Skip to main content

Contesting growth in marine capture fisheries: the case of small-scale fishing cooperatives in Istanbul

Abstract

The expansion of industrial fishing via technological advancements and heavy subsidies in the Global North has been a significant factor leading to the current global fishery crisis. The growth of the industrial fleet led to an initial increase in global catches from the 1950s to the 1990s; yet, today, several marine fish stocks are harvested at unsustainable rates, and catches are stagnating. As a result, industrial fishers increase investments and fishing effort, reaching farther and deeper, while small-scale fishers face the threat of disappearance as both their catches and livelihoods worsen. The emergent international emphasis on Blue Growth is likely to put further pressure on marine capture fisheries. This paper explores how the growth imperative in the seas has manifested itself in Turkey since the 1970s and how industrial and small-scale fishers responded to this growth spiral in the seas. Based on participant observation methods and in-depth interviews, this paper problematizes the expanding boundaries of industrial fishers and examines the reactions of small-scale fishing cooperatives in Istanbul, in particular their proposed alternative economic model, as a response to the growth imperative. Overall, the paper demonstrates that the crisis that small-scale fishers are facing not only presents economic and ecological difficulties, but also represents an existential threat to the identity and traditional ways of life as a fisher. The strategies adopted by small-scale fishers in response to this crisis in Turkey, especially in Istanbul, are politicizing fishers as they open up new spaces, collaborations, and demands for environmental, social, and economic justice. However, their efforts constitute an ongoing process prone to numerous tensions and contradictions. This paper concludes that challenging the growth paradigm in fisheries via the Blue Degrowth framework can be useful for analyzing emerging alternative imaginaries to the growth-driven capitalist economic system among small-scale fishers.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Source: Fisheries Acquis Centre (2007); Turkstat (2019)

Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    In this region, 62.2% of stocks were harvested at unsustainable levels in 2015 (Food and Agriculture Organization 2018).

  2. 2.

    Originally proposed for non-renewable resources, “extractivism” implies extraction of natural resources in huge quantities, which are sold/exported often unprocessed. However, extractivism also applies to renewable resources such as marine fish catches, since current industrial fishing practices undermine the regenerative capacity of marine resources, rendering them increasingly “non-renewable” (Acosta 2013).

  3. 3.

    https://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/policy/blue_growth_en.

  4. 4.

    This can be traced back to the fact that the population and economy was stagnant in the aftermath of the War of Independence, and that the Greek communities who had been primarily occupied with fishing in the Marmara region had emigrated (Knudsen 2009).

  5. 5.

    Eight fishing boats (between 12 and 21 meters long), eight fish transportation boats (between 16 and 31 meters long), four research vessels, diesel engines, fishing nets, equipment for canned fish factories, cold storage facilities, and laboratories, the total value of which amounted to 2.7 million dollars, were provided to Turkish fisheries within the scope of the Marshall Plan (Arpa 2015).

  6. 6.

    The economic values of total fish and water produce exports reached around 1 billion dollars in 2018, while the new official goal is to reach 2 billion dollars in 2023. According to the Minister of Agriculture, “Via opening up of new fish production spaces, Turkey’s seas will not constitute mere water anymore, they will become spaces which contribute more to the production and employment” (Minister of Agriculture 2019) http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/ekonomi/bakan-pakdemirli-turkiyenin-2023-balik-ihracati-hedefi-2-milyar-dolar-41118209.

  7. 7.

    As of June 2018, there were 42 large-scale vessels (19 trawlers and 23 purse seiners) in Mauritanian seas, with length varying between 22 and 49 m (Öztürk 2018).

  8. 8.

    The most recent FAO report acknowledges that 43% of Eastern Central Atlantic fish stocks are at biologically unsustainable levels (Food and Agriculture Organization 2018). IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) recently warned that many marine species (such as Maderian sardine) are close to extinction due to illegal and over-fishing in West and Central African Seas, as a result of which food security for local communities is in danger in the region.

  9. 9.

    One large European vessel with big freezing facilities can catch and process in a single day what 56 traditional local boats would catch over 1 year (Guardian 2012).

  10. 10.

    For a video documenting the conflict between Turkish and Senegalese small-scale fishers: https://www.facebook.com/balikgunlukleri/videos/moritanya-sularinda-katliam-varbu-videoyu-l%C3%BCtfen-%C3%A7ok-iyi-izleyin-ve-m%C3%BCrettebat%C4%B1n/1273298366114194/.

  11. 11.

    The Turkish government continues to support deep-sea exploration for natural gas around the island of Cyprus in the Mediterranean and intensive aquaculture, especially in the Aegean Sea, even though these policies are not pursued in the name of Blue Growth, per se. Turkey’s deep-sea natural gas exploration policies and more local intensive aquaculture projects are currently leading to international and local ecological conflicts, respectively. This may be an indication that the international Blue Growth agenda, if adopted fully by the government in the future, may further exacerbate ecological distribution conflicts in the country.

