INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films
the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, som e thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon th e quality o f th e
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted.

Also, if unauthorized

copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing
from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.

ProQuest Information and teaming
300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600

UMI*

The Embedded Hook: Fishing as a
Piece of the Security Puzzle
by
Craig Curran-Morton
B.A., University of Alberta, 1994

THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS
in
INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

© Craig Curran-Morton
ÎRSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA
June 1997

library

Libraiy
1^1 ofNational
Canada

BMiothèque nationale
du Canada

Acquisitions and
Bibliographie Services

Acquisitions et
services bibliographiques

395 WeKngton Strwt
Ottawa ON K1A0N4
Canada

395, rue Waünglon
Ottawa ON K1A0N4
Canada
Y o u r m VtaM /W W an»

Our a * M w a iM ra n c a

The author has granted a non­
exclusive licence allowing the
National Library o f Canada to
reproduce, loan, distribute or sell
copies o f this thesis in xnicrofoim,
pz^er or electronic formats.

L’auteur a accordé une licence non
exclusive permettant à la
BiblioÜièque nationale du Canada de
reproduire, prêta:, distribuer ou
vendre des copies de cette dièse sous
la forme de microfrche/frlm, de
reproduction sur p ^ ier ou sur format
électronique.

The author retains ownershq) of the
copyright in this thesis. Neidier the
thesis nor substantial extracts from it
may be printed or otherwise
reproduced without the author’s
permission.

L’auteur conserve la propriété du
droit d’auteur qui protège cette dièse.
Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels
de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés
ou autrement reproduits sans son
autorisatioiL

0 612 80493-3
-

Canada

-

Approval

Name:

Craig Curran-Morton

Degree:

Master of Arts

Thesis Title:

THE EMBEDDED HOOK: H S H IN G A S A
PIECE OF THE SECURITY PUZZLE

Examining Committee:

Chair: Dr. Max BIouw
Dean of Graduate Studies
University of Northern British Columbia

Supervisor: Dr. Lawrence T. Woods
International Studies
University of Northern British Columbia

Ü
Advisor: Dr. Heather Smith
International Studies
University of Northern British Columbia

Extefnal"E5cmniner: Dr. Jo-Anne Fiske
Gender Studies
University of Northern British Columbia

Date Approved:

Abstract
Fish have long provided an important source of food, trade and
revenue. Overfishing thus poses a considerable threat to the national,
international, and global levels of security. The threats posed by
overfishing are multilevel and must be examined together. The first half
of this thesis will examine the concept of security and explain the three
levels of security. The second half will examine the relationship between
threats to fish stocks and each level of security.
First, overfishing can have a direct impact on the national security of
a state, threatening its economic health and viability by negatively affecting
aspects such as employment, taxes, exports and foreign fishing license
revenues. Furthermore, overfishing threatens to act as a catalyst for
conflict between different social classes within the borders of a state and
between states as people and countries come into conflict over the
remaining resource.
Second, international security is threatened as overfishing endangers
the development and maintenance of international fishing regimes through
state non-compliance, re-flagging of vessels and unilateral actions.
Third, overfishing threatens global security, particularly human
security (which is composed of food, economic and cultural security) and
environmental security. Fish constitute a vital source of food for millions
of people around the world. Furthermore, many people rely on fishing,
either directly or indirectly, for employment and income. Moreover,
fishing has been such an integral aspect to some societies that its loss could
lead to the decline of many cultural groups. Finally, overfishing also
threatens environmental security by destroying biodiversity and decreasing
the chances that the remaining fish stocks will survive.
11

Table of Contents
Abstract

ii

Table of Contents

iii

Acknowledgments

iv

Dedication

V

Chapter One

Introduction
Conclusion

1
5

Chapter Two

Security
What is security?
National Security
International Security
Global Security
Conclusion

8
8
12
18
21
30

Chapter Three

Fishing and National Security
Fishing and Economics
Fishing and Conflict
Fishing and Domestic Conflict
Fishing and External Conflict
Conclusion

31
32
38
40
43
46

Chapter Four

Fishing and International Security
Fishing and International Regimes
The Case of NAFO
Conclusion

48
48
51
54

Chapter Five

Fishing and Global Security
Fishing and Food Security
Fishing and Economic Security
Fishing and Cultural Security
Fishing and Environmental Security
Conclusion

56
56
59
62
66
70

Chapter Six

Conclusion
Issues for Future Research

72
75
80

Bibliography
iii

Acknowledgments
I would like to acknowledge the many people who provided
me with such a great deal of support and guidance throughout
the past three years. First and foremost, I would like to thank
Dr. Lawrence T. Woods for his guidance, inspiration, advice
and patience.
I would also like to thank my family and many friends who
offered m e much needed emotional and physical support over
the past few years.
Special thanks to Stuart Boon for his assistance and to Jane
Heather, my drama professor in that course I took as a time
filler, for teaching me that life without risk is stagnant and
suffocating. To risk oneself is to hve. To do otherwise, is to
merely exist.

IV

I dedicate my thesis and my life to my wife, Louise, and my
son, Ethan, the two most important people on the face of the
earth.

I believe that the cod fishery, the herring fishery, the pilchard
fishery, the mackerel fishery and probably all the great seafisheries are inexhaustible, that is to say that nothing we can do
seriously affects the numbers o f fish.
- Thomas Huxley, British scientist, late 1800s (as quoted
in McGoodwin, 1990: 66).

VI

Chapter One
Introduction
Fishing has not always been seen as an issue of security, despite its
long history and its importance to humanity.

In the past, fish and fish

products played a key role in the lives o f people and governments around
the world as a valuable source of food, a significant item of trade, and an
abundant source of revenue.

For the most part, fish seemed to be an

inexhaustible resource, as people did not have the technology, capability, or
desire to harvest fish in large enough quantities to have a severe impact on
fish populations (McGoodwin, 1995: 12).

Subsequently, when threats to

the viability of this resource were detected, communities and cultures
developed complex ways of limiting the potential impact of their fishing
habits by changing their practices through such means as restricting access
to only certain peoples, limiting the type and size of nets and gear that
could be used, and allowing fishing only during certain times of the year.
These methods worked successfully in most cases and were enough to
ensure the continued sustainability of any given fishery (Kurien, 1993: 5).
However, as the world population grew, particularly in Europe, so
too did the use of technology. The Industrial Revolution in Europe, for
example,

sparked increased mechanization and efficiency in

industries, including fishing.

many

Larger vessels and nets were developed to

allow people to fish further out into the vast seas and bring back much
larger catches. The end of the Second W orld War also brought about an
explosion in technology available to the fishing industry.

Boats were

developed that were able to spend months fishing the oceans and freezing
or even canning the fish products on board, returning to port only when
1

the finished product was ready to be off-loaded. Soon the technology was
such that it could satisfy the hunger of the world’s ever-increasing
population and growing demand for fish and fish products (Joyner and De
Cola, 1993: 101; McGoodwin, 1995: 12). The exploitation of this resource
continued unabated until the late 1960s and early 1970s when the Atlantic
herring and the Peruvian anchovy stocks collapsed. Almost overnight, the
world took notice (Fairlie, Hagler, and O ’Riordan, 1995: 52).

Such

exploitation continues today and only a handful of countries in the w orld
recognize that a problem has developed in the world’s fish stocks.

We

need only look back into history to understand the fishing crisis.

John

Cabot, the famous English explorer, remarked in his diary that upon
reaching the waters around what is now Newfoundland, he found the ocean
“swarming with fish, which can be taken not only with a net, but in baskets
let down with a stone” (Canada, 1991: 8-4). Since 1992, Newfoundlanders
have been barred from fishing these same waters, even for recreational
purposes (Krauthammer, 1992: 21).
Overfishing has a direct impact on the various social, pohtical,
economic,

and

environmental

aspects

of

security

at

a

national,

international, and global level of analysis. The problems of overfishing are
not specific to one level of security; they must be examined in relation to
all three levels. D eclining fish stocks pose a direct threat to security at
each level.
Chapter Two will examine the ambiguity of the concept of security
and the difficulties associated with its definition. Having grappled with the
basic concept, three levels of security analysis - national, international, and
global security - will be discussed in greater detail to give the reader an
idea of the foundations on which the thesis rests.

National security, as

traditionally defined, is far too militaristic a concept. It must be expanded
to include other sorts of threats.

International security is the process by

which states attempt to maintain their security through cooperation with
other states. Finally, global security is an emerging concept which attempts
to unite the various security levels. Individual security, or the security of
person, is merged with the security of the state and the international system
in the hopes of coming to a holistic, workable security paradigm.
Chapter Three will examine how overfishing threatens the level of
national security.

First, overfishing has a direct impact on national

security, threatening the economic health and viabtiity of the state by
negatively affecting such aspects as employment, taxes, exports and foreign
fishing license revenues.

Furthermore, conflicts between citizens within

the state and conflicts with other states threaten to erupt as overfishing
exacerbates (or triggers) problems between people.
Fishing and international security will be discussed in Chapter Four.
International

security

is

threatened

as

overfishing

endangers

the

development and maintenance of international fishing regimes through state
non-compliance, re-flagging

of vessels and unilateral

state actions.

Participation in these regimes indicates states are conceding that sometimes
to achieve security, they need to cooperate with other states.
Chapter Five will examine how overfishing threatens global security
in three areas. First, overfishing threatens human or individual security, in
areas such as food, economics and culture. Fish constitute a vital source of
food for millions o f people around the world. Furthermore, these fish also
provide important employment and income opportunities to many people.
Overfishing threatens this income source. Finally, fishing has become such

an integral aspect of some societies.

Its loss will threaten the cultural

security of many people.
The second area of global security threatened by overfishing is
environmental security, or the security of the planet. Overfishing threatens
the environment by destroying biodiversity and decreasing the chances that
the remaining fish stocks will survive.

The loss of any species has

unknown impUcations for both humanity and nature in the future.
The concluding chapter will highhght the important findings of the
thesis and discuss possible future avenues for research.
Three ideas will emerge from this discussion. First, there has been
much debate over broadening the concept to security to include more
diverse and “reahstic” threats (Ayoob, 1995: 9; Stem, 1992: 82; Tickner,
1994: 44).

With this examination, I will make a case for a balanced

broadening of the concept by providing examples of where overfishing
threatens not only to produce conflicts*, but also to hinder economies,
cooperative regimes, the environment and individual people’s lives.
Second, security threats are often both multi-dimensional and complex,
requiring the merging of national, international and global security with an
array of economic, political, anthropological, biological, developmental
and environmental considerations.

Finally, overfishing is an immediate

environmental threat that needs to be examined more closely and with
greater urgency than in the past.

Unlike environmental threats such as

global warming and the erosion of the ozone layer, which will play
themselves out over decades, the threat of overfishing is immediate, with
problems emerging today (Kurien, 1995;

Jandl, 1995; Vatikiotis and

Schwarz, 1995). This is not to underestimate or behttle the importance of

other

environmental problems

whose effects

are

potentially more

devastating, but overfishing is an immediate crisis.
The research methodology for this thesis is Umited to a review of
EngUsh language material from books, academic journals, government
documents and Internet sources. The literature examined comes primarily
from

the

disciplines

of

Pohtical

Science,

International

Studies,

Anthropology, Gender Studies, and Environmental Studies.

Others

interested in pursuing this research further should consider consulting
foreign language sources and materials from other disciplines.
Moreover, there are generally four types of fisheries; subsistent;
commercial; recreational; and aquacultural. This thesis will focus on the
marine or oceanic subsistent and commercial fisheries. This is not to say
that the other fisheries are not important, but just the opposite: as both
recreational fishing and aquaculture have grown rapidly in size and
importance to many fishing regions in the world.

Due to constraints of

time and space, the recreational and aquacultural fisheries will not be
discussed here.

C on clu sion :
In choosing to focus my research on what I beheve is a crisis in the
fishing industry, I found it closely connected with the field of International
Studies. The first seminar course I attended as a graduate student was
entitled, “The State of the Discipline,” in which we discussed the meaning
of the tenn International Studies. What exactly does it mean and how does
it differ from International Relationsl After much discussion, four ideas
arose which I found particularly helpful in defining the discipline.

First,

International Studies concerns itself with issues that affect more than just a

small group of individuals or one particular state: they affect many people
in many states in all parts of the globe.

Second, unlike International

Relations (which tends to focus primarily on international political and
economic

interactions

between

states),

International

Studies

is

interdisciplinary. The problems are viewed and solutions derived from a
wide variety of disciplines and perspectives: Economics, Political Science,
Geography, Gender Studies, Environmental Studies, Development Studies,
History, and so on.
holistic nature.
(Haftendom,

Third, International Studies views the world in its

Using the image of Helga Haftendom’s security puzzle
1991), International Studies attempts to

look at each

individual piece, small groups of pieces and the complete puzzle itself,
finding merit and understanding at each level. Finally, because the field of
International Studies is interdisciplinary, it has a holistic outlook.

A

relatively young product of the twentieth century, it remains fluid and
evolving.

Unlike other disciplines sometimes resistant to change.

International Smdies is said to be continually changing its theoretical
boundaries.
The topic I have chosen comphes with these four ideas. First, the
fishing crisis is an international problem that affects individuals around the
globe. The study of this crisis also requires an interdisciplinary approach,
combining economic, political, anthropological, biological, developmental,
and environmental considerations.

If one truly wants to understand the

problem and to develop workable solutions, many variables must be
discussed.

My examination of fishing looks at the crisis in an holistic

manner, considering global (which includes the individual), international,
and national (or state) levels. Finally, by studying fishing as a security

issue, I am demonstrating that International Studies is an evolving
discipline.

Chapter Two
Security
The concept of security binds together individuals, states, and the
intematioiial system so closely ± at it demands to treated in its holistic
perspective.
- Barry Buzan (1983: 245)

To begin, if overfishing threatens the various levels of security, these
levels must be put into proper context.

The concept of security is a

frequently discussed, often disagreed upon term in International Studies
theory.

The following chapter is an attempt to give the concept a

foimdation upon which the remainder of this thesis will rest. Leading off
is an examination of the security concept and a look at the problems
associated with its definition.

Next, each of the security paradigms -

national, international, and global - will be examined and defined.

The

intent of the chapter is threefold: to define the relevant theories; to show
that threats to security are much more than simply military threats; and to
argue that threats are multidimensional in the sense that they have an
impact on more than one level of security. The thesis will then move to
examine the threats posed by overfishing to each of these three levels.

W hat is Security?
Before an examination of the various levels of security analysis can
take place, the concept of security must be defined. There has been a great
deal of debate over the use o f the term security in the academic literature.
As Peter Mangold (1991: 30) notes, security has been one of the great
obsessions of the twentieth century but has attracted far more attention than
rigorous academic scrutiny.

The concept has remained impoverished by
8

the reluctance of scholars to subject it to scrutiny and sustained examination
(Workman, 1993: 1). Arnold Wolfers (1965) discussed the ambiguity of
national security back in 1952 and little has changed in the years since then.
The continuing ambiguity and lack of cohesiveness around the concept is
due in part to the failure on the part of academics to adequately define their
terms.

According to Paul Samson (1994: 2), “[sjecurity is a notoriously

vague concept, which, when on the rare occasion it is clearly defined, is
usually taken to mean different things to different people.”

The

phenomenon of security is hardly precise (Al-Mashat, 1985: 6).
A review of the hterature reveals that most definitions of security
include three factors: threats, vulnerabilities and capabilities. For an object
to be insecure, it must be threatened by something. A generic definition of
security is offered by Marvin Soroos (1994: 318), who states that security
implies freedom or protection from serious threats to human well-being.
John E. Mroz defines security as “the relative freedom from harmful
threats” (as quoted in Buzan, 1983: 217).

Similarly, Arnold Wolfers

(1968: 44) notes that security measures the absence of threats to acquired
values and Richard Ullman (1983: 133) comments that, “in some sense ...
security is defined and valorized by the threats which challenge it.”
Vulnerabihty is the second factor in the security equation. It is the
vulnerability or area o f weakness that heightens any sense of insecurity.
Soroos (1994: 321) again offers a simple, straight-forward definition of a
vulnerability: it is present “when a society [or person or state] lacks the
means to hm it the harmful impacts of threatening events or actions that
occur.”

To him, insecurity is the combination of a threat and a

vulnerabihty (Soroos, 1995: 21). Unhke Ullman, who beheves that threats
define security, Mohammed Ayoob (1995: 9) beheves that vulnerabihties

are the defining aspect of security, remarking that security and insecurity
are defined in direct relationship to vulnerabilities.
The third and final aspect to the security equation is the element of
capability or capacity (Buzan, 1983: 73). Johan Galtung (1982: 77) defines
capabilities as the ability to reduce outside destructive potential.

Nelson

(1991: 338-339) writes that security is a dynamic ratio of threats versus
capacities: “Security may be enhanced by trying to lower threats from
others or by enlarging one's own capacities or both.”
A visual image of the three security factors - threats, vulnerabilities,
and capabihties - is described by Galtung. He explores the combination of
threats, vulnerabilities and capabilities and how they interact with each
other, likening this interaction to a medieval joust.

An armoured knight

carrying a lance faces another knight of similar makeup.
opposing each other, poised to strike.
doing damage to the other.
vulnerabilities.

