Key note address 2: Social implications for an environmental sustainable fisheries sector. Dr. Serge Collet - Associate Professor Majise, University of Calabria.
Mister Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, dear colleagues.

First, allow me to say that it is a great honour and nonetheless a hard challenge for a social scientist to be in charge to addressing some of the main social implications which are requested in the move towards environmentally sustainable fisheries sector.

Let me say that fisheries, beyond a sectorializing cast are first social- natural systems, are an archetypal man- nature interface, a material and mental form of appropriation of wild entities which goes back 90 000 B.P. Today, everywhere in the world fishing is caught up in a highly turbulent, ecological, institutional, social and economic context.

However, there is much more, marine nature is no more a given; reproduction of marine life or "striving to persevere in its being" - as Spinoza would have said nearly 4oo years ago - is no more assured. The state of marine ecosystems is bleak: destruction and loss of habitats, no recovering of fish populations (Cod in New Found land and Labrador) extinction of large predatory fishes, alteration of trophic levels, and alterations of life histories of marine species. In brief, humankind, societies, have now to cope with a historically new vulnerabilization of marine ecosystems. This extreme fragilization of marine life is an ontological one, e.g. of a life form. Fast nowhere marine pristine continues to exist. Only 1% of the oceans are protected. This worldwide hybridization of marine nature is the outcome of a modernizing hubris that requests to be halted and cut down. Reordering the way of using marine nature by reinventing, rebuilding an harmonious relation between use and conservation of the aquatic systems represents an urgent necessity as a formidable challenge. If the objectives of Johannesburg for reducing biodiversity loss in 2010, for the restoring of the fish stocks in 2015 have to be reached, a radical change of social representations (our images of the sea and its resources) attitudes, practices, institutions and governing processes that structure the fishing activity have to be implemented. Indeed, a deep aggiornamento is in course since 1995 with the implementation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, which constitutes an important event on a world scale in the history of fishing activity, and governance of fisheries.

We have to understand that what is at stake in its broadest scope is anything but the developing of a societal action which includes a considerable enlargement of the responsibility understood as caring for marine life. The future of marine life of the oceans, e.g. their health as societal issue represents in the last analysis a negentropic process, which implies first to reconnect society with marine nature.

Sure, it is hard to imagine today in a hyper modern society that humans are on remaining an integral part of nature, of the food web. However, so is the main implication of the developing scientific ecosystem vision. At the two extremities of the fish chain, harvest and increasing consumption, human ways of appropriating and culturing wild marine entities (devastating tuna farming in Mediterranean) impact dangerously the sea life, fishers as top predators and consumers with eating habits (sharks fines, sushi). That is this complexity highly dynamic, which has to be governed in the long span of time. Only this chain of actions is governable as such: e.g. a set of interrelated human practices. Non-human or natural dynamics like the effects of climate warming on the life and distribution of fish species in the sea remains completely out of any human control, would it be as much as possible rationally and scientifically based.

Nature governs the governors much more than the reverse, living us to cope with uncertainties and limits to forseen for example when complex fish assemblages will react to fishing pressures. Even at an initial stage, as the survival for eggs and larvae varying according species, which depends on the prevailing environmental conditions and the balance of predator prey relations, it is virtually impossible to provide a reliable representation of the future strength of "stocks". Extreme cautiousness as human operator is consequently the very first imperative.

Much more worrying is the lack of social ways to cope with the loss of resiliency or regenerating capacity of marine ecosystems. The Black Sea is irreversibly dying and no rebuilding perspective based on an ecological engineering looks like possible.

Such events as the Canadian social ecological tragedy of the collapse of the cod, that one in course of the Black Sea, the threat of shortage of 10 millions of tons at a world level with its foreseeable effects on the sharing of fishing resources in the next future, urgently require to force resolutely and largely. It implies to give up a fordist way of use of marine bounty and a male colonialist way of thinking the sea life as a reservoir to the command of the powerful corporate fishing industry and free market.

Marine ecosystem's functions including the non-valuable near shore and coastal scape are a common good, a natural - human heritage that beyond any pricing could be swapped for any amount of money. Marine ecosystem functions are not negotiable. What is fundamentally at stake, in the last analysis, e.g. the ethical basis is the implementation of a kind of solicitude. Restoring stocks, rebuilding and protecting marine ecosystems are a kind of societal gift, which without doubt implies sacrifice and renouncing.

