Social and Economic Aspects of Sea Turtle Conservation
369
future mortality rates of sea turtles from longlines. From the socioeconomic standpoint, the issue concerns who should pay for re-outfitting fishing gear to reduce sea
turtle mortality. In the event that a suggested method is determined to be less effective
than originally thought, who should be expected to absorb the costs of the second
re-outfitting of gear? For example (Chapter 13), recent evidence indicates that current
openings in some TEDs are not large enough to allow adults of some larger species
to escape. Who will pay the cost if this knowledge results in a mandatory redesign
and re-outfitting of trawls with new TEDs? Before attempting to answer this question,
it is instructive to consider the context in which the issue must be addressed.
When sea turtle conservationists discuss incidental mortality in marine fisheries,
we usually are concerned with the mortality of the turtles. It is important to remember
that some 15,000,000 people work in marine fisheries (more than 90% on boats less
than 24 m in length), in what may be the most dangerous occupation in the world.
Workers’ mortality rates among marine fishermen are 18–30 times higher than the
national averages for countries such as the U.S., Australia, and Italy that keep such
records (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [FAO], 2000).
The FAO suggests that the mortality rates of marine fishermen may be even higher
in countries that do not keep records of occupational mortality. Furthermore, marine
fisheries are an important part of the global economy, with annual first-landing sales
averaging between $75 and $80 billion in the late 1990s (FAO, 2000). Many of these
first-landing sales are by independent fishermen who do not have a large profit
margin from their catch and are unlikely to be able to increase the costs of their
operation and remain economically viable. To exacerbate the problems faced by
marine fishermen, several trends are already at work to drive their numbers down
(FAO, 2000). Some countries are denying access to fisheries as a means of reducing
fishing effort on overharvested stocks. Technological improvements are increasing
productivity (fish caught per fisherman), thus reducing manpower needs. In addition,
the total volume of fish landed has experienced a downward trend in the last decade
of the twentieth century. All of these pressures will serve to force individuals to seek
other occupations.
It is in this context of a dangerous and sometimes economically precarious
livelihood that we may be asking or requiring marine fishermen to procure and adopt
new, unfamiliar gear to help us protect sea turtles. There undoubtedly will be some
social and economic costs associated with acquiring new TEDs or adapting old ones,
or in outfitting longlines with alternative hook types. Who should pay the costs
associated with changing gear? The fishermen, the consumer, or the public at large?
In the U.S., at least, the fishermen are unlikely to be required to pay the total
cost of obtaining new gear simply on the basis of a scientific assessment of the
environmental and ecological impact of their fishery activities and the predicted
positive effect of changing gear. Recent case law and legislation have placed the
Department of Commerce (including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration [NOAA] and the National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS])
under considerable pressure to give the social and economic impacts of new
regulations equal weight in their ecological and scientific studies (Hendricks,
2000). In particular, legislation such as the 1996 Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act and the 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens
1123 book.book Page 369 Monday, November 11, 2002 11:11 AM
369
future mortality rates of sea turtles from longlines. From the socioeconomic standpoint, the issue concerns who should pay for re-outfitting fishing gear to reduce sea
turtle mortality. In the event that a suggested method is determined to be less effective
than originally thought, who should be expected to absorb the costs of the second
re-outfitting of gear? For example (Chapter 13), recent evidence indicates that current
openings in some TEDs are not large enough to allow adults of some larger species
to escape. Who will pay the cost if this knowledge results in a mandatory redesign
and re-outfitting of trawls with new TEDs? Before attempting to answer this question,
it is instructive to consider the context in which the issue must be addressed.
When sea turtle conservationists discuss incidental mortality in marine fisheries,
we usually are concerned with the mortality of the turtles. It is important to remember
that some 15,000,000 people work in marine fisheries (more than 90% on boats less
than 24 m in length), in what may be the most dangerous occupation in the world.
Workers’ mortality rates among marine fishermen are 18–30 times higher than the
national averages for countries such as the U.S., Australia, and Italy that keep such
records (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [FAO], 2000).
The FAO suggests that the mortality rates of marine fishermen may be even higher
in countries that do not keep records of occupational mortality. Furthermore, marine
fisheries are an important part of the global economy, with annual first-landing sales
averaging between $75 and $80 billion in the late 1990s (FAO, 2000). Many of these
first-landing sales are by independent fishermen who do not have a large profit
margin from their catch and are unlikely to be able to increase the costs of their
operation and remain economically viable. To exacerbate the problems faced by
marine fishermen, several trends are already at work to drive their numbers down
(FAO, 2000). Some countries are denying access to fisheries as a means of reducing
fishing effort on overharvested stocks. Technological improvements are increasing
productivity (fish caught per fisherman), thus reducing manpower needs. In addition,
the total volume of fish landed has experienced a downward trend in the last decade
of the twentieth century. All of these pressures will serve to force individuals to seek
other occupations.
It is in this context of a dangerous and sometimes economically precarious
livelihood that we may be asking or requiring marine fishermen to procure and adopt
new, unfamiliar gear to help us protect sea turtles. There undoubtedly will be some
social and economic costs associated with acquiring new TEDs or adapting old ones,
or in outfitting longlines with alternative hook types. Who should pay the costs
associated with changing gear? The fishermen, the consumer, or the public at large?
In the U.S., at least, the fishermen are unlikely to be required to pay the total
cost of obtaining new gear simply on the basis of a scientific assessment of the
environmental and ecological impact of their fishery activities and the predicted
positive effect of changing gear. Recent case law and legislation have placed the
Department of Commerce (including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration [NOAA] and the National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS])
under considerable pressure to give the social and economic impacts of new
regulations equal weight in their ecological and scientific studies (Hendricks,
2000). In particular, legislation such as the 1996 Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act and the 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens
1123 book.book Page 369 Monday, November 11, 2002 11:11 AM