Plenty More Fish in the Sea? An Examination of Canada’s 1992 Cod Moratorium
The story goes that you could once catch a fish off of the Atlantic coast of Canada by simply dipping a bucket into the ocean. Standing on the deck of a fishing boat with the blue oceans extending endlessly around you while pulling the silver bodies of fish from the sea, it felt as though the supply would never end. Cod were plentiful, and so people fished them, for food and for profit, until eventually whole communities grew off of the catching of them, and it turned into a way of life for many¹. For many years, the fishing community in Newfoundland and Canada’s Great Banks region thrived. And yet, in 1992, cod populations plummeted and the Ottawa government was forced to impose a moratorium on the commercial and recreational fishing of cod. Boats could go out for days at a time, and still return with almost nothing. The oceans seemed empty compared to just fifty years earlier, before the rise of industrial fishing.
The moratorium emptied the ocean of fishermen in an attempt to refill it with fish, a move that created controversy throughout the Great Banks’ communities. The moratorium was announced by John C. Crosbie, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans at the time. To give an idea of the negative reactions to his announcement, he was harassed mercilessly after declaring the moratorium at a press conference, to the extent where he had to be removed by police down a back staircase to avoid the crowds of angry fishermen demanding that he change his decision².
Initially, Crosbie declared that the moratorium would only last a few years. However, almost thirty years later, fishing in these waters is still highly limited. The failure to lift the moratorium within the initially proposed timeline has only fueled the flames of anger surrounding the decision to place the moratorium at all, as well as sparking a new controversy surrounding if and when it should be listed. To understand these controversies and the different viewpoints surrounding them, we must delve into the history of the cod fishery and how it became depleted to the point where the fishing moratorium was necessary.
So where did the fish go? For many years after the moratorium came into effect, scientists were undecided about the root cause of the depletion of the fishery³. Some believed that it was due to environmental factors, such as colder water temperatures or other natural increases in fish mortality². Even Crosbie moved the blame away from overfishing, saying that “I didn’t take the fish from the God damned water, so don’t go abusing me.”² While this may have just been to protect himself from the fishermen’s ire, it is also reflective of the view that the industry that buoyed the economy couldn’t possibly have caused such a tragedy. However, as time has passed and more analysis has been performed, the consensus has in fact shifted towards increased industrialization and overfishing as, if not the only cause, at the very least the largest causes of the fishery collapse³.
Fisheries are a classic example of the tragedy of the commons, and one of the solutions often proposed as a way to prevent this tragedy is privatization⁴. However, in the case of the cod, privatization failed to protect the species. Rather, the privatization of the fishing industry brought it onto the treadmill of production. It is possible to think of the process of production as a treadmill with three main players: the state, in this case the Ottawa government, the firms, the fishing companies, and the citizens, the general public. The theory dictates that competition drives firms to create new technologies that will allow them to increase profits⁵. As efficiency increases due to these technologies, less labor is needed, creating a need for rapid growth to prevent unemployment⁶. In turn, this produces more pollution and degrades natural resources⁵. As the treadmill keeps running and production continues, resources become even more scarce and pollution increases further. Finally, the theory argues that the treadmill will continue regardless of social and economic costs, as market-based societies “are driven by a ceaseless commitment to growth.”⁵
Throughout the twentieth century, the fishing industry produced various technological advancements that allowed fishing efficiency to rapidly improve. New net and boat designs allowed more fish to be caught at once, and new navigational technologies allowed fish to be found more easily⁷. Additionally, industries began replacing the traditional small open boats with much larger longliners and trawlers that could travel much faster, weather harsher conditions, and stay out for longer periods of time than ever before⁷. Each of these advances allowed fish to be caught at greater numbers and with greater efficiency.
