Thursday 15 October 2009

The End of the Line

Last night I went to a viewing of The End of the Line sponsored by Adnams. It's a disturbing film made by the same director of Black Gold that highlights the problem of over fishing. Using figures from the Charles Glover's book, the film has a dramatic conclusion: all the fish we consume on a regular basis will disappear by 2050.

The science is there and pretty robust - there's a debate about exactly when the fish will run out, but everyone agrees that fish stocks are declining at a rapid rate. The solution is obvious, we need to consume fish more sustainably. This is one of the questions in this week's lesson in Sustainability. How DO we get people to consume more sustainably?

The film promoted the idea of sustainable consumerism. If we buy fish from sustainable sources, then businesses will match demand. At the same time businesses may stop selling fish from depleted stocks. Since the film, Marks and Spencers, Pret a Manger and Waitrose have all agreed to stop selling fish that are endangered. How can we help? We buy fish that is certified by the Marine Stewardship Council. Like Fair Trade, it has sustainability standards, a logo and is growing fast. But we need to be more proactive and demand sustainable fish at our restaurants, shops and even our chippies.

It's hard, isn't it, to change habits? Is Mary Janes at Cromer really going to offer sustainable fish and chips? Should I tell my kids that we won't be having cod anymore and their monthly treat is over? Sustainable fish is also more expensive. It's a hard sell.

There is also a strong argument that advertising and awareness doesn't work for sustainability campaigns: for every successful fair trade logo there are others that fail. Anyone using the carbon footprint logo, for example? We don't buy stuff according to neo-classical rationality. Behavourial economics suggests we buy depending on what others do - we are tribal.

So what do we do? For me, awareness, eco-labelling and campaigns are not enough - our consultancy project with Adnams was clear: people responded tribally, not because of climate change. We need to change businesses. Sometimes businesses change because people at the top want change. Cadburys is moving to fair trade chocolate not because of pressure from consumers, but because the board thought it was the right thing to do. But because not all businesses change we also need strong government legislation. Change the structures and attitudes will follow. However, structural changes that, for example, ban types of fish, require pressure from people lobbying politicians. Social movements get more access, and, ultimately, more success if they can show evidence of sustainable consumption.

We need consumers to lead change to get government to introduce policies to make businesses who haven't changed, change.  In the meantime, ask for pollock at your chippy.

3 comments:

  1. I notice you found 'people responded tribally' at Adnams... that's interesting, in week 8 we hear about a football club's efforts to encourage its fans to save energy, and you wont be surprised that they too responded tribally rather than because of any interest in climate change!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Excellent point to highlight, the problem is really down to the super-efficiency of trawler style fishing with nets miles long that catch/ kill everything. The quota system also needs adjustment, "unsuitable" fish being chucked overboard to avoid penalty fines for the skipper, but that only ensuring they are wasted entirely.
    In the South Pacific many communities have continued fishing sustainably, owning a large boat between them the men sit on deck and catch fish the traditional way, each with a line and hook, swinging the fish onto the deck. Catching enough for their village but no more. (Yellow fin Tuna).

    I think an international agreement (as we had to save the whales)that trawler-style net fishing be banned might be the only way to ensure fishermen's livelihoods long term and fish for the next generation (i.e.sustainable consumption). The price of sea fish is too cheap. It might have to be a luxury food if people pay the full cost of its value, but in Britain there is always the farmed salmon that the EEC warns can only be eaten safely 4 times a year because of its chemical content!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Fish fish fish. Very had to get an international aggreement needed on this subject. Lots of cultures have even sronger rituals and practices associated with sea food. The uk's is fairly mild.

    ReplyDelete