ENGOs and Research Don't Mix

(from the November, 2007 issue of National Fisherman)

My last two columns dealt with research for a simple reason; the more we know about fish and fishing, the better we can be at harvesting while maintaining the productivity of our inshore and offshore waters. Simple, isn’t it? If we spend more on research we know more, and if we know more we fish better.

Unfortunately funding available for research, at least funding from the government and from the fishing industry, is limited, and getting more limited every year. Government funding keeps dropping because agency budgets aren’t growing and mandated programs like those protecting endangered species or threatened habitat are becoming more expensive. And I don’t have to tell anyone reading this what’s happening with industry revenues.

But, you might think, what of all those organizations with really deep pockets whose leaders are more than willing, at the drop of a hat, to profess how they are on the side of short-sighted fishermen who are going to reap their well-deserved rewards when all of our fisheries become “sustainable?” You know they are spending tens of millions of dollars each year on lawyers, on lobbying and public relations, on “research” to show how bad fishing is for all those ocean critters. How much are they spending to improve the science that will actually support more effective fisheries management or the actual day-to-day (rather than illusory, pie-in-the-sky future) lives of the fishermen they are supposedly there to help? 

Your guess is as good as mine, and if you’re even semi-informed about such matters I’d suspect it would range from close to zip to right around nada.

Of course, it’s impossible to consider ENGO (that’s Environmental Non-government Organization) participation in research without considering Our Favorite Charitable Trust (OFCT to the heretofore uninitiated).

OFCT gives tens of millions of dollars a year to organizations to ostensibly make the oceans better for fish to swim in and fishermen to fish in. As an example of this largesse, of the ten organizations listed as members of The Herring Alliance – that’s the group that’s out to save the Gulf of Maine (or the North Atlantic, the world, or the universe; I sometimes get who’s being saved from what by those OFCT dollars confused) from the depredations of the big boat bad guys - on its website, eight are funded by OFCT. Seven of them have received over $120 million from OFCT and one of them, The Pew Trusts, is, if you were wondering, OFCT. Even counting inflation, that’s an awful lot of dollars. How much of that has been spent by the recipient organizations on research to improve assessments or reduce bycatch or increase efficiency, in fact on anything of a positive – for the fishermen or for the fisheries managers – nature? If anybody from any of those ENGOs or OFCT is willing to share that information, I – and a bunch of readers – would love to know. We already have a pretty good idea of how much is spent on demonizing and marginalizing the fishermen because we’re struggling to live with the results.

Of course, the more we know about the fish stocks, and about the effects of fishing on them, the less we can be forced to rely on the precautionary principal, and where would all of those “crucify the fishermen” programs be without that? Or how about marine mammal assessments that are less than a decade old? Or any of dozens of other issues where, because of lack of knowledge, fishermen are paying the price? How many jobs, how many programs, how much bad PR and how much deflection of the public’s attention (eighteen years later “Exxon Valdez” is still synonymous with catastrophic oil spills, five years later “Prestige” doesn’t ring anyone’s bells, at least on this side of the Atlantic) is based on “we don’t know, so it’s better to be safe than sorry?”

This isn’t to say that the odd bright spot doesn’t exist. World Wildlife Fund’s Smart Gear competition is one. From a fishing industry perspective it’s the only positive program by an ENGO that I’m aware of, and WWF isn’t supporting the gear research, it’s only recognizing it. But, looking at the Smart Gear website, it’s obvious the competition was designed working with real industry groups, and it could easily serve as a model for other ENGOs with a serious commitment to positively contributing to the fish and the fishermen. Will it fly in Philadelphia? Not likely, ‘cause it shows that fishermen are good guys, a concept OFCT seems seriously averse to.

Nils E. Stolpe