Marine reserves: oceans grabbing and dispossession of fishing

NB - disclaimer: This document has been translated by Google translate - therefore there may be unintended meaning attributed to the text - please make any necessary allowance for the mechanical interpretation.

In the past twenty years (the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992), many biologists and ENGOs, powerfully supported by foundations, international organizations, public agencies, private donations but also more and more multinational companies impose the idea that one of the best ways to preserve marine biodiversity and fisheries resources is to multiply the wilderness and Marine Protected Area (MPA). After imposing this model on the ground constantly claiming an extension of terrestrial reserves (target 17% passed with a 25% target later), ENGOs have achieved in Johannesburg in 2002 the establishment of MPAs on 20% of ocean, half in wilderness. In fact, for many, it is only a step, and Greenpeace already boasts reserves of 40% of the oceans. For the general public, sensitized by speeches and films or other catastrophic exalting the beauty of marine reserves (Planet Ocean Yann Arthus Bertrand), this application is simple and obvious. Yet the wilderness in particular, raises huge questions and problems. They do not always solve the problems of erosion of biodiversity and pose serious problems of exclusion and analyzed well documented already sensitive land and sea is not so far from the action and demonize less goals ENGOs.

Among those engaged in the field of conservation through reserves, there are wide variations in practice, some may be very respectful of human rights in their work and not just in their statements. Within an ENGO that simply displays its environmental objectives without worrying about the social impacts of its programs, professionals working in the field may with good relations with the people concerned. It does not condemn the principle wilderness or objectives respectable ENGOs, but to show that even within the conservation movement, many scientists, environmentalists question the methods, results and social consequences sometimes dramatic layouts reserves terrestrial and marine areas.

However, the leaders of ENGOs and foundations that support tend not to disclose the contents of internal debates that could tarnish their good image saviors of the^[1]planet.Despite the complacency and arrogance of big ENGOs, allowing them to monopolize the media, there is a real debate on the relevance of their methods and goals, their compatibility with human rights.

the ideological

Promoting wilderness to protect biodiversity is based on two concepts developed in the United States, "Wilderness" and "Tragedy of the Commons."         The "tragedy of the commons" has been theorized in a famous article by Garrett Hardin, "The Tragedy of the Commons" in^[2]1968,always cited, but rarely in its entirety, because there are passages of stunning, if not shocking: "If we love the truth we must openly deny the validity of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, even if it is promoted by the United Nations."

Ten years later, in a little known book, Garrett Hardin goes even further in his denial of human rights, because according to him, they are in conflict with the need to preserve the planet's resources. "Distributive justice is a luxury we can not afford in a country where the population engulfs its resources", "How can we help a foreign country to escape the overcrowding? It is clear, the worst thing is to send him food ... atomic bombs would be preferable. For a while, the pain would be terrible, but it would quickly disappear, leaving only a few survivors who  "^[3]suffer.It is understood that the liberal economists and environmentalists who claim analysis Hardin merely some limited references to their inspiration, indeed quite disturbing, even if it be the part of the provocation in his writings. Reference to the tragedy of the commons is based on the enclosure movement in the eighteenth century in Britain that thousands of peasants dispossessed of their collective rights to land and common resources for the benefit of landowners and industrialists.

Today, we are witnessing a similar process in marine and coastal^[4]areas.Beneficiaries include powerful companies interested in mineral and living resources, but also ENGOs promoter and sometimes reserve managers, often in conjunction with tourism interests, and funded by multinational corporations. These are the ENGOs that shape public opinion to accept the privatization movement of the oceans. They justify the dispossession of the coastal communities of their rights by the loss of biodiversity and the need to involve external actors competent to save the oceans, according to the approach advocated by G. Hardin. For them, the fishermen do not have rights to common resources such as common goods are mostly public property and state ownership, on behalf of the nation, can only assign privileges, authorizations, under financial conditions and / or ecological. Reference to biodiversity as the common heritage of humanity turns against those who disposed for centuries shared resources under their control, but without recognized property rights. According to Hardin, it is impossible to entrust the management areas to protect their citizens and therefore should be excluded, if deemed necessary ENGOs on the basis of opinions considered scientific course these opinions are always those biologists and never anthropologists andgeographers.'s

Wilderness, imaginary models as the basis of conservation, was born in the United States in the late nineteenth century, with the creation of Yosemite park in California. This park was created following the publication of photographs of a wonderful nature that have shaped the American imagination. These photographers have called this vision of wilderness "Wilderness", that is to say, a place that has not seen the imprint of man and nature is ideal. In fact, even the United States was "a myth, a fiction that has spread throughout the world, and for a century or more, determined the conservation program of^[5]Humanity."These adventurers photographers indeed systematically removed any sign of human presence on their shots, while the Indians were the Yosemite Valley for millennia. The practical result was the expulsion of Indians from their ancestral lands and it was the same for the other parks, sometimes with extreme violence. The process of creating parks is part of the colonial strategy of expropriation of indigenous and denial of their rights.