  12. 12.

    The regulatory authority attempted to reduce overcapacity by stopping licensing of new vessels since 2002 and initiating buy-back programs since 2012; yet, the incentives involved in the program were not large enough to appeal to the owners of large-scale vessels (Ünal & Ekmekçi 2015).

  13. 13.

    These projects heavily reshape the coastal zones and damage the best fishing spots of small-scale fishers (SÜR-KOOP 2018).

  14. 14.

    There were 15,352 vessels in total in 2018; 13,783 were small-scale (General Directorate of Fisheries and Aquaculture, 2019). Small-scale vessels constitute around 90% of the whole fishing fleet in the country, while its total catch amounts to less than 10%. Small-scale vessels are usually between 5 and 12 m long, and most of them are wooden and use equipment such as gillnets and longlines (Ünal & Göncüoğlu 2012).

  15. 15.

    In 2017, 48% of all fish caught in the seas surrounding Turkey was sold by middlemen, whereas only 1% reached consumers directly via cooperatives (Turkstat 2019). The same year also marked a substantial rise in the fish sold to fishmeal factories; their share rose from 26% in 2013 to 41% in 2017 (Turkstat 2018).

  16. 16.

    One has to note that, although the tendency is there, due to data availability problems for small-scale fisheries, this statement cannot be generalized to all coastal small-scale fisheries. However, bycatch figures for purse seiners in Turkey are significantly large at about 37–54% (Düzgüneş 2019).

  17. 17.

    The members of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) (including Turkey) have recently formally acknowledged that small-scale fisheries have an important role for improving livelihoods and enhancing social inclusion as well as environmental and social sustainability. (http://www.fao.org/gfcm/news/detail/en/c/1154586/).

  18. 18.

    Co-management can be defined as a community-based mechanism in which fishers and policy-makers work together to sustainably manage marine resources (Gutiérrez et al. 2011).

References

  1. Acosta A (2013) Extractivism and neoextractivism: two sides of the same curse. In: Lang M, Fernando L, Buxton N (eds) Beyond development: alternative visions from Latin America. Transnational Institute, Amsterdam, pp 61–86

    Google Scholar 

  2. Adaman F, Arsel M (2005) Environmentalism in Turkey: between democracy and development?. Ashgate Publishing Limited, Burlington. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2007.00433_13.x

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Adaman F, Akbulut B, Arsel M, Avci D (2014) De-growth as counter-hegemony? Lessons from Turkey. In: Degrowth Conference Liepzig 2014. https://degrowth.co-munity.net/system/files/biblio/3737_0.pdf

  4. Adaman F, Akbulut B, Madra Y, Pamuk Ş (2014b) Hitting the Wall: Erdoğan’s construction-based, finance-led growth regime. Middle East London 10(3):7–8

    Google Scholar 

  5. Arısoy S (1965) Balıkçılık Kamu Sektörü Hizmeti ve Balıkçılık Kooperatiflerinin Organizasyonu Problemi. Karınca Kooperatif Postası 343:22–23

    Google Scholar 

  6. Arpa H (2015) Balıkçılık tarihimizden notlar. TMMOB Ziraat Mühendisleri Odası, Ankara

    Google Scholar 

  7. Arsel M (2005) Reflexive developmentalism? Toward an environmental critique of modernization. In environmentalism in Turkey: between democracy and development? Hants: Ashgate Publishing Limited

  8. Asara V, Otero I, Demaria F, Corbera E (2015) Socially sustainable degrowth as a social–ecological transformation: repoliticizing sustainability. Sustain Sci 10:375–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0321-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Baticados DB, Agbayani RF, Gentoral FE (1998) Fishing cooperatives in Capiz, central Philippines: their importance in managing fishery resources. Fish Res 34(2):137–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-7836(97)00090-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Belhabib D, Sumaila UR, Lam VWY, Zeller D, Billon P, Kane EA, Pauly D (2015) Euros vs. Yuan: comparing european and chinese fishing access in West Africa. PLoS One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Berkes F (1986) Local-level management and the commons problem: a comparative study of Turkish coastal fisheries. Mar Policy 10(3):215–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/0308-597X(86)90054-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (2000) Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Adapt Ecol 10(5):1251–1262

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bloemmen M, Bobulescu R, Le NT, Vitari C (2015) Microeconomic degrowth: the case of Community Supported Agriculture. Ecol Econ 112:110–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.02.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Borras SM (2010) The politics of transnational agrarian movements. Dev Change 41(5):771–803