They stand

Each knight is a threat, intent on

The knight's own armour represents his

The poorer the quahty of the armour, the greater his

potential weaknesses. His lance, along with his experience in the joust and
swordsmanship, represents his capability or capacity to neutralize, damage,
or destroy his opponent (Galtung, 1982: 76-77).

Although overtly

miUtaristic and masculine in nature, the scenario offers a good picture of
the relationship between threats, vulnerabilities and capabilities found in
the security formula.
After exam ining the components to the security equation - threats,
vulnerabilities, and capabilities - two important considerations must be
made when examining and defining security:

what is being made secure

and who is making it secure? Before defining security, you must know
which level of security you intend to analyze, thus Buzan's query, “The
10

security of what?” (Buzan, 1983: 13).

According to Buzan (1983: 13), to

be successful, the concept of security needs a referent object, “for without
an answer to the question, ‘The security of what?,’ the idea makes little
sense.” The need for a referent object leads thus to Buzan's second query:
“The security by whom?” Who is best able to deal with a threat? Only on
rare occasions can a particular threat be dealt with on any one particular
level (by a state or an international organization for example).

In most

cases, causes and solutions are found in a combination of levels. Given the
nature of many security issues, this multi-layer, multi-level approach seems
the most practical. As Buzan points out, the security of a referent object or
level cannot be achieved in isolation from the others (Buzan, 1983: 13-14).
This argument furthers my own argument that the fishing crisis is relevant
not to one specific level, but to multiple levels of security and it must be
dealt with accordingly. Ultimately, any final definition of security will be
heavily biased toward those threats which remain paramount in the eyes of
the individual who is defining the term.
Trying to offer a precise definition of security is, on one hand,
commendable; on the other hand, it can also pose some serious problems.
Paramount among these problems is the idea that if a definition is so
precise, it is only workable in very specific cases and not broad enough to
be used in a variety of settings. As Kenneth Dyson (1980: 206) writes,
“The danger with formal definitions is that in the pursuit of ‘correctness,’
they can imply that it is possible to give a ‘trouble free’ description of a
phenomenon; in other words, that the phenomenon in question has definite
boundaries.” He adds that definitions “are important, not least in order that
the marginal is not confused with the central, but they need to be
sufficiently loose or ‘open-textured’ to incorporate some complexity,
11

ambiguity and a chance to be filled out in a different way.” The goal of
any definition, therefore, is to be as concrete as possible, all the while,
paradoxically, remaining fluid and moveable to remain workable. Scholars
such as Wolfers have understood that any search for a concrete and precise
definition of say, national security, is a questionable endeavour (Latham,
1995: 9). Buzan has similarly argued that security cannot be defined in any
general sense, but only in relation to specific cases and that any
definitiveness around the concept would undermine the utility derived from
its symbolic nature (Buzan, 1983: 6, 9). According to Soroos, security is a
concept which remains intrinsically abstract and subject to a variety of
interpretations (Soroos, 1994: 320).

Others such as Patricia Stein

Wrightson and Ahce Ackermaim (1994: 55) go as far as to argue that Just
of use of the term security assumes that voluntary, humane and peaceful
international relations are not at hand and never will be, resulting in the
inevitable desire to protect the state’s geographic, political, economic and
social integrity within the menacing political system.

Regardless of

definition, security remains an ambiguous concept. Maybe this discussion
is healthy for the field of International Studies, for as long as this vigorous
debate continues, it ensures the vitahty of the term security.

N ational Security:
The first level of analysis to be defined is national security, one of
the most important levels because the study of international affairs still
focuses heavily on the nation state. However, there has been a great deal of
debate over the last few decades regarding the need to redefine the concept
of security to better reflect the current pohtical reahties. Many argue that
the traditional definition of security remains far too focused on the
12

militaristic, competitive nature of international relations, while dismissing
those ideas or theories which cannot fit into this mold of conflict and
aggression (Brown, 1977; 6; Tickner, 1994: 43-44; UNDP, 1995: 229;
Workman, 1993: 9).

The concept of security needs to be broadened to

include a range of practical and pragmatic views. But regardless of the
level of analysis chosen, some observers, such as Lawrence T. Woods,
argue that the contemporary emphasis on the need to redefine security is
misplaced, that International Studies scholars are merely rediscovering a
conception of security lost in the horror of the Second World War.

As

Woods (1996: 4) comments, “[W]hat we are dealing with ... is a case of old
wine in new bottles.” Paul Samson (1995: 4), on the other hand, feels that
security does not need to be redefined, but, in fact, a new way of
examining emerging threats needs to be developed so as to avoid problems
in dealing with these threats.
Despite differences of opinion, most agree that the traditional
definition of national security is composed of four characteristics: threats
are military; threats are external; threats are to the core values of the state;
and territorial sovereignty of the state is paramount (Haftendom, 1991: 4;
Brown, 1977:6; Wolfers, 1965:44; Lodgaard, 1992: 11). Each of these
factors can be broadened or modified in order to better represent the
current political climate and will be discussed at length in the coming
pages. First, threats to national security are no longer primarily military
in nature.

For years, most academics limited themselves to equating

security with the absence of a military threat, overthrow or attack
(Haftendom, 1991: 4).

A state was secure or made secure when no

military threats were evident from outside its borders. This can be seen in
W alter Lippmann's classic definition of national security: “A nation is
13

secure to the extent to which it is not in danger o f having to sacrifice core
values, if it wishes to avoid war, and is able, if challenged, to maintain
them by victory in such a war” (as quoted in W olfers, 1965: 44). National
security, then, was based on the assumption that the stronger a state was
mihtarily, the greater level of security it enjoyed. Two flaws are apparent
in this argument. First, mihtary power does not equal security and is aU
too often confused with it (Nelson, 1991: 338-339).

Furthermore,

Lippman and others fail to recognize the problem of the “security
dilemma” inherent in this argument. The flaw in this approach is that the
security ideals of different states tend to be mutually exclusive, the result
being that one state’s security comes to be defined as another’s insecurity
(Puchala, 1971: 76). The result is a security dilemma - an ever escalating
desire for new and more powerful weapons in order to match the military
might of the opponent in order to become secure.

Dr. Suess skilfully

illustrates this concept in The Butter Battle Book (1984).

A state can

unfortunately never be truly secure as there will always be another state
attempting to increase its own military power vis-à-vis the state. Similarly,
as Albert Einstein once wrote, “We cannot simultaneously prevent and
prepare for war” (as quoted in Bandarage, 1994: 29).
Thus the need to move beyond this military focus of security is clear.
As Jessica Tuchman Mathews (1989), Michael Renner (1989), and Caroline
Thomas (1987, 1992) have pointed out, various environmental, economic
and social issues are posing ever larger threats to the security of the state
and the societies found within it. Focusing on different aspects of modern
life relevant to security, some academics believe that threats to the state and
societies go beyond simply organized interstate military violence (Latham,
1995: 10). Jim MacNeill, Pieter Winsemius, and Taizo Yakushiji (1991:
14

71) argue that if national security is defined as the ability to counter threats
to the livelihood and territorial integrity and the survival of nation states, it
would encompass non-military threats such as environmental pollution, the
collapse of life and food support systems, and the invasion of deserts and
oceans. As Michael Renner (1989: 29-30) commented in arguing for the
inclusion of environmental threats

at the

national

security

level,

“Environmental degradation imperils nations' most fundamental aspect of
security by undermining the natural support systems on which all of human
activity depends”. This view has extended to the level of the United
Nations Security Council, which in January 1992 declared that “[n]on
military sources of instability in the economic, social, humanitarian, and
ecological fields have become threats to peace and security” (Sands, 1993:
367). Therefore, there appears to be more to national security than purely
military concerns.
Second, the traditional definition of national security is based on the
assumption that the threats to a state’s security come from other states
(Brown, 1977: 6).

This external approach, with a state attempting to

secure itself from the military aggression of its neighbours and enemies
outside its borders, does not offer a complete picture. The problem with
this argument becomes clear when one moves beyond countries in the West
and looks to countries in the developing world. Mohammed Ayoob (1995:
7), in his book. The Third World Securitv Predicament, argues that most
developing states are less concerned about threats from external sources
than they are with threats arising within the borders of their own states.
Unlike Western countries, developing countries often have to contend with
societies divided along ethnic, cultural and linguistic lines and the resulting
lack of ‘stateness.’

Furthermore,
15

many of the governments in the

developing world lack the approval of their peoples and, therefore, often
lack any real legitimacy.

In some cases, the basic nature of the state is

contested (Thomas, 1987: 13). Richard UUman (1983: 133) notes that this
view of threats presupposes that external threats are somehow more
dangerous than threats from within. J. Ann Tickner (1994: 44) argues that
insecurity is prevalent in developed states as well.

She comments that

national security definitions should be extended to include issues such as
unemployment, safe working conditions and threats of violence against
women.
Third, traditional national security focuses on the ability to protect
the core values of the state. Lippman maintains that the state is secure as
long as its “core values” are not threatened (Wolfers 1965: 44).

Morton

Berkowitz and P.G. Bock (1968: 40) underline this point in their own
definition of national security, defining it as the ability of a nation to
protect its internal values from external threat.

Unfortunately, as Ayoob

(1995: 9) has pointed out in the case of many developing countries, the
core values of the governing class - self-preservation - tend to become the
core values of the state, often at extreme variance with the core values of
large segments of the population.

States then, particularly developing

countries, have become more interested in maintaining power and privilege
rather than protecting the interests of all members of society.
Finally, traditional national security deems the territorial sovereignty
of the state as paramount. The objective of national security is to ensure
that the sovereignty o f the state is maintained (Lodgaard, 1992: 11). Peter
Haas and Jan Sundgren (1993: 402) point out that the international political
system has been grounded on the legal principle of national sovereignty
since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. Territorial sovereignty continues
16

to play a vital role in the definition of national security; however, the
sovereignty of the state is becoming increasingly diluted (Lodgaard 1992:
11).

As Mathews (1989: 174) argues, “[p]ut bluntly, our accepted

definition of national sovereignty as coinciding with national borders is
obsolete.” Borders are becoming increasingly permeable. With increased
economic

interdependence,

extensive

communication

networks,

transportation, immigration, and environmental issues, national sovereignty
needs to be re-examined because in these areas and others there are clear
challenges to the definition of national security (Independent Commission
on Disarmament and Security Issues, 1982: 5; Mische, 1989: 390-391).
National security can be broadened to reflect greater diversity;
however, arguments against this broadening are numerous. Critics such as
Stephen Walt begin by arguing that, in redefining security and broadening
it to include issues other than military/strategic ones, the concept of
security is losing clarity. Walt believes that the attempt by some scholars
to incorporate non-military phenomena into the security concept suggests
an excessive expansion of security studies: “Defining the field in this way
would destroy its intellectual coherence and make it more difficult to
devise solutions to any of these problems” (as quoted in Stem, 1992: 82).
Ayoob makes a similar argument.

In a critique of the broadened

definitions offered by Thomas and Mathews, Ayoob (1995: 9) politely
points out that when these expanded definitions “are not applied with
adequate discrimination, they run the risk of rendering the term [security]
too elastic, thereby detracting seriously from its utility as an analytical
tool” . David Deudney (1991: 24) contends that if everything that causes a
decline in human well-being is labeled a security threat, the term will lose
any analytical usefulness. However, it can be argued that the concept of
17

national security has been artificially narrowed, creating a false sense of
reality (Viotti and Kauppi, 1993: 62;

Samson, 1995: 3).

Furthermore,

many of these critics have little problem including economic security under
the guise of national security. Walt legitimized the inclusion of economics
into national security by referring to the links between mihtary spending
and economic performance, strategic resources, and the impact of the
military industrial complex (Stem, 1992: 82).

It took a “neorealist

revolution” to include economic factors in definitions of national security
(Stoett, 1994: 127-128), maybe the current attempt to redefine national
security is another sort of revolution.

International Security:
Scholars such as Haftendom (1991: 8-9), argue that international
security is the next level above national security in most analytical models.
Whereas national security focuses on how the state defends, protects, and
secures itself, international security focuses on how states interact with each
other in pursuit of their own security.

It is particularly concerned with

how states attempt to maintain some form of order among or between
themselves.

To better understand international security, one must first

understand that international security is not a universal security stmcture,
but is instead composed of many smaller security paradigms or models. It
must involve at least two states, but usually involves many more
(Haftendom, 1991: 5-9).
There are three important aspects to international security. First, the
security of one state is closely linked to the security of other states in a
particular security paradigm.

As Haftendom says, states involved in co­

operating over an issue area are interdependent in their security affairs.
18

By interdependence, she means that the states can be affected positively or
negatively by the actions or inactions of states with whom they are involved
in a particular security relationship (Haftendom, 1991: 9).
Second, international security is based on mumal interest in survival
through some form of partial or temporary cooperation, with the
understanding that the state, as a political unit, cannot act alone to address
certain problems which beset it (Thomas, 1992: 117). All states involved
in co-operating in a particular security issue area see this cooperation as
important to either their existence or to the pursuance of some security
interest.

Cooperation can take many forms including alliances, treaties,

and non-aggression pacts, where states work together to ensure a desired
result.
International security, as traditionally defined, much like national
security, also tends to focus almost exclusively on military based threats,
issues and concerns. Two reasons he behind this focus. First, international
security evolved to its present form under the threat of nuclear war
(Haftendom, 1991: 9).

Given this fact, the dominant focus on mihtary

concems is understandable. It has only been within the last ten years that
the threat of nuclear war has diminished to the point where it is no longer
seen as being as serious a threat as it once was. Nonetheless, it remains a
threat.

Moreover,

classic reahst ontology, which

has

dominated

intemational security for the last fifty years, imphes that achieving survival
for the state is of primary importance given the anarchic nature of the
intemational system (Stem, 1992: 79). This anarchy has dictated the focus
on state security. However, this “anarchic nature” need not be synonymous
with the chaos and disorder which normally characterize anarchy. At this

19

level of analysis, anarchy can be viewed simply as the absence of a world
government (Buzan, 1983: 94).
As a result of these two factors - the fear of nuclear Armageddon
and the anarchic nature of the system - the weight of military security
issues has often over-shadowed the need to focus on other issue areas that
may threaten intemational security (Brown, 1977: 5).

The voices and,

subsequently, the concerns of women, children, ecologists and others on the
"fringes" of the system are usually dismissed as ideahst, marginal, o r
radical (Tickner, 1994: 43-44). The result is a debate about the relevance
of intemational security that remains highly exclusive and with little
hruitful discussion over the merits of looking at other issues.
This focus on the protection and survival of the state also leads to a
problem regarding the adherence to the notion of territorial sovereignty.
J. G. Starke (1989: 157) observes that “territorial [sovereignty] is exercised
by the state over persons and property to the exclusion of other states.”
The intemational political system has been grounded on the legal principle
of national sovereignty since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 and the
emergence of the modem national state (Haas and Sundgren, 1993: 402).
Adhering strictly to this principle, states have been slow to recognize the
changing nature of sovereignty. As some authors have commented, our
accepted definition of sovereignty is “obsolete” (Mathews, 1989: 174); it is
no longer a “workable concept” (Renner, 1989: 39). The reason for these
views involves the rise of environmental, economic and social issues in the
intemational security realm that ignore these barriers. The traditional
notion of national sovereignty does not account for these issues. Thus, a
broader definition of territorial sovereignty is needed. This point will be
discussed further in the section dealing with global security.
20

Global Security:
Over the past twenty years, there has been a move to not only
broaden the definition of security, but also to develop a definition that
considers the world from a new vantage point.

Unlike national and

intemational security, which focus on specific units, global security
attempts to bridge the gaps between the other levels of security.

Global

security combines three principles. First, state and individual security are
brought together both receiving equal treatment (Brown,
Second, cooperation, rather

1977: 41).

than conflict, is seen as a main goal

(Commission on Global Governance, 1995: 79).

Finally, sustainable

development and environmental concems underlie any discussion on the
subject (Hjort af Omas and Krokors, 1992: 1).
To fully understand global security, one must also understand six
characteristics. First, global security takes a hohstic approach to security,
focusing not on the individual pieces of the security puzzle, but on the
complete puzzle itself. It recognizes the existence and importance of each
security puzzle piece, but feels the puzzle as a whole is more important.
The concept of individual security will be discussed later in this chapter;
however, a brief explanation is warranted at this point. Individual security
focuses on the needs of the individual human being and the threats which
endanger human survival. Global security merges the interests of the state,
the international system, individuals, cultural groups, and the environment.
By doing so, global security acknowledges the close relationship among the
various levels of security and sees them as being inseparable.

For

practitioners of global security, neither national security nor individual
security can be sensibly considered in isolation (Brown, 1977: 41). Taking
aim at the traditional levels of analysis, Buzan (1983: 245) argues that this
21

blending cannot be avoided as “the concept of security binds together
individuals, states, and the intemational system so closely that it demands to
be treated in its hohstic perspective.” The traditional levels o f analysis
(national, international, and individual) outlined by Kenneth W altz (1954)
are not being utihzed in this thesis because of my beUef that the global
security concept allows for a more hohstic approach.

The levels of

analysis model leaves out such issues as the environment, culture and
gender, thereby providing an incomplete picture.
Second, global security also recognizes the interdependent nature of
security threats.

An ever growing number of scholars have urged a

broadening of the concept in order to deal with a greater multi-threat
spectrum (Stem, 1992: 82).

