Posted by Jack Sterne, jack@oceanchampions.org
Let me be the first one to say, "I was wrong." Jennifer asked a few weeks back whether fisheries subsidies were an issue for Ocean Champions, and I rambled on with a response about how it hasn't really been an issue since the original days of the Magnuson Act, when we over-capitalized our domestic fleets while we were kicking out the foreign ones, etc., etc., blah, blah, blah.
Well, that was true until this weekend, when the Senate passed its version of the farm bill with an outrageous provision making fishermen eligible for the Farm Service Agency's Farm Loan Program, giving them access to loans for basic operating costs, including boats, and nets. Here's an excerpt from the press release of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), who put the amendment in the bill:
"Many of our commercial fishermen need access to these loan programs," said Senator Stevens. "Fishermen new to the industry have found it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to obtain credit from commercial lenders for startup costs. As for traditional farmers, equipment necessary to begin a fishing business, such as boats and nets, are very expensive."
Extending eligibility of the FSA program to commercial fishermen would put them on a level playing field with fish farmers, whose product they compete with directly.
This, of course, perpetuates that whole wrong-headed notion of fishermen as farmers, and opens up the likelihood of significant subsidies for an industry that is already so overcapitalized that it could chase down every last fish in the sea and you'd still have people who weren't making a profit.
But I don't know what I'm most upset about: the absurdity of the policy choice this amendment represents, or the rumor we heard last week that this amendment went undiscovered in the Farm Bill by two different sets of well-connected lobbyists. Indeed, both sets of lobbyists were told the amendment was non-germane, out of order and wouldn't be in the final bill.
Well, we got punk'd! Turns out Sen. Stevens may have had a secret deal with Sen. Harkin (D-IA), the chairman of the Agriculture Committee (this is pure conjecture, but he definitely had a deal with somebody), and the amendment was in the super-secret manager's amendment, which nobody was able to see until right before it went to the floor.
So now we're in the position of trying to strip this thing out in conference committee, which anybody can tell you is a tall order. And while it's not over, I wouldn't bet on us prevailing at this point (although whether the Farm Bill can go anywhere in a Presidential election year is a huge question).
If anything, though, this episode just illustrates how important it is to have champions on the inside, who can clue us in and help squash these deals before they ever see the light of day. It's one more indication that elections actually do matter.
p.s. win a trip to Mexico at www.oceanchampions.org!
Comments
This is awful news. It also provides a segue to reprint the letter that appeared in Nature last week by Rashid Sumaila and Daniel Pauly calling for the elimination of fisheries subsidies at the upcoming WTO meetings. Clearly, the U.S. will not be onboard.
SIR-The threat of overfishing to world fisheries is well documented, but not enough attention has been paid to government subsidies as an important factor in their decline. Subsidies, or government payments to the fishing sector, estimated at US$30�34 billion a year, are key drivers of the unsustainable exploitation of the world's depleted fish populations. Fish are the main source of protein for one fifth of the world's population, but global fishing fleets are more than double the size the oceans can support. If fisheries are to become sustainable, overfishing subsidies must be significantly reduced.
Unfortunately, unilateral action by individual countries may not work, because their fisheries could then be at a disadvantage in the competitive global market for fish; also, fish do not respect national boundaries and fishing fleets operate worldwide. The only effective approach to the subsidy problem is through multilateral action, in which all fishing nations end or reduce these subsidies under similar rules. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has 151 member countries and a mandate to level the trade playing-field for every country. It is in a unique position to tackle the global problem of overfishing subsidies and to move fisheries towards sustainability, because it is the only global institution, apart from the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, that has mechanisms in place to enforce its agreements.
The WTO is at present drawing up terms, including terms on how to police fisheries subsidies, in the Doha round of negotiations. We urge the WTO to seize this opportunity now, to forestall the predicted collapse of the world's wild fish populations. U. Rashid Sumaila, Daniel Pauly
Posted by: Jennifer L. Jacquet | December 19, 2007 3:29 PM