreed, rather grudgingly, forhe was worried not just about the cost of the nuts butalso of his ‘image’ before the Senegalese fishworkers!

On 15 May the team, along with Malick, met the localleaders of St Louis to show them the nets. The re-sponses were incredulous: “Big meshes for big fish,and small meshes for small fish?” Some doubted if itwas not actually a gill-net. But everyone was now wait-ing for the sea trials.

The next day the Indians prepared two sets of nets.While fixing the weights along the bottom-line, they

From South India to Senegal

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERWITH A DIFFERENCE

Exchange

SAMUDRA 7/93 -

clarified to the crowd of curious Senegalese fisher-men that Indian fishworkers do not work with ‘nuts andbolts’, but that they could not get the proper leadweights in Dakar! Used to much heavier weights, theSenegalese fishermen expressed reservations aboutthe distribution of the total weight among so many nuts.

Mariadas demonstrated how to fix the nuts. Soon,Massen, the vice-president of the Senegalesefishworkers’ organization, followed suit. A couple ofriver fishermen joined, insisting they should get prior-ity to test the net in the river.

On Sunday, the next day, the team went on a fishingtrip in the river with a country-boat and the two tram-mel nets totalling 108 m in length. After two hours,they reached the estuary where they set the net in avery strong tidal current at 7 fathoms. After an hour,they lifted the net to find some fish, a lot of crabs, butno prawns. The presence of crabs indicated that thesetting of the nets was correct and their bottom lines-well positioned.

Not having caught prawns depressed the morale ofthe Indians. Mariadas sensed that only Massen couldmake a success of a demonstration at sea. The twogot along famously and Massen suggested a trial in acouple of days. Meanwhile, in a public demonstration,Mariadas patiently taught the Senegalese fishermenhow to set and mend the nets. He also made two addi-tional sets.

On 20 May Massen brought a pirogue, which he com-manded, with his son handling the engine and a small

boy as helper. When the net was being loaded, Massendoubted aloud whether such a light net would everreach the bottom of the sea.

After a difficult and uncomfortable navigation acrossbreakers and surf, with waves about 3 metres high,the net was set. Mariadas showed how to attach thebuoys and the anchors.

When it was lifted after 45 minutes, Massen appearedhappy, for the net had apparently set properly at a depthof 24 fathoms, catching some commercially valuablefish like ribbon fish, which pointed to the likely pres-ence of prawns. The Senegalese were impressed withthe reliability of the net and the performance of theIndian team which withstood the rough sea conditions.

During the post-trial evaluation, the Senegalese com-mented on the absence of prawns. The Indians, how-ever, felt that the trammel net had demonstrated howit was possible to catch a large quantity of fish in ashod time. The team was confident about its success-ful adaptation by the Senegalese fishworkers. Theyfurther felt that the pace of adaptation could be en-hanced through adequate post-harvest facilities likethe supply of deep freezers and ice.

Ultimately, despite the four-fold translation barrier—Tamil, English, French and Wolof—the exchangeprogramme was useful. It was a good example ofICSFs commitment to a South-South interface, whichfacilitates dialogue among traditional fisherfolk of dif-ferent nations who share a means of livelihood and acommon concern for fisheries.

SAMUDRA 7/93 -

Overall objectives/mission

The Consortium for Fair Fisheries Agreements (CFFA)is working for fundamental change in the EC’s policytowards fisheries agreements with countries in theSouth (ACP states and others). In particular CFFA isconcerned that agreements between the EC and coun-tries of the South should:

Be based on principals of equity and social justice.

Prioritise the use of fisheries resources to sustainand develop fishing communities (both in the Northand the South).

Maximise the contribution of the fisheries sector tothe broader social and economic development inthe countries concerned.

Ensure the sustainable exploitation of fisheries re-sources, with fishing effort and catch levels regu-lated within sustainable limits.

Safeguard the rights of workers in the fishing andfish processing industries to reasonable wages, andsafe and adequate working conditions.

Ensure that adequate prices are paid for fish pro-cured in the South, so that a decent return is pro-vided to local fishworkers and the livelihoods ofEuropean fishworkers are not undermined by thesupply of cheap foreign fish.