The idea that threats such as poverty,

environmental degradation, population migration, debt, m ihtary confhct,
and disarmament can be separated is flawed as the causes and solutions to
these problems are often related (Thomas, 1995: 151). Reductionists (those
who like to break concepts down and examine each piece separately) would
argue that each problem must be dealt with on its own and that to attempt
to do more would be to take on too much, confusing ah of the issues (Viotti
and Kauppi, 1993: 592). Students of global security, on the other hand, see
the threats as being multi-dimensional. Deahng with each separately will
give one an incomplete picture of what is really happening and any
solutions offered would come up short.
Third, threats to global security are viewed differently from threats
to national security.

Barriers dividing high pohdcs and low pohdcs are

removed, thereby, allowing a freer, more open examination o f threats
outside of military priorities.

High politics is a term used to distinguish

mihtary security issues from the less important socioeconomic and
22

environmental issues of low politics

(Viotti and Kauppi, 1993: 582).

Realists and other traditional military thinkers often claim that the potential
for war is a high political issue which demands greater energy and focus
than something that does not immediately threaten the physical security o f
the state.

However, there is a realization that threats to the state from

ideological or national enemies are being supplanted to some degree by
threats that cause the disruption of the biosphere (Porter, 1990: 333).
Global security then sees an intrinsic, inherent value in non-military
security issues.

As Stoett (1994:

139)

comments in relation

to

environmental threats, “[sjurely, there are other reasons to pursue
conservation irrespective of whether or not resource depletion may lead to
actual warfare.”
Fourth, unlike traditional definitions o f national security which tend
to focus almost exclusively on military threats, the global security
paradigm rejects a single-issue focus. Military threats are not on the whole
discarded.

Indeed, global security assumes that in the future contending

blocs and nations wül continue to threaten each other.
abolishment

of military

threats

is

deemed

Consequently, the

unrealistic

(MacNeill,

Winsemius, Yakushiji, 1991: 72). Mihtary threats remain integral aspects
of global security, as do pohtical, economic, environmental, and social
issues.

This said, global security contends that mihtary security is

irrelevant if the earth is no longer able to support human development
(Mische, 1989: 391).
Fifth, global security, much hke intemational security, looks to
cooperation as the basis for solving problems and reducing threats rather
than through competition and confhct.

Traditional national security is

concerned with maximizing state power vis-à-vis neighbouring states. It is
23

assumed that security can only be achieved at the expense of the security in
these neighbouring states:

one state’s security becoming another's

insecurity and the result is the aforementioned security dilemma.

Global

security recognizes and accepts this flawed result and turns to cooperation
as a solution (Commission on Global Governance, 1995: 79).

The

philosophy here is that the security does not have to be a zero-sum game,
where one state wins while another loses. The security of the state can be
increased if the security of all states is increased, thereby resulting in a
positive-sum game. As Asoka Bandarage (1994: 37) points out, “[a] true
sense o f individual and collective security can be achieved only with a
global shift from psychological and social structures of domination [and
competition] to those of partnerships.”
Finally, global security also observes that the state is no longer solely
able to deal with problems single-handedly. According to Patricia Mische
(1989: 411), the nation state is too big to deal with some problems, just
right for others, and too small for those which are global in size and
complexity. In many cases, the state is incapable of dealing single-handedly
with the problems.

As Johan Jprgen Holst (1989: 128), the form er

Minister of Defense for

Norway,

has commented,

“[i]n rather

a

fundamental way, our common future will depend on the ability of the
world community to draw appropriate consequences from the increasing
incapacity of [states] to deal with basic issues affecting the future of
mankind.”
Having looked at these six features of global security approach, three
elements which provide the global security foundation will now be
examined: common security, human security and environmental security.

24

Common Security:
Prominent

in

the

report

by

the

United

Nations-sponsored

Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues, common
security helped shed a new light on the problem of global security.

The

Commission and its blueprint emerged during a long period of deterrence
clouded by the threat of nuclear war and heightened tensions between East
and West.

In an age of nuclear weapons, security, it was argued, could

only be achieved through cooperation based on the principles of equality,
justice, and reciprocity (Commission on Global Governance, 1995: 79). It
must be something shared between states rather than contested. We must
move away from thinking about the security of our own state only.
search for global security must migrate away from
alliances and bilateral agreements.

The

confrontational

We must think in terms of “security

with” as opposed to “security against” (Dewitt, 1994: 5).
In 1982, the Palme Commission came forward with six principles
important to common security (Independent Commission, 1982: 8-10):
• All nations have a legitimate right to security.
• Military force is not a legitimate instrument for resolving disputes
between nations.
• Restraint is necessary in expressions of national pohcy.
• Security cannot be attained through military superiority.
• Reduction and qualitative limitations of armaments are necessary.
• ‘Linkages’ between arms negotiations and political events should
be avoided.
It is imperative to create an irreversible process toward true security
where all nations cooperate for their common survival (Independent

25

Commission, 1982: 7). Common security reduces the military emphasis of
security and turns the focus to environmental and human concems.
\

Human or Individual Security:
Human security is the second element in the global security
paradigm. It stresses the need to focus on the security of the individual in
addition to the security of the state and the intemational system.

Global

security recognizes that for far too long, security has been defined on the
basis of the state-centric model of international affairs. This has been done
at the expense of the concems of individual human beings.

The

disproportionate weight given to sovereignty and the military capabihty of
the state far outweighed the safety or security of individual citizens.
Global security accepts that neither can be focused upon to the exclusion of
the other. The security of the state cannot be separated from the security
of the individual, for without the security of its people, the state will never
be truly secure (Commission on Global Governance, 1995: 81).

The

problem that often arose in the discussion of state security was that the
security of the state was often at direct odds with the security of the citizens
(Stem, 1992: 81). One need only examine the history of any state security
agency, for example.

Global security, by including human security,

attempts to address this imbalance.
According to the 1994 United Nations Human Development Report
(1994: 229), human security is composed of four characteristics.

First,

human security is a universal concem, meaning it has relevancy in every
part of the globe and with every individual.
human security are interdependent.

Second, the components of

Threats cannot be isolated from one

other; nor are they confined within the borders of a single state. Famine,
26

environmental

degradation,

terrorism,

and disease affect

everyone,

everywhere in some way. Third, human security rehes on cooperation and
prevention rather than conflict and intervention to solve problems that
arise.

Prevention and a proactive approach cost considerably less

economically, socially and pohtically.

Finally, human security is people-

centered, concerning itself with how people live their lives and the threats
posed against these hves.
This report goes on to outline seven types of security which are
necessary if one is to obtain human security: economic, food, health,
environmental, personal, community (or cultural), and pohtical security.
Four of these — economic, food, environmental, and cultural — are
particularly important to the discussion of fishing and global security.
Economic security looks at the individual and attempts to affirm that they
are receiving a least an elementary
needs are also met.

income and that their employment

Food security looks at the individual’s physical and

financial abihty to access basic foodstuffs, including an acceptable,
equitable distribution of these foodstuffs. Environmental security outlines
the need for a healthy environment, free from degradation and depletion.
Finally, cultural security sees membership in an ethnic, religious, family,
or community group as providing an integral aspect of identity and value
maintenance (UNDP, 1994: 230-234).

E nvironm ental Security;
The third element of global security is environmental security. This
perspective stresses that we consider the security of the environment as
well as the security of individuals and the state. Concerns about pollution,
the ozone layer, de-forestation and other aspects of the environment have
27

grown in importance over the last few decades to such an extent that
academics and politicians have been forced to deal with these topics. What
was merely a theory some thirty years ago has become a reality with
serious environmental degradation and depletion problems emerging
around the world.

Environmental security attempts to deal with these

problems and the rising global environmental crisis. As conflicts between
humanity and nature, between human development and the surrounding
environment, continue to grow at a rapid pace, there has been a need to
examine the role that the environment plays in the security of people and
the planet.

The environment will likely play a key role in the future

development of intemational relations as well (Hjort af (Dmas and Krokors,
1992: 1).
Like other security issue areas, environmental security is confounded
by a multitude of definitions. As yet, an established definition does not
exist (Schrijver, 1989: 115).

Most observers agree that environmental

security is a concept borne out of the war that the human species continues
to wage against the planetary ecosystem in the name of development and
progress. At this point, however, there is a divergence of opinion between
the

traditional

and

the

alternative

approaches.

The

traditional

environmental security approach, best represented by the work of Thomas
Homer-Dixon

(1991,

1993,

1994),

defines

environmental

security

narrowly, linking environmental degradation, population pressures and
access to natural resources closely with conflict. This definition focuses on
ways in which resource scarcities and environmental degradation cause,
contribute to, or are a consequence of conflict (Smith, 1993: 2; Molvcer,
1992: 57;

Holst, 1989: 123).

The alternative approach, instead of

confining the analysis to the link between environmental degradation and
28

conflict, attempts to access ecological developments that seriously threaten
the welfare of individuals and communities around the globe, regardless of
whether they contribute to conflict or not (Soroos, 1995: 21).
I have chosen to follow the alternative approach here. Although the
link between environmental degradation and conflict is an important one,
the more traditional definition of environmental security fails to move
beyond the military factor. Much like the traditional definition of national
security, the focus continues to be on the military and its relationship to
environmental issues.

There seems to be a behef that to make

environmental security relevant, we must link it to national security and the
military. An example of this can be seen in a recent article about HomerDixon and the rise of environmental issues in the American political
sphere, in which he comments that “[by] linking environmental issues to
national security, we make it harder for conservatives to dismiss them as
soft, liberal concems” (Fraser, 1996: A9). This cannot and should not be
the only reason to pursue the environment as a security issue. Having said
this, the link between the environment and conflict is a reahty. The threats
posed by declining fish stocks and resulting conflicts will be discussed in
the chapter on national security and fishing.
Environmental security thus includes human-induced environmental
degradation as a threat to the security of the individual, the state, and the
planet.

Two

advantages

emerge

from

this

conception.

First,

environmental security is more than an extension of mihtary security and
the protection of the state; it treats environmental threats as more than
mihtary threats.

Environmental degradation threatens in a fundamental

way the natural support systems on which ah human activity depends
(Renner, 1989: 29-30). If the planet is not secure, then humanity cannot be
29

secure.

The

second

advantage

surrounds

the

recognition

that

environmental security cannot and should not be isolated into any one
security level.

The environment is a trans-boundary phenomenon

(Boulding, 1991: 78) which does not respect state borders (Mische, 1989:
389).

C onclusion:
The intent of this chapter was threefold.

First, I have sought to

define security in its national, intemational, and global contexts.

Second,

security demands to be viewed as more than simply military threats to the
state. It encompasses a broad spectmm including economic, human, and
environmental threats.

Finally, threats to security are often multi­

dimensional in that they cannot be dealt with solely at any one level. To do
so would be to only deal with part of the problem. My working definition
will be as follows:

Security means the attainment of basic needs of the

individual, states, intemational systems, cultures, and the environment.
These needs are best understood using the global security model.

The

discussion will now move to examine the how overfishing threatens the
security of each level.

30

Chapter Three
Fishing and National Security
Having discussed ± e theoretical aspects of the levels of security, this
examination now moves on to look at the threats posed to each level by
overfishing. The implications for national security will be discussed first.
Overfishing directly threatens the national security of a state both
economically and militarily. First, fishing plays a key role in the economic
policies and practices of many states through the revenues generated from
direct and indirect employment, taxes, export earnings and the sale of
foreign fishing licenses. If, because of overfishing, the state loses it access
to the fisheries, the economic benefits the state enjoys from fishing wül be
adversely affected.

The state will also lose money in the form of

compensation payments it must make to its citizens. Furthermore, as the
loss of fish influences various social, economic and environmental factors,
intranational or domestic conflicts wül increasingly develop within the
borders of the state.

Specifically, as the small-scale fishers become

increasingly marginalized from the resource on which they depend,
domestic unrest wiU grow, often leading to conflict (McGoodwin, 1995;
13).

Similarly, disagreements and open conflict wül take place between

states as they disagree over the resource. Conflicts between states have
taken place throughout history over scarce natural resources. Fishing is a
good example of how perceptions about rights to a natural resource can
impact the relations between states and clearly shows that disagreements
over declining or contested resources can and often do lead to direct and
indirect interstate conflict (Homer-Dixon, 1993: 209; Holst, 1989: 125). I

31

feel it is important to limit m y discussion to threats posed to the economic
and military elements of national security for two reasons.

First, fishing

does not affect every aspect o f a broadened definition of national security.
Second, some of the issues can be better dealt with at a different level of
analysis.

They will, therefore,

be raised in discussions of either

intemational or global security.

Fishing and Economics:
The loss of fish and the fishing industry has the very real potential to
threaten the economic health and prosperity of a state or a given region
within a state.

Fishing is an important industry in many states and its

decline threatens the security of a state by increasing unemployment and
compensation programs while at the same time lowering revenues available
from taxes, exports and the sale of fishing rights to foreign governments.
The initial impact of a decline or a loss of a fishery is manifest in the
loss of jobs within the fishing industry. If the fish supply is so low that it
cannot sustain fishers economically, then those fishers have tittle choice but
to remove themselves from that particular fishery. The job loss would not
be limited to those involved directly as fishers; others would be negatively
affected as well. Lennox Hinds (1992: 396) estimates that there are up to
sixteen people involved in support roles such as fish processors, net
menders, and ship builders.

In examples worldwide, when a fishery has

dried up and closed, so too have the jobs that retied on that industry. Peter
Weber (1995) estimates that 100,000 people around the world have lost
their jobs in recent years due to overfishing.

He adds that one hundred

times this number could be put out of work in the coming decades unless
the decline in the fisheries is halted. One should also reflect on the impact
32

that the loss of fish has on spouses and family members of fishers,
especially where they are directly involved in the fishery.

Regardless of

their direct or indirect involvement, their security would be threatened. A
gender analysis would be helpful as it would highlight some o f the various
problems experienced by men, women and children in fishing communities
as they face the collapse of the fish stocks.^
Spain, ranked as having the sixth largest fishing fleet in the world, is
a case study of how the loss of fisheries affects the employment levels of a
state economy (Benseler, 1993a). Over the past few decades this fleet has
experienced severe problems as once bountiful fishing grounds utilized by
Spanish fishers for centuries have closed due to stock collapse and
overfishing.

Already reeling from the closure o f the cod fishery in the

North Atlantic in 1992, the curtailing of the Spanish turbot catch in 1995
off the Canadian coast led to a further direct loss of as many as 9,000 jobs
in the Gahcian region of Spain, where over 400,000 people rely on the
fishing industry as the way of livelihood (Robinson, 1995: 36). Later that
same year, these job losses were exacerbated by the banishment of
European Union (EU, formerly the European Community) boats from
Moroccan waters. The Moroccans claimed that their stocks were rapidly
declining because of Spanish and Portuguese overfishing. As a result, 650
Spanish and Portuguese trawlers, of which 600 were Spanish, were
suddenly out of work, leaving 28,800 people suddenly out of w ork
(“Morocco and the EU,” 1995: 47).

If one includes the other fishing

grounds Spain has been expelled from for serious charges of overfishing,
including the waters off Morocco, Namibia, Angola, and the United

‘
For a more detailed analysis of the role of women and children in a fishing
community, see Gulati (1984), Nadel-Klein and Davis (1988), and Porter (1993).

33

Kingdom (Jandl, 1995), the result means that many Spanish fishers are out
of work. Combining all their losses, Spanish fishers have been crippled by
the recent loss of fish which, ironically, is due, in part, to their own fishing
practices and pohcies.
Unlike Spain, which is dominated by the commercial fishing
industry, developing countries will be more severely affected with job
losses. Twenty times more fishers are employed in the artisinal fishery
(small-scale fishers who fish using small boats and limited resources) which
dominates the South.

Moreover, these countries have more localized

fisheries that are more susceptible to disruption. The loss of the fish has
engulfed these local fisheries much quicker than modem high seas fishing
fleets. Modem fleets have the advantage of mobility allowing them to turn
to other fisheries when the situation demands it (Krauthammer, 1994: 21).
Given the job losses that occur when a fishery declines, the state is
impacted directly in three important ways.

First, the state no longer

receives the tax revenue that once may have flowed in from the fishery.
The taxes generated, both direct and indirect paid to govemment by these
same fishers, fish processors, canners, among others can amount to a great
deal of much needed revenue. In the United States, the recent closure of
various fisheries in New England, long a bastion of commercial and sport
fisheries, resulted in 14,000 lost jobs and $350 million in lost revenue
(Cacas, 1994). In Alaska, a full one-sixth of the workforce is involved in
fishing, bringing in forty-six per cent of the total American catch with a
value of over $1 billion (Dogan, 1995). This is a vital source of revenue
for the people and govemments of Alaska and the USA. In northem Chile,
fishing accounts for forty percent of the income generated, 18,000 jobs and
$400 million worth of exports (Weber, 1995). Any negative impact on the
34

Chilean fishery would have dramatic consequences on the taxes and
revenue available to the govemment.

Iceland, an economy founded on

fishing, offers a further example, where fully seventeen per cent of the
national income is derived from fishing and where over twelve per cent of
the population rely directly on fishing for their income (Weber, 1995).
The second impact of these job loses is the compensation or support
that the state must provide to their citizens. In some states, usually those
with greater economic means, the state has stepped in and paid
compensation to those displaced by the fishery’s closure, either through
some form of unemployment payment program or through a fisheries
program.

