Marta Montojo
Madrid, 22 Feb. The “best solution” to halt the decline of fish populations and promote food security from a “principle of equity” is to “ban fishing on the high seas”, argue ecology and economics experts Daniel Pauly and Rashid Sumaila, recognized by the Tyler Prize. , sometimes called the “Nobel of the environment”.
As nations around the world negotiate a treaty to conserve ocean biodiversity – after those UN talks ended without an agreement last year – experts argue in an interview with EFE that, in part for justice environmental, it should be prohibited fishing activity in the high seas, an area that covers “60% of the oceans of the planet”.
Sumaila, economist, and Pauly, ecologist, received the Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement 2023, which has been awarded for 50 years by the University of Southern California (USA) and which will distribute $250,000 between the two experts to reward his contribution to the science of responsible management of marine resources and ecosystems, as announced on Wednesday.
The two specialists, born in France (Pauly) and Nigeria (Sumaila), carry out several research initiatives within the Institute of Oceans and Fisheries of the University of British Columbia (Canada), and are part of the board of directors of the conservation organization Oceana.
Their proposal to protect the world’s fish species would not threaten the food security of any country, they say, but, on the contrary, “it would facilitate the movement of fish” between international waters – all the maritime surface which is outside the zones Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of states (200 nautical miles from their coasts) – and would allow countries to capture them within their EEZ.
One of the keys to their plan, as they point out, is the principle of equity on which it is based, since “currently between 70 and 75% of the value of fishing on the high seas is taken by a few countries”, while this area “is supposed to belong to all the citizens of the world”, argues Sumaila.
“With this ban on fishing on the high seas, all the fish – or almost – would circulate so that even the smallest countries could benefit from it”, explains Pauly.
The environmentalist argues that small island countries -like Pacific nations- are entitled to demand measures that give them “some advantage” in fishing, as they are “a victim of the North”, because they are the most affected by rising sea levels and other impacts of climate change, a phenomenon to which they contribute little.
This advantage, according to Pauly, could be obtained by giving these islands access to marine resources compared to the ships of large fleets such as Korean, Japanese, Chinese or Spanish.
In this sense, the Minister of the Environment of French Polynesia, Heremoana Maamaatuaiahutapu, two weeks ago supported the ban on fishing on the high seas, as well as the exploitation of the seabed, as he expressed at a UN convention in Vancouver. .
“You should see the ovation that was produced” after Maamaatuaiahutapu called for this ban “People have become very emotional”, rejoices Sumaila.
This expert judges that, as left in previous conversations, the treaty being negotiated these days “is very small in terms of sustaining life on the high seas”, while he is unhappy with a another important agreement reached in 2022, for the one where – after 20 years of discussions – the World Trade Organization agreed to end the subsidies that contribute to the overexploitation of the oceans.
The experts are not satisfied with the agreed text, which they consider “very difficult to implement” given “the way in which it was configured”.
For example, the agreement establishes that aid cannot be granted to vessels that practice illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (known by its acronym IUU).
“But who has the data on this type of fishing? asks Sumaila.
According to specialists, the estimate closest to reality is that 20% of the fish consumed in the world comes from IUU fishing.
On the other hand, experts criticize the fact that the text leaves the decision to withdraw a subsidy in the hands of states after verifying that it has contributed to overfishing, so that governments could simply not assess fishing in order to to continue to subsidize this activity, for example harmful to marine ecosystems.