The narrow perspective of current EC Fisheries Agree-ments, based principally on obtaining access in ex-change for financial remuneration, contradicts and un-dermines the ECs stated development and resourcemanagement policies. It is the ECs stated policy toreduce the capacity of its fishing fleet in line with thevolume of authorised catch limits, and although de-velopment, conservation and sustainable exportationof stocks form part of this policy, they do not yet formpart of the EC’s fisheries agreement negotiatingagenda. Unless these issues are incorporated into fish-eries agreements, the process of stock depletion, whichis now well advanced en the EC’s own waters, will rap-idly overwhelm the fishing zones of countries in theSouth.

Immediate/medium term objectivesTo develop a strategy which will enable CFFA toinfluence the formulation of fisheries agreements

in line with its long term objectives. This strategywill enable the CFFA to interphase effectively withdecision takers in the European Parliament, in theEuropean Commission, in the Governments for in-dividual countries (member nations of the EEC andpartner fishing nations), the fishing industry anddevelopment organisations. The strategy will in-volve undertaking a variety of activities and target-ing published material at a variety of audiencesthrough various media, such as:

• Deriving information from scientists and informedpersons which can be used to promote changesin current policy.

• Producing well informed and articulated papersfor specific decision takers (in the European Par-liament, EC, etc.).

• Publishing articles in various media to influencepublic opinion, and stimulate debate.

• Organising international meetings between policymakers, industry representatives, and fishingcommunity representatives to increase mutualunderstanding and respect.

To monitor and to try and influence the outcome ofat least 3 Fisheries Agreements over the next (2-5?) years. These will include Senegal, Namibia andanother state (possibly Mozambique).

To expand the number of organisations participat-ing in CFFA, so as to include organisations throughout EEC Member States.

I know this runs to a few more sentences than 3, but Igot carried away! However a Mission Statement mightbe worded something like:

The Consortium for Fair Fisheries Agreements (CFFA)is working towards influencing fundamental changesin the EC’s policy towards fisheries agreements withcountries in the South (ACP States and others). Theirparticular concern is the sustainable use of fish re-sources for the benefit of fishing communities who de-pend on them for their livelihoods and subsistence.Fisheries Agreements have the potential to undermineor to support this objective!

Organization

COALITION FOR FAIRFISHERIES AGREEMENTS - CFFA

SAMUDRA 7/93 -

ENCOUNTER OF FISHING CREWS OF THESOUTHERN CONE OF LATIN AMERICA

Héctor-Luis Morales

Event

The situation of Latin American fishing crews is criticalin many aspects, due mainly to the tremendouspressure exercised by industrial fleets on resources.The fleets, as well, operating under flags ofconvenience, hire crew from third nations at very lowwages, infringing the agreements established betweenlabour organizations and national companies. On-board living and work conditions continue to be veryarduous and work shifts are regularly more that eighthours.

Serious communications problems subsist amongcrew members, arising from the diversity of ethnicorigin, language and cultural habits, at times causingaccidents and serious conflicts.

Greenpeace is performing follow-up activities on theimplementation of the Rio de Janeiro, Accords,specially Chapter 17 of Agenda 21, on Oceans andMarine Life. One activity is focused on distant watervessels in the Pacific, with a view to generatingconsensus among States, fishery agencies and citizenorganizations with regard to the control of thesefisheries, which have been subject to intense pressure.The vessels in question are based in U.S, Mexican,European or Japanese companies and process tropicaltuna for the international market, satisfying demandin high income and high consumption countries. It isnecessary to arrive at agreements which will makethose fisheries a sustainable resource for the countriesof the Pacific and for the fleets which depend on thatresource.

Note was taken of the agreements between theEuropean Communities and Argentina and othercountries of Latin America, as well as the high rate ofidle capacity in the European fleet, specially that ofSpain. Panelists commented on the problems oradvantages inherent in citizen participation, speciallythat of environmentalists and consumers, in decisionsrelated to fishery regulation.

The company practice of unlimited resource extractionin order to obtain maximum return in the short runwas also noted, with the exception of some companieswith long term strategies, which seemingly involve theprotection of resources. Fishing crews, for their part,are clearly in favour of depending resources, eventhough catch prohibitions may affect their income inthe short term.

Eleuterio Yañez, Professor of the CatholicUniversity of Valparaiso, prepared a summary ofthe issues dealt with on the Plenary Session:

• There is a common feeling, shared by scientistsand workers, that is necessary to coordinate policyfor the management of marine resources andpresent a more united front to the foreign fleets.Those concerns are not evident in policy decisionsand it is necessary to generate decisions whichwill resolve those problems.

