the ENGO high water mark of influence over the reformed CFP came with the Green

The engo high water mark of influence over the

This preview shows page 5 - 6 out of 7 pages.

the ENGO “high-water mark” of influence over the reformed CFP came with the Green Paper in 2001. After that, opposition to the environmental agenda hardened in the Council because the ENGO influence within southern member states (the self-styled “Friends of Fishing” countries) is too weak. Regarding the UK, Symes and Boyes (2005: p. 39) do not deny that the fishing indus- try is heavily regulated, but they claim that the strict regulation is still designed for fisheries protection, not for environmental pro- tection (cf. Coffey, 1996: p. 289). Moreover, even when environmental legislation is in place to curb fisheries, there is often little attempt to enforce it. For example, Richartz (2005: p. 7) reports extensive backsliding by France and Italy in evading the 1998 EU driftnet ban: “gaping holes in compliance with the EU drift net ban established by Regulation 1239 / 98 . . . call into question the Member States’ commitment to sustainable fisheries in the Mediterranean”. Which conception of environmental stewardship? In our opinion, the case for environmental stewardship as a new form of fisheries governance is stronger than the case against: on balance, there does seem to have been a shift from fisheries protec- tion to environmental protection. However, is this newly emer- gent environmental stewardship founded upon the conception of nature conservationism or the conception of sustainable develop- ment? We find elements of both conceptions embedded in five of the six sources of environmental stewardship identified earlier. For example, marine scientists are divided between advocates of nature conservation and advocates of sustainable development. Similarly, while most international regimes adopt the nature conservation perspective, at least one, the FAO, strongly endorses the sustainable development perspective, as outlined by Pope et al. (2006: p. 3): “Long-term management of fisheries is linked closely with the concept of sustainable development . . . . The modern concept of sustainability is seen as having at least four components: bio-ecological; social; economic; and institutional”. Government policies also reveal ambiguity, repeatedly qualify- ing their commitments to nature conservation by adding socio- economic riders. For instance, in its discussion document on the EMS, CEC (2004: p. 1) states that this “thematic strategy for the protection and conservation of the European marine environ- ment” has the “overall aim ‘ to promote sustainable use of the seas and conserve marine ecosystems’” (emphasis in the original). The same applies to UK government rhetoric: in his address to the Coastal Futures Conference, Morley (2005) says that: “We wish to protect and enhance what we have whilst at the same time deriv- ing sustainable economic and social benefit”. Even ENGOs, in their collaborative mode, support sustainable development objectives, by assisting sustainable fisheries, while the media extol the place of fish protein in a healthy diet and public opinion sympathizes with the plight of beleaguered fisheries-dependent communities. Only NCAs seem to enunciate an
Image of page 5
Image of page 6

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture