Cintia Miyaji Article
About Seaspiracy
Ever since it was announced, the Netflix documentary Seaspiracy has appeared tirelessly in my emails, social media, and elsewhere. I had huge expectations, and as soon as I could, I sat on the couch with my husband (who, incidentally, is a fisheries researcher, and one of the best!) and we watched it together. We exchanged some glances, I closed my eyes during some scenes, I got angry in some parts, but perplexed in others. And in the end, I was left with an immense sense of frustration, a terrible discomfort that I didn't know how to define.
I started my research career by studying animal communities that inhabit the ocean floor, but employment and career opportunities led me down other paths, and I sincerely and passionately dedicated myself to all those opportunities. About fifteen years ago, together with an interdisciplinary group of ocean-loving professionals, we created the country's first Responsible Seafood Consumption Guide, to guide people in their purchases and choices in restaurants. Much earlier than that, I was already dedicated to the training of human resources in Marine Sciences, proudly contributing to the creation of the Forum of Oceanography Course Coordinators of Brazil. So, when I manage to combine ocean communication, based on science and in favor of the conservation of fishery resources, I feel fulfilled! You know that intersection between passion, mission, profession, and vocation? The Japanese call it ikigai.
For all these reasons, I thought Seaspiracy could fulfill my oldest and deepest desires for a truly effective "weapon," capable of bringing to the mass consumer public the message that we need to take care of the ocean, its resources and ecosystems, and that all of us, without exception, have an important role to play. Of course, I knew to whom the message would be directed, just as I am clear that the director, producers, sponsors, and Netflix knew exactly to whom and how to convey their message, and I must admit that they were exceptionally successful!
So, what was it that bothered me so much?
The fact is that, although the problems presented by the documentary are exactly those that bother me every day, such as stock depletion and overfishing, illegal fishing, the impact on endangered species, ghost gear, discards and waste, mismanaged aquaculture, human rights violations, among many others, Seaspiracy encourages the public to believe that they have the power to change these horror scenarios through a simplistic solution... stop eating fish. And the most explored argument is that there is no reliable way to define a fishery as sustainable.
For five years, I have been working with an incredible group of people, who, despite being spread across 13 different organizations in 11 countries, meet monthly to collectively discuss and list a set of minimum criteria that characterize and allow for the evaluation of fisheries and aquaculture as environmentally sustainable, so we can develop seafood consumption recommendations worldwide. We do not certify or grant environmental labels to any person, fishery, or company. We also work together to define communication strategies, sharing experiences and mutually supporting actions. In addition to virtual meetings, we have met in person at five annual gatherings, so the hours of work and people involved are countless. Despite all this effort, we have not been able to arrive at a single definition for sustainable fishing and aquaculture. There are no criteria that can be uniformly applied to all fisheries and aquaculture, much less to the different realities of each country or region. We don't always know how to deal with the lack of data. We don't know exactly how to weigh the different impact measures of artisanal fishing versus industrial fishing. Thus, perhaps we are left with more questions than certainties, but we are clear that sustainable fishing and aquaculture are possible, and although complex to define individually, they tend to grow and increase their global and local representativeness as a result of our work.
I am not going to meticulously, point by point, deconstruct all the numerical information presented in the documentary with the clear intention to shock. Many researchers, infinitely more qualified on the subject than I am, have already gathered their bibliographical references to show that the documentary used outdated, misinterpreted, distorted, and biased data. In this respect, Seaspiracy achieved a success that no other scientific event has: it brought together the two largest global authorities in the study of fishing population management and dynamics to agree that the documentary was wrong, and very wrong, in many aspects. Ray Hilborn spoke out in a video, and Daniel Pauly in a popular science article, while Boris Worm, the lead author of the much-cited article that “predicted the collapse of fisheries by 2048,” supported Pauly’s article through a social media post.
Of course, the criticisms will never reach even a small fraction of those who watched the documentary, but they will find an echo and repercussions in the circles involved with research and the fishing chain. So, in times of so many criticisms and platforms specialized in debunking fake news from politicians, public figures, and the press, why do I still see so many influencers and activists who prefer to ignore the flaws and accept the documentary's information, praising and promoting it worldwide?