• With respect to the fishing industry, he is of theopinion that the common approach is wronginsofar as it is thought that the Fishing Law hassolved all problems, while no one recognizes thatincreased extraction implies the exhaustionimplies the exhaustion of resources. There is nolaw to promote the industry. Moreover, the industryhas been oriented toward increased earningswhich has not necessarily meant improved livingconditions for fishery workers and fishermen.

• With regard to work conditions and employmentprotection, he is of the opinion that workerparticipation must be extended at all levels, bysending the best representatives to fishingcouncils at the national, zonal and regional levels.It is important that those representatives receivesupport so that they will transmit the concerns ofthose they represent with the best argumentspossible. It is important to take advantage of theopportunities available under this government,which is more ours than was the dictatorship.

• Scientific research has addressed only biologicalissues, with little being done in the area oftechnological research and none at all in theeconomic and social areas. Projects will bepresented for research into the work reality andthe quality of life of fishing workers.

• Fishing cannot be analysed in isolation fromtransportation and port activities and must beundertaken with a view to the Pacific. In that sameregard, it must be recognized that we have a“daddy” who protects that activity and that it isnecessary to seek means of administration morein accordance with civilized customs.

• The basis for rational exploitation is the study ofthe biomass, which is a difficult undertaking.

SAMUDRA 7/93 -

Findings do not exist which could serve as thebasis for establishing a figure for the permissiblecapture of mackerel, for example. It isirresponsible to affirm that there is a biomass of24 million tons. Large ships are less efficient, whilea mid-sized ship is often more efficient that a largervessel. Extensive research is necessary in orderto determine the proper size of the fleet. TheFishing Law has not stipulated the size andmethods of prohibitions. The Public administrationis unequipped to implement those dispositions.The number of vessels in the fleet was frozen inthe North and the Eighth region, but was left openin the Fifth region for news fisheries. We neednot concern ourselves with the 5 mile protectionzone and artisan fishing because there are manyzones vulnerable to perforations. The Fishing Lawneeds to be modified in many aspects.

Guillermo Risco, as President of theOrganization which convoked the Encounter,addressed the assembly at the close of theevent.

This Encounter has allowed us to appreciate outfishworker organizations. FETRINECH is afederation of a very few leaders but representslarge and solid organizations. It involves strongand significant cross-industry labour unions.

Our basic concern has been to protect resourcesand employment. Even during the dictatorship,we struggled to protect resources and, in 1986,measures were implemented to that end. Werepresentatives are proud of our organizations.We know that those protective measures goagainst the interests of our pocketbooks. We wishto work in the long term so as to preserve thesource of our work. A large number of companiesdo not wish to protect resources and we have been

witnesses to the disappearance of numerouscommercial species: prawn, whales, sawfish.

The environmental impact is massive, as can beobserved in the garbage collected by manytrollers. A coordinated struggle to establish andmonitor prohibitions must be undertaken by allcountries. We workers are in favour of thatstruggle, as for example in Chile and Peru.

Serious efforts to undertake research into the stateof marine resources and the living conditions offishworkers are necessary. The finding of thatresearch must be communicated and utilized byour organizations in the development of strategiesand plans.

We must renew concern for the serious scourgeof unemployment and premature ageing amongfishworkers, resulting from over-exploitation onboard. Peruvian fishermen live in subhumanconditions and their ships are true floating coffins.Environmental organizations should denouncethose situations and should also defend the humanspecies, and not only marine species such asseawolves, dolphins, seals and whales.

We need to support of scientists and techniciansas we undertake a common task: to humanizeour work and promote the rights of fishingcrews.

A common element is our thirst for social justice.That we feel united and are not alone, that we willmake progress with strength and unity. We mustestablish a commitment for permanentcoordination. We must have an evaluation of theconclusions as soon as possible and make thisprocess snowball until we are heard.

SAMUDRA 7/93 -

The World Congress of the Apostolate of the Seabrought together, in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., October8- 13, 1992, more than 230 delegates from 41 coun-tries, who work mainly as Chaplains for sailors andfishermen and as hosts in Stella Maris houses in ports.A strong ecumenical spirit united this mainly CatholicCongress with representatives of the Lutheran, Meth-odist, Presbyterian and other Churches, together withobservers from fishermen’s organizations, merchantmarine officers and support organizations.

ICSF was officially invited to participate in the debatesand to present its organizational bases in a PlenarySession. Also present were Marcos do Rosario Pereiraand his wife Mathilde, of the Brazil-ian National Fishermen’s Organiza-tion, and James Smith of CCFD ofFrance and Jean Vacher, of MauritiusIsland, both members of ICSF.