It is not a coincidence that the South African apartheid is one of the countries where the private and public parks are the most important. One of the founders of WWF South Africa was one of the staunchest supporters of apartheid. In contrast, anthropologists who have lived with indigenous peoples have emphasized the close relationship they had with nature. For them, the best way to preserve ecosystems was to entrust to those who were able to live for centuries, while ensuring the preservation of biodiversity. Mark Dowie, "praising the beautiful pristine landscapes, which exist only in the imagination of the Romantics, Western conservationists have diverted attention from the places where people live and daily choices that actually degrade nature to which they belong"^[6]. If there are discrepancies between the various currents of American conservationism, between those who advocate the preservation and those who accept full integration of certain uses in a conservation project, the ideal of "wilderness" is their common imagination.

For some, the nature excludes human presence to others is part of human nature but must nevertheless preserve or restore witness this remarkable spaces Wilderness. Moreover, it is not enough to make a man an element of ecosystem, it is still necessary to define his rank and place. Should we make a living among other Serreau as Hill writes: "Man is nothing more than", "self-proclaimed most advanced race, they should have the intelligence to question this so-called  "^[7]superiority.

At the ecosystem concept favored by biologists, geographers prefer the notion of environment: "The geographical environment of a place includes elements of the natural order, artifacts (equipment, infrastructure networks), institutions and cultures, relationships, short all the 'memories' that inform' the system of  "^[8]place.

More recently, geographers have introduced the concept of "Geosystem" richer and more complex than ecosystem to analyze the relationship of man with his environment. There is therefore a strong European resistance to the integration of the "Wilderness" in the imagination of people and references scientists, for the reason that the area is densely populated for centuries and totally anthropized nature.

United States, weak stand before the arrival of settlers and the virtual elimination of the Indians could make way for this imaginary element, but it is a product of colonization. There is however a natural environment where the Wilderness can find its place in the imagination, it is the marine world. By its nature, it is a world that is not permanently occupied by men and, as noted humorously NGO Robin Hood,"Ownership is easy, there is no population indigenous aquatic organisms only few experts petitions and legal disputes.^[9] "The only permanent users of those resources, up to recent decades were fishermen.

These spaces occupy ocean in search of fish for centuries, and not only in coastal areas. Basque fishermen discovered the riches of Newfoundland prior explorers. Others have sailed the seas in search of whales, tuna and other well beyond coastal areas. The oceans are the workplaces and fishermen for centuries they have been profoundly altered marine ecosystems and nature of the funds on the continental shelves, sometimes to the risk of extinction of some species that can blame them. However it remains a lesser extent than the changes made ​​to the ground, and it is still possible to dream the existence of oceans untouched by human intervention. The "wilderness" imaginary shapes with marine support films extolling the beauty and resources of marine spaces. It is possible on this basis to justify more easily than land, the existence of wilderness, especially the place of fishermen is increasingly marginal in society.

Reserves led to the dispossession of millions of people.

Before analyzing the social impact of marine reserves, it is good to go back to what happened on the ground for more than a century until today. In Durban, in 2003, delegates from indigenous present the 5th World Parks Congress declared natural: "First we were dispossessed in the name of kings and emperors, later the name of development and now in the name of conservation"^[10].

Mark Dowie has made ​​one of the most comprehensive analyzes documented and often conflicting relationships between conservationists and indigenous peoples. More than 108,000 reserves have been created since 1900 at the request of five large ENGOs conservationists: WWF, Conservation International, The Nature Conservancy, African Wildlife Foundation, Wildlife Conservation Society. The creation of these reserves has accelerated in recent decades with the awareness of the loss of biodiversity. Half of the territories was occupied by indigenous communities. Millions of people have been displaced and dispossessed of their land and their rights, often through violence, to create parks and reserves.

The process was first implemented in the United States and the model is then spread throughout the world, particularly in Latin America and Africa. So one of the people who suffered the most is that the Maasai in Tanzania and Kenya. In 2004, during a congress of IUCN in Bangkok, one of their leaders, Tanzanian Saning'o Martin, said: "In the interest of a relatively new trend, biodiversity, over one hundred thousand Maasai pastoralists have been displaced from their land ... We were the first conservationists, now you have made ​​us enemies of  "^[11]conservation.In 2004, new, 200 indigenous delegates signed a declaration stating that "conservation has become the first threat to indigenous territories." It is difficult to estimate the number of people displaced by the creation of parks.