When the Govemment of Canada, for example, closed the cod

fishery off the coast of Newfoundland, it attempted to offset the loss with a
social assistance package.

Totaling over $1 billion, the package was

announced so as to tide the 40,000 fishers over until the moratorium on
cod was Ufted. Originally mandated for two years, the compensation was
extended for another four, costing the govemment even more money
(Wacker, 1994; 14). However, these programs are not universal. Unlike
Canada, which was able to muster the needed funds to support a
compensation package, poorer countries have little or nothing to offer their
displaced fishers. As Gail Robinson (1995: 37) explains, there will not be
any “fishermen’s dole” payments for the fishers whose livelihoods
disappear in developing countries. As states around the world continue to
wrestle with budget and debt problems, the impact of these Job losses could
potentially have severe impacts on govemments.

As sources of revenue

dry up, some states will have little ability to support those forced out of
work.

35

States also receive substantial revenues from the export of fish and
fish products to countries all over the world. In the case of the developing
world, fish exports have overtaken and surpassed coffee, tea, and rubber as
a source of revenue, providing them with over $13 billion every year. In
1993, Thailand emerged as the world’s largest exporter of fish, overtaking
the United States. These exports contributed over $3.4 billion to the Thai
economy. The developed world, too, receives large amounts of money
from fisheries exports (Robinson, 1995: 36; Loftas, 1996: 30).
Finally, the sale of fishing rights and hcenses can be an economic
windfall for state govemments. These rights and licenses are sold under
the guidelines of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS), which declares that all species with the 200 miles Exclusive
Fisheries Jurisdiction (EFJ) deemed to be under utilized, or not fished to
capacity, must be made available to other fishing nations intent on their
capture (Copes, 1989: 8).

Rich and poor govemments alike are in

desperate need of new sources of income. Govemments, particularly those
in the developing world succumb easily to the economic potential of their
offshore fisheries, often sacrificing their own citizens welfare in order to
obtain the money brought in by foreign govemments (Kurien, 1995: 118).
Examples of the sale of licenses to foreign states are numerous. F or
a number of years, India has been pursuing a pohcy of inviting foreign
fishing fleets into its waters to harvest a variety of species (particularly
shrimp), exported to Japanese, American, and other Westem markets.
Under the pohcy, India hopes to increase its export earnings to $1.3 bilhon
by hcensing foreign fleets in its waters, up from the current $800 m ilhon
they are receiving (Bem ier and Sundar, 1996; Victor, 1995).

India has

estimated that it can significantly increase the catches off its coasts and its
36

revenue from licenses without harming the environment. As a result, there
are two fishing areas in the world where fish catches are increasing, both
in the waters around India (Kurien, 1995: 118).

However, unlike the

enthusiasm shown by the govemment, most Indian fishers and fishery
experts around the world have raised the alarm that the Indian government
may be pursuing this source of revenue blindly with little regard for the
acmal fish stocks and its domestic fishing industry.

François Poulin,

president of the Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters, has
commented that “‘[a]s Canadians we know how devastating overfishing can
be and how quickly stocks can disappear .... The Indian govemment should
proceed with extreme caution.

The benefits from increased export

earnings will only be short Lived while the human costs of stock collapse
are unimaginable in the Indian context’” (Bemier and Sundar, 1996).
Ultimately, India is following a pohcy of short-term gain at the expense of
a long-term, sustainable, revenue generating fishery.
Another good example of this can be seen in Angola, a coastal
African state with rich, highly productive fishing grounds.

The country

has begun to eye it fish stocks as an important source of income, having
just come recently emerged from three decades of civil war between 1961
and 1992 (APIC, 1995). The govemment has now released a promotional
pubhcation boasting the registration of sixteen new foreign fishing
investments in the country (Morris, 1996). Although Angola has a long
way to go in reaching the fishing capacity of the waters off its coast, the
concem is that in Angola’s msh for foreign investment and currency, it
will destroy the long-term sustainability of its fisheries and hamper the
efforts of the Angolan people to retum to the waters they once fished. The
pre-w ar fish catch off Angola’s coast averaged about 600,000 tonnes, but
37

dropped to a mere 35,000 tonnes at the height of the war.

It has since

climbed to around 122,000 tonnes, a fraction of its former levels (Morris,
1996). O f note in this statistic is the unreported catches made by Soviet
fishing vessels allowed in by the Marxist govemment that was ruling
Angola during the civil war.

The size and impact of these catches they

made is not known. Most of Angolan fishers are artisinal and would suffer
irreparably from this potential sell-off (Morris, 1996). Again, the loss or
decline of a fish stock could potentially put an end to a valuable source of
revenue.

Fishing and Conflict:
Conflicts over resources such as iron, oü, and land are not new;
they have been taking place for thousands of years. The Trojan War, for
example, may have been fought, in part, over tin (Romm, 1993: 21). Fish
are part of a new development in the notion of resource conflicts.

The

national security of the state will be threatened as domestic and
intemational conflicts develop between peoples and states over declining
fish stocks.

Domestic conflicts will develop as social, economic and

environmental factors come into play over a particular fish stock.
Internationally, conflicts emerge as states vie for access to the remaining
scarce fish resources.
To explore the relationship between conflict and the environment,
we turn to Johan Jprgen Holst, the former Minister of Defense fo r
Norway.

Holst (1989: 123) outlines the three roles environmental

problems can play and their relationship to conflict and war.

First,

environmental degradation and depletion can become the cause of armed
conflict and stmggle. Conflict may result as a direct confrontation between
38

people or states over a scarce resource.

Second, environmental depletion

and degradation may act as a contributing factor to conflict by exacerbating
pre-existing

conflicts

or

stresses.

Many

academics

believe

that

environmental degradation raises the level of stress within national and
intemational society, increasing the likelihood of conflict (Homer-Dixon,
1993: 187). And while environmental factors might not trigger outright
confrontation, they may help to destabilize societies in an already unstable
situation (Myers, 1993: 20). Finally, environmental degradation can be a
consequence or result of conflict. Although an important consideration, it
will not be discussed in this examination.
Two important points must be addressed at this time.
relationship

between environmental

ramifications

is

complex;

(Wallensteen, 1992: 42).

simple,

degradation
linear

and

First, the

serious

relationships

are

social
rare

For example, it is possible that environmental

conflicts can emerge in other forms, masking the environmental problems
that lead to the conflict in the first place. The conflict may appear as a
religious, moral, or ethnic when it roots are primarily environmental in
nature (Molvcer, 1992: 57). In the last forty-five years, many of disputes
that have taken place in the developing world were brought about, in part,
by the religious and racial hatreds which may well have been aggravated by
environmental destruction, poverty and economic decline.

These factors

also reinforce the potential for conflict in the future (MacNeill, et als.,
1991: 71).

Given this, we should not expect mathematical precision in

assessing the relationship between environmental factors and conflict.
Furthermore, as Homer-Dixon notes, the environmental threshold
for the collapse of the world’s fisheries has not been reached; the
environmental critical mass has not yet been attained (Homer-Dixon, 1993:
39

207).

As a result, conflict over fish has not reached a level o f high

intensity and continuous conflict. However, as the scarcities worsen, so too
will the conflicts.
Deudney, a critic of environmental security, has claimed that a new
type of conflict has emerged due to environmental stress is to ignore the
resource conflicts of the past (Deudney, 1990: 470-471).
(1991:

25)

argues that there

Gwynne Dyer

are endless causes of conflict

and

environmental aspects are merely extensions of classic disputes over the
allocation of scarce resources. He goes further to say that it is important
that environmentalists not be seduced into giving priority to this m ihtary
agenda. Useful though his points are. Dyer fails to recognize that conflicts
over scarce resources in the past often involved non-renewable resources,
or resources with a finite supply, such as oil, coal, and other fossil fuels.
Conflicts over renewable resources, or those with a supposed infinite
supply such as trees, water and fish, are increasing in number and by
degrees of severity. Ironically, it is these supposedly renewable resources
which most environmental analysts beUeve are endangered, not the non­
renewable fossil fuels (Stoett, 1994: 132). I recognize that by broadening
the concept o f security there is a risk that it will be used to vahdate certain
approaches over others (i.e. the pursuance of mihtary strategies under the
guise of environmental threats).

Fishing and Dom estic Conflict:
Domestic confhcts will increase as the loss of fish influences various
social, economic and environmental factors. Numerous types of fisheries
confhcts may develop within a state, but there are few that will threaten a
state’s internal security as seriously as a confhct which develops between
40

various classes of fishers. Those that have pitted traditional, small scalefishers

against the relatively

new,

large-scale,

politically-powerfiil

commercial interests have the potential to seriously harm institutions within
the state. In most, if not all, fishing states aroimd the world, a socio­
economic foundation has already been laid that has set the stage for serious
conflict (McGoodwin, 1995: 12).
Since the onset of the Industrial Revolution in the late eighteenth
century, fishing has undergone a shift from community-based, small-scale
fisheries to global, highly competitive, commercial juggernauts.

The

process, begun first in what is now the Western world, shifted to the
developing world in the late 1950s and now has a firm grip on the fishing
pohces of these nations (McGoodwin, 1995:

12).

These large-scale

interests are threatening the livelihood of the artisinal fisher (Loftas, 1996:
31) as the small-scale fishers are becoming, alienated economically,
nutritionally and politically from the resource on which they depend
(Kocherry and Achary, 1989: 32).

In almost every corner of the globe,

the intrusion into local fishing territory by large, technologically advanced,
highly efficient trawlers has reduced the amount of fish available to the
small-scale fisher.

The perception, and in most cases the reality is that

their source of food and money is threatened, not to mention their
hvehhood and culture (Loftas, 1996: 31).

Furthermore, as these fishers

turn to their respective governments for poUtical assistance and protection,
they watch these same governments try to reduce their fisher’s supposedly
inefficient, labour-intensive, and costly industry, and encourage the very
type of fishing that will destroy their livelihood.

Many governments are

pursuing these policies at the expense of a significant number of their

41

citizens.

Frustration amongst these groups of fishers is growing and

tensions are on the rise (Kurien, 1995: 115-118).
An example of this clash between two socio-economic classes can be
seen in the Indian province of Kerala, where frequent conflicts have
broken out between artisinal and commercial fishing crews.

The Kerala

fishery had been a sustainable fishery for thousands of years, dominated
primarily by caste-specific, artisinal fishers.

These fishers, who are

governed by the hereditary of social classes in Hinduism which restricts the
occupations of members and their association with members of different
castes, adhered strictly to local pohcies and guidelines set up to control the
fishery (Kurien, 1995: 5). Over the last decades, the Indian government,
with assistance from foreign governments, has attempted to increase the
efficiency of the industry through technological advances. As a result, the
industry has been flooded with fishers and improved technology, causing
the once sustainable fishery off the Kerala coast to begin to decline rapidly,
as a result of severe overfishing (Kocherry and Achary, 1989: 33).
Conflicts between the two interests have broken out, often resulting in
damaged equipment and casualties (Kurien, 1995: 5).

Recently, a

UN-

sponsored advisory group predicted that these clashes will only increase in
number and severity as the increased technology further reduces the
abundance of fish available to the traditional, artisinal fisher (Kocherry and
Achary, 1989: 32).
Similar examples of conflicts between artisinal and commercial
fishers have taken place in countries around the world.

Mexico has been

experiencing problems as their artisinal fishers are being forced out of the
shrimp industry by larger commercial interests (McGoodwin, 1987).

42

Similarly, Yemen experienced problems when clashes erupted between
small and large scale fishers in the Red Sea (Thomson, 1980).
State concern is two-fold. First, domestic conflicts within the state
disrupt order, consume time and resources, and lead to general social
disharmony.

Second, as Ayoob (1995; 7) notes, domestic conflict can

sometimes spill over to bordering states, resulting in larger conflicts.
Moreover, to placate the divided internal parties, states tend to attribute
responsibüity for

environmental decline to other

Winsemius, and Yakushiji, 1991: 57).
remote;

states (MacNeill,

The potential for this spillover is

however, as tensions between peoples within states rise, the

potential that this frustration will be turned against foreign fleets is very
real.

Fishing and External Conflict:
In only rare cases does one state’s EFJ not come into contact with
that of another state.

This has led to considerable consternation and

problems. Often territories are disputed as the waters are claimed by more
than one state. Examples of these territorial claims include disagreements
by Canada and the United States over how to define the ocean boundaries
along the west coast of North America (Copes, 1989: 10-11) and territorial
disagreements between East and the South-East Asian countries (Snyder,
1997; Vatikiotis and Schwarz, 1995: 16).

Given the nature of these

overlapping claims, conflicts and casualties inevitably result.
An example of this is the G ulf of Thailand. The Gulf is surrounded
on almost all sides by Thailand, Viemam, and Cambodia.

All claim

territory within the Gulf and their respective claims often overlap with the
claims of their neighbours.

On 31 May 1995, Viemam and Thailand
43

clashed over disputed fisheries jurisdiction. Six Thai fishing vessels were
attacked by Vietnamese coastal patrol boats for fishing in waters claimed
by Viemam. At least one Thai naval vessel entered the fray and in the end
one Thai and two Viemamese sailors were killed.

Five of the six Thai

vessels were confiscated by Viemam along with their crews of sixty-two
men (Vatikiotis and Schwarz, 1995: 16). A similar incident involving the
same countries occurred eighteen months later (Zimmermann, 1996: 5960).

The Thai military has been on record as saying that hostilities

between the two states could break out over just such an issue. This was
reflected in a Thai Defense Ministry policy paper which cited overlapping
economic zones as a possible cause of conflict between countries in the
region. As a Western mihtary attaché commented, “[t]he incident was not
unlike others of this kind.

They happen more frequently than people

think” (Vatikiotis and Schwarz, 1995: 16).
Nor are these types of incidents confined to that area of the world.
In 1995, Estonia and Latvia came close to conflict over contested fishing
grounds in the Gulf of Riga (“Estonia PM Hopes,” 1995: 1). In the fall of
1994, British and French warships clashed with Spanish trawlers in the Bay
of Biscay (Koring and Cox, 1995: A l).

Bulgaria and Turkey sparred in

1992 over contested territory in the Black Sea. Bulgaria, in a letter of
protest to the Turkish government, clearly stated that they would protect
Bulgarian waters including the use of weapons if necessary (Nikolaev,
1992: 1).
Often disputes such as these are more than just fishing disputes. As
McGoodwin (1995: 16) points out, fishers and fishing disputes may become
pawns in broader conflicts.

An example of this can be found in the

problems that have surrounded the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea.
44

Six countries - China, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Brunei and
Malaysia - have laid claim to the ownership or partial ownership of this
small island group.

The surrounding waters are rich in fish, and the

seabed is estimated to contain large quantities of oil.

More importantly,

however, the islands are situated in important militarily strategic location
(Snyder, 1996-97: 142).

Numerous disputes have broken out over these

islands in the past, some involving fishing, but all of them based on the
ownership question.
Conflicts between states do not always have to involve the use of
violence. Canada and the United States have been fighting over contested
fishing grounds and salmon stocks for a good part of this century (Roos,
1991: 42; Twitchell, 1989: 409-412).

In 1994, Canada, in an effort to

protect the endangered salmon stocks on the Pacific coast, implemented
tolls for American fishers passing through Canadian waters under the
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act (Canada, 199b).

In

1996,

after

negotiations failed yet again, Canada, in an effort to force the Americans
back to the Pacific Salmon Treaty table, implemented the hail-in and gear
storage requirements for foreign fishers entering Canadian waters (Canada,
1996).

In June 1997, Canada seized four American trawlers for not

checking in with Canadians authorities before passing through Canadian
waters (“Fishers apply pressure with ads,” 1997: A13).

Threats and

rhetoric have escalated on both sides of the border, with good relations
between the two nations being hampered.
Conflicts can also take place over actual fish stocks. The clearest and
most recent involved a disagreement between Canada and Spain over the
turbot stocks off Canada’s east coast. To grasp the nature of this conflict,
one must first understand the dynamics of the continental shelf off Canada’s
45

east coast. Most of the shelf, and thus the fishing grounds, are covered by
Canada’s EFJ, except for two small pieces entitled the “Nose” and the
“Tail” of the Grand Banks.

These two relatively small areas are fish

spawning habitat for cod, turbot and other groundfish.

Turbot is a

straddling stock which ignores Canada’s EFJ and spends time outside
Canada’s fishing zone.
In the early 1990s, cod stocks off Canada’s Atlantic coast collapsed,
sending the Spanish and Canadian fisheries into a tailspin.

Both countries

looked to other types of fish in order to replace the lost cod.

Fishing

increased dramatically to the point where restricted quotas had to be
implemented in order to curb overfishing. Spain and the EU rejected the
quotas they had been given, claiming that they could not feed their families
on the set quotas. They continued to fish for turbot (Jandl, 1995). Canada
openly condemned the actions of the EU and warned that further action
would be taken against overfishing by the Europeans, particularly the
Spanish. In early March 1995, Canada pursued, fired on and arrested a
Spanish fishing vessel, the Estai.

