As you may know, I have always been quite critical of the media coverage on fisheries issues, which I see as biased and holding fisheries to a much higher level than all the issues in land… example somehow the environmental impact of trawling 3% of a region to remove biomass is much worse than ploughing half a country where everything that was there was killed to plant an imported species.
So yea when I see a paper that in the abstract says: The contribution of marine species exploitation to local and global food security issues and fisher livelihoods is not discussed at all. Advocates from environmental non-profit groups dominate the list of interviewed experts, with alternative perspectives from groups linked to sustainable management like UNFAO (the United Nations agency with a fisheries mandate) and academics, rarely mentioned. Additionally, the fishing industry’s perspective on issues surrounding the conservation of commercially exploited marine species is rarely represented. Recommendations for both follow-up research and practical steps to ensure a more balanced inclusion of the perspectives of key stakeholders are included.
I’m immediately interested in it… and not surprisingly I actually know personally 3 of the authors (and I really like them as people – Matt, Daniel & Kim ) and know via social media the corresponding author (David).
The paper focuses on CITES, yet there are soo many transferable lessons to the wider fisheries issues,and I REALLY like the illustrations.
I just quote (hoping I don't get in trouble with copyright) some of the bits that I like the most!
How are marine species issues discussed?
The striking difference in how threatened terrestrial species are discussed (cute, intelligent, shy) vs. how threatened marine organisms are discussed (ecologically important, in some degree of conservation trouble) is perhaps reflective of an ongoing divide over the role of commercially exploited marine life in wildlife conservation discourse. Historically in Western nations, fish have often been perceived and portrayed as a natural resource (i.e., food) rather than wildlife, a characterization that may alter public perceptions as well as downstream policy and practice relative to biodiversity conservation approaches . The patterns identified here may be taxonomic in nature (mammals vs. fish) or may be related to Western systems of food production and economic systems which have discursively transformed wildlife or ecosystems into “natural resources”
—
Bias in coverage was identified in terms of the types of expertise and their associated perspectives that were featured in media coverage. Significant perspectives integral to the management of marine species (e.g., government officials with expertise in fisheries, UNFAO experts, academics) were rarely featured in media coverage. Additionally, the workings of CITES and associated provisions, procedures, powers, and limitations are mostly unexplained. How conservation issues are portrayed in the press both reflects and influences public understanding of environmental problems and their solutions. These findings identify possible gaps in public discourse and understanding of the conservation and management of commercially exploited marine species, which may be corrected by targeted outreach efforts. Promisingly, communication of facts related to the management of socio-environmental systems can be successful in shaping stakeholders’ perceptions , though facts alone do not change people’s minds .
—
The disproportionate coverage of environmental non-profit perspectives relative to the perspectives of industry and expert scientific analysis, including in some cases quoting whole sections of NGO press releases verbatim without analysis or context, is potentially cause for concern in terms of providing the public with a complete, balanced understanding of these issues. While the economic importance of trade in a species should not ever justify ignoring scientific evidence of conservation concerns, it is noteworthy that important issues of food security and livelihoods in developing nations are almost totally absent from these discussions, and that the intergovernmental expert perspective of the UN mandated agency for these issues (UNFAO) and independent experts such as TRAFFIC and the IUCN was rarely presented. Additionally, a recent review of how marine species issues are deliberated on at CITES found numerous issues possibly resulting from the lack of marine management expert representation in national delegations, including concerns about inconsistent data presentation in proposals for new listings that lead to confusion, and at least one case of incorrect information about the extent of a species’ _decline included in a proposal.
Conclusions
This analysis of press coverage of commercially exploited marine species being considered for CITES listings revealed several possible causes for concern in terms of downstream public understanding of barriers to and strategies for achieving conservation of vulnerable marine species. It shows that members of the public learning about CITES from newspaper coverage would be exposed to a biased and limited sample of information providers, with NGOs overrepresented, offering simplified summaries of complex issues. Media coverage provides limited access to the important perspectives of UN agencies and academic experts. This information pathway is potentially open to abuse by partisan actors, potentially creating public pressure for non-optimal policy outcomes made by ill-informed decisionmakers pressured by an ill-informed citizenry. Consumers of these media articles would likely be uninformed about the specific details of what a CITES listing means and does not mean, which may influence their preferences for necessary follow-up policies including those which consider livelihoods. Oversimplified, emotionally charged coverage may result in policy outcomes not supported by experts and evidence, which potentially leads to inefficient or ineffective use of limited conservation capacity and resources.