The evaluation of the lowest estimated 5 million people from Park Project Yosemite, California, 1864. Others estimate that 14 million people in Africa alone. Behind the appearance of good intentions and objectives respectable, so there is, in the history of parks and reserves, a face often hateful but widely misunderstood, that whole peoples dispossessed of their lands, forgotten by history. One reason for this lack of knowledge is linked to broad statements of the years 1990-2000 have formalized and promoted with enthusiasm the ideas of co-management of reserves and respect indigenous practices adapted to the protection of the environment. And IUCN and WWF developed in 1996 the "Principles and Guidelines for the management of reserves related to indigenous peoples."

According to them, there is no conflict between the objectives of conservationists and indigenous people. "Indigenous peoples should be recognized as equal partners in the development and implementation of conservation strategies that affect their lands, territories, waters, coastal seas and their resources, and in particular, the creation and management of protected areas. ^[12] "Inr & bedridden, these good principles have not stood facing the rise of indigenous peoples' organizations, conflicts have multiplied in the field and in international meetings between indigenous movements and conservationists .

According to Mac Chapin: "NGOs who had the enormous responsibility to protect natural ecosystems of the planet against the encroachments of the modern world in its most destructive, have increasingly contributed - and have become dependent - with several governments and companies, who are the players most aggressive of these  "^[13]encroachments.Indigenous peoples did not appreciate to come face to ENGOs supported by companies eyeing on their lands and resources. Thus, most ENGOs, according to Mac Chapin and other analysts decided to focus their goals on conservation alone, according to their scientifically based criteria, refusing to take into account the fight against poverty and economic interests and social, that are not their responsibility. In a recent WWF study, funded by foundations Moore Walton Family (Walmart) and Packard, the authors argue that MPAs well designed, on a scientific basis, help to fight against poverty.^[14] Yet this is not the feeling expressed by the representatives of the people concerned.

analysis of what is happening in Tanzania is indicative of this evolution and collusion more closely ENGOs, governments and financial interests of big business at the expense of the Maasai of increasingly marginalized. In 2009, 200 homes were destroyed suddenly, under the pretext that their inhabitants threatened biodiversity. 40% of the land area is under a protection, partly in the theoretical framework of co-management between villagers and park managers. However we can see that it is more often the rhetoric and the income from tourism in its various forms, is largely back to the government or to private managers (business or ENGOs) parks and reserves. The same observation is made ​​in Madagascar where entrance fees on tourism concessions largely exclude local populations.^[15] Benjaminsen To Tor and Ian Bryceson: "Initial attempts to introduce co-management or conservation 'win-win' acted as a key mechanism to initiate dispossession in wildlife reserves and coastal areas, allowing the preservation of a foothold in the villages.

This penetration has created the conditions for dispossession, subsequently, was able to develop a centralized approach. We found that dispossession was gradual and piecemeal in some cases, while it was violent in others.^[16] "Thisprocess of marginalization of people is inevitable if we do not pay attention or priority is given to conservation because states do not have the necessary funding for the management of reserves. They therefore depend on foundations that fund ENGOs and, increasingly, private investors, or in off-reserve who impose their will consume resources and indigenous peoples.

Eco-conquering the seas

The detour through the analysis of continental reserves to better understand the challenges of the process that is in place for the spread of marine reserves since the Johannesburg Summit in 2002: Objective, 20% of MPAs half in wilderness.

The sea is now the new frontier, object of desire, conservationists for multinational energy. Unlike native who received some texts to protect them, such as the Convention on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted by the ILO in 1989 and, more recently, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the fishermen have no legal protection against a environmental law established and more binding international level.

Threats, real Biodiversity serve as an alibi for the setting aside of the fishermen, on which bases the essential responsibilities of ecosystem degradation. The urgency is constantly put forward to justify the creation of wilderness areas, the last date is the phobia in a sea of soup reduced to a jellyfish, it is sometimes, but for some scientists, this is mainly due to cyclical control. ENGOs are also many ways to persuade the public that the wilderness is one of the most effective ways to restore resources. This may be true, they are effective for biodiversity, but for fishing, the impact on resources is far from generalized. The effect is rather neutral on fishery resources because the pressure on other areas compensate for the end of the fishing reserves.