Tensions and rhetoric between the two

nations quickly escalated with both sides mobilizing several warships to
patrol the area and watch each other’s activities (“Firepower for a war of
words,” 1995: A15). The pohtical and military posturing continued for a
number of weeks until, through diplomatic channels, a solution was
reached. Although direct armed confrontation between the Canadian and
Spanish navies did not occur, the potential for serious conflict was there.

C onclusion:
Overfishing has a direct impact on the national security of the state
economically and militarily. Disappearing stocks play a direct role in the
46

decline of the economic potential of many states. Declining stocks affect
the revenues available to the state and increase the amount of compensation
that must be paid out to citizens. Furthermore, overfishing is increasing
the chance of conflict between citizens of states in some countries as they
fight to have access to the remaining resource. Interstate conflicts wiU also
increase as states disagree on fishing jurisdiction and the actual fish stocks.
In some situations, these low-pohtical conflicts will lead to serious military
engagements between states. The focus now moves to a discussion of how
states

attempt

to

cooperate

in

international regimes.

47

managing

these

fisheries

through

Chapter Four
Fishing and International Security
“What is common to the greatest number gets the least amount of care.”
- Aristotle from his work Politics (as quoted
in Ophuls, 1977: 145)

Fishing on the high seas by its very nature is an international issue.
Fish do not respect the international political boundaries set by
governments, instead relying on their biological instincts which have
evolved over thousands of generations.

As a result, fish continually cross

into the fishing jurisdictions of various states and conflicts over the
ownership and access to these fish are inevitable. Rather than pursuing
national security on their own, states recognize the need to pursue
international security with the assistance o f others. States pursue this
pohcy of cooperation though mtemational fishing regimes to manage
access and ownership. However, overfishing threatens the development
and maintenance of these international fishing regimes through increased
state noncompliance with regime restrictions, unilateral action of member
states and even conflicts between states. The North Atlantic Fisheries
Organization (NAFO) will be examined as a case o f a regime threatened
by overfishing. Fishing regimes such as NAFO are meant to foster
cooperation and further international security by managing access and
regulating quotas.

Fishing and International Regimes:
International fishing regimes have evolved from a desire of states to
have effective regulatory bodies managing access to fish stocks and limiting
the quantity of fish taken from the oceans. They can provide a forum for
48

discussion, assist in the exchange of scientific information, and provide a
formula for equitable distribution among member states (Peterson, 1993:
299). States involved in a regime beheve that they have more to gain by
maintaining the regime than proceeding on their own (FAO, 1992).
Overfishing problems were first recognized in the 1880s.

By the

turn of the century, these problems began to force co-operative action
among the fishing states involved (Peterson, 1993: 250).

States reahzed

that fishing was inherently an international issue given the trans-boundary
nature of fish and, therefore, would have to be dealt with through state-tostate regulation of the fisheries and the fishers working in the industry.
Efforts were made to deal with the problems and various bodies were
formed, including the International Whaling Commission (IWC) and the
International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF)
(Peterson, 1993: 250).
However, following the Second World War, two factors contributed
to the realization that increased levels of cooperation were needed in order
to deal with the newly emerging fisheries management problems. First, the
war had brought about dramatic advancements in technology, significantly
affecting the fishing industry. Larger, more sophisticated boats could now
circumnavigate the globe searching out fish stocks to harvest.

The gear

available to fishers changed also, allowing them to catch much greater
quantities of fish. Second, these technological advances encouraged more
players to enter into the fishing industry and gain access to the various
fisheries around the world.

Some states realized that they were now no

longer constrained to fishing along their immediate coasts; but they could
traverse the globe in search of fish. This resulted in the creation of distantwater fishing fleets. Countries such as Japan, the USA, the former Soviet
49

Union, South Korea and Taiwan emerged as large players on the fishing
stage. These states, now called Distant Water Fishing Nations (DWFNs),
began to have an large impact on the fish stocks off the coasts of other
states and on the stocks of the high seas. The actions of these DWFNs,
along with the new technology available, encouraged coastal states,
particularly in newly-decolonized Asia and Africa, to nurture their own
fishing industries further (Joyner and De Cola, 1993: 102).
Furthermore, with fishing fleets now traversing the globe, other
states, particularly those in the developing world, began to feel that they
were losing a valuable economic resource off their coasts to these DWFNs.
The future economic potential of their infant fishing industries was being
threatened.

As a result, states aU over the world began to extend their

jurisdiction to 200 miles (Joyner and De Cola, 1993: 101-102). Evenmally
by 1977, almost all coastal states subscribed to the idea of a 200-mile
extended sea jurisdiction which came to be known as the Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ) (Peterson, 1993: 250).

Under international law,

states do not have absolute sovereignty over this adjacent sea zone;
however, they do have limited sovereignty for the purpose of exploring,
exploiting, conserving and managing the resources found within (Starke,
1989: 269).

This extension of jurisdiction transformed the pohtical

boundaries of the high seas, as up to ninety percent of all the sea harvest
now came under the jurisdiction of the coastal states (Munro, 1992: 289).
Consequently, as a result of the technological advances in fishing, the
increased number of fishing states around the world, and the extension of
fisheries jurisdiction, there was a substantial increase in the total global
marine fish catch. The catch rose from a mere 20 milhon toimes in 1950
to just over 65 milhon by the end of 1969 and to around 89 milhon in 1989
50

(WCED, 1987: 266; Weber, 1995). States now had to cooperate with each
other more than ever to manage the various fisheries around the world.
Completed in 1982, the United Nations Law o f the Sea Convention
(UNCLOS) was negotiated to deal with almost of oceanic issues, including
the management o f living resources.

Regional fishery regimes were set up

under the guidance of UNCLOS and were mandated to regulate access and
manage fish harvest levels (Peterson, 1993: 250).
Problems have arisen with these fishing management regimes in the
last twenty years which could threaten to render them irrelevant, thus
disabling any international cooperation over the management of the world’s
fisheries and further compounding an already tenuous fishing industry.
Fish found on the high seas are a difficult resource to manage because o f
their trans-boundary nature and the belief that they are part of a global
commons to be shared equally by everyone (Munro, 1992: 290; Peterson
and Teal, 1986: 119).

The Case of NAFO:
An example of a regime threatened by overfishing is NAFO.
Fishing has been a way of life and an industry in the Northwest Atlantic for
centuries. With technological developments and their dramatic effects on
the fishing industry, many of the states involved with fishing in this region
beUeved that there needed to be some form of cooperative management.
The ICNAF was set up in 1950 and ran until 1979 (Peterson, 1993: 253).
By the late 1970s, with the global extensions of EEZs to 2(X)-miles, ICNAF
member states deemed that the regime was not longer able to effectively
manage the fisheries in the region and it was disbanded (Emery, 1990: 3-4;
Joyner and De Cola, 1993: 103).
51

In 1979, NAFO emerged.

It now

includes members from Bulgaria, Canada, Cuba, Denmark, Estonia, the
EU (Spain and Portugal in particular), Iceland, Japan, Latvia, Norway,
Poland, Romania, and Russia (Claude, 1992: 9). The regime manages the
high seas just beyond Canada’s EFJ, including three important areas called
the “Nose,” the “Tail” and the “Flemish Cap” of the Grand Banks.
Although these three areas only represent a fraction of total shelf within
Canada’s jurisdiction, they are considered vital nursery areas for fish,
including northern cod and turbot (Singh, Kumar, and Kumar, 1992: 561).
In the early 1990s, two problems emerged to threaten the NAFO
regime.

First, overfishing of northern cod by member states, primarily

Spain, was disrupting the workings of the regime (Emery, 1992: 6-7;
Munro, 1992: 306). Second, overfishing of the same stock by non-member
states was exacerbating the already present internal problems within NAFO
(Emery, 1990: 7; Joyner and De Cola, 1993:103).
Overfishing by member states seriously jeopardized the effectiveness
of the regime to adequately manage the stock and, likewise, seriously
compromised its existence.

For the first few years, NAFO did not have

problems with overfishing and cod quotas as the harvests were abundant.
But with Spanish and Portuguese admittance to the EU in 1986, that
simation changed. Overnight, the EU saw a doubling of its fishers and a
seventy-five percent overall increase in its fishing capacity (Emery, 1992:
6).

Suddenly the quotas that had been given to the EU were no longer

sufficient. The EU began to set their own quotas which far exceeded those
allotted to them by NAFO (Munro, 1992: 306). For the period from 1986
to 1993, the EU exceeded the NAFO allotted quotas by almost 600,000
tonnes.

Moreover, these self-granted quotas were constantly surpassed

even by the EU’s own admission, with the official and the acmal rates
52

differing by up to sixty percent (Wells, 1995: A 17).

This excessive

overfishing caused open disagreements between member states.
Overfishing by non-member states further compromised the ability
of NAFO to manage the stocks. States, such as the USA, South Korea and
Panama, continued to harvest fish in the NAFO regulated sea area,
circumventing NAFO’s conservation and enforcement measures (Joyner
and De Cola, 1993: 103). In a five year period, non-members took more
than 165,000 tonnes of fish from off the coast of Canada, fish to which
they were not entitled (Emery, 1990: 7). Until 1986 and its entrance into
the EU, Spain was also a fishing non-member as it had refused to join
NAFO, on the grounds that it was being excluded from the Canadian EFJ
(Munro, 1992: 305).

Some member states, not happy with their quota

allotments, have been known to re-register or reflag their boats to
circumvent NAFO restrictions.

Reflagging is a policy by which fishing

vessels from one state are registered in another country and given a new
name.

They fly the flag of the new non-member state. Spain, still not

satisfied with their EU quotas, was a willing supporter of this policy and
re-flagged many of its fishing vessels in Panama (Canada, 1992: 1). These
vessels were then able to fish in NAFO territory, but did not have to
comply with NAFO restrictions or regulations.
As a result of these factors, the regime was threatened.

First, with

so much fishing taking place in excess of the set quotas, fish stock levels
were severely depleted (FAO, 1992). The quotas were set at levels which,
were supposed to ensure a sustainable fishery.

But by 1992, a complete

moratorium on cod fishing was imposed across most of NAFO territory
and in Canada’s EFJ (Emery, 1995: 13). Although overfishing beyond the

53

200-mile EFJ by member states was not the only factor involved in the
management of the fishery, it did play a prominent role.
Second, the benefits of the conservation measures were diluted and
the viability of the fisheries management arrangements were threatened. If
the quotas set by NAFO were ignored, the conservation measures were in
vain, as the resulting closure of the fishery indicates.

Furthermore, the

loss of fish resulted in diminished quotas and further encouraged states to
ignore or circumvent the restrictions placed on their activities by NAFO
(FAO, 1992). States either exceeded their quotas or turned to non-member
states to fill their holds.
Third, Canada took unilateral action that further raised tensions with
the EU causing disruptions in the regime.

In 1994, the Canadian

Parliament passed legislation that allowed the federal government to take
enforcement action in order to protect straddling stocks outside Canada’s
EFJ (Canada, 1995: 2). The impact of this policy was not felt directly in
relation to the northern cod fishery until three years later when an almost
identical simation took place over turbot. The Act was a serious source of
contention between the two states (Emery, 1995: 13-15).

C onclusion:
If the raison d ’ être of this regime is to act as a forum for interstate
cooperation around fishing, the actions of most member states do not
encourage continuation and success. This problem is not unique to NAFO
and is being experienced by other fishing regimes including the IWC, the
Pacific Salmon Commission (Twitchell, 1989) and the EU’s Common
Fisheries Policy (Churchill, 19993: 56). The effectiveness of these regimes
will ultimately depend on the extent to which states are willing to cede
54

sovereignty

in the establishment, monitoring,

international standards (Sands, 1993: 388).

and enforcement

of

However, as Peter W eber

(1993: 43) has noted, “[c]ountries cooperate on gathering and sharing
information,

but they have been reluctant to

enter

into

binding

international agreements.” Given that cooperation is pursued through these
regimes, the loss or even decline of these regimes would not further
international security as states would no longer have a forum mandated to
discuss these issues. As the recent conflicts between states over fish have
shown, these regimes are important in heading off serious conflicts.
Without them, fish wars would be far more common.

In the following

chapter, the thesis will examine how overfishing threatens the global
security, in particular the security of individual people, cultures and the
environment.

55

Chapter Five
Fishing and Global Security
The discussion now moves to the connection between fishing and
global security. Fishing has a large impact on various aspects of human
security. My working definition of international security has highlighted
the need to move beyond a conception of national security to a conception
of common security.

This perspective is a central element to global

security and will not be revisited. However, fishing has a large impact on
aspects to human security. Of particular concern is the impact that fishing
has on food, economic and cultural security.

The loss of fish presents a

clear and direct threat to individuals around the globe and their ability to
feed themselves.

Furthermore, fishing is critical in employing millions of

people and providing them with an vital income, an income they may not
be able to obtain elsewhere.

Moreover, fishing constitutes an integral

aspect of a fisher’s culture and identity. Finally, environmental security is
similarly compromised by the loss of fish.

Biodiversity, quality and

quantity all suffer greatly as a result of current fishing practices and
trends.
Fishing and Food Security:
[What] has taken 6,000 years to do on land —industrialization o f the natural
resources —has been accomplished in only three or four decades on the sea.
It all comes down to greed, simple greed.
- Mike Hagler, Greenpeace, 1994 (as quoted in Wacker, 1994: 14)

Food security includes both the physical and financial ability to
access basic foodstuffs.

The security of milhons of people around the

world is threatened by the fishing crisis. Foremost, fish and fish products
56

are an extremely important source of protein for people on almost every
continent and the loss of this protein source threatens their nutritional diets.
More importantly, fish are vital to countries in the developing world and
the world’s most economically disadvantaged peoples. Unfortunately, due
in part to overfishing, the price of fish is rising, pushing it beyond the
reach of the world’s poor (UNDP, 1995: 231).
Fish are a vital source of protein, an important ingredient in the diets
of millions of people around the world.

It is believed that over sixteen

percent of the world receives its animal protein from fish (WRI, 1996:
301).

However, there is a discrepancy between the developed and

developing worlds as to their reliance on this food source.

Only ten

percent of the industrialized world views fish as a main source of protein
(“Fisheries Management,” 1995: 1), with many of these people found in
Iceland, Norway, Spain, Portugal and Japan (Peterson and Teal, 1986:
117).

Forty-nine of the top fifty countries in which fish are the main

source of protein are found in the developing world (FAO, 1995: 1).
Overall, twenty-nine percent or one billion people in Asia, twenty percent
of Africans and eight percent of Latin Americans receive their protein
from fish (PANOS, 1995: 1; Robinson, 1995: 37).

For many of these

same people, fish provide a source of protein that would otherwise be
unobtainable. In the Philippines, for example, over fifty per cent of animal
protein available comes directly from fish (FAO, 1992).
Furthermore, this protein is particularly important to those people of
low economic status. Fish was once known as the “the food of the poor”
because it was far cheaper than other sources of protein such as beef, pork
or chicken (Fairhe, Hagler, and O ’Riordan, 1995: 48).

This adage is no

longer true as fish is rapidly becoming the delicacy of the rich and
57

increasingly inaccessible for those at the bottom of the socio-economic
hierarchy. Three factors have contributed to this problem.

First, global

overfishing

to

and poor

management practices

have

led

reduced

commercial catches, reducing the amount of fish available in local and
international markets.

As some species have disappeared from fishers’

nets, the price of other species has risen (Broadus and Vartanov, 1994: 53).
Second, there has been an overall growth in the demand for fish in
all regions of the world.

This is partly due to an increase in the global

population, which lowered the per capita catch in only one year by 200
grams, from 18.2 kilograms in 1993 to 18.0 in 1994 (Jandl, 1995).
Moreover, this per capita decrease is the result of the growth in the amount
of fish consumed by people in the developed world, not as a vital source of
animal protein but as a supplement to an already balanced diet (Weber,
1995).

Japan, for example, has doubled its per capita fish consumption

since the Second World W ar (“Introduction,” 1995: 42).

Overall fish

consumption in developed countries has increased to the point where, on
average, an individual here consumes three times as much as their
counterpart in a developing country (Weber, 1995).
The third factor contributing to the inaccessibility of fish to a
growing portion of the world’s population is the growing percentage of the
total fish catch - now upwards of thirty per cent - that is being converted
into fishmeal to be used to feed chickens and pigs in the developed world.
Much of the fish used in this way comes from developing countries,
reducing the amount available to local markets and consumers

(Fairlie,

Hagler, and O ’Riordan, 1995: 48).
These three factors have resulted in the steady increase in the overall
price of fish, pushing it beyond the reach of the people who need it most
58

(Hinds, 1992: 394). As a result, fish will probably never return to be
known as “poor man's protein” (“World's natural fish stocks,” 1996: 1).
Rising prices have reduced the local supply, leading to hunger, conflict and
the disruption of cultural and social institutions (FAO, 1995: 6).

As fish

stocks continue to decline from overfishing, the food security of many
people will continue to be threatened.

Fishing and Economic Security:
According to the UNDP, an individual’s economic security is
maintained with adequate employment that provides at least an elementary
source of income (UNDP, 1995: 230).

Since almost the beginning of

human existence, fishing has provided a source of employment and income
to many people. However, as fish stocks decline and the efficiency of those
working in the industry increases as a result o f improved technology,
fishers will continue to lose their sources of livelihood.
Fishing plays a huge economic role in the lives of men, women, and
children around the world.