As fishing grew more efficient, the cod industry grew with it. Catch rates steadily increased from the mid-twentieth century onwards, reaching unprecedented levels in the 1970s⁷. Due to pressure from the citizens, the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF) established Total Allowable Catches in 1970, limiting the number of fish that could be removed from a fishery⁷. However, the Commission overestimated the size and growth rate of the cod population, and so, as growth continued, cod stocks fell to dangerously low levels⁷. In terms of the treadmill of production, this is evidence of the continuing cycles of resource depletion that comes along with increasing production. Alternatively, we can think of this as the equivalent of the increasing levels of pollution that come with growth. This process was encouraged by the state, as it led to increased economic growth for the region, promoting their economic and political interests, and by the citizens, as a stronger fishing industry meant more secure livelihoods for them and for their communities, promoting their economic and psychological interests. For many years, economic growth outweighed ecological concerns about the stability of the cod fisheries, just as the treadmill of production dictates.
Further, the increases in technology as a way of increasing economic growth created “irreparable rifts in the metabolic interaction between humans and the earth,” exacerbating the problem⁵. By removing so many fish at such great speeds, the fishermen were disrupting the cycling of nutrients in the ocean. The boats full of silver fish that returned to shore each evening were affecting the ability of the population to reproduce, and are changing the balance of the food web, interrupting the metabolic processes of the environment⁵. This rift is only deepened over time, as competition to catch the remaining fish increases and exploitation of the population continues to rise. The metabolic rift contributes to the treadmill of production by accelerating it and making it easier to exploit the fisheries at even greater levels.
Finally, in the early 1990s, after decades of increasing production and overexploitation, cod stocks in Canada collapsed. The number of cod capable of spawning plummeted over 90% in just 30 years, from the 1960s to the 1990s⁷. In 1992, Canada imposed a moratorium on cod fishing, ending all commercial and recreational fishing. The treadmill of production was shut down, with the state taking action and prioritizing environmental protection over short-term economic growth. However, it is unclear if the treadmill has been shut down for good, as the decision was at least partially motivated by long-term economic concerns. If cod went extinct completely then the industry would be gone for good, whereas if the species is rejuvenated by the moratorium then the industry could prosper once more. If we are to believe that societies are driven by a need for constant growth, then the moratorium could be viewed as a temporary stopgap, simply pausing the treadmill instead of stopping it entirely. Whether this is true or not will depend on how the fishery is managed after the moratorium is lifted.
It can be hard to deliberate whether or not the cod moratorium should have occurred when we are discussing it from a vantage point that is over twenty years out, and so can see the benefits that it has brought. However, it is also important to remember the disadvantages of the moratorium as well. The fishing industry predictably collapsed; without the ability to catch cod, the fishermen had no livelihood. These fishermen in Newfoundland are a dwindling group — membership in the Fish Food and Allied Workers Union has decreased by sixty percent since the moratorium was put into place¹. Without their main source of income, many left, and the population of the island dropped by tens of thousands of people. These impacts are still felt throughout the community as it struggles to get by. The cod moratorium led to the largest mass layoff in Canadian history, causing huge amounts of personal and financial stress for members of the community⁸. Incomes of the remaining fishermen also dropped, exacerbating the negative effects of the moratorium⁸. All in all, at ten years after the moratorium, the unemployment rate in the province was twice that of the Canadian rate⁸. Additionally, the social structure of the Newfoundland communities changed⁹. Demographic shifts decreased the numbers of young people and many of those who remain are choosing to leave or not join the fishing industry, breaking the tradition of the family business for many⁹. While the moratorium may have helped the environment, it caused significant harm to many of the people involved, with lasting effects.
We know that there were large amounts of immediate anger towards those who put the moratorium into place, and part of this anger can be sourced to differences in viewpoints. Both the fishermen fishing for cod in Canada and the people making the decisions in the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries have realist points of view, but differ on what the objective facts are. The opinions of the fishermen are based what they saw on the water every day, leading them to believe that they have a strong sense of how the population is doing. The fishermen believed that, while fish were certainly depleted, the situation was not at the point where a moratorium that would jeopardize their livelihoods was necessary.