In the final recommendations, atten-tion was called to “the importance ofcomplying with the Maritime Conven-tions of the International Labour Of-fice, which guarantee the minimumrights and safety of fishermen andsailors. The lack of responsibility forthe human person on the part ofsome shipowners, governmental of-fices and other persons concernedwith maritime affairs, leads to the ex-ploitation of sailors. Unacceptablecontracts are still being required andcases of double accounting are stillcoming to light. Often, the necessarymeasures are not taken to provideindemnity for unemployment, illness,accidents and even work related in-capacity. Life and work on board of-ten take place in deficient housingand nutritional conditions. Somewages are insufficient to sustain afamily. All this can be observed spe-cially in industrial fishing which, inmany countries, is the profession withthe highest rates of accidents anddeaths”.

With respect to artisan fishing, thedocument states that ‘they are the

poorest and most marginated, politically, socially andeconomically, of all fishermen. They are frequently leftto their own resources in the face of enormous diffi-culties: the depletion of fish resources; the destructionof fishing zones by national and foreign ships; indus-trial and urban contamination; over-exploitation dueto the use of non-selective fishing gear. Those sameartisan fishermen provide food for the costal popula-tions who suffer hunger and have the greatest interestin the protection of marine resources and the costalenvironment. They need strong support if they are toorganize, achieve improved safety conditions and ac-quire better equipment”.

UNITED STATES:World Congress of the Apostolate of the Sea

World’s news

SAMUDRA 7/93 -

The artisan fishworkers of Peru have organized inFIUPAP, the Federation of Integration and Unity of Ar-tisan Fish workers or Peru. The first national Congresswas held in Caleta Chorrillos, Lima, from June 24 to29, 1991, with 70 delegates from 25 local organiza-tions throughout the country. Work was organized in 7Commissions for the study of the main problems af-fecting fish-workers: marine resources, infrastructure,finance, fishing legislation, commercialization, socialsecurity and illness, specially cholera. In 1992, FIUPAPorganized 2 National Assemblies, extending its net-work to nearly all of Pew’s small ports and artisan fish-ing communities, including those of Lake Titicaca andthe Amazon region.

The artisan fishworkers of Pew were associated withthe federations of industrial fishworkers, who are inte-grated into the fishing industry, one of the largest inthe world in terms of tonnage taken for fish meal pro-duction. Those federations are the FPP, Federation ofPeruvian Fishworkers, and, subsequently, theFETCHAP, Federation of Crews for Fishing for Hu-

man Consumption. With the creation of their own or-ganization, Peruvians may be more autonomous intheir decisions and the acquisition of services, spe-cially credit, consultations and social security, withoutbeing subject to political or governmental condition-ing factors.

Hernan, member of ICSF, is one of their advisors andhas helped with the legal and social configuration anddevelopment of the organization. Peruvian fisheriesare passing through a severe crisis at this time, whichaffects all fishworkers. The Fujimori Government,which is strongly authoritarian, is privatizing the fish-ing industry and foreign enterprises are gaining con-trol of the companies. However, the Government islending strong support to artisan fishworkers by wayof boats, port improvements, means of commercial-ization and technical advice. For this reason, Peru-vian fishworkers will have to strengthen their organi-zation in order to maintain their autonomy and thedefense of their rights.

PERU:Organization of fishworkers

Mexico has more than 10,000 kms of coastline on bothoceans, the Atlantic and the Pacific. Some 330,000fishworkers use a total of 73,000 boats to catch ap-proximately 1.5 million tons, with a commercial valueof around 1 billion dollars. In 1989, there were 94,000persons organized in cooperatives, 25,000 artisanfishworkers organized in fishing unions or “ejidales’,5,000 workers in private fishing companies and 4,000,in semi-State companies. Most fishworkers live andwork in the states of Veracruz, Sonora, Sinaloa,Tabasco, Bala California, Campeche, and Guerrero.

Since 1935, fishworker organizations have been domi-nated by the cooperatives, controlled by the verticalstructures dominant in that country. However, thosecooperatives benefited from the law which gave themexclusive rights to exploit numerous species, includ-ing prawns, oysters and the fish species with the high-est commercial value.

