Peter Espeut NO ONE likes to waste their time, and I have almost completely stopped writing on environmental matters because it is clear that the government has neither the capacity nor the will to conserve our national patrimony, and the general public is preoccupied with other matters more closely related to their stomachs. But environmental matters affect our stomachs, our palates and our pockets. Jamaicans are one of the highest consumers per capita of fish in the world, and we like it fresh, frozen, filleted, salted, in tomato sauce, pickled in brine, in tins or in buckets or barrels.
But an increasing quantity of the fish we eat is imported because the amount of fish we are able to catch is seriously declining; and if there is one topic I have consistently written about in my ten years as a columnist with this newspaper, it is that we are the most overfished country in the Caribbean and probably in the world (so declared by the CARICOM Fisheries Unit based in Belize).
In 1996, our fishers captured 15,900 tonnes of fish, but by 1998 that had fallen to 10,060 tonnes a decline of 36.7 per cent in two years or an average decline of 18.4 per cent per annum! As a result of this environmental deterioration (Yes! That is what it is!), in 1998 Jamaica had to import an additional US$29.1 million in fish and fish products to compensate for the decline between 1997 and 1998! The environmental naysayers and those who believe that all this talk about conservation is humbug, need to know that environmental degradation is an expensive business, and the increased costs are not in the future but are being felt now!
THE PROVERBIAL 'BAG-A-MOUT'
I have been writing about this since 1991 when I did an assessment of the Jamaican fisheries sector for the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations. At that time the decline was severe and urgent, and there were calls for resolute action! Since then there has been only the proverbial "bag-a-mout". Despite a decade of newspaper columns and academic papers and practical action-oriented recommendations (by myself and others), very little has been done.
What myself and others have been saying is that if our marine capture fisheries are properly managed, the yield will increase to an amount determined by the inherent capacity of the environment to grow fish (called the "maximum sustainable yield" or MSY) which is some three times greater than the present catch (using the estimate from a 1999 IDB-funded study). And this yield will be sustainable indefinitely over time, which means that if the capacity of our marine environment to grow fish is not further reduced due to coastal pollution, environmental degradation and unsustainable fishing practices (such as the use of dynamite) our great-grandchildren and their great-grandchildren will have available to them a stable amount of locally-caught seafood.
But that is not where we are headed. I shudder to think what will be the fish catch at the end of this decade if we do not act soon.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The suite of recommendations for action coming from the scientists and the fisheries sector are not complicated. Below are the suggestions made in 1987 by Karl Aiken and Milton Haughton, both then officials of the Fisheries Division (Karl is now a senior lecturer in fisheries management at UWI and Milton is now chief scientist with the CARICOM Fisheries Unit) as a part of the National Five Year Development Plan then in preparation:
"In the context of Jamaican fishing industry activities it is thought that the following methods would be most applicable:
Gear Limitation
Fishing effort regulation
Closed areas (fish sanctuary and scientific reserve establishment)
Statistical monitoring system establishment
Education and publicity.
Each would require some elucidation for you to fully appreciate what they imply, but in the 15 years since these recommendations, only with number (4) has there been some progress. Through CARICOM, a National Plan for the Management of the Jamaican Fisheries was prepared in 1996 with similar provisions, which has been similarly ignored.
OFFERS OF HELP NOT ACCEPTED
Surveys I have done show that the vast majority of fishers will support these fisheries management measures, and my personal experience confirms this. Some NGOs including the one I direct have stepped forward and offered our services at no charge, but our offers have not yet been accepted. What is the reason why our fisheries are being allowed to decline?
It is frustrating to go to fisheries conferences like the one I went to in Cancun, Mexico, last month. It was the annual meeting of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute (GCFI) where the presentations from the scientists (and fishers) from our region suggest that others are taking their own situation in hand. But frankly, we have not, which is why we have the most overfished waters in the Caribbean (and probably the world; I don't believe a global ranking of overfishing has been prepared; as you know, one has been created for deforestation, and we topped the world, but the Forestry Department protests).
I hope the Ministry of Agriculture does not find me churlish for the comments I am about to make. They were kind enough to invite me last week Wednesday to the contract-signing ceremony for a project jointly funded with the FAO called "Development of a Policy Framework and Strategic Plan for Sustainable Fisheries Management". A total of US$341,417 will be spent developing a policy and a plan. If ever something was re-inventing the wheel, this is it, for we already have lots of both. I can't imagine that the lack of progress in managing our fisheries is due to lack of a policy framework or an action plan.
'PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE'
I remember some years ago my colleague Diana McCaulay walked out in protest of a meeting called to discuss a UNDP-funded initiative to come up with yet another development plan for the cleaning up of Kingston Harbour. There comes a time when we have to apply the "precautionary principle" as Agenda 21 calls it, and act based on the best information we have, rather than do yet another study. Apparently that time has not yet come with fisheries. I am impatient that our environment is being degraded while we do more studies, so I hope the Ministry will see with me and not drop me from their invitation list because of my intemperate remarks.
After this Policy Framework and Strategic Plan for Sustainable Fisheries Manage-ment is completed, what then will be the excuse why we do not take action to sustainably manage our fisheries?
Peter Espeut is a Sociologist and Executive Director of an Environment and Development NGO.
