Geopolitical turmoil, anti-institutional demagoguery and krill fishing

Under the weight of the latest unsuccessful disagreements, notably due to geopolitical instability, krill fishing could be less sustainable this year. Sea Shepherd is back on the front line. At the risk of destabilizing the institutions that guarantee a precautionary fishery? An opinion.

In a well-crafted Western, it’s often easy to spot the story’s villains from the comfort of your movie seat. And when it comes to Antarctica, it’s the krill fisherman. He pulls tightly meshed trawls, plucking tufts of crustaceans from the baleens, teeth, and beaks of seals, whales and penguins, against a backdrop of drifting icebergs and islands crushed under the weight of ice. A pristine wilderness where the great whales have just recovered from near extinction since the end of industrial hunting. The question remains: who owns the nutritious krill, the base of the food chain? Defending the rights of the whales, the Sea Shepherd ship is on the trail of Chilean, Norwegian and Chinese vessels that are opposed to a science-based fishery.

Its operations are sensational, grabbing the general public by the guts for the financial support that allows it to cruise in those most isolated corners of the planet. Recently photographed from the decks of luxury tourist vessels in the waters of the Antarctic Peninsula, the abominable ice trawler is also relegated to the dock, a stone’s throw from the restaurant where salmon – some of it raised on krill meal – is served.

Ironically, if one takes an uncritical look at it, this fishery is one of the most precautionary in the world. It is regulated by international agreements, supported by the scientific work of the Antarctic Treaty and the working groups of the CCAMLR Scientific Committee. The latter estimate the total krill biomass at 400 million tonnes. In the main zone, the quantity of krill that could be caught would be 5.61 million tonnes, but as a precaution (the very basis of the Treaty), the limit has been set at 620,000 tonnes. Increased catches are not envisaged without a better distribution on the map, so as not to starve the animals that depend on them locally. There is no international fisheries model that so strictly incorporates the precautionary principle.

So why demonize fishermen when there is a balanced dialogue on this issue? Discussions are taking place between the various Treaty countries, some of which have a vested interest, while others do not, because they do not fish for krill. Also involved are scientific institutions, industry professionals and NGOs with expertise in the subject, including ASOC. By pointing the finger at fishermen in this way, we forget to look elsewhere.

Starting with our plates and our pets’ bowls. Krill feeds cats, dogs, goldfish and farmed salmon. Would the Sea Shepherd donor have a fish fork in one hand and a wallet in the other to enjoy a mass-entertaining theatrical performance? This anti-establishment kind of demagoguery is on the rise – in the U.S. and elsewhere. Probably boosted by social medias? Just like the geopolitical tensions that are creeping into the previously untouched CCAMLR negotiations. But the sound, sustainable management of the krill fishery will continue to be possible as long as there is a clear link between science and politics, within the decision-making bodies of the Treaty system.

Lately, negotiations have stalled. Diplomatic short-circuits have set back the protection of ecosystems, much to the chagrin of “responsible fishermen”, who account for 90% of krill catches. Has the marine protected area project been used as a pretext to stifle a competitor’s economic windfall? As a result of this disagreement, CCAMLR backtracked on the regulations, and fishing companies are now self-regulating the geographical distribution of their catches. While some will try to spread their catches, the temptation to fill the holds as quickly as possible will surely be too strong. To do this, there’s nothing like fishing in the same places, as close as possible to the coasts and penguin colonies.

When instability brings more instability, communication that uses demagoguery is just one more breeze that could topple the house of cards. What would become of the Antarctic in the chaos of disagreements, when other fisheries might emerge? Wouldn’t it be better to support the institutions and scientists whose budgets are dwindling, and with it, their weight in the public debate?

Camille Lin, Polar Journal AG

Find out more about this topic: