There was certainly no fisherman in the panel of citizens drawn. Would they have
endorsed proposals which, implicitly, point towards the end of the fishery?
Evidence
The objective is "Food: encourage the development of sustainable low-emission fishing",
a series of obvious proposals: ending overfishing, improving knowledge, achieving
RMD, whale protection, decarbonation. However, certain analyzes and recommendations are
very ambiguous.
Fishing in accusation
Fishing is considered one of the main sources of ecosystem disturbances
sailors. Curiously, other major sources of disturbance have completely passed under
silence. We know that disruptions in land-sea relations weaken productive capacities
marine environments and that land-based pollution has a considerable impact on the quality
waters and the sustainability of activities such as shore fishing, coastal fishing or shellfish farming. (cf
https://peche-dev.org/spip.php?article308 Why sardines love chestnuts.) By
elsewhere the development of sand and aggregate extraction, works for wind turbines
increasingly disrupting the seabed, but this is not discussed.
Towards an end to fishing?
It is first of all a question of limiting it, but the Convention proposes "to avoid fishing for fish in
their natural environment. "This is clarified and confirmed:" We wish to modify our access routes
fisheries resources, in particular by developing sustainable aquaculture farms
respectful of the environment and health ". An integrated aquaculture model is discussed.
Implicitly, it is therefore a question of moving towards an end to fishing for the benefit of integrated aquaculture
in fresh and marine waters. Such initiatives are to be supported and encouraged. They are still
largely experimental and cannot claim to replace fishing. This is the old fantasy
the replacement of fishing by aquaculture.
Decarbonize yes, but how?
Pending this miracle or this mirage, the Convention recommends supporting fishermen to
renewing ships, modernizing them and reducing consumption. Fishermen can only
rejoice and they are well aware of this need, but "move from thermal boats to
boats powered by green energies "remains an unrealistic prospect in the near future
to come up. Many tests have been carried out but have not yet proven themselves. It's even more
complicated at sea than on land. It should not be forgotten that fishermen will undoubtedly be obliged to
give up very productive fishing areas for the development of wind farms, right
already a considerable contribution from them in the fight against climate change?
Fishing has little impact overall
We can also remember that fishing provides quality protein at a cost
much lower environmental than livestock. We can of course reduce it further, but can we
place fishing boats and motorized pleasure boats on the same plane? Shouldn't
not in priority to halt the development of a pleasure craft with a motorization
overpowered, polluting and noisy? Let's not forget that these noises are a big factor in
disruption for fish as the Covid crisis has shown.
Once again, tends to impose a very negative vision of fishing carried by people without
link with maritime culture and the realities of fishing. The fishermen are not a problem, but
part of the solution, as demonstrated by their commitment to save and manage cash
emblematic like the European red lobster, the lobster, the scallop,
etc.