There is some discrepancy as to how many

people actually earn a living as fishers. Lennox Hinds (1992: 396) suggests
that 12.5 million are actual fishers, while Peter W eber (1995) suggests the
number may be as high as twenty million.

Either way, a substantial

number of people view fishing as their livelihood.

Furthermore, if one

includes the dependents of these fishers, some 40 million people are
directly dependent on the fishery for their livelihoods.

A further 150

million are involved with services associated with the industry such as net
mending, ship building, and fish processing (Hinds, 1992: 396).

O f the

total number of people dependent on the industry, 100 million fall under
the title of the world’s poorest, barely eking out a subsistent living from
59

their fishing activities (Robinson, 1995; 37). In total, the industry employs
directly or indirectly over 200 million people, with well over half of these
living in developing countries (Hinds, 1992: 396).
Of these fishers, over ninety percent are considered artisinal or small
scale (Weber, 1995). James R. McGoodwin (1995: 5) provides a detailed
explanation of the traditional, community-based fishery.

He defines the

artisinal fishing industry using a variety of different terms including
artisinal,

small-scale, tribal,

inshore, peasant or

subsistent fishers.

Artisinal fishers are distinguishable from their larger counterparts by their
smaller capital commitments and levels of production. Furthermore, they
almost always conduct their fishing close to their communities and catch
only a limited number of species. Consequently, these fishing practices are
deeply ingrained into their society and the cultural traditions of their
communities. Moreover, there is a generally deep-seeded understanding of
the local fishery and how it affects the surrounding ecosystem.

It is

understood that the depletion or destruction of the fish within this
ecosystem would result in their own ruin.

Many of these fishers involve

themselves in both the subsistent and commercial fishery to some degree
and it is this degree which separates them into the aforementioned subcategories.

They provide the backbone to the fishing industry in most

countries, particularly in developing countries, contributing a significant
amount to the local economy and to employment numbers.
fishers catch fish for their families and the local market.

Artisinal

Furthermore,

family members of the artisinal fisher are usually employed in either the
actual catch or the sale of the fish.

Often it is the male members of the

household that catch the fish, while it is the responsibility of the women
and children to sell it in the local markets (McGoodwin, 1990: 24-25).
60

Large-scale commercial fishers, numbering between 200,000 and
300,000 (Weber, 1995), differ from their small-scale counterparts in many
respects. First, they are capital intensive, using larger boats, fewer crews
and more expensive equipment to catch much larger quantities of fish.
Second, they are devoted almost entirely to fishing for commercial
purposes. As a result, these fishers are able to traverse the globe in search
of a variety of species. Because they do not rely on any one particular
fishing ground or species, little thought is given to the need to conserve or
protect a particular fish stock as it is assumed there will always be other
fisheries to exploit.

The environmental conscience is often missing,

replaced by a need to remain competitive and profitable in the global
economy. Finally, given the global scale of the fishing industry, foreign
ownership plays an ever larger role in the development of multi-national
fishing

companies that

seem to

care

little

for

the

environment

(McGoodwin, 1995: 6).
Artisinal fishers
numbers world wide.

dominate the fishing

industry’s employment

Developing countries accoimt for twenty-five

percent of the total world catch and over forty percent of the fish caught
for human consumption (FAO, 1992). Unfortunately, governments around
the world are following a policy of increasing the efficiency of their
respective fleets (Weber, 1993: 10).

More and more, it is the artisinal

fishers who are losing their jobs at the expense of the much more efficient,
technologically-advanced, commercial fishing industry.

This employment

discrepancy between the two industries can best be seen in a comparison of
the fishing industries of China and Japan. China has 3.8 million fishers,
while Japan, the world’s leading fish producer, employs only 200,000
commercial fishers. However, the Japanese catch twice as much fish as the
61

Chinese (Weber, 1995). A further example of this discrepancy can be seen
in John Kurien's (1995: 119) description of a fish catch in the hold of a
Soviet commercial boat docked in the Indian port of Cochin in 1994. The
ship’s hold contained 2,000 tonnes of snapper and perch, which was the
equivalent to the catch of 1,0(X) hook and line Indian fishers.
Another example of how overfishing threatens employment is the
1992 cod fishery closure off the east-coast of Canada left upwards of
40,000 fishers displaced and unemployed in Newfoundland alone (WRI,
1996: 304). This number does not include the tens of thousands of people
laid off in other businesses as a result of these direct job losses. Shortly
before the ban on cod was imposed, total job losses were estimated at
around 38,0(X) people, which included an equal number of fishers and
others relying on the industry (Benseler, 1993b).

This was a gross

underestimation of the extent and severity of the problem as just the
number of fishers laid off was more than this total number.
Overfishing has put many fishers’ hvelihoods at risk.

Their

economic security is threatened by the loss of fish and as the stocks
continue to decline, this threat could lead to conflict.

Fishing and Cultural Security:
Fishing is an important aspect of the social makeup of many
communities and societies. As McGoodwin (McGoodwin, 1990: 24) notes,
where fishing is the main occupation of a community, "it is interwoven
throughout the fabric of the local culture,” defining the local identity,
pervading local rituals, influencing local economic and social institutions,
and inspiring myths, folktales, and history. In essence, flshing has evolved
into not only an occupation but a way of life. A disruption of this way of
62

life would severely jeopardize the social balances and traditions within the
society in question, impacting all those involved.

A way o f life is

threatened with extinction and with it the knowledge of the local fishery
that has been gleaned from the history of the community.
The culture of fishing communities has evolved over centuries to the
point where it is the only way o f life that many people really know and
understand.

In Newfoundland, for example, many coastal communities

date back to the founding of the cod fishery over 400 years ago, their
locations having been partly determined by the convenience of conducting
the cod fishery.

Until only a few years ago, the sole basis for their

existence had been this fishery (Singh, Kumar, and Kumar, 1992: 562).
The loss of cod devastated many individuals and communities in Canada,
leaving about 500 communities and villages from Newfoundland to Nova
Scotia negatively affected to some degree by the closure (Wacker: 1994:
14).
This phenomenon is by no means isolated to Canada. Communities
in North America that were founded on fishing have had a relatively short
existence compared to fishing communities in other parts of the world.
Some fisheries and the communities which have relied on them over time
date back hundreds, if not thousands, of years. When the primary basis for
economic, social and cultural existence is suddenly gone, the effects are
sure to be devastating. In extreme cases, one might see the disappearance
of a distinct fishing culture altogether as happened to some indigenous
fishing peoples in Mexico (McGoodwin, 1995: 7). Ultimately, fishers and
their conununities see the loss of fish as a threat not only to their economic
well-being, but to the sustainability of their cultures as well (McGoodwin,
1995: 2)
63

Although fishers may be hardy people, having to fight nature at
every turn to reap even the smallest reward, the loss of fish can disrupt the
social makeup of the community. As the once abundant and plentiful stocks
decline and disappear, the people in these remote communities are forced
to make difficult changes. Of the numerous examples of the impact of the
loss o f fish, I will discuss three. First, members of the community, both
men and women, are often forced to move to other locations or to gain
other forms of employment. Second, a serious disruption in the fish stocks
can seriously disrupt the roles within the family unit. On the surface, this
may seem to be somewhat suspect in relation to security matters. It could
be argued that a stable and healthy family unit is the key to a stable and
healthy culture, although some have observed that an abundant fishery can
have adverse effects on various members of society, especially women and
children (Nadel-Klein and Davis, 1988; Porter, 1993). Those who suggest
that there is a link between the health of fisheries, families and cultures
claim that men and women have grown accustomed to the roles they play in
many patriarchal societies, with men tending to catch the fish, while the
women to market it, run the household, and further the economic and
social development of the community. If there are no longer fish to catch,
these roles are seriously disrupted (McGoodwin, 1990: 35).

This

disruption can be either positive or negative. Leela Gulati argues that the
technological disruption that occurred in the Kerala fishery actually had
many positive impacts on the lives of women, including increased wages
and jobs, better health care, and more educational opportunities (Gulati,
1988: 155).
As the loss of fish destroys the local way of life and the livelihood of
peoples and communities, it also destroys the knowledge and the
64

understanding about the surrounding aquatic environment that has been
gained over the centuries. This knowledge and understanding of how the
local fish stocks endure, what type of gear and nets are most effective in
maintaining a sustainable fishery, and how various species interact is being
seriously threatened. In the Indian province of Kerala, for example, where
fishers have been fishing the waters for thousands of years, traditional
fishing communities have evolved a keen understanding of the local aquatic
ecosystem and have developed fishing methods, craft and gear appropriate
to the fish in the local region (Kurien, 1993: 5; Kocherry and Achary,
1989: 32).

The current trends in fisheries management in many ways

devalue this local knowledge, ignoring it and

believing local communities

to be an obstacle to progress (“Introduction,” 1995: 42;

Fairlie, Hagler,

and O ’Riordan, 1995: 47). Most of what is known and understood about
fisheries comes not from biologists and scientists, but from the fishers
involved in

the industry at the local level (Steinhart, 1995: 31).

By

removing a connection between the people and the fish that has been
established over centuries and generations, important knowledge may be
forever lost.

Local fishers often have a sense of their roots and a

commitment to future of that ecosystem and their communities.

They

know that their children have an important stake in the fisheries’ ecological
health (Mische, 1989: 414).
Fish have also become an integral part of some cultures, influencing
a peoples’ outlook on üfe. For example, fish has dominated the lives and
culture of the First Nations people on the west coast o f North America.
For thousands of years. First Nations economies on this Pacific slope have
centered on marine resources; the sea and coastal rivers were at least as
important as the land (Newell, 1993: 3).
65

These people harvested large

quantities of aquatic resources, particularly salmon, which they processed
and used for subsistence, trade, and ceremonial purposes.

The salmon

fishery was to the Pacific coast First Nations what the com crop was to the
English, the potato crop was to the Irish, and the Buffalo hunt was to the
indigenous peoples on the Prairies (Newell, 1993: 28-29).

For First

Nations fishers, fish resources transcend their commercial and subsistence
values, being regarded as part of their cultural identity along side history,
oral tradition, mythology, folklore, and legends (McGoodwin, 1995: 7).
The importance of salmon to the First Nations peoples is evident in other
aspects of their culture such as in art, totem poles and carvings (Craft and
Burtsin, 1996).
Fish are vital in defining who some people are, how they think and
interact with the society around them. The loss of fish from overfishing is
having severe social and cultural impacts on peoples around the world.

Fishing and Environm ental Security:
Unlike rhinos, tigers and bears, when you deplete fish populations, you’re
threatening the survival of humanity.
- Michael Sutton, World Wildlife Fund (as quoted in
Steinhart, 1994:1)

The overall health and security of the oceanic environment has been
and continues to be threatened by past and current fishery practices,
pollution problems, and coastal economic development around the globe.
If the oceanic environment is to be sustained, it must be seen as having
some intrinsic or inherent value in and of itself. Too often, humanity only
values something when it is of military/strategic or economic importance.
Global fishing practices are threatening the sustainability of the aquatic

66

ecosystem by compromising biodiversity and the ability of the fish stocks
to maintain safe reproductive levels.
Biodiversity, or the diversity of species which inhabit the oceans, is
easily threatened by overfishing and poor management practices. First, the
fish stocks themselves are seriously threatened. The United Nations Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAG) estimates that all of the seventeen
major fishing grounds around the world have either reached or exceeded
their capacity, with nine of them being in serious dechne (Weber, 1993:
34).

Within these grounds, almost all of the 200 different fisheries

monitored by FAG are fully exploited, with one in three

being

overexploited (Krauthammer, 1994: 21). A number of these same species
are threatened with either extinction or limited extinction - meaning that
for the foreseeable future, they are not expected to recover to any stable
level. No one really knows if fish stocks are able to recover from such a
rapid decrease in their numbers over such a short period of time.

And

even if they are able to recover, there is no guarantee that they will return
to their former levels (Hagler, 1995: 74). An example of this took place in
the early 1970s, when the Peruvian anchovy catch, then the largest fish
catch in the world, collapsed from 12 million tonnes to 2 milhon.

It has

only been recently that the stock has shown any signs of recovery, 25 years
after it was first decimated (Weber, 1993: 32).
This threat to biodiversity can take two forms: the decline in the
quantity of fish as a result of growth overfishing and the decline in the
quahty of fish from recm itm ent overfishing.

Both comphcate the abiUty

of fish to reproduce and remain plentiful at sustainable levels.
overfishing results from fishers taking a smaller size fish.

Growth

As fishers

continually remove the large fish from the stock, they turn their efforts to
67

smaller size fish, lowering the overall size of the average fish taken
(Peterson, 1993: 256).

Recruitment overfishing involves taking such a

large number of fish that much less fish are left to reproduce, reducing the
total population even further (Peterson, 1993: 257).

When one examines

global fishing management methods, it becomes clear that if too much of
the biomass " the sum of all hving material in a given environment
(Kaufman and Franz, 1993: G-2) - is removed, the stocks ability to recover
is hindered. In other words, you end up removing the capital instead of the
interest of your investment (Krauthammer, 1994: 21).
An example of this can be seen in the cod fishery in the North West
Atlantic. In one region of the Atlantic, the total biomass for cod dropped
from 3 milhon tonnes in 1952 to just over 500,000 tonnes in 1977. Since
then, there has been a further rapid decrease in the total biomass. If one
compares the total cod catch, there is a correlation between this reduction
in biomass and the dechne in the fishery (Canada, 1991: 113).
Moreover,

once a species has become scarce through

over­

exploitation and mismanagement, the common practice among fishing
nations is to turn their attention to other types of fish, usually fish that only
a few short years before were seen as waste. An example of this is the
turbot (or Greenland hahbut) stocks off the east coast of Canada. The fish
was not caught in any significant numbers by fishers as they instead
preferred to pursue more economically valuable stocks such as cod and
flounder. However, when these stocks plummeted and all but disappeared,
countries such as Canada and Spain turned their attention to the turbot. In
a five year period between 1990 and 1995, the Spanish catch of turbot
increased from 4,000 to 60,000 tonnes (Jandl, 1995). The pressure on the
stock increased dramatically and within a few short years, the catch had to
68

be severely trimmed back. Now that a severe limit has been placed on the
total turbot catch, countries will turn their attention to other types of fish
and continue the process of destroying these stocks.

As ever greater

numbers of depleted stocks follow in the wake of the cod and the turbot,
pressure on those remaining will further threaten aquatic biodiversity.
The removal of a species from the food chain can also have serious
effects on other species in the aquatic ecosystem.

Granted, periodic

changes in the aquatic ecosystem as the result of natural changes in ocean
currents, oxygen levels, and water temperature have a definite impact on
the stock levels (Kocherry and Achary, 1989: 31).

However, hu m an

intervention through increased technology and fishing levels can have a
dramatic, detrimental effect on stock levels.

Given that both plant and

animal fife in the ocean ecosystem are linked in a huge, complex food web,
a fluctuation in the level of one may have dire consequences for others.
Sudden changes in the numbers of one species can trigger unpredictable
effects in the life around it (“Fisheries Management,” 1995: 1).
For example, the Alaskan pollock fishery in the North Pacific area
known as the Donut Hole has undergone a similar rapid decline in quality
and quantity of fish due to the massive scale of overfishing that has taken
place by the American, Russians, Poles, Japanese, Taiwanese, and North
and South Koreans. Negative effects have included changes in the size of
pollock taken by predators, a decline in the predatory populations that rely
on pollock, and substantial rises in the level of zooplankton have occurred
as their main predator, the pollock, no longer has the numbers to keep that
population in check (Broadus and Vartanov, 1994: 58-59).

The exact

extent of the problem may not be fully known or understood for many
years.
69

Similarly, the loss of the sand eel had a significant impact on nesting
bird populations in the Shetland Islands off the coast of Scotland in the mid
to late 1980s. Arctic terns, puffins and other nesting birds preyed upon the
sand eel, a small shoaling fish caught for fish meal and oil. The sand eel
populations collapsed dramatically as a result of severe overfishing. The
result on the nesting birds was devastating. The eel was normally fed to
the bird’s young chicks, but as there were few sand eels left, the birds lost
their broods. Not enough research has gone into fully understanding the
effects of this problem (Weber, 1993: 35).

C onclusion:
Overfishing threatens the environmental security of people and the
planet. As the fish stocks decline from poor management, consequences
will spread through the ecological system, exacerbating the problem.
Humans must recognize that the environment has intrinsic value in and of
itself, regardless of the price we put on it.

If, as Patricia Mische (1989:

393) speculates, humans fail to see the world as an holistic, living system,
with human security dependent upon the viability of the larger earth system
of which they are a part, the result could be the death of the human race.
Overfishing is a growing global security threat.

It impacts states,

people, and the environment at local, national and international levels.
States are increasingly warming to the notion of common security.
security is tied to the security of other states.

Their

At the same time,

overfishing is emerging as a threat to human security. Fish continue to be
a vital component of the protein needs of people in all parts of the world.
More significant, however, is the fact that fish are far more important to
people found in the developing world and the economically disadvantaged.
70

The loss o f fish threatens these peoples very existence. As stocks continue
to decline and fish become increasingly scarce, millions of jobs are at risk
in many different areas.

Furthermore, fishing provides a source of

cultural identity to many peoples and societies around the globe. The loss
of fish would severely impact this aspect of their existence.