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Boyer J (2010) Food security, food sovereignty, and local challenges for transnational agrarian movements: the Honduras case. J Peasant Stud 37(2):319–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066151003594997

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Burgess MG, Clemence M, Costello C, Gaines SD, Mcdermott GR (2018) Five rules for pragmatic blue growth. Mar Policy 87:331–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.12.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cadieux KV, Slocum R, Cadieux KV (2015) What does it mean to do food justice? J Polit Ecol 22(1):1–26

    Google Scholar 

  18. Can K (2013) Balık Ağalara Takıldı. Ekin Yayın Grubu, Bursa, pp 1–288

    Google Scholar 

  19. Demaria F, Schneider F, Sekulova F, Martinez-Alier J (2013) What is degrowth? from an activist slogan to a social movement. Environ Values 22(2):191–215. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327113X13581561725194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Deveciyan K (1915) Türkiye’de balık ve balıkçılık. Aras, İstanbul

    Google Scholar 

  21. Doğan K (1982) Balık unu ve yağı ile ilgili sorunlar. Su Ürünleri Üretimi Artırma ve Kredi Yönlendirme Sempozyumu. Ankara, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Ziraat Bankası, pp 278–298

    Google Scholar 

  22. Dupuis EM, Goodman D (2005) Should we go ‘“home”’ to eat?: toward a reflexive politics of localism. J Rural Stud 21:359–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2005.05.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Düzgüneş E (2019) Yönetim Önlemleri ve Balıkçılığa Etkileri. http://www.sur.coop/surkoophaber.aspx

  24. Edelman M (2009) Rooted cosmopolitans in transnational peasant and farmer movements. In XXVIII International Congress of the Latin American Studies Association, Rio de Janeiro

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ertör I, Ortega-Cerdà M (2018) The expansion of intensive marine aquaculture in Turkey: the next-to-last commodity frontier? J Agrarian Change. https://doi.org/10.1111/joac.12283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Figueroa M (2015) Food sovereignty in everyday life: Toward a people-centered approach to food systems. Globalizations 12(4)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Fisheries Acquis Centre (2007) Fisheries and aquaculture sector study final report. Ankara

  28. Food and Agriculture Organization (2018) The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2018 - Meeting the sustainable development goals. Rome

  29. Forgacs C (2008) Leadership and importance of social capital in cooperatives during transition: a case study of two cooperatives. J Rural Coop 36(1):57–72

    Google Scholar 

  30. Froese R, Winker H, Coro G, Demirel N, Tsikliras AC, Dimarchopoulou D, Matz-lück N (2018) Status and rebuilding of European fisheries. Mar Policy 93:159–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.04.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Georgescu-Roegen N (1971) The entropy law and the economic process. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  32. Guardian (2012) Is the EU taking its over-fishing habits to west African waters? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/apr/02/eu-fishing-west-africa-mauritania

  33. Guthman J (2008) Neoliberalism and the making of food politics in California. Geoforum 39:1171–1183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2006.09.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Gutiérrez NL, Hilborn R, Defeo O (2011) Leadership, social capital and incentives promote successful fisheries. Nature 470(7334):386–389. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09689

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hadjimichael M (2018) A call for a blue degrowth: unravelling the European Union’ s fi sheries and maritime policies. Mar Policy 94(May):158–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.05.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Hickel J, Kallis G (2019) Is green growth possible? New Polit Econ. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2019.1598964

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Johanisova N, Wolf S (2012) Economic democracy: a path for the future? Futures 44:562–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2012.03.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kaygısız F, Eken M (2018) A research on determination of fish marketing margins in Istanbul province of Turkey. Turkish J Fish Aquat Sci 18:801–807. https://doi.org/10.4194/1303-2712-v18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Knudsen S (2009) Fishers and scientists in modern Turkey: The management of natural resources, knowledge and identity on the eastern Black Sea coast. Berghahn Books

  40. Krausmann F, Gingrich S, Eisenmenger N, Erb K-H, Haberl H, Fischer-Kowalski M (2009) Growth in global materials use, GDP and population during the 20th century. Ecol Econ 68(10):2696–2705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.05.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Latouche S (2014) Imaginary, decolonization of. In: KG. D’Alisa G, Demaria F (ed), Degrowth: a vocabulary for a new era. London, Routledge

