A Case for Using the Eightfold Path in Chinese Fishing Regulation Policy
Mark Godges 高勉正
SDG Field Trip Assignment
August 11th, 2021
Prompt: “Fishermen adapt to new life as 10-year Yangtze fishing ban starts”
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-01-05/Fishermen-adapt-to-new-life-as-Yangtze-fishing-ban-in-place-WNC3eJIHO8/index.html
Introduction
In this paper I will be using the eightfold path of public policy analysis discussed in Professor Zhu Junming’s Public Policy Analysis class to analyze the video and article: Fishermen adapt to new life as 10-year Yangtze fishing ban starts. The eightfold path is a policy analysis method which urges policy analysts to think through eight steps to recommend a logical and feasible policy to their overseer. The eight steps are: Define the Problem, Assemble the Evidence, Construct Alternative Solutions, Create Criteria for Solutions, Examine the Tradeoffs, Project the outcomes, Decide on a policy, and “Tell your story”. In order to recommend good policy in the future we must analyze what is happening now and track and measure progress or outcomes of indicators of success. In the case of the fishing ban, not only should governments be concerned with transitioning former fishermen to other stable jobs, but also measuring the fish population. The article does not specify what administrators are doing to measure the success of the fishing ban in helping the fish population recover, or what other variables exist in limiting fish population growth. By utilizing the eightfold path policy makers can see how social, economic, and environmental factors interact with each other across regions, rather than maintaining a narrow focus on regional economic growth.
Problem Definition
Over the past decades, overfishing has depleted river and ocean resources worldwide. One example is along the Yangtze river in Jiangsu province. The government has banned fishing outright in some areas in and made accommodations for hard hit communities which have based their livelihoods on fishing. While many understand the governments reasoning in banning fishing outright to let the natural aquatic ecosystem recover, it has hurt many who have trouble adapting to a new lifestyle — if their communities are based on fishing. In rivers and around the world, overfishing is not caused by family fisheries or by local fisherman, as they simply do not have the power or industry to deplete waters on such a mass scale. It is therefore unfair to punish them. However, if local this local community is to recover, this policy is necessary to allow the ecosystem to recover for future generations.
The problem is therefore not fishing in general, but the governments insensitivity to the power dynamics of the fishing industry. If local fishing communities are not responsible, then they should not be forced to pay for the mistakes of large fishing companies which use trawling, dynamite fishing, or bycatch techniques. When large fishing industries deplete the ecosystem for profit in an unsustainable way, it is not only a crime against the ecosystem, but a crime against local communities which are a part of that ecosystem. If local fishing communities have been upholding their traditions for generations and generations, policy makers must therefore ask: why has overfishing become a problem so suddenly, when these same fishing communities were here before? Governments around the world have been extremely lenient on organizations which have been overfishing the ocean with unsustainable techniques.
When banning local fishing — governments are seeing local fisherman as the problem. Instead, local fishing is the solution — if corporate and mass-produced fishing can be phased out. Food systems like problems of deforestation and climate change — are not an issue which can be isolated to a specific region or county. Because the largest food systems industries are multinational corporations, creating a more 1) sustainable fishing, 2) sustainable livestock business, 3) sustainable agriculture has to be done through mass decentralization and giving harvesting power back to communities who did not destroy the planet before the industrial revolution. The problem is not local fisheries, the problem is that the Chinese government is making the mistake of not distinguishing which fishing industries have the power to deplete ecosystems, and therefore which fishing industries should be more heavily regulated. This is clearly an acceptable solution now, but in the future when fishing ecosystems are depleted — the public sector must use local communities as a partner in sustainable alternatives to mass food systems — not an enemy to be clamped down on when it’s too late.
Evidence/Testimony of the Problem
The testimony of the problem is given by different people in the video who are affected by the law on a local level. Since this law affects some community members more than others, it is then the job of policy makers to take this into consideration to protect not only people’s survival, but their way of life and their intangible cultural heritage as well. River communities around the world do not just view fishing as a source of income but also as a source of pride and dignity. We can see from one older man’s testimony in the video that even after the fishing ban has gone into effect, he continues to make a living teaching different sustainable fishing technique. The testimony of him and others shows two revelations. The first is that even though the ban is controversial, it is even a good thing for those who it negatively effects, because it will allow the fish population to recover. The second revelation is that this was preventable through proper river ecosystem management and upholding science and human coexistence with our environment. In other river communities in China at risk of fish population depletion, the government must take the cautionary approach. By not adhering to the boiling water principle, they may be able to save China’s beautiful river ecosystems before it is too late.