Finally,

overfishing threatens the environmental security of the planet. The loss of
biodiversity further threatens the viability of humanity.

71

Chapter Six
Conclusion
‘Man marks the earth with ruin -- his control stops with the shore.”
- Lord Byron (as quoted in Steinhart, 1994: 2)

Fish have provided an important source of food, trade and revenue
throughout history.

For centuries, fish were seen as an inexhaustible

resource. People did not have the technology, capability, nor the desire to
harvest fish at levels that even approached their maximum capacity. When
communities sensed that threats to the fish populations in the local area
were imminent, control measures were put in place to ensure that the stock
remained viable. This approach worked effectively for thousands of years.
However, with the onset of the Industrial Revolution, the mindset changed.
The increased

mechanization and efficiency

encouraged.

The

SecondWorld

W ar

of

brought

the

fisheries

about

was

dramatic

improvements in the technology available to fishers. They could now fish
further away from their communities for larger quantities of fish.

With

this increased technology and availability of fish came an explosion in the
demand for fish and fish products. Even then, the oceans were still thought
to be inexhaustible.
. Humanity has now realized that the oceans are exhaustible. Around
the world, fish stocks are declining and fishing grounds are being closed at
a dramatic pace.

FAQ has estimated that of a majority of the world’s

major fishing grounds and fish stocks are in decline or near depletion
(Weber, 1993:

34). The per

capita fish catch available for human

consumption is also declining. It is clear that our current fishing and
72

management practices are extremely destructive. These overfished stocks
and the emerging crisis directly threaten security at the national,
international and global levels. To have discussed the impact of fishing on
any one of these levels without engaging in a similar discussion of the
impact at the other levels would be to have ignored the multidimensional
nature of the crisis.
Fishing has a direct impact on national security, threatening the
economic health of states and acting as a catalyst for conflict. Some states
rely heavily on the economic benefits the fishing industry provides:
employment, tax revenue, export earnings and license fees. The loss of
these revenues or potential revenues directly harms the economic viability
of the state.

D eclining fish populations also increase tensions within the

state, often exacerbating pre-existing problems, which can and do lead to
conflict between different societal groups and interests.

Externally, the

world has seen a growing number of conflicts between states as they enter
into serious and potentially explosive confrontations over fish.
Next, international security is threatened by overfishing as endangers
the development and maintenance of international fishing regimes.

These

regimes were set up by states interested in cooperating over the
management of fish stocks on the high seas, each believing that they had
more to gain by maintaining the regime than preceding on their own
(PAO, 1992). Unfortunately, these agreements are experiencing problems
as states are ignoring their rules and regulations. By ignoring the quotas
allotted to a state, circumventing the regime by re-flagging their vessels, or
taking unilateral action, states are endangering the usefulness and viability
of these regimes.

73

Finally, global security is threatened by the loss o f fish because of
the impact on human and environmental considerations.

First, fish

constitute a vital food source for millions of people around the world,
particularly for people in developing countries and amongst the world’s
poorest.

The threatened loss of fish would severely impact the diets of

these people.

Second, many of these same people rely heavily on the

fisheries to provide direct or indirect employment.

However, as

technology increases efficiency, the artisan, small-scale fishers are being
pushed out of the industry.

Given that a majority of fishers are small-

scale, their occupations are definitely in peril. Third, for some, the loss of
fish directly threatens their culture.

Fishing is often “interwoven

throughout the fabric of the local culture,” defining the local society,
pervading rituals,

and influencing social and economic instimtions

(McGoodwin, 1995; 68). Finally, global security is further threatened by
the degradation of the environment through the loss of biodiversity.

The

oceanic environment has intrinsic value in and of itself. By compromising
its security, we undoubtedly risk our own existence.
The intent of this examination was threefold.

First, this discussion

surrounding the overfishing crisis is an example of why the concept of
security needs to be broadened beyond its traditional military focus.

For

far too long the concept has revolved almost solely around military
concerns.

Many of these concerns, including nuclear war and foreign

invasion, are still important to many people and states, but they no longer
pose as great a danger as they once did. The move beyond this traditional
security focus is an attempt to provide a more inclusive range that
recognizes the diversity of threats that now impact people, states, the
international system, cultures and the environment.
74

Examining a threat

such as overfishing offers us a concrete example of why there is a need to
redefine or rediscover security and how this can be done. As overfishing
directly threatens security in the areas of economics, the environment,
culture, food, and regime development, the traditional definition of
security would be far too constraining, providing or highlighting a mere
fraction of these impacts.

Again, I recognize there is a danger that a

broadened concept of security will be used to validate military strategies
under the guise of threats to aspects of global security.
Second,

threats

to

the

various

security

levels

are

often

multidimensional and complex, requiring a multilevel and interdisciplinary
perspective.

States

must

recognize

the

significance

of

these

interdisciplinary links. By disregarding this interdisciplinary approach, any
pohtical solutions offered will always neglect some areas or interests and
make the solutions unworkable.

Without these holistic considerations,

overfishing will continue to threaten people and states around the world.
Finally, overfishing presents an immediate crisis that needs to be
examined more closely by the international community. It is possible that
in a few years, the world stocks, already in decline, will collapse leaving
the world without an important food, economic and environmental
resource. If this crisis is not recognized now and serious efforts are not
made to ease the situation, the results will be devastating.

Issues fo r F u rth e r R esearch:
The problem of overfishing raises a number of questions. Mische
(1989: 393) has commented that if we fail to see the world as an hohstic,
living system, with human security dependent upon the viabihty of the
larger earth system of which they are a part, our existence is at risk. What
75

does this mean for our common future? Can we rectify a situation already
in crisis? Can we ensure that the security of people and states at each level
is reached and maintained?
Fortunately, steps are being taken to rectify the simation:

•

As the research presented in this thesis suggests, states, both individually
and in cooperation with others, are recognizing the need to better
understand the overall problem of the declining fish stocks. Why is the
problem occurring?

What political, social, economic, and cultural

factors are influencing the decisions that are being made along the way?
Governments are making some efforts to look into these questions as
they attempt to find solutions to this far reaching problem.

•

Some states are increasingly willing to accept responsibility for the
decline of the fisheries.

States and their citizens all to often see

foreigners as the culprits in the decline of a particular resource
(MacNeill, Winsemius, and Yakushiji, 1991; 57). In the past, they have
failed to examine their own actions. . Slowly, however, states are
beginning to accept their own culpability (Hayashi, 1991: 343). This is
a positive step toward finding workable solutions to the problem of
overfishing and other environmental problems.

•

States are gradually becoming more willing to cede some of their
authority to international regimes, thus ensuring that the resource can
be adequately protected through international cooperation.

A recent

example took place in 1996 with the signing of the Convention on the
Conservation and Management o f Straddling Fish Stocks on the High
76

Seas and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks on the High Seas.

The

Convention sets out, inter alia, stricter enforcement and conservation
measures for these stocks and a dispute settlement mechanism (Canada,
1996a: 2).

There is one thing that will hinder this move toward

increased cooperation:

the concept of territorial sovereignty.

States

have defended this concept, but maybe the time has come to seriously
re-evaluate it because of the growing number of environmental
problems that ignore state borders. As Mische (1989), Mathews (1989),
and Reimer (1989) have discussed, our accepted definition of territorial
sovereignty is obsolete.

Global environmental change is expected to

alter radically the present geopohtical picture, increasing dependence
among states and altering power relations between states (MacNeill,
Winsemius, and Yakushiji, 1991: 73).

As Richard Falk pointed out

almost three decades ago, “A world of sovereign states is unable to cope
with endangered-planet problems ... such a system exhibits only a
modest capacity for international cooperation and coordination” (as
quoted in Stoett, 1994: 135).

This move to relinquish some state

sovereignty to regimes is a positive development.

Environmental

problems like overfishing are having a strong influence on this
progression.

Globally, the outlook is not as bright in the short term.
continue to suffer as the crisis plays itself out.

People will

Those most seriously

threatened are at the bottom of the socio-economic-political ladder and
thus have little power or control over the fisheries.

Continued

disregard for these people will only intensify the problem. However, if
states continue to adapt their behaviour as noted above, there is a
77

distinct possibility that many of the concerns affecting these same people
can be alleviated.

Two other questions are raised by this examination.

First, the

problems surrounding fish are an example of the discrepancy between the
“haves” and the “have nots,” be it between individuals, peoples,
communities, states or regions.

The widening gap is a serious concern.

Globally, these discrepancies will increase as the drive toward technology
and efficiency increases. As the commercial industry turns to larger boats
and fewer fishers to try and deal with the problem, those left out of the
process will lose further access to the resource which is so important to
them. This alienation is not restricted to this issue and should be viewed as
a piece of a much larger puzzle.

The following question arises:

technological

efficiency

advancements

in

really

assisting

A re

human

advancement?
Lastly, the inability to accept the declining fish stocks as a threat to
secinity brings forth another concern. Humanity is alienating itself from
the surroimding environment on both a small and large scale.

David

Suzuki, the Canadian geneticist and environmentalist, argues that we are
increasingly living in a society groomed for human convenience, a society
which is slowly losing its connection with nature through urbanization and
technological advancements which are breeding an overall disdain fo r
Mother Earth. Inherent in this disdain is the assumption that human beings
are different from other animals and exist outside the realm of the natural
environment. By failing to retain a spiritual connection with nature, are
we distancing ourselves from the very foundation that supports us, the
Earth (Suzuki, 1989: 185-186)7
78

Ultimately, given the different

security

paradigms

discussed,

problems such as overfishing will be best dealt with using the global
security model.

Still, some scholars such as Waltz believe that global

security is nothing more than a impossible utopia that would require
radical system change (Haftendom, 1991: 11).

Haftendora argues that

“change will only take place if states realize that they will m axim ize their
gains with cooperative, not dissociative strategies” (Haftendora, 1991: 12).
The change that is currently underway (i.e., acceptance of responsibility,
increased cooperation, ceding of state sovereignty) is not radical, but it is
progressive.

Radical change is not reahstic. Just the inclusion o f

environmental security in a state’s thinking represents a breakthrough
(Porter, 1990: 333).

This research has shown that a slow, hesitant

movement towards a global security paradigm is taking place.

Global

security is no longer a utopia. It is a very real, albeit distant, possibility.
To conclude, fish are important to people and states around the
world. The loss o f fish has had and will have potentially devastating effects
on millions of people. The actions that we take over the next decade will
determine the fate of the fish and ourselves.
security puzzle.

79

Fishing is a piece of the

Bibliography
Al-Mashat, Abdul-Monem M. 1985. National Security in the Third
W orld. Boulder: Westview Press.
Africa Policy Information Center (APIC). 1995. “APIC Background
Paper: Angola [Online].” Available HTTP:
http://w w w .sas.upenn.edu/A frican_S tudies/U rgent_A ction/D C .
apic_angla.htm l.
Ayoob, Mohammed. 1995. The Third W orld Security Predicament:
State Making. Regional Conflict and the International System.
Boulder: Lyime Rienner PubUshers.
Bandarage, Asoka. 1994. “Global Peace and Security in the Post-Cold
W ar Era: A ‘Third World Perspective.’” In Peace and World
Security Studies: A Curriculum Guide. Ed. Michael T. Klare.
Boulder: Lynne Rienner Pubhshers, pp. 29-43.
Benseler, James. 1993a. “TED Case Studies: Canada-UK Dispute over
Cod.” Washington: Trade and Environment Database (TED).
. 1993b. “TED Case Studies: UK and Spain Fishing Dispute.”
Washington: Trade and Environment Database.
Berkowitz, Morton and P. G. Bock, eds. 1965. American National
Security: A Reader in Theory and Policy. New York: The Free
Press.
. 1968. “National Security.” In International Encyclopedia of the
Social Sciences. Ed. David L. Sills. New York: The Macmillan
Company and the Free Press. Vol. 11, pp. 40-45.
Bernier, Daniel and Apama Sundar. 1996. “Indian Fishing Sparks
Fisheries Strike in India - Canadian Fishermen Warn of Stock
Collapse.” Canada News Wire. January 23.
Boulding, Elsie. 1991. “States, Boundaries and Environmental Security
in Global and Regional Conflicts.” Interdisciplinary Peace
Research. Vol. 3, No. 2 (October/November), pp. 78-93.

80

Broadus, James M. and Raphael V. Vartanov. 1994. The Oceans and
Environmental Security: Shared U. S. and Russian Perspectives.
Washington, D. C.: Island Press.
Brown, Lester R. 1977. Redefining National Security. Washington, D.C.
World Watch Institute.
Buzan, Barry. 1983. People. States and Fear: The National Security
Problem in International Relations. Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books
Ltd.
Cacas, Samuel R. 1994. “Will There Be Fish For Our Grandchildren?”
Asiaweek. 1 April.
Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 1991. “Canadian Atlantic
Fisheries Scientific Advisory Committee (CAFSAC) Annual Report
1991.” Dartmouth: Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
. 1992. “Overharvesting by Non-Member Countries: Republics of
Korea and Panama.” Backgrounder. Ottawa: Department of
Fisheries and Oceans.
. 1995. “The Fisheries Crisis in the Northwest Atlantic.”
Backgrounder. Ottawa: Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
. 1996a. “The Atlantic Groundfish Strategy (TAGS) License
Retirement Program.” Backgrounder. Ottawa: Department of
Fisheries and Oceans.
. 1996b. “The Pacific Salmon Treaty: Chronology.” Ottawa:
Department of Fisheries and Oceans. May.
Chatterjee, Pratap. 1995. “Environment: Fish Wars Escalate around
the World.” Inter Press Service Harare. 16 March.
Choucri, Nazli. Ed. 1993. Global Accord: Environmental Challenges
and International Responses. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Churchill, R. R. 1993. “Fisheries Issues in Maritime Boundary
Delimination.” Marine Policy. Vol. 17, No. 1 (January), pp. 44-57.

81

Ciba-Geigy Foundation for Cooperation with Developing Countries.
1996. Food Security for a Growing World Population [Online].
Available HTTP: http://www2.ciba.com/cgf/popgrow.htm.
Commission on Global Governance. 1995. Our Global Neighbourhood.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Copes, Parzival. 1989. “Canadian Fisheries Management Policy:
International Dimensions.” In Canadian Oceans Policv: National
Strategies and the New Law of the Sea. Eds. Donald McRae and
Gordon Munro. Vancouver: UBC Press, pp. 3-16.
Craft, Amy and Michaelle Burtsin. 1996. “TED Case Studies: US-Canada
Salmon Dispute (SALMON).” Washington, D C.: Trade and
Environment Database.
Cutler, A. Claire, and Mark W. Zacher, eds. 1992. Canadian Foreign
Policv and International Economic Regimes. Vancouver: UBC
Press.
Deudney, Daniel. 1990. “The Case Against Linking Environmental
Degradation and National Security.” Millennium. Vol. 19, No. 3
(Winter), pp. 461-476.
. 1991. “Environment and Security: Muddled Thinking.” The
Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. Vol. 47, No. 2 (April), pp. 23-28.
Dewitt, David. 1994. “Common, Comprehensive, and Cooperative
Security.” The Pacific Review. Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Dogan, Nejat. 1995. “North Pacific Overfishing (DONUT).” Washington:
Trade and Environment Database.
Dyer, Gwynne. 1991. “Environmental Warfare in the Gulf.” Ecodecision.
Vol. 10, No. 3 (September), p. 25.
Dyson, Kenneth. 1980. The State Tradition in Western Europe. Oxford:
Martin Robertson.
Emery, Claude. 1990. “Overfishing Outside the 200-Mile Limit: Atlantic
Coast.” Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Services, 10 October.

82

1992. “Overfishing Outside the 200-Mile Limit: Atlantic
Coast.” Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Services, 13 April
(Revised).
. 1995. “Overfishing Outside the 200-Mile Limit: Atlantic
Coast.” Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Services, 6 July
(Revised).
1992. “The Northern Cod Crisis.” Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and
Services, October.
“Estonia PM Hopes Settlement for ‘Fish W ar’ with Latvia by Fall.” 1995.
Baltic News Service. 30 May, p. 1.
Fairhe, Simon, Mike Hagler, and Brian O ’Riordan. 1995. “The Politics of
Overfishing.” The Ecologist. Vol. 25, No. 2/3 (March/April,
May/June), pp. 46-73.
“Firepower For a War of Words.” 1995. The Globe and Mail. 9 March,
p. A16.
“Fisheries Management.” 1995. Earth Explorer. 1 February, p. 1.
“Fishers Apply Pressure With Ads” 1997. The Edmonton Journal. 3
June, p. A13.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), United Nations 1992. The
State of Food and Agriculture (SOFA). Rome: FAO.
Fraser, Graham. 1995. “Professor Delivers ‘Subversive’ Message.” The
Globe and Mail. 25 May, p. A9.
Galtung, Johan. 1982. Environment. Development, and Military
. Activitv: Towards Alternative Securitv Doctrines. Oslo:
Universitesforlaget.
Gleick, Peter H. 1991. “Environment and Security: The Clear
Connections.” The Bulletin o f Atomic Scientists. Vol. 47, No. 2
(April) pp. 17-21.