In contrast, the politicians based their opinions on the scientific facts that are provided to them. Government scientists calculate optimal levels of resource exploitation such as maximum sustainable yield (MSY), upon which policies about how many fish can be caught are made¹⁰. When the data said that the cod fishery was depleted to a dangerous level, the Ministry made the data-driven decision to call a halt to all cod fishing. However, this stance has further fueled the tensions between the two groups, as many criticize the concept of MSY, including some fisheries scientists¹⁰. The differences between stances sparked the backlash to the moratorium, as the fishermen struggled to see where the politicians were coming from, and vice versa.
Although both groups are realists, we can understand some of the tensions between them through using a more constructivist viewpoint. While both groups are basing their opinions on what they believe are objective facts, namely how many cod there are, they are using different interpretations of these facts to support their beliefs and make claims about what should be done. However, both sides are using socially constructed pictures of what is happening. The beliefs of the fishermen are based entirely on what they can see, while the MSY used by politicians is a human-determined value with little actual basis in nature, especially given that we have very little knowledge of what the actual upper limit of the cod population is considering the amount of time that the fishing industry has existed. Both viewpoints have their issues, so it is hard to say that one has more value over the other.
The next question to ask is, if the cod fishing moratorium caused so many ill effects, and brought about such a backlash, then why did policy makers go through with it? The answers lie primarily in the differing interests of the two groups, the policy makers and the fishermen. The primary interests of the fishermen are economic. As fishermen, they need to be able to fish in order to make a living and have economic stability. Further, they also have a psychological interest in continuing to fish. In small towns where the fishing industry makes up the bulk of the town’s income, being a part of that industry is hugely important to both community and individual identity. Additionally, fishermen are often celebrated in the community. There is a huge amount of identity and respect tied up in being in the fishing community, and most are reluctant to lose that.
On the other hand, the people who have the power over the moratorium also have economic interests, although theirs are generally more long term. The Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans is a federal organization, so they are primarily concerned with long-term survival of the economy and fishery, as opposed to the short-term livelihood of fishermen. Under the treadmill of production, the state has a major interest in economic growth, as well as in maintaining political legitimacy. However, as a federal policy maker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans does not have the political interest of trying to please their constituents in order to be reelected, freeing them from a number of the repercussions to a decision like the moratorium. The interests of the politicians involved led them to declare the moratorium, as they felt that it was the option with the greatest benefit, despite all of the downsides and backlash.
In the intervening years since the moratorium was declared, much of the backlash has died down. However, enough time has passed that a new controversy is emerging: whether or not the moratorium should be lifted. For many, the science still says no. At ten years on, there were no obvious signs of recovery of the offshore fisheries⁸. After twenty years, the stock was no longer at its lowest point, but was still not fully recovered². While the cod had resumed their historical migration patterns, bringing their role in nutrient cycling back to what it once was and easing the metabolic rift, numbers are still not what they once were². While the health of the fishery is improving, with a report from Canadian fishing authorities acknowledging that the fishery is well on its way to being healthy again, most environmental scientists and government policy makers maintain that it is too soon to lift the moratorium¹.
However, others have different opinions. In general, the fishermen believe that the population has recovered enough to at least allow for some fishing. Especially for those who were fishing before the moratorium occurred, they have a frame of reference and know what it was like to fish when the cod populations were high as well as when they were low. The president of the local fishermen’s cooperative, who has been fishing in Newfoundland since he was eight years old, said himself that “it’s getting there” and that the fish are returning¹. This is powerful evidence towards the recovery of fishery, as the fishermen are the ones who know what it looks like when the fishery is healthy, as opposed to the policy makers far away on the mainland.