Alternative Solutions
In the future, solutions may be more sustainable if they were sensitive to the situations of different class, age, and region demographics. For example, for elderly fishermen who only know how to fish, it is not fair to keep them from fishing when it is all they know how to do. They may be compensated enough to live, but if fishing is a person’s livelihood — livelihoods are about more than just compensation. They provide people dignity and spiritual/psychological security, more than just financial security. However, younger people in fishing communities could be given training to transition into other work, so even if the ecosystem recovers and they do want to return to fishing, they will have more than one option for employment. People in their 50’s and 60’s could be trained in another profession or decide to keep fishing with certain regulations rather than an outright ban. Regional demographics are important to consider as well. If one area of a river is more heavily overfished than the other area, the entire river should not be banned from fishing when there could simply be more stringent regulations upstream. However, age and region demographics cannot fully be taken into consideration without class. Because China has such class divides, it is not fair to implement the same abrupt economic regulations on poor people and rural people as people with more opportunities. Those who come from low-income fishing families in China cannot be expected to adapt to regulations the same way as those come from wealthy family networks and have multiple educational and career options. The video in the link prompt did not explain whether these sensitivities were considered, so I cannot cast judgement on that. However, if I were a policy maker, I would consider how to help local communities as part of a river ecosystem and cut out the root harmful behaviors creating overfishing.
Additionally, because rivers are an ecosystem, overfishing are not the ecosystem’s only threat. If there are coal plants or fossil fuel industries nearby, water pollution will occur and hurt not only fish but kill other wildlife populations as well. Runoff from manure or golf courses or other dirt pollution will also hurt the native water plant populations and make it harder for fish to sustain themselves in the river ecosystem. Therefore, if the root idea of fishing regulations is to promote growth of the fish population, then there are other aspects to consider as well. Additionally, if there are too many fish and no fish predators, this will also hurt the ecosystem. This is why it is important to reintroduce Yangtze river dolphin populations and other predators into areas where there are a lot of fish, even if there aren’t that many. There are two ecological analogies which fit well to why this is another important solution. The first are with wolves and Elk in North America. If wolves are taken out of the ecosystem, the elk overeat the grass, which provides shade for the other animals, which produce the grass. Therefore, the elk will destroy their own food system and the ecosystem will die. But with wolves in the ecosystem, they keep the elk at the right population and there is balance. The same is true with Otters and Sea Urchins in kelp forests. With otters eating the urchins, the urchins don’t eat too much of the kelp. But without otters, the urchins destroy their own food source and the system dies. The same is true in the Yangtze river, without a sustainable population balance of predators, fish, insects and plants, there will not be enough fish for the local fisheries because the system is out of balance due to pollution and overdevelopment.
In the future the authorities should adopt an approach of 1) Employing ecologists and scientists to improve river ecosystem regeneration and development, 2) Avoiding hurting the dignity of fishing villages and communities and not taking away their intangible cultural heritage, and 3) Diversify and decentralize the Chinese fish market to empower local fishing business while clamping down on abuse from corporate fisheries.
Criteria and Eligibility for Solutions
Ultimately, the criteria for solutions should be decided by scientists who are empowered by experienced public administrators which can galvanize public support for scientific initiatives in a non-violent and non-hostile fashion. Through getting scientists, local fishing community members, and local administrators around the same table, the necessary solutions can be discussed in similar situations.
Trade-offs and Potential Sacrifices
The tradeoffs for a holistic approach would be significant if using the current models of development, because to solve the issue new models must be made. The current model of economic development (GDP) only looks at economic output without any sort of sensitivity to the power dynamics of social inequality. Since fishing communities are often outside of wealthy, urban areas, this becomes especially true. By changing the economic development model to include environmental restoration and social responsibility, GDP will inevitably go down. But the question we should be asking is: who is the GDP really working for? The other major tradeoff is the power of public administrators to make decisions over scientists will go away. If we are to save our river ecosystems from global catastrophe, we need to listen to people who have been studying them for decades rather than relying on base instinct and blanket regulations.
A major sacrifice on the consumer side which much be paid attention to when localizing the fishing economy are market flows of fish which are not from a given area. If supermarkets and fish markets in some areas rely on fish from another area, then there should be compromise of course and not simply cut off their access to fish. But if it is based on preference, and there is perfectly good fish where they are but they are overfishing a certain type of fish, then that needs to change. We can see this on the macro-level with the global fish market. The global populations appetite for a few very specific types of fish has wreaked havoc on the global ecosystem because industries have used destructive fishing techniques (i.e. bycatch) just to get these fish. The biggest sacrifice in transitioning a fishing economy in Jiangsu, China, or the world is on the consumers end. It is not a sacrifice on whether they can eat, but whether they can eat the specific fish they want.