83

Gulati, Leela. 1984. Fisherworoen on the Kerala Coast. Geneva:
International Labour Office.
1988. “Women’s Changing Roles in the Kerala Fishery.” In To Work
and To Weep: Women in Fishing Economies. Eds. Jane NadelKlein and Dona Lee Davis. St. John’s: Institute of Social and
Economic Research, pp. 149-168.
Haas, Peter and Jan Sundgren. 1993. “Evolving International
Environmental Law: Changing Practices o f National Sovereignty.”
In Global Accord: Environmental Challenges and International
Responses. Eds. Nazli Choucri. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 401430.
Haas, Peter, et al. 1993. Institutions for the Earth: Sources of Effective
Environmental Protection. USA: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
Haftendom, Helga. 1991. “The Security Puzzle: Theory Building and
Discipline Building in International Security.” International
Studies Quarterly. Vol. 35, No. 1 (March), pp. 3-17.
Hagler, Mike. 1995. “Deforestation of the Deep: Fishing and the State of
the Oceans.” The Ecologist. Vol. 25, No, 2/3 (March/April,
May/June), pp. 74-79.
Hall, Peter. 1990. “Crisis in the Atlantic Fishery.” Canadian Business
Review. Vol. 17, No. 2 (Summer), pp. 44-48.
Hayashi, Moritaka. “Fisheries in the North Pacific: Japan at a Turning
Point.” Ocean Development and International Law. Vol. 22, No. 4
(Fall), pp. 343-364.
Hinds, Lennox. 1992. “World Marine Fisheries: Management and
Development Problems.” Marine Policv. Vol. 16, No. 5
(September), pp. 394-403.
Hjort af Oraas, Anders and Christer Krokfors. 1992. “Environment and
International Security.” In The Environment and International
Security. Eds. Anders Hjort af Oraas and Sverre Lodgaard.
Uppsala: Uppsala University Research Programme on
Environmental PoUcy and Development, pp. 1-9.
84

Hjort af Ornas, Anders and Sverre Lodgaard, eds. 1992. The
Environment and International Securitv. Uppsala: Uppsala
University Research Programme on Environmental Policy and
Development.
Holst, Johan Jprgen. 1989. “Security and the Environment: A
Preliminary Exploration.” Bulletin o f Peace Proposals. Vol. 20,
No. 2 (June), pp. 123-128.
Homer-Dixon, Thomas F. 1991. “On the Threshold: Environmental
ÎS as Causes of Acute Conflict.” International Securitv. Vol.
• : ' 2 (Fall), pp. 76-116
. 1993. “Global Environmental Change and International Security.”
In Building A New World Order: Emerging Trends in International
Security. Eds. David Dewitt and John Kirton. Toronto: Oxford
University Press, pp. 185-22.
. 1994. “Environmental Scarcities and Violent Conflict.”
International Security. Vol. 19, No. 1 (Fall), pp. 5-41.
Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues. 1982.
Common Securitv: A Blueprint for Survival. New York: Simon
and Schuster.
“Introduction.” 1995. The Ecologist. Vol. 25, No. 2/3 (March/April,
May/June), pp. 42-45.
Jancar, Barbara. 1994. “The Environment, Population Growth, and
Resource Scarcity.” In Peace and World Security Studies: A
Curriculum Guide. Ed. Michael T. Klare. Boulder: Lynne
Rienner Publishers, pp. 304-314.
Jandl, Thomas. 1995. “TED Case Studies: Turbot Loss and Canada.”
Washington: Trade and Environment Database.
Joyner, Christopher C. and Peter N. De Cola. 1993. “Chile’s Presential
Sea Proposal: Implications for Straddling Stocks and the
International Law of Fisheries.” Ocean Development and
International Law. Vol. 24, No. 1 (Winter), pp. 99-121.

85

Kaufman, Donald G. and Cecilia M Franz. 1993. Biosphere 2000:
Protecting Our Global Environment. New York: HarperCollins
College Publishers.
Klare, Michael T, ed. 1994. Peace and World Securitv Studies: A
Curriculum Guide. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Kocherry, Thomas and Thankappan Achary. 1989. “Fishing for
Resources: Indian Fisheries in Danger.” Cultural Survival
Quarterly. Vol. 13, No. 2 (Winter), pp. 31-34.
Koring, Paul and Kevin Cox. 1995. “Scots Support Seizure of Vessel:
Fishermen’s Union Fears Spanish Fleet.” The Globe and Mail. 11
March, pp. A1 and A3.
Krasner, Stephen D. 1982. “Structural Causes and Regime
Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables.” International
Organization. Vol. 36, No. 2 (Spring), pp. 1-21.
Krauthammer, Charles. 1994. “The Tragedy of the Oceans.” Economist.
19 March, p. 21.
Kurien, John. 1993. “Ruining the Commons: Coastal Overfishing and
Fishworkers Action in South India.” The Ecologist. Vol. 23. No. 1
(January/February), pp. 5-11.
. 1995. “Joint Action Against Joint Ventures: Resistance to
Multinationals in Indian Waters.” The Ecologist. Vol. 25, No. 2/3
(March/April, May/June), pp. 115-119.
Latham, Robert. 1995. “Thinking About Security After the Cold War.”
International Studies Notes. Vol. 20, No. 3 (Fall), pp. 9-14.
Lodgaard, Sverre. 1992. “Environment, Confidence-Building and
Security.” In The Environment and International Securitv. Eds.
Anders Hjort af Omas and Sverre Lodgaard. Uppsala: Uppsala
University Research Programme on Environmental Pohcy and
Development, pp. 11-21.
Loftas, Tony. 1996. “Not Enough Fish in the Sea.” Our Planet. Vol. 7,
No. 6, pp. 29-31.

86

MacNeill, Jim, Pieter Winsemius, and Taizo Yakushiji. 1991. Bevond
Interdependence: The Meshing of the World’s Economy and the
Earth's Ecology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mangold, Peter. 1991. “Security: New Ideas, Old Ambiguities.” The
World Today. Vol. 47, No. 2 (February), pp. 30-32.
Mathews, Jessica Tuchman. 1989. “Redefining Security.” Foreign
Affairs. Vol. 68, No. 2 (Spring), pp. 162-177.
McRae, Donald and Gordon Munro, eds. 1989. Canadian Oceans Policv:
National Strategies and the New Law of the Sea. Vancouver: UBC
Press.
McDorman, Ted. 1991. “Canada and The North Pacific Ocean: Recent
Issues.” Ocean Development and International Law. Vol. 22, No. 4
(Fall) pp. 365-379.
McGoodwin, James R. 1987. “M exico’s Conflictual Inshore Pacific
Fisheries: Problem Analysis and Policy Recommendations.” Human
Organization. Vol. 46, No. 3 (Fall), pp. 221-232.
1990. Crisis in the W orld’s Fisheries: Peoples. Problems and
Policies. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
. 1995. “Culturally-Based Conflicts in the Use of Living Marine
Resources and Suggestions For Resolving or Mitigating Such
Conflicts.” Technical paper presented to the International
Conference on Sustainable Contribution of Fisheries to Food
Security in Kyoto, Japan, 4-9 December 1995.
Mirovitskaya, Natalia S. and J. Christopher Haney. 1992. “Fisheries
Exploitation as a Threat to Environmental Security: The North
Pacific Ocean. ” Marine Policv. Vol. 16, No. 4 (July), pp. 243• 257.
Mische, Patricia M. 1989. “Ecological Security and the Need to
Reconceptualize Sovereignty.” Alternatives. Vol. 14, No. 4 (Fall),
pp: 389-427.

87

Molvœr, Reidulf K. 1992. “Points for the Agendas of Studies in
Environmental Security.” In The Environment and International
Security. Eds. Anders Hjort af Omas and Sverre Lodgaard.
Uppsala: Uppsala University Research Programme on
Environmental Policy and Development, pp. 57-66.
“Morocco and ± e EU: More than Fish.” 1995. Economist. Vol. 336 (9
September), pp. 47-48.
Morris, Sean. 1996. “Angola’s Depleted Fish Stocks Case Issue.” Trade
and Environment Database. Washington: Trade and
Environment Database, May.
Munro, Gordon R. 1992. “Evolution of Canadian Fisheries Management
Policy under the New Law of the Sea: International Dimensions.”
In Canadian Foreign Policv and International Economic Regimes.
Eds. A. Claire Cutler and Mark W. Zacher. Vancouver: UBC Press,
pp. 289-310.
Myers, Norman. 1993. Ultimate Securitv. New York: W. W. Norton &
Company.
Nadel-Klein, Jane and Dona Lee Davis, eds. 1988. To Work and To
Weep: Women in Fishing Economies. St. John’s: Institute of Social
and Economic Research.
Nelson, Daniel N. 1991. “Security after Hegemony.” Bulletin of Peace
Proposals. Vol. 22, No. 3 (September), pp. 333-345.
Newell, Dianne. 1993. Tangled Webs o f Historv: Indians and the Law in
Canada’s Pacific Coast Fisheries. Toronto: University o f Toronto
Press.
Nikolaev, Rada. 1992. “Bulgarian-Turkish Fishing Conflict.” Inter Press
Service Harare. 13 March, p. 1.
Ophuls, William. 1977. Ecology and the Politics of Scarcitv. San
Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company.
PANGS. 1995. “Fish: A Net Loss for the Poor.” London: PANGS.
Media Briefing. March, p. 1.

88

Peterson, M. J. 1993. ''International Fisheries Management." In
Institutions for the Earth: Sources of Effective Environmental
Protection. Eds. Peter Haas, et al. Boston: Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, pp. 249-309.
Peterson, Susan B. and John M. Teal. "Ocean Fisheries as a Factor in
Strategic Policy and Action.” In Global Resources and International
Conflict: Environmental Factors in Strategic Policv and Action. Ed.
A. H. Westing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.
Porter, Gareth. 1990. "Post-Cold War Environment and Security.” The
Flechter Forum. Vol. 14, No. 2 (Summer) pp. 332-344.
. 1995. "Environmental Security as a National Security Issue.”
Current Historv. Vol. 94, No. 592 (May), pp. 218-222.
Porter, Marilyn. 1993. Place and Persistence in the Lives of
Newfoundland Women. Hants: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Puchala, Donald James. 1971. International Politics Today. New York:
Dodd, Mead & Company.
Renner, Michael. 1989. National Security: Environmental and
Economic Dimensions. Washington: World W atch Institute.
Robinson, Gail. 1995. "Our Plundered Seas.” World Press Review. Vnl
42, No. 6, 1 June, pp. 36-37.
Romm, Joseph J. 1993. Defining National Securitv: The Non-Militarv
Aspects. New York: Council on Foreign Relations Press.
Roos, John E. 1991. Restoring Fraser River Salmon: A History of the
International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission. Vancouver:
The Pacific Salmon Commission.
Samson, Paul. 1995. "Environmental Security.” Geneva: Green Cross
International.
Sands, Philippe. 1993. "Enforcing Environmental Security: The
Challenges of CompUance with International Obligations.” Journal
of International Affairs. Vol. 46, No. 2 (Winter ), pp. 367-389.

89

Schrijver, Nico. 1989. “International Organization for Environmental
Security.” Bulletin of Peace Proposals. Vol. 20, No. 2 (June), pp.
115-122.
Sills, David L, ed. 1968. International Encyclopedia of the Social
Sciences. New York: MacMillian Company and the Free Press.
Singh, Jyoti, Mohini Kumar, and Surendra Kumar. 1992. “Foreign
Overfishing on the Grand Banks.” Indian Journal of Environmental
Protection. Vol. 12, No. 8 (August), pp. 561-571.
Smith, Heather A. 1993. “Green Menace: Toward a Definition of
Environmental Security.” Unpublished manuscript.
Snyder, Craig. 1996. “The Implications of Hydrocarbon Development
in the South China Sea.” International Journal. Vol. 52, No. 1
(Winter), pp. 142-158.
Soroos, Marvin J. 1994. “Global Change, Environmental Scarcity, and
the Prisoner's Dilemma.” Journal of Peace Research. Vol. 31,
No. 3 (August), pp. 317-332.
. 1995. “Environmental Security.” Phi Kappa Phi Journal. Vol. 75,
No. 1 (Winter), pp. 20-24.
Starke, J. G. 1989. Introduction to International Law. London:
Butterworths.
Stein Wrightson, Patricia and Alice Ackermann. 1994. “The Nexus
Between Peace Studies and International Security Studies in the
Post-Cold W ar Era.” In Peace and World Securitv Studies: A
Cirriculum Guide. Ed. Michael T. Klare. Boulder: Lynne Rienner
Publishers, pp. 55-65.
Steinhart, Peter. 1994. “The Cry of the Ocean.” Mother Jones. Vol. 19,
No. 4 (July), pp. 30-31.
Stem, Eric K. 1992. “ ‘High Politics' and Crisis: Military and
Environmental Dimensions of Security.’” In The Environment and
International Securitv. Eds. Anders Hjort af Oraas and Sverre
Lodgaard. Uppsala: Uppsala University Research Programme on
Environmental Policy and Development, pp. 79-94.
90

Stoett, Peter J. 1994. “The Environmental Enlightenment.” Coexistence.
Vol. 31, No. 2 (June), pp. 127-146.
Seuss, Dr. 1984. The Butter Battle Book. New York: Random House.
Suzuki, David. 1989. Inventing the Future. Toronto: Stoddart
Pubhshing Co. Limited.
Thomas, Caroline. 1987. In Search of Securitv: The Third World in
International Relations. Boulder: Wheatsheaf Books.
. 1992. The Environment in International Relations. London: The
Royal Instimte of International Affairs.
Thomson, David B. 1980. “Conflict with the Fishing Industry.” ICLARM
Newsletter 3, pp. 3-4.
Tickner, J. Ann. 1994. “Feminist Perspectives on Peace and World
Security in the Post-Cold War Era.” In Peace and World Securitv
Studies: A Cirriculum Guide. Ed. Michael T. Klare. Boulder:
Lynne Rienner Publishers, pp. 43-54.
Twitchell, Marlyn. 1989. “Implementing the U.S.-Canada Pacific Salmon
Treaty: The Struggle to Move from “Fish Wars” to Cooperative
Fishery Management.” Ocean Development and International Law.
Vol. 20, No. 4 (Fall), pp. 409-427.
Ullman, Richard H. 1983. “Redefining Security.” International Securitv.
Vol. 8, No. 1 (Spring), pp. 129-153.
United Nations Development Program (UNDP). 1995. “Redefining
Security: The Human Dimension.” Current Historv. Vol. 94, No.
592 (May), pp. 229-236.
Vatkiotis, Michael and Adam Schwarz. 1995. “Crossed Lines: Thailand
and Viernam Clash Over Fishing Rights. Far Eastern Economic
Review. 15 June, p. 16.
Victor, Cecil. 1995. “Fish Wars Building Up in Indian Ocean.” India
Abroad. 30 June.

91

Viotti, Paul R. and Mark V. Kauppi. 1993. International Relations
Theory: Realism. Pluralism. Globalism. New York: Macmillan
Publishing Company.
Wacker, Ronnie. 1994. “Stripmining the Seas.” Sea Frontiers. Vol. 40
(5 May), p. 14.
Wallensteen, Peter. 1992. “Environmental Destruction and Serious Social
Conflict: Developing a Research Design.” In The Environment and
International Securitv. Eds. Anders Hjort af Oraas and Sverre
Lodgaard. Uppsala: Uppsala University Research Programme on
Environmental Policy and Development, pp. 41-47.
Waltz, Kenneth. 1954. Man. the State and W ar. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Weber, Peter. 1993. “Abandoned Seas: Reversing the Decline of the
Oceans.” Worldwatch Paper 116. Washington, D C.: Worldwatch
Institute.
1995. “Protecting Oceanic Fisheries and Jobs [Online].”
Available HTTP: HTTP//www.runet.edu/~geo-web/GEOG34G/read
007.html.
Wells, Clyde. 1995. “Canada is Right to Protect the Turbot Stocks.” The
Globe and Mail. 13 March, p. A17.
Westing, Arthur H, ed. 1986a. Global Resources and International
Conflict: Environmental Factors in Strategic Policy and Action.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
1986b. “An Expanded Concept of International Security.” In
Global Resources and International Conflict: Environmental Factors
in Strategic Policy and Action. Ed. A. H. Westing. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. 183-200.
1989. “The Environmental Component o f Comprehensive Security.”
Bulletin of Peace Proposals. Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 129-134.

92

Wolfers, Arnold. 1965. “ ‘National Security' as an Ambiguous Symbol.’”
In American National Securitv: A Reader in Theory and Policy.
Eds. Morton Berkowitz and P. G. Bock. New York: The Free
F*ress, pp. 43-53.
Woods, Lawrence T. 1996. “Rediscovering Security.” Paper presented to
the International Conference on Industrial Development and Societal
Transformation in Asian Countries, School of Commerce, Waseda
University, Tokyo, Japan, 20-22 November 1996.
Workman, Thomas. 1993. Amplifving the Social Dimensions of Securitv.
Toronto: Center for International and Strategic Studies.
W orld Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). 1987.
Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
W orld Resources Institute. 1996. W orld Resources 1996. Washington:
W orld Resource Institute.
“World's Natural Fish Stocks Depleted Says New Study.” 1996.
International Food Policv Research Institute (TFPRD Newsrelease.
23 April, p. 1.
Zimmermann, Tim. 1996. “If W orld War EH Comes, Blame Fish.” U. S.
News and World Report. 21 October, pp. 59-60.

93