A new organization emerged in 1993, generated by acoordinating instance for support organisms and a sig-nificant group of 58 cooperatives and associations in9 states of the Republic. The constitutional meeting

for the National Network of Coastal Fishworkers ofMexico was held on January 30 - 31, 1993, in LazaroCardenas, Michoacan and in Petacalco, Guerrero,neighboring cities on the Pacific coast of Mexico. Theorganization bears the name of Jose Luis Valdovinos,a regional leader who promoted the organization andwas assassinated by persons unknown in 1992

In their conclusions, the fishworkers denounce the ar-bitrary treatment of poor fishworkers handed out byfunctionaries and politicians and call for renewed de-fense of their rights, principally more speedy process-ing for the legal constitution of their organizations,greater control of the sources of contamination, ac-cess to social security services, the elimination of theinterference of political parties in the internal life oftheir organizations, participation in the debate aboutlaws and regulations related to fishing, and greater co-ordination with Universities and research and devel-opment centres:

The organization has a national coordinating commit-tee, made up of representatives of the diverse states.Melecio Perez Chan, of the fishing cooperative of San

MEXICOThe network of costal fishworkers

SAMUDRA 7/93 -

Pedro, Tabasco, who participated in the InternationalConference in Rome, in 1984, and in Bangkok, in 1990,represents the fishworkers of Tabasco and has showninterest in maintaining fraternal contact with the

fishworker and support organizations of other coun-tries which support the struggles of the fishworkers ofMexico.

In June, 1992, a delegation of union leaders from Chil-ean and Peruvian fishworker organizations were in-vited by OXFAM-ENGLAND to participate in an inter-change experience with fishworker organizations in thePhilippines, specially those linked to NACFAR, NA-TIONAL COALITION FOR AQUATIC REFORM. Thecentral focus of this interchange was to learn aboutenvironmental, technological and organizational con-ditions in that country and to learnthe bases for presenting projects tothe United Nations and other devel-opment agencies. The delegates vis-ited numerous communities and vis-ited organization leaders on morethan 8 islands of that island country.

Oscar Vergara, of Arica, Chile, whowas then a leader in CONAPACH,commented on that trip:

“Philippine fishworkers have familybased organizations, do not partici-pate in the government and do notobtain concrete results. They faceserious difficulties. From the techni-cal point of view, their vessels arevery traditional with little navigationalor catch capacity. The country is verypoor in fishing resources. If some-one catches 10 kilos, he is consid-ered rich. It’s a night’s work, with 12sets of nets, to catch 3 kilos. Fish-workers there say that the Japanesehave depleted fish populationswhich, together with severe watercontamination, has damaged fishing.The Government supports trollingenterprises. There is an extensivecampaign under way to combat con-tamination, to defend against the cut-ting of the mangroves and the occu-pation of the coast by prawn farms.They want 7 kms of coast as an ex-clusive zone for artisan fishing.

‘I came back concerned because inChile and Peru we may arrive at thesame state if we do not protect ourresources- We decided to maintainpermanent contact with them so as

PHILIPPINES:Visit of Chilean and Peruvian fishworkers

to help them in their struggle against contamination.From the technical point of view, we could help themin the ways of managing resources so as to improvetheir catches and living conditions. Philippine fish work-ers live as foreigners in their own country, on their owncoasts, reduced to seeing resources carried off by othercompanies.”

SAMUDRA 7/93 -

Dear Editor:

Thank you for sending me a copy of your magazineSAMUDRA. I enjoyed your editorial very much.

I was very pleased to note that Chile has passed a lawwhich reserves a 5 mile zone for artisan fishing. Thatis an important advance.

I was also pleased to note that the artisan fishworkersof Lamon Bay, of the Philippines, successful in oblig-ing their Municipality to that Bay to industrial fishing.

Already in July, 1984, in Rime, during the internationalconference of artisan fishworkers, I had suggested thecreation of a 20 mile reserve zone for traditional arti-san fishworkers. I was supported by the fishworkersbut the so-called “intellectuals” rejected my proposi-tion of 20 miles, which was already a compromise giventhat 180 miles would still be left to the industrial ships,together with the open seas beyond the 200 mile limit.This last problem is being considered by the FAO to-day, although unfortunately, not the 20 mile zone!

Why 20 miles? I requested the Brussels Commissionto not authorize European Community ships to oper-ate within the 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone(EEZ) of the countries of the South. The following sug-gestion was made: with regard to small costal, ortraditional, fishing, it would be better to reserve

that zone to which those fishworkers have access.Given that the craft of artisan fishworkers can reach20 or 21 miles in three hours, that suggestion seemedwise to me. Since then, I have proposed it consistently,to FAO, in Brussels, to the European Parliament, tothe Government in Paris, etc.