So what is being done to resolve this current controversy? Many politicians are open to discussion about changing the current policies and fishing quotas, and the Newfoundland fishermen have been taking advantage of this. They have been reaching out to policy makers, sharing their stories, collecting data, and connecting with scientists, as well as finding new lines of work to maintain economic stability. Through this strategy of making connections and building up a network, the fishermen are putting more pressure on the federal government to at the very least compromise and allow fishing at a low quota. By appealing to local politicians as well as those on the federal level, the fishermen can have a wider range of people who can also exert pressure on the current Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. So far, this has been occurring, with the Groundfish Industry Development Council, a group to help processors and fishermen, meeting with local Members of Parliament to discuss raising current cod quotas¹.
It appears that this strategy has been working, as politicians seem open to discussion, and some even saying that the fishermen’s requests for raised quotas don’t go far enough¹. Scientists agree that the fishery is recovering and that it should return to what it once was². Although the discussion has yet to reach the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans, it is taking place and minds are being changed with regards to the moratorium. However, there is still a long way to go, and it is difficult to say how much longer it will take to have the moratorium on cod fishing lifted. If and when the moratorium is lifted, the next challenge will be to ensure that this same problem does not occur again. How to achieve this is still highly uncertain, and more information is needed before any strategies can be proposed.
Returning once again to the treadmill of production, the cod moratorium showed that the treadmill can, for a time at least, be shut down. However, the continuing economic downturn that resulted from the moratorium calls into question whether it is possible to achieve economic stability or growth without the treadmill of production, and if the moratorium actually just extended the timeline of the treadmill. When the cod return, it is likely that the government will put into place significantly more stringent requirements surrounding yields and quotas, in an effort to protect their interests. In years past, common-pool resources such as the cod fisheries have managed to survive, but only under the watch of institutions that moderate resource use⁴. Unless these institutions are created, or existing organizations are improved, it is unfortunately likely that the cod fishing industry in Canada will again be caught up in the treadmill and we will witness the same cycle once more.
References:
- David Abel, “After years of decline, cod and a community rebound in Newfoundland,” The Boston Globe; Boston, 2016. [online] Available at: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/08/06/after-years-decline-cod-and-community-rebound-newfoundland/oNxKF14RpE47yc65OOAy6O/story.html.
2. William E. Schrank and Noel Roy, “The Newfoundland Fishery and Economy Twenty Years after the Northern Cod Moratorium,” Marine Resource Economics; Chicago 28, no. 4 (December 2013): 397–413.
3. Myers Ransom A., Hutchings Jeffrey A., and Barrowman Nicholas J., “Why Do Fish Stocks Collapse? The Example of Cod in Atlantic Canada,” Ecological Applications 7, no. 1 (February 1, 1997): 91–106, https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(1997)007[0091:WDFSCT]2.0.CO;2.
4. Elinor Ostrom, “THE CHALLENGE OF Common-Pool Resources,” Environment; Washington 50, no. 4 (August 2008): 8–20,2.
5. Rebecca Clausen and Brett Clark, “THE METABOLIC RIFT AND MARINE ECOLOGY: An Analysis of the Ocean Crisis Within Capitalist Production,” Organization & Environment; Thousand Oaks 18, no. 4 (December 2005): 422–44.
6. David J. Whitmarsh, “The Fisheries Treadmill,” Land Economics, 74, no.3 (1998): 422–427. doi:10.2307/3147122
7. Jenny Higgins, “Cod Moratorium in Newfoundland and Labrador,” 2009. Accessed May 1, 2018, http://www.heritage.nf.ca/articles/economy/moratorium.php.
8. William E. Schrank, “The Newfoundland Fishery: Ten Years after the Moratorium,” Marine Policy 29, no. 5 (September 1, 2005): 407–20, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2004.06.005.
9. Lawrence C. Hamilton, Richard L. Haedrich, and Cynthia M. Duncan, “Above and Below the Water: Social/Ecological Transformation in Northwest Newfoundland,” Population and Environment; New York 25, no. 3 (January 2004): 195–215.
10. Longo, Stefano, Rebecca Clausen, and Brett Clark. 2015. The Tragedy of the Commodity: Oceans, Fisheries, and Aquaculture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
