98
R.S.V. Pullin
stocking, is that they simply have “limited or no demonstrable success” (Molony
et al. 2003 , 409). Nevertheless, once started, they are hard to close down because
they appeal to the public, the mass media, fi shers, fi sheries managers and politicians,
who see them, even ineffective or unproven, as measures to restore fi sheries. Such
efforts are sometimes accompanied by other expensive and unproven measures, such
as arti fi cial reefs. Governors and the governed seem to be happily complicit in funding these questionable developments, and lots of money fl ows for the supply of fi sh
seed and associated structures and services.
However, if better governance can be achieved, the future for capture fi sheries
is not all doom and gloom. In addition to the FAO CCRF (FAO 1995b ) and its
Technical Guidelines, there are many sources of free advice on how to improve and
sustain capture fi sheries; e.g., see www.seaaroundus.org . Pauly et al. ( 2002 ) pointed
out that most capture fi sheries have been unsustainable, but found that reducing
fi shing efforts and subsidies, together with management of the oceans for sustainable fi shing and fi sh conservation in marine reserves, can be the way forward.
Ecosystem-based management is the key. There are some other speci fi c tools that
will help: for example, the application of eco-labeling to inform more discerning
consumers (e.g., FAO 2005 ) .
Governability and Human Behavior in Food Security Scenarios
Kurien emphasized that: “Preserving the resource base and the integrity of the
aquatic ecosystem is a sine qua non for food security – with or without international
trade” ( 2004 , 153). Throughout history, however, human behaviour with respect to
food security has typically been sel fi sh and irresponsible, especially in terms of the
annexation, degradation and conversion for other uses of the aquatic and terrestrial
ecosystems that produce food, often spurred by unfettered population growth.
Diamond ( 2005 ) described the Easter Islanders’ complete destruction of the ecosystem
that supported them, including all sources of wood to make canoes. He speculated
on what the person who felled the last tree might have thought or said: “Jobs, not
trees…Technology will solve our problems, never fear we’ll fi nd a substitute for
wood…We don’t have proof that there aren’t palms somewhere else on Easter, we
need more research, your proposed ban on logging is premature and driven by fearmongering” (Diamond 2005 , 114)? He went on to point out the obvious and chilling
parallels between this Easter Island debacle and ecosystem abuse in the modern,
now thoroughly interconnected and interdependent world. That applies especially
to the mismanagement of world fi sheries. Faced with the opportunity to catch the
last few fi sh or whales, many otherwise responsible persons will do just that, reasoning that if they do not, someone else will.
To what extent then might human behaviour become more responsible (i.e., more
governable) in terms of caring for the ecosystems that produce fi sh and other human
food? There are some grounds for optimism. Institutions for the support of more
responsible behaviour in aquaculture and capture fi sheries are increasing in number
and in fl uence, especially those concerned with implementing the FAO Code of
R.S.V. Pullin
stocking, is that they simply have “limited or no demonstrable success” (Molony
et al. 2003 , 409). Nevertheless, once started, they are hard to close down because
they appeal to the public, the mass media, fi shers, fi sheries managers and politicians,
who see them, even ineffective or unproven, as measures to restore fi sheries. Such
efforts are sometimes accompanied by other expensive and unproven measures, such
as arti fi cial reefs. Governors and the governed seem to be happily complicit in funding these questionable developments, and lots of money fl ows for the supply of fi sh
seed and associated structures and services.
However, if better governance can be achieved, the future for capture fi sheries
is not all doom and gloom. In addition to the FAO CCRF (FAO 1995b ) and its
Technical Guidelines, there are many sources of free advice on how to improve and
sustain capture fi sheries; e.g., see www.seaaroundus.org . Pauly et al. ( 2002 ) pointed
out that most capture fi sheries have been unsustainable, but found that reducing
fi shing efforts and subsidies, together with management of the oceans for sustainable fi shing and fi sh conservation in marine reserves, can be the way forward.
Ecosystem-based management is the key. There are some other speci fi c tools that
will help: for example, the application of eco-labeling to inform more discerning
consumers (e.g., FAO 2005 ) .
Governability and Human Behavior in Food Security Scenarios
Kurien emphasized that: “Preserving the resource base and the integrity of the
aquatic ecosystem is a sine qua non for food security – with or without international
trade” ( 2004 , 153). Throughout history, however, human behaviour with respect to
food security has typically been sel fi sh and irresponsible, especially in terms of the
annexation, degradation and conversion for other uses of the aquatic and terrestrial
ecosystems that produce food, often spurred by unfettered population growth.
Diamond ( 2005 ) described the Easter Islanders’ complete destruction of the ecosystem
that supported them, including all sources of wood to make canoes. He speculated
on what the person who felled the last tree might have thought or said: “Jobs, not
trees…Technology will solve our problems, never fear we’ll fi nd a substitute for
wood…We don’t have proof that there aren’t palms somewhere else on Easter, we
need more research, your proposed ban on logging is premature and driven by fearmongering” (Diamond 2005 , 114)? He went on to point out the obvious and chilling
parallels between this Easter Island debacle and ecosystem abuse in the modern,
now thoroughly interconnected and interdependent world. That applies especially
to the mismanagement of world fi sheries. Faced with the opportunity to catch the
last few fi sh or whales, many otherwise responsible persons will do just that, reasoning that if they do not, someone else will.
To what extent then might human behaviour become more responsible (i.e., more
governable) in terms of caring for the ecosystems that produce fi sh and other human
food? There are some grounds for optimism. Institutions for the support of more
responsible behaviour in aquaculture and capture fi sheries are increasing in number
and in fl uence, especially those concerned with implementing the FAO Code of