"It's no problem for Cambodians". A phrase which could apply to many things: wearing long-sleeves and pants in the afternoon, eating prohok like it's Nutella or driving a moto through a flooded street as if it were a boat. I heard it today from a deck-hand on a glass-bottom boat when I was questioning why he was keeping 5-6 baby fish to eat.
Let me preface this by saying a few things: 1 - this man was not in poverty. Working for a foreign-run business in a tourist area would be one of the better-paying jobs in this area. Human life trumps the life of animals, so if all you can catch is baby fish, then by all means. 2 - these were varieties of cod, some of which grow in excess of 1m, and the smallest legal sizes for all but one species of cod in Western Australia is 30-40cm. 3 - these cod were about 6-10cm in length; literally babies.
Normally I'm a reserved person and don't directly question people about their actions, but in this instance I probed further:
Q - "Do you know that these fish will grow much bigger?"
A - "Here only little fish, big fish deeper in the ocean"
Q/statement - "In my country we have many bigger fish because we release the babies"
A - "It's no problem for Cambodians"
Which is exactly the point: in developing countries such as Cambodia, overfishing is one of the greatest threats to food security. Not only is it a drastic problem for Cambodia, but for almost all fishery-dependent nation in the world. According to the WWF, all but 15% of the world's fish stocks are fully exploited, over exploited, depleted or recovering from depletion, and at the current rate, all table-fish stocks are expected to collapse by 2048.
So, how do we create change? If you know, please tell me, because the only idea that kept coming up in my head was to go full-greenpeace and tip out the bucket of baby cod (which I regrettably did not do). But speaking to this man, I could see there was no understanding of the concept of "sustainable fishing". The explanation for the observation of only baby fish being found was simply that the big fish are somewhere else, here there are only small fish, so I will eat these small fish. Attempts to explain that these fish will grow bigger were futile, as was highlighting difference in fishing practices between our countries - "It's no problem for Cambodians".
Now I know what you're thinking - if this guy throws his fish back, the other fishermen are going to keep them, meaning he loses out, so of course if makes sense for him to keep keeping the baby fish. However this situation mirrors the Prisoner's dilemma - if each fisherman acts in what seems to bring the greatest reward to themselves, both end up losing. This is exactly what we've seen and continue to see around the world in instances beyond fishing. To reap the greatest benefit for all parties, what's needed is cooperation - parties taking a lesser reward each, however the population benefits overall.
But how do we do that? How can you convince someone to throw away a meal today to give a greater chance of a meal tomorrow? It's so frustrating having these conversations because skills such as reasoning, evidence-based practice and analysing observations are not at all emphasised in the Khmer school system, and even then, less than 50% of children finish high school.
Therefore, fostering these skills in the next generation of Cambodians is vital. I am fortunate to play a small role in this, but I take it very seriously (not that my students would notice). I believe it absolutely critical that future ministers, heads of industry and businesses are able to look at our world in all its complexity, balance and current turmoil and make informed decisions that will lead to the best outcomes. But not the best outcomes for not only themselves, but make decisions that lead to the best outcomes for the flora and fauna, people of other race, social status or religion, and generations to come.
/rant
Let me preface this by saying a few things: 1 - this man was not in poverty. Working for a foreign-run business in a tourist area would be one of the better-paying jobs in this area. Human life trumps the life of animals, so if all you can catch is baby fish, then by all means. 2 - these were varieties of cod, some of which grow in excess of 1m, and the smallest legal sizes for all but one species of cod in Western Australia is 30-40cm. 3 - these cod were about 6-10cm in length; literally babies.
Normally I'm a reserved person and don't directly question people about their actions, but in this instance I probed further:
Q - "Do you know that these fish will grow much bigger?"
A - "Here only little fish, big fish deeper in the ocean"
Q/statement - "In my country we have many bigger fish because we release the babies"
A - "It's no problem for Cambodians"
Which is exactly the point: in developing countries such as Cambodia, overfishing is one of the greatest threats to food security. Not only is it a drastic problem for Cambodia, but for almost all fishery-dependent nation in the world. According to the WWF, all but 15% of the world's fish stocks are fully exploited, over exploited, depleted or recovering from depletion, and at the current rate, all table-fish stocks are expected to collapse by 2048.
So, how do we create change? If you know, please tell me, because the only idea that kept coming up in my head was to go full-greenpeace and tip out the bucket of baby cod (which I regrettably did not do). But speaking to this man, I could see there was no understanding of the concept of "sustainable fishing". The explanation for the observation of only baby fish being found was simply that the big fish are somewhere else, here there are only small fish, so I will eat these small fish. Attempts to explain that these fish will grow bigger were futile, as was highlighting difference in fishing practices between our countries - "It's no problem for Cambodians".
Now I know what you're thinking - if this guy throws his fish back, the other fishermen are going to keep them, meaning he loses out, so of course if makes sense for him to keep keeping the baby fish. However this situation mirrors the Prisoner's dilemma - if each fisherman acts in what seems to bring the greatest reward to themselves, both end up losing. This is exactly what we've seen and continue to see around the world in instances beyond fishing. To reap the greatest benefit for all parties, what's needed is cooperation - parties taking a lesser reward each, however the population benefits overall.
But how do we do that? How can you convince someone to throw away a meal today to give a greater chance of a meal tomorrow? It's so frustrating having these conversations because skills such as reasoning, evidence-based practice and analysing observations are not at all emphasised in the Khmer school system, and even then, less than 50% of children finish high school.
Therefore, fostering these skills in the next generation of Cambodians is vital. I am fortunate to play a small role in this, but I take it very seriously (not that my students would notice). I believe it absolutely critical that future ministers, heads of industry and businesses are able to look at our world in all its complexity, balance and current turmoil and make informed decisions that will lead to the best outcomes. But not the best outcomes for not only themselves, but make decisions that lead to the best outcomes for the flora and fauna, people of other race, social status or religion, and generations to come.
/rant
No comments:
Post a Comment