On 8 June 2021 — World Ocean Day — organizations of fishermen and their supporters, including the Collectif Pêche & Développement in Lorient, France, rallied to declare their opposition to the unilateral and exclusionary policies that favour the establishment of marine protected areas (MPAs) designed to declare 30 per cent of the world’s oceans as complete reserves closed to so-called “industrial” fishing.
Industrial fishing is defined as fishing involving motorised vessels that are over 12 m long and 6 m wide, with a capacity of over 50 kg catch/voyage, and that require substantial sums for their construction, maintenance and operation, and are mostly sold commercially, including all fishing using trawling gears that are dragged or towed across the seafloor or through the water column, and fishing using purse seines and large longlines.
Pointing to the disregard for fishermen’s experiences, knowledge and commitments, the Collectif Pêche & Développement asserts that to embark on a path of authoritarian and technocratic ocean management is to call into question the culture, knowledge and life of fishermen without taking into account the reality of their practices and commitments.
“If we look at the recent history of the fight for the environment not only in Brittany, but also in other countries from the North to the South, we find fishermen fighting against, for instance, the Plogoff nuclear power plant, and the development of marinas, sand and oil spills,” notes the Collectif Pêche & Développement. “They are involved in MPAs such as the Iroise Marine Park, the Natura 2000 area of the Roches de Penmarc’h, the SMVM of the Golfe du Morbihan, the Sein Island reserve, etc. They have set up programmes for the restoration of crayfish, the protection of
maerl beds, the RESPECT project, etc. They debate within the MPA management and programme
steering bodies, with scientists and local environmental associations. This takes time and energy, and the debates are sometimes difficult, but there is respect on both sides. This is how things can move forward on a democratic basis, whereas authoritarian decisions taken by political or scientific bodies that are totally removed from the realities and complexity of the marine environment can only lead to sterile opposition. Unfortunately, it is feared that the machines for excluding the
voiceless will inexorably continue its steamroller course — unless our warnings provoke strong and salutary reactions.”
According to the indigenous peoples’ organization, Survival International:”Major conservation NGOs claim that (MPAs) will mitigate climate change, reduce wildlife loss, enhance biodiversity and so save our environment. They are wrong. Protected areas will not save our planet. On the contrary, they will increase human suffering and so accelerate the destruction of the spaces they claim to protect, because local opposition to then will grow. They have no effect on climate change and have been shown to be generally poor to prevent wildlife loss. The idea of ‘conservation-fortress’ — that local people should be removed from their land in order to protect nature — is colonial. ”
In a paper published in World Development (Volume 146, October 2021), Marco J.Haenssgen et al analyzed the socioeconomic development impact of marine resource management and conservation in Southeast Asia. They concluded: “Qualitative research – based on 22 interviews in Koh Sdach Archipelago, Cambodia – demonstrates how the local community experienced improving relationships with the state and a slowing deterioration of marine resources, but also social division, heightened livelihood anxiety, and potentially a false sense of economic security. We hypothesise on this basis that marine conservation could impede socio-economic development, for which we find support in our quantitative analysis across Cambodia, the Philippines, and Timor-Leste: MPAs materialised in better-off communities but were associated with slower and partly regressive socio-economic development, in particular decreasing wealth and increasing child mortality.”
They added: “These findings suggest that the rapid global expansion of MPA coverage in its current, environmental-conservation-focused form is problematic as it disregards local social realities. Livelihood adaptation support should complement the implementation of marine resource governance mechanisms to mitigate unintended negative consequences.”