  42. Lloret J, Cowx IG, Cabral H, Castro M, Font T, Gonçalves JMS, Erzini K (2018) Small-scale coastal fisheries in European Seas are not what they were: ecological, social and economic changes. Mar Policy 98:176–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.11.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Martínez-Alier J, Pascual U, Vivien FD, Zaccai E (2010) Sustainable de-growth: mapping the context, criticisms and future prospects of an emergent paradigm. Ecol Econ 69:1741–1747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.04.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. McClenachan L, Neal BP, Al-Abdulrazzak D, Witkin T, Fisher K, Kittinger JN (2014) Do community supported fisheries (CSFs) improve sustainability? Fish Res 157:62–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2014.03.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Mills EN (2018) Implicating ‘fisheries justice’ movements in food and climate politics. Third World Quarterly 6597:1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2017.1416288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Mishan EJ (1969) Growth: The Price We Pay. Staples Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  47. Obaidullah F, Osinga Y (2010) How Africa is feeding Europe: EU (over)fishing in Africa

  48. Onis Z (2006) Varieties and crises of neoliberal globalisation: Argentina, Turkey and the IMF. Third World Q 27(2):239–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436590500432366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Öztürk B (2018) Fisheries investments and economic contribution to the Islamic Republic of Mauritania by the Turkish fishing industry. Bleack Sea/Mediterranean Environment 24(2):186–197

    Google Scholar 

  50. Öztürk B, Öztürk AA (1996) On the biology of the Turkish straits system. Bulletin de l’Institut Oceanographique 17:205–221

    Google Scholar 

  51. Pauly D (2018) A vision for marine fisheries in a global blue economy. Mar Policy 87:371–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.11.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Pauly D, Alder J, Bennett E, Christensen V, Tyedmers P, Watson R (2003) The future for fisheries. Science 302:1359–1361. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmwh.12438

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Pauly D, Belhabib D, Blomeyer R, Cheung WWWL, Cisneros-Montemayor AM, Copeland D, Zeller D (2013) China’s distant-water fisheries in the 21st century. Fish Fish 15(3):474–488. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Pinkerton E (2017) Hegemony and resistance: disturbing patterns and hopeful signs in the impact of neoliberal policies on small-scale fisheries around the world. Mar Policy 80(November):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.11.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Pomeroy RS, Berkes F (1997) Two to tango: the role of government in fisheries co-management. Mar Policy 21(5):465–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-597X(97)00017-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Radikal (2012) Trol çetesi kör etti. http://www.radikal.com.tr/turkiye/trol-cetesi-kor-etti-1077169/

  57. Schiavoni CM (2017) The contested terrain of food sovereignty construction: toward a historical, relational and interactive approach. J Peasant Stud 44(1):1–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2016.1234455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Shattuck A, Schiavoni CM, Vangelder ZOE (2015) Translating the Politics of Food Sovereignty: digging into Contradictions Uncovering New Dimensions. Globalizations 12(4):421–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Spash CL (2015) The future post-growth society. Devel Change 46(2):366–380. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Stiglitz JE (2016) Inequality and Economic Growth 86 (2015): 134-155. Polit Q 86:134–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Strauss AL, Corbin JM (1998) Chapter 8: Open coding. in basics of qualitative research techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. SAGE Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  62. SÜR-KOOP (2018) Balıkçıyı korumanın en büyük yolu denizdeki stokları korumaktır. SÜR-KOOP Haber, June(13)

  63. Swartz W, Sumaila UR, Watson R, Pauly D (2010) Sourcing seafood for the three major markets: the EU, Japan and the USA. Mar Policy 34:1366–1373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2010.06.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Tokaç A, Ünal V, Tosunoǧlu Z, Lök A, Ceyhan T, Özbilgin H (2014) Summary and analysis of the available information for the ecosystem approach to fisheries management in Turkey. Scientia Marina 78:29–36. https://doi.org/10.3989/scimar.04022.18A

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. TÜDAV (2015) Balıkçılık sezonu sorunlarla açılıyor. http://tudav.org/calismalar/balikcilik/surdurulebilir-balikcilik/balikcilik-sezonu-sorunlarla-aciliyor/

  66. Turhan E, Gündoğan AC (2017) The post-politics of the green economy in Turkey: re-claiming the future? J Polit Ecol 24:277–295

    Google Scholar 

  67. Turkstat (2019) Su Ürünleri İstatistikleri. www.tuik.gov.tr

  68. Ulman A, Pauly D (2016) Making history count: the shifting baselines of Turkish fisheries. Fish Res 183:74–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2016.05.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Ulman A, Bekişoğlu Ş, Zengin M, Knudsen S, Ünal V, Mathews C, Pauly D (2013) From bonito to anchovy a reconstruction of Turkey’s marine fisheries catches (1950–2010). Mediterr Mar Sci 14(2):309–342. https://doi.org/10.12681/mms.414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Ünal V, Ekmekçi B (2015) Türkiye’de on metre ve üzeri balıkçı teknelerinde geri-alım programının değerlendirilmesi. İzmir

  71. Ünal V, Göncüoğlu H (2012) Fisheries management in Turkey. In: Tokaç A, Gücü AC