The Economic Impact of Fishing Bans on Small Fishing Communities

With the release of popular documentaries like Seaspiracy on Netflix, people are becoming more educated on how their consumption and the industries they support are doing detrimental harm to the environment. While buying electric cars, reducing meat intake, and supporting companies trying to make positive change is a good step, there are certain industries and people being left behind.

The research cited by Seaspiracy shows how big industry fishing is wiping out our ocean life and the environmental destruction this will cause (and is currently causing). It goes into great detail about overfishing, sustainability, and the impact of industry greed on the environment. But the filmmakers do not attempt to showcase the social and human capital that goes into fishing for small villages and individual fishermen that use their products to feed their family or make a modest living. Expecting smaller or impoverished communities to put the needs of the environment in front of the needs of their family is unrealistic. According to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, fisheries and aquaculture provided 24–185 kg of food per capita for people in Asia in 2016 as compared to the global average of 20 kg. To even consider a fishing ban, as the film appears to call for, governments around the world would need to consider how their citizens can make a living and feed their families. This drives how communities create jobs and keep their citizens contributing to the economy. Change needs to come from a governmental and legislative level to influence the production of fish and other exports. This is just one example of how natural capital is not only vital to survival but to drive social and economic capital as well.

While the issues brought up by these documentaries are absolutely vital to conserving the environment and our natural resources, keeping in mind the social, human, and produced capital is integral in finding solutions for our earth. They are all connected in making a substantial change to the longevity of the earth and its resources.

The most powerful countries on earth, including the United States, China, and the UK, all have the resources, money, and influence needed to decrease carbon emissions. But these countries are in the minority. It is difficult enough for some to have access to clean drinking water; it is important to keep this in mind while richer countries call for climate action from everyone equally. The infrastructure of smaller and more isolated countries do not have the resources to make these widespread changes. It is up to the wealthy governments around the world to enforce these changes within their own country and deliver changes that can help influence other countries.

There is no doubt that the world needs drastic legislation changed to continue our fight against global climate change. With education, information, and common goals, we can make sure people from every walk of life understand what needs to be done and how new technology associated with ending climate change can bring viable job opportunities. With shared norms, values, and beliefs, we can facilitate change at a social level, bringing communities up to date with science and start creating new ways for lower-income households to thrive with a more sustainable way of life. The idea that a single goal of economic stability or a thriving environment will not positively impact each other is a fallacy. These goals are all connected and when one makes a substantial positive or negative impact, all will follow. It is time for the most powerful countries on earth to start facilitating these changes now so that we can all make positive changes for future generations.