The problem is not so simple, because for some fishermen, the location of reserves actually prevents them from fishing in areas vital to them, condemning them to poverty or poaching is with all its risks, imprisonment and sometimes death (cases in Senegal and Asia). Thus fishermen's representatives in international conferences on biodiversity are found in the positions of indigenous representatives, from the Bonn conference in 2008. Like them, they now consider ENGOs conservationists as enemies. In Hyderabad, India, at the meeting of the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) in October 2012, Riza Damanik, NGO KIARA, Indonesia, recalled that 13 fishermen were killed by guards because they not meet the reserve, they must cover 20 million ha in 2020.

A South African representative pointed to the creation of parks as "the second wave of dispossession" after the apartheid, apartheid green. In Central America, "the cost of conservation has fallen on the shoulders of local communities, coastal fishermen ..."^[17] For the first time, the organization of artisanal fishermen in India, the National Fishworkers Forum, called for a day of protest, January 2013, to request the judgment of the creation of wilderness because they condemn thousands of fishermen in coastal poverty. We are witnessing in the South in a fit of anger against the fishermen wilderness imposed when they have demonstrated their ability to protect resources and biodiversity, as in Brazil with the Extractive Reserves, created and managed by the fishermen.

In Tanzania, the process of dispossession by conservationists (green / blue grabbing) has been well studied by Ian Bryceson in reserve Mafia, one of the largest in the Indian Ocean. It covers 18,000 people.^[18] Creation of the reserve has paved the way for powerful private interests who control government and tourism. Residents have constraints, but the benefits of alternative activities for them are ridiculous.

In South Africa, the geographer Sylvain Guyot showed how to set up a front ecological coastal zone occupied by^[19]"eco-conquerors."The ecological front on the east coast created by three types of actors, ecotourism professionals, foundations and ENGO, researchers and universities. Subsequently involved the écoconquérants whose objectives are varied and often contradictory nature conservation, mining, tourism, etc.."Theirreal motives are often hidden by generous rhetoric on the need for sustainable development and the participation of local populations.^[20] "Environmentalistsare those who pave the way to conquer the forehead even if among them are opposite trends between those advocating environmental justice and human rights and those who practice" environmental racism "exclusion factor. After completing a fine typology of the various types of environmentalists and actors, Sylvain Guyot concludes: "The covetous are not always those that think and sometimes the threat lies in the desire for protection. How many environmentalists have publicized beautiful natural areas now threatened by various types of pressure?

"What'shappening, sometimes with violence in the South is taking place before our eyes in Europe. Environmentalist pressure, acting on the state of emergency and catastrophism, opens the way to a weakening of the occupation of space by marine fishermen and their tutelage. Once this hurdle passed, the enclosure movement at sea can grow, it remains to divide the space between the various interests prancing with impatience, conservationists, mining, energy, tourism, aquaculture industry, etc.. Are certainly the most greedy conservationists who can play the sensitivity of public opinion to impose their wishes.

The example of Australia is quite significant from this point of view. This country has created the largest network of reserves in the world (2.3 million km2)but already, conservationists point out that these reserves avoid touching the possibilities of exploitation of oil and gas, and do not not recover sufficiently affected fishing activities.^[21] It's a safe bet that not much affect areas of offshore oil, but that further reduce fishing opportunities. Same conclusion in California, where the creation of marine reserves has been closely monitored by a representative of the oil companies, to the chagrin of professional fishermen, Indian tribes and environmentalists field.

In the future, the space devoted fishermen, coastal or offshore, will be increasingly limited. Environmentalists with conservationists, liberal economists are there to ensure that the common good requires a marginalization of fishing. The value of ecological services it renders is low compared to that generated by tourism, extraction, energy, etc. Unfortunately for them, the European artisanal fishermen are generally not as miserable in the South, or natives. They only fish, often risking their lives in areas they know as their pockets to feed their families and their countrymen, but they have no right. They have less, with scientists, ENGO and many elected officials who believe that fish resources are public or private property but never a common good, common property fishermen. Yet there is a scientific basis based collective management of fishery resources, with rights and responsibilities, it has been validated by a Nobel Prize awarded to Elinor Ostrom .

But all this is too complicated, better a cheap fishing rights reserves and monitored by ENGOs and biologists have them the truth, they do not have the knowledge accumulated by generations of fishermen, or experience a fluctuating resource. At most, they can accept the image of Epinal a few fishermen working the shore on boats of 10 or 12 m, with rare gear that will be "tolerated". This vision of "minimalist" fishing does not fit our needs and demands food, it does not account conditions of organization of the sector and its integration into land and sea territories. Ago to create emergency collective rights for fishermen, these rights also based their responsibilities. They can then exercise in collaboration with scientists and NGOs respectful of their rights.

Alain Le Sann

Secretary of the Collective fishing and Development

President Film Festival "Fishermen World"Lorient

January 20, 2013