On the market side, the biggest sacrifice for small markets or distributors that rely on current supply chains is the need to find other fish supplies when regulations like this are put in place. In places with a lot of fish or shellfish not only to people catch it for themselves but they sell it to fish markets or farmers markets. Once heavy regulations are put in place that livelihood is gone and the government has to adapt. On the flipside, if fishing regulations can accommodate more sustainable fishing methods that don’t deplete the local fish population, that also means there can continue to be a flow into markets for people to have jobs and for people to be able to continue eating local fish.
Decision and Recommendation
I recommend a two-pronged approach of 1) leaving the current policy where it is in places that have it implemented, and 2) piloting new policies where river ecosystems and fisheries can recover before outright bans are necessary. Now that people are used to a policy being implemented and have adjusted their livelihoods around it, it is not fair to change it back. But in areas where fish populations are gradually decreasing, new tactics can be piloted which consider older fishermen and the ecosystem. Necessary pilots also include pollution regulations near rivers, because if rivers are polluted, river plants and animals including fish will have a hard time surviving. If regulators and administrators have a pattern of allowing fishing in certain areas of the river while giving other areas which are heavily fished a change to recover, this may also help the fish and river communities. It is up to local public administrators and local communities to decide which of these policy decisions makes the most sense for their area. In short, they must see both the harm and the good which the Jiangsu fishing ban has achieved and inflicted and seek to strike a balance between economic growth, social responsibility, and environmental sustainability.
Projected Outcomes
Ultimately there are three measures for success in a holistic public policy for the twenty first century: economic, social, and environmental. In the case of creating fishing bans or regulations with desired social or environmental impact, this is true as well. It is up to statisticians and biologists to make the final call on these matters. However, success can be measured by those who have gained their dignity and identity on fishing for decades to be able to continue to fish, without large industries depleting fishing ecosystems in a specific area. From an environmental perspective, success will be measured by working with other industries to limit pollution to the river from nearby fossil fuels or chemical industries. From an economic perspective, success can be determined by growth of the middle class and alleviation of poverty without significantly damaging fish populations too much in each area. It is the responsibility of skilled public administrators and leaders to work together with those in the ecological sciences and statistics fields and community members to find which regulations will be closest to finding a balance between these three elements of policy making.
If similar bans are enacted in other areas while limiting fishing from large enterprises and limiting river pollution, fish populations will likely recover. So long as local governments can sustainably transition younger people to other fields of work while loosening the ban for older people and those who do not have the ability to transition to other work — community stability will likely also be maintained. The third factor governments must take into consideration when implementing these types of bans is the local supply chains of fish to other markets. Even if people can continue their livelihoods policy makers must investigate how these policies effect a consistent source of nutrition and sustenance for the local community and how the harmful effects of abrupt transition can be minimized. Because the article and video does not describe these sorts of steps, I do not know if the local government had considered it. However, it is necessary when disrupting a local economy’s main industry not only to sustainable transition the producers, but consumers as well.
Conclusion
Fishing as a policy issue cannot be separated from food systems policy, a key pillar of the sustainable development goals. Since rivers cross provincial borders and eventually flow into the ocean, water ecosystem sustainability must incorporate those who have been training for this moment their whole lives — marine biologists, ecologists, and river sustainability experts. It is also an issue which cannot be separated from people’s human rights to their intangible cultural heritage. If fishing is a multigenerational lifestyle — then it represents a regional and cultural identity more than just a way of making a living. The reason there has been an overfishing problem, as is the reason for deforestation, is because governments only look at success indicators by GDP — without understanding how economic, social, and environmental sustainability are intertwined rather than separate policy issues. If fishing bans are enacted and people are given other jobs, it will not solve the problem until sustainable food systems, preservation of intangible cultural heritage, and river ecosystem maintenance are taken into consideration as well. If those aspects of policy making can be implementing in coordination with this fishing ban and other fishing bans and regulations in other regions, it will be an opportunity to see the benefits and drawbacks of holistic policymaking based on the sustainable development goals together. Currently policy makers view the SDGs as separate silos to be tackled individually, without understanding that economic development cannot sustain if a society or an environment is not sustainable. If there are fishing bans in some places but fish populations are being absolutely decimated in other regions by the same companies or groups, then the policy is a failure. As climate change becomes more and more of an issue at the top of people’s minds, it will also be an issue where policy must cross provincial and national borders — particularly in the case of sustaining rivers and fish.