On reading the document you sent me, titled “How tofeed the Third World”, I see that the Brussels Com-mission could easily include this clause in its treatieswith developing countries. The Governments of theSouth, which would have the right to decide with re-spect to that zone, will not be decisive for fear of los-ing the monies to be gained through the treaties al-ready established.

And the small artisan fishworkers, who are not con-sulted when those treaties are signed, have only onemeans to exert pressure, violence, to defend their in-terests and those of costal populations.

Therefore, I would appreciate seeing my suggestionwith respect to a 20 mile costal reserve as EEZ, printedin capital letters in SAMUDRA, without necessarilymentioning my name.

H.C. – Honorary Senator

CORRESPONDENCE:

SAMUDRA 7/93 -

In November, 1992, eight European NGOs met withthe European Community (EC) to establish a frame-work for fisheries agreements between EC fishing com-panies and less developed countries, which would leadto broader perspectives for development. As a resultof that meeting, the Coalition for Fair Fisheries Agree-ments (CFFA) was created.

On December 1, 1992, CFFA held an InternationalSeminar, in Brussels (Belgium), called The Battle forFish Conference. Sixty nine countries of Africa, theCaribbean and the Pacific (ACP) participated, all in-terested in reviewing fishing treaties with Europe. Dip-lomats of diverse countries, Representatives to the Eu-ropean Parliament, specialist news reporters, repre-sentatives of European fishworkers and delegates froma large number of governmental organizations attendedthe Conference.

The objective of the Conference was to discover thebest way to design equitable fishing treaties and tofind the way to revise existing agreements.

The arguments put forward by the participants were:respect for marine ecosystems; the conservation offish resources; sustenance of costal populations; tech-nological progress for those populations through thedevelopment of artisan and industrial fishing, etc. Em-phasis was given to the need for financial compensa-tion, adequate to the exploitation of national waters,with mention being made of the threat to Europeanfishworkers and their jobs, arising from the supply ofhigh quality fish by Third World fishworkers.

The delegation from Namibia raised its voice: “We area country which has recently gained its independenceat the cost of sufferings known to all. We wish to endthe exploitation of our seas. We, today, and our chil-dren tomorrow, have a right to eat. We seek develop-ment for our country, specially in terms of fishing rights.What will be left, when everything has been stolen,even our hopes for the future?

The National Collective of Fishworkers of Senegal(CNPS) also spoke: “Artisan fishworkers take 75% ofthe catch, 15% is taken by the local fishing industry,and only 10% goes to foreign ships. We call for recog-nition of artisan fishing and seek a portion of the ben-efits provided for in the ACP agreements, so that arti-san fishing can develop as a profession and continueto organize”.

Are European fishworkers and their families really in-formed with respect to the continued deterioration oftheir profession, and with respect to the inequality inthe precedents set between Europe and ACP coun-tries? Do the people of Korea and Taiwan know thattheir well-being is often based on the exploitation ofthe Philippine people? Do Polish families imagine theharsh conditions to which Polish fishing crews are sub-jected, as they exploit the waters of Latin America?The diversity of perspectives reveals the complexityof the problem.

Among the Conference results was the agreement toreview Common Fishing Policy (CFP), which will shapeEC management of this issue during the coming 10years. With considerable reductions in the CE fleetforeseen, significant impact in ACP costal fisheries isexpected. The process of renegotiation (together withthe end of term in established treaties) creates an op-portunity for improving and implementing more justfishing agreements, with a view to providing more eq-uitable benefits for all parties. Of particular concern tomany ACP nations is that their fish stocks will be har-vested in a sustainable and productive way, ensuringthe full mobilization of their potential to serve as anengine for much needed social and economic devel-opment.

The Report of the Conference, produced by CFFA, aswell as the expositions and studies presented, are avail-able from the Office of the ICSF Secretariat, in Brus-sels.

BELGIUM:“Battle for Fish” International Seminar

European experience, specially that of some of thenew members of the Community, has been difficult interms of relations with African countries, for example.The impact of new treaties has been initially negativefor fishworkers and for those countries, in general. Al-though significant financial resources have been in-

ARGENTINA:Treaty with the European Economic Community

volved, CEE ships have taken over artisan fishinggrounds in Senegal, for example, destroying fishingskills and triggering social conflict. The treaties havegiven priority to companies connected with local gov-erning groups and have generated profits at the costof artisan fishworkers and the countries, as a whole.

SAMUDRA 7/93 -

Serious conflicts arose in Namibia over the presenceof Spanish trolling fleets taking herring. That new coun-try expelled those fleets from its jurisdictional waters,while a new treaty with the CEE has not yet beensigned, given that Namibia is seeking to impose se-vere restrictions.

Europeans claim to be aware of those difficulties and,for that reason, have created so-called “second gen-eration treaties”, such as that signed with Argentina atthe end of 1992.

The main points of that treaty should be consideredby fishworkers throughout the world because it mayaffect them eventually:

The treaty will be in effect for 5 years and grantsCommunity access to new fishing opportunities, ofgreat commercial value, and will reduce the idlecapacity of the European fleet considerably.

It allows for catches of up to 250 tons annually ofspecies which are very valuable commercially (in-cluding 120 thousand tons of hubbsi herring), con-ger and other resources.

Access is given to foreign ships, many of which willfly the flags of member countries, while others willoperate in temporary associations, through whichthey will have access to a third of the total catchquotas for the species mentioned in the treaty.

The treaty allows for the permanent transfer of asignificant number of Community ships through thecreation of joint companies, in, which Europeansmay hold up to 100% of the capital. That part of thefleet, under the Argentinean flag, will have accessto two thirds of total catch quotas.

In exchange, the European Community will offercommercial concessions in favour of sales in theEuropean market, by way of tariff reductions forfish product imports from Argentina.

During the five year term of the treaty, the Euro-pean Community will invest 162.5 million ECUs,European Monetary Units, of which 95.4 million willsubsidize the joint ventures, 39.1 will be invest-ments in those companies, and 28 million will go toa scientific programme and specific measures.

The parties will seek to establish scientific and tech-nological cooperation projects in order to promotethe conservation and rational exploitation of re-sources and balanced development of the indus-try. Port facilities will be improved and professionaland technical formation in the fishing sector will bepromoted.

Only the future will demonstrate the impact of thesetreaties on the fishing economies of countries both inAsia and in Latin America.

In India, a group of ship building workshops associ-ated with the South Indian Federation of FishworkerSocieties (SIFFS) has generated an interesting expe-rience. That federation operates in the states of Keralaand Tamil Nadu, with 1070 Kms. of coastline, on whichlive around 100 thousand fishworkers. Of those, 6,500are members of SIFFS, in 3 districts, 2 of which are inKerala (Quilon, Trivandrum), while the other, KanyaKumari, is in Tamil Nadu. 99% of the fishworkers areChristian, with the remaining 1%, Muslim, which im-plies great cultural homogeneity, specially in Kerala.The State-organized cooperatives are for owners onlyand do not function adequately. SIFFS grass-rootscommunities are registered as ‘Village developmentsocieties’, providing commercialization, savings andcredit facilities.

Fish commercialization is carried out through auctionsin each grass-roots community of between approxi-mately 50 - 60 persons. One employee holds the auc-tion, under the supervision of a committee. Fishworkersreceive an advance on the sale and a receipt. Duringthe day, they go to the office to receive the balance.

INDIA:SIFFS ship yards

To generate savings, between 5% and 10% of eachmember’s daily catch is retained in a savings passbook. The money belongs to the fishworkers but isdeposited in a bank and does not earn interest.Fishworkers may obtain loans. In each community,there is a 3% commission, a 2% compulsory savingsrate and a 10% loan ‘repayment rate.

They may apply for loans when fish are scarce, asoccurs between January and April. Social security islimited, given that there is no illness insurance andpensions are paid by the Government. In case of acci-dents at sea, the Government pays 10,000 Rupees.

Each community pays interest to the district federa-tion. SIFFS does not receive donations and is financedby boat construction activities and sales of motors.The SIFFS Boat Research and Production Center hasundertaken research into new kinds of vessels con-structed of marine plywood, protected by resin appli-cations and fiber glass. 1,500 boats have been builtsince 1982. Some private concerns have copied theSIFFS model but have not been able to compete with

SAMUDRA 7/93 -

SIFFS prices. The communities have received the sup-port of Intermediate Technology, of Oxford, Great Brit-ain, under the direct supervision of Brian Riordan. Oneof the pioneers in applied research has been the Bel-gian engineer, Pierre Gillet. The original technology ofthe catamaran, built of coconut tree trunks has beenstudied and significant progress has been made to-ward the development of appropriate technology forsailing, with greater security, mobility and fishing ca-pacity. The models produced are:

QUILON: 26 foot water line and Price: 31,800 Ru-pees.