The creation of marine protected areas in order to protect and rebuild parts of marine ecosystem such as habitats is a social institutional act, which removes a part of marine nature to the exploitation. It is a provisory or definitive de- commodification, objectively a kind of gift, which is framed in the deeply rooted human scheme of conduct: giving for protecting, let me say a pre - eminently women value . The other face of this solicitude is surely to inflect the commodification's process in itself. Broad, public and sensitive eco-labelling schemes are one of the very few ways for western society to press hard on the conducts and the modes of extracting fishing resources.

These modes of extracting wild marine entities constituted as fishing resources are distributed in two opposite socialmorphologies: coastal fishing communities and semi and industrial ones. The first one is based on social reproduction. The community and the making a livelihood from the sea support an identity and a culture. The second one of corporate fishing looks for profit maximizing. It would be of the highest interest to have comparative studies ranking these two opposite social marine morphologies, by their impacts on marine biotopes, discards and selectivity. Social justice is at stake, fishing industrial flotilla, 20% in the world, captures 80% of the marine resources! In Europe as in the world coastal fishing communities, fishing folk are the huge majority. In a context of rarefaction, depletion, vulnerabilization of sea entities, the equitable sharing of the resources particularly in a context of large hard poverty, is a high ethical imperative. Harnessing the markets, rebuilding fishing coastal communities, exporting fishing practices which do not put at risk resources, livelihood of local communities and their food security, assessing responsibilities in environmental damages, implementing cautiousness and solicitude are some of the main social requisites to rebuild sustainable fisheries. Through and through all these steps imply people and human agency. Nevertheless, there is no single pathway. The ways to act depend on institutional contexts, diversity of cultural settings. The scale of anthropogenic damages on the non-human part of marine ecosystem is so wide and deep that it is not possible in Europe not to reduce largely the fishing effort, looking for to buffer social and economic effects with equity. Until today in the European context coastal fishing communities have beard the very costly human price with few consideration in national organizational settingsthat many inshore coastal fishers in the long span of time have kept marine resources without damaging them irreversibly. In a transformed governance perspective (holistic and engendered), their role has to be recognized and reappraised.

The road to restore and to rebuild as much as possible the health of the sea is full of obstacles and resistance. It is not evident at all for many fishers to adopt a long-term perspective, to accept in the short term the loss of jobs and more than that their type of livelihood. It is not always possible to found a new existence again. In lack of shared social representations which rule in part the building of consensus, coping with this hard and pluri dimensional crisis is an extremely difficult task. Fisheries have become a world market driven food industry and globalization has precipitated a drastic reduction in the variety of fishing gears and methods inducing a dramatic increase in the fishing effort in local fishing communities, too. They are no more in condition to pursue their traditional or customary self-governing modes by themselves. Slowing down the foolish race, this deadly competition in order to match the slow rate of a weakened marine nature constitutes a categorical imperative if we want to escape to catastrophic issues. Many West African artisanal fisheries depend mainly today on pelagic species (sardinella), the industrial one on short living species as the octopus which depend themselves on the frequency of good up welling conditions. In 2015, the net supply of demersal fish systematically exported to the EU in order to face the drastic Bretton Wood "exigencies" will be equal to zero (CEMARE, European Union Fishing Agreements with Third Countries: Commitments to the Principle of Responsibility - Key Sheet - February 2003). The heuristic value and regulative function of a possible pessimistic scenario may be used there as a warning system. It is not acceptable to leave the livelihood of people, the rights to food security to be at the mercy of frequent upwellings. It is indeed the Jonasian Principle Responsibility, meaning caring for, as the parents do with their children, but with the nexus between human and marine nature which is demanded to be implemented with an extreme commitment.

"Sind wir jetzt nicht aufgerufen zu einer ganz neuen Pflicht, zu etwas, das es früher eigentlich nicht gab - Verantwortung zu übernehmen für künftige Generationen und den Zustand der Erde? (..) Jedes bisherige Moralbemühen der Philosophie bezog sich auf das Verhältnis von Mensch zu Mensch. Das Verhältnis von Mensch zur Natur ist noch nie Gegenstand sittlicher Überlegungen gewesen. Das ist es jetzt geworden.." (Hans Jonas, Dem bösen Ende näher, 1992/1993, Spiegel - Interview, veröffentlicht bei Suhrkamp).

Thank you very much.