|
The decline in commercial fisheries (including specific species and total stocks) is an
important issue for many stakeholders. The survey revealed stakeholder group opinions
about the abundance of fisheries, causes of overfishing and market demands, and perceptions
about legal mechanisms for management. Overall, the divison among stakeholder groups
regarding fisheries is largely due to either economic divisions – those who have economic
interests in fisheries and those who do not - or information access issues between those who
have access to information about fisheries and those who do not. Overcoming this divide
may be a worthwhile target for the future.
When asked about the abundance of fish in the Black Sea, and whether there are enough fish
for everyone who wants them, there was agreement from the national shipping companies (or
administrative or executive agencies) and farm workers. In contrast there was disagreement
from agricultural ministry officials, fisheries – national company/administration/executive
agencies, social welfare/ public health ministries, labor ministry officials, regulatory
agencies, parliamentary committees, NGOs, scientists, environmental protection agents,
municipal waste managers, nature preserve staff, small scale fishermen, public health care
providers, members of coastal communities, press and media, and international funding
institutions. The shipping industry and fishing industry did not have strong views one way or
the other. This suggests that those who are economically involved in harvesting Black Sea
stocks are either unwilling or unable to suggest that there are not enough fish available, while
those who are exposed to alternative information or the impacts of over-fishing have a view
of declining fisheries. The exception to this is the small-scale fishermen who are likely to be
most directly impacted by declining stocks and therefore they do not agree that there are
enough fish available.
Similarly, stakeholders were asked about why over-fishing occurs, with the statement:
‘people take more fish because they need to, not because of greed.’ Those who agreed were
from the economic ministry, foreign affairs ministry, agricultural ministry, fisheries -
national company/administration/ executive agencies, shipping companies and the agroindustry.
There was strong agreement particularly from fisheries industries, small-scale
fishermen and residents of coastal communities. Alternatively, there was disagreement from
the, internal affairs ministry, public administration planning agency, district water
management officials, municipal waste managers, public health care providers, and
international funding organizations. It is possible that those who disagreed have had more
access to information on overfishing and are sensitive to the increased commercialization of
fishing, as well as the challenges of regulating the fisheries, while those that disagree are
more sensitive to the immediate demands for access to fish, especially small-scale fishermen
and coastal community members.
Nonetheless there was a consensus among all stakeholder groups that steps should be taken
to increase fish stocks in the Black Sea. However, in terms of preserving some species,
national shipping companies and agencies, the shipping industry and fishing industry
representative felt it was more important to meet market demand now, though there was
division within each of these groups. All other groups including small scale-fishermen and
those from national fishery organizations disagreed, and felt that preserving species was
more important. While there was division within groups, overall there was disagreement
from 73% the individual stakeholders surveyed that market demand is more important than
preserving some species, while only 12% agreed (Fig. 7.13).
|
Figure 7.13 Stakeholders’ responses to the statement “meeting market demand for fish now is more important than preserving some species” |
In terms of regulatory mechanisms, there was agreement among all stakeholders with the
statement: ‘I support stronger enforcement of fisheries regulations than we currently have.’ It
should be noted that agreement with this statement by the fisheries industry was notably
weaker than others, though was still supportive.
The statement: ‘international agreements on fishing in the Black Sea could be unfair to some
users’ was supported by NGOs and small-scale fishermen, while foreign affairs ministry
officials disagreed. This is probably because of a perception among NGOs and small-scale
fishermen that their interests would not be addressed by such agreements, which would
favour larger commercial interests instead. Alternatively, foreign affairs ministry officials
who are often responsible for drafting such agreements, probably feel that it is their
responsibility to ensure equitable use whenever possible.
The fisheries concerns were not especially divisive among stakeholder groups. Anticipated
responses among various groups emerged, with the possible exception of more acute concern
about preserving species and the need for insuring fair access among small scale fishermen.
This suggests that it may be important to include small-scale fishmen as a key stakeholder
group in the future, as well as to increase opportunities for dialogue among those with
intrinsic interests in preserving species and those with economic interests in continuing
current fishing practices.
|