ANJENGO: 26 foot water line beam. Price: 33,500Rupees. 5 foot beam and 67 inch

POZHIYOOR: 28 foot water line and 71 inch beam.

All these boats have a tare weight between 500 and600 Kilos. Fishworkers obtain bank loans to financeboat purchases.

This experience should be communicated to otherfishworkers organizations throughout the world, in or-der to learn mechanisms for economic and productiveassociation, based on internal savings and the appro-priation of technologies according to their needs, pos-sibilities and traditions.

Chilean fishworkers have made progress toward theconsolidation of their organization and maturity in theirgrowth strategies. The XIII National Congress, held inCosta Azul, Fifth Region (Chile), in November, 1992,was characterized by autonomy in the decisions takenand by the active participation of the representativesof each Commission.

CHILE:XIII CONAPACH Congress

Fishworker representatives now participate in the Fish-ing Councils and the Fund for the Development of Ar-tisan Fishing, following close elections, in which short-lived “ad hoc” organizations made an appearance.

CONAPACH participates in an extensive network ofnational and international contacts, within which the

SAMUDRA 7/93 -

need for a united front, both domestically and with thefishworkers of the world, in order to defend resourcesand improve the quality of life in our communities, isclear.

The Blue Europe is now present on the coasts of Latin

America, through a fishing treaty signed with Argen-tina, making it necessary to be alert to its possiblerepercussions in Chile. The huge demand for fish prod-ucts generated by a population of 300 million personsand the economic and political power of the EuropeanBlock may overcome our dependent structures.

Book Review

Paul Chapman was in Houston, Texas, for the WorldCongress of the Apostolate of the Sea. Since retiringas Director of the Center for Seafarers’ Rights, in NewYork, .he has dedicatedhimself to working as Chap-lain and writer, gathering theharsh testimony of the newsea going slaves of thisworld, those that sail in thesuper tankers and refriger-ated container carriers, whoare often jailed and aban-doned in distant lands, farfrom their families and to-tally defenseless. Merchantmarine organizations haveyielded their role as defend-ers of seafarers to thevested interests of theirleaders and those sailorshave no organizations oftheir own.

The cause of justice is alsoa task for the churches and,in its pursuit, church minis-ters are persecuted.

Flags of convenience havecreated a situation of greatinjustice and abuse ofcrews throughout the world. Everyone must denouncethose abuses and seek to generate international mari-time law which will protect the rights of seafarers. Sail-ors are obliged to obey their mates and captains asthough they were slaves. There are no fixed work shifts,nor are the cultural identities of the sailors respected,producing breakdowns in communication which lead

to conflict and tragedy.

Some suggestions and tasks:

1. Organization is essential and every sailorshould belong to a legitimate organization.

2. Maritime workersshould have permanentlabour contracts which coverhealth risks and unemploy-ment.

3. Tours of duty shouldbe no longer than 2 monthsso that sailors may live withand participate in their fami-lies and communities.

4. The policy of fixedovertime should be elimi-nated and a man-mum ofhours to be worked shouldbe established.

5. Ship owners shouldallow for worker participationin the taking of decisionswhich affect them.

6. Workers should par-ticipate in discussions aboutthe corporate policy of their

employers: profit sharing, stock options, cooperativeproperty.

7. Countries which serve as flags of convenienceshould not hide the identity of the phantom owners,who should be clearly identified as responsible agents.specially in case of injustice.

TROUBLE ON BOARD

THE PLIGHTOF INTERNATIONAL

SEAFARERS

Paul Chapman

ILR Press ITHACA, 1992

•I have, walked through cR~;;

~ rrost and rainin search ror my roots,my dreams, my people.

1 ... 10 ........ 01 .......tile WiDds, tile d1i.adu,,..e S0811l, .......d be••tir.l,

bat It _as HI ., ki..dom.

My surdl r•• to .lIe daert,Db tile plaia•••d tlleir towas.widloat liadia. i. tlleir ...

• eitlller my roots .or ., '_ado•.

I ha ve lIlade ., ditconl')'williout 10iDI i. Rarell.

My .- .... _y JUaad-wen re-d mtile lea.

SAMUDRA - aquaticcommons.orgaquaticcommons.org/17593/1/Samudra 7.pdf · SAMUDRA 7/93 - Page 3...

Documents

Transcript of SAMUDRA - aquaticcommons.orgaquaticcommons.org/17593/1/Samudra 7.pdf · SAMUDRA 7/93 - Page 3...