Corentyne fishermen have found themselves, to further overuse an already cliched idiom, caught between the devil and the deep blue sea with regard to the untenable circumstances they continue to be faced with in attempting to ply their trade. Several of them spoke bitterly about the situation to this newspaper last week, but did so anonymously, wanting to only be identified by their occupation.
At the heart of the issue is the fact that they are unable to fish in familiar areas as they have been told they need to have licences from Suriname. Diplomatic overtures by the government to procure said licences, beginning in November 2020, have so far proved fruitless. That topic has been thoroughly ventilated in this column already and is therefore not the thrust of this editorial, though it is worth noting here that the total number of licences promised was 150.
Rather, it is the fact that even in spite of their predicament, they are continuing to fish and further, have called on “the authorities” to find them new overseas markets as the local price for fish was low. Their explanation was that they were in a glut. Having made large hauls of seafood all year, they claimed, they were disappointed at the low prices. As a result, it was also claimed, many boats were docked indefinitely as the owners were not earning enough to pay their crews. While that might be true, it was not for the reason posited.
Instead, based on the woes they trotted out, everything pointed to them having over-extended themselves financially. The fishermen told this newspaper that they have been “renting” Surinamese licences from their counterparts across the border. They believe that these annual licences cost US$50 each. They had been paying between US$2,500 and US$3,000 to rent them, but this year, the rental rose to between US$4,000 and US$6,000. They suspected the ventilating of the issue had angered the Surinamese and caused them to up the fee. Whether this is true or not, the reality is that the licence holders have the Guyanese fisherfolk on the hook.
From an economic standpoint, the situation is unsustainable. After paying exorbitant sums to rent licences, fisherfolk still have to purchase fuel for their boats (regardless of what the price of gas is) as well as outfit them for the duration of time they will spend offshore. Maintenance is another variable expense and those who employ crews have to pay them. This enormous outlay means that they have to sell their catches at a certain price to break even or make a profit. Therein lies the problem.
Unfortunately, it is not one that can be solved by garnering new markets where they will not be able to arbitrarily fix prices that suit them. The answer is obviously to lower their cost of production, which seems impossible at the moment, or move in a different direction. This is the counsel they ought to receive from “the authorities” when they present their dilemma – find another way to earn, even if temporarily until the situation improves, as they have promised it will. Yes, it’s true that this is all they know to do, but the fish in the sea are not infinite.
Globally, fish stocks are continually decreasing because of overfishing. What of the breeds mentioned by the fishermen – grey snapper, banga mary and trout? Is either Guyana or Suriname monitoring their populations to ensure they don’t all suddenly begin to disappear one day? In the US, for example, grey snapper is federally monitored. Fish smaller than ten inches, have to be released and returned to the sea.
As another example, a report published in 2021 in the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences revealed that a study done in the Gulf of California found that sardine fishery had been adversely impacted by overfishing and environmental changes. Between 1989 and 1991 catches dropped from 300,000 tonnes to just 10,000 tonnes. Since then, the report said, there have been three other collapses.
Is monitoring fish stocks even a consideration here or are we simply operating with wild abandon? Today, incidentally, most overseas markets nowadays require evidence of sustainable fishing before they will even engage.
The Corentyne situation is obviously difficult, but surely not insurmountable, though it cannot be addressed by way of a handout or cash grant – this government’s favourite recourse. Alternative fishing grounds or land-based fish farms are two possibilities and of course there is a surfeit of great thinkers among “the authorities” who could likely come up with a few more.