In my view, it's because Seaspiracy uses a very well thought-out and orchestrated strategy to empower the viewer (specifically, the Netflix subscriber profile) and give them the feeling that by the end of the film, an action resulting from their conscious and legitimate decision will contribute to changing the situations that made them feel so bad during the documentary. So, in the end, you have to be convinced that not eating fish is the solution, because it is the only one within your reach individually
To construct an argument that sustainable fishing or aquaculture are merely invented narratives, the documentary creates situations and edits interviews to cast doubt on the integrity of some certification schemes, environmental labels, and NGOs. Without judging the isolated cases presented, none of this is fair and honest to a legion of professionals who work hard and tirelessly to promote transformations in fishing and aquaculture, economic activities that are extremely important for the well-being of people, ecosystems, the ocean, and the entire planet.
Yes, millions of people depend on fishing activity as a way to nourish themselves and earn income. Ensuring food security and a dignified life for millions of vulnerable people as a consequence of the impacts promoted by climate change or pollution involves promoting adaptation in their fishing practices or encouraging the cultivation of marine organisms in coastal areas. Strengthening fishing traditions and the culture of coastal communities makes them settle in these regions, preserving their way of life and the environment on which they depend.
Yes, promoting well-managed, organized, handled, and supervised fishing activity brings benefits to ecosystems. Creating exclusion zones, guiding and establishing prohibited periods and sizes for capture, defining quotas, limiting licenses, regulating practices and methods of lower impact fishing and cultivation, among many other initiatives, when based on quality science, allow stocks to recover and grow. In addition to providing sustainable fisheries, adequate management measures can ensure the regeneration of degraded areas and ecosystems.
How to do all this is a huge and complex challenge! And it's a challenge that depends on cooperative, collaborative, and collective impact work. It depends on action organized on countless fronts and intelligently orchestrated. For some years, I have been trying to build the foundations of the Brazilian Alliance for Sustainable Fisheries. We gathered people and institutions, shared our experiences, built a broad outline of what we wanted as a group, but without well-defined governance and financial support... we are still just wandering in the realm of dreams.
Therefore, I cannot accept that with all the potential and reach it has in its hands, Netflix has chosen such a questionable path to draw people's attention to the problems of fishing and the ocean. In the way it did (and no one will convince me it was out of ignorance and naivety), Seaspiracy has widened the gap and heated discussions in an environment of polarization between science and activism, "good" NGOs and "bad" NGOs, vegans and non-vegans, fishers and aquaculturists, artisanal and industrial fishing, certifications and recommendations, and so many others that only human creativity can explain!
Seaspiracy also missed the chance to engage constructively with consumers from a socioeconomic elite who unquestionably have the power to change reality through their consumption habits and political choices. To stop eating fish and still have a healthy and balanced diet requires purchasing power that is far beyond the reach of the average global population. To stop eating fish without being prepared and informed to question the origin, composition, preparation, and healthiness of the foods that will replace it can be as dangerous or even more dangerous for the planet's health. And for those who were shocked by the atrocities of fishing and cannot afford the proper replacement of protein in their diet, nor have access to the guidance of a nutritionist, will they be left with part of the "guilt for the destruction of the ocean" or will they forgo their health? These are impossible choices, but there are possible choices!
There are choices based on "the science we need, for the ocean we want." There are choices based on inclusive, equitable, and collaborative discussions. There are individual choices and there are collective choices. There are choices that impact only your life and there are choices that impact the lives of many others. There are not always easy choices, just as there are no simple solutions to complex problems.
We are not in a position to deepen differences and increase distances. Our joint action is necessary and urgent. The planet, the ocean, and humanity need actions that preserve them. Help us improve communication among people, in your social circle, in your network of contacts, in your area of influence, by guiding and disseminating information from safe and reliable sources, nourishing, training, and even challenging the critical thinking of these people. Read, publicize, and support initiatives like Bate-Papo com Netuno!
PS:
PS: As I was trying to finalize the revision of this text, a publication caught my attention and I went to read it... the discussion about the developments and consequences of Seaspiracy ended up in the dark, muddy depths of the deep sea! Scientists and researchers are accused of being funded, and thus corrupted, by the fishing industry to present conclusions in their scientific works that are different and much more positive than those of the documentary, to justify the continuation of the activity. If that's the case, stop the world, I want to get off!!! So please help us bring the discussion to the euphotic zone!