Report on the “Fishing in the Polar and Southern Regions” round-table discussion
Last week in France, a round-table discussion on polar fisheries offered an interesting counterpoint between the Arctic and Antarctic, focusing on the consequences of geopolitical instability on the rational, clean and sustainable use of the ocean’s living resources.
A fishing port, a French Navy naval base and the starting point for French polar expeditions, Brest is also home to the Chaire Enjeux Polaires (Chair on Polar Issues). On January 7, it organized a round-table discussion on fisheries management in the Arctic and Antarctic.
The hushed amphitheater of the Institut Universitaire Européen de la Mer was trimed with budding engineers, fisheries aficionados and curious ears. The parallel between the two regions was self-evident, thanks to the guests – experts in the field for each pole – and drew our attention to a major issue: the consequences of geopolitical instability, in addition to climate change, on the rational and sustainable use of the ocean’s living resources.
By way of example, Pierre Karleskind, of the European Parliament’s Fisheries Committee, points out that the Brexit has plunged the EU and northern Europe, all the way to Greenland, into a simmering conflict over fishing rights. Deprived of English waters to negotiate agreements with the Norwegians or Icelanders, the EU is having to reactivate retaliatory trade measures to assert fishing rights in the north. What’s more, high value-added fish are migrating to the Arctic. The balance of power with the EU is therefore shifting in favor of non-EU countries in the North, for example over Svalbard quotas.
Not to mention the consequences of climate change. “Fish stocks are moving northwards, so you have to travel more miles, and fish costs more,” explains economist Emmanuelle Quillérou, pointing out that 50% of maritime traffic in the Arctic’s exclusive economic zones is due to fishing.
The balance of power around fisheries issues was already not in favor of EU participation in the Arctic Council, and since the Brexit, bilateral agreements don’t always come to fruition because of the instability caused. “This can lead to overfishing, because everyone does what they want,” remarks Pierre Karleskind. Antarctica is currently experiencing a similar scenario with krill fisheries.
On October 25, the CCAMLR Commission was forced to backtrack on the protection of the Antarctic. No agreement was reached with China on krill fishing, despite the fact that a long-debated project was about to see the light of day. It provided for the creation of a network of marine protected areas and a better geographical distribution of krill catches in return for an increase in the quantity of krill fished. A project overseen by groups of experts and scientists. “Instead of improving the management of this fishery, we’ve lost a conservation measure,” says Marc Eleaume, a member of the CCAMLR Scientific Committee and of the Muséum national d’histoire naturelle in Paris. For Emile Dediu of the Pew Charitable Trusts, “the infiltration of geopolitical tensions [external of the Antarctic Treaty System; ed. note ] into the negotiation process” has destabilized it.
Illegal fishing is estimated by market observation and included in the estimation of catch limits,” explains Marc Eleaume. Could it be that a even greater threat is emerging in Antarctica? The instability caused by geopolitical issues external to the Antarctic Treaty? And what about pressure groups?
Camille Lin, Polar Journal AG
Find out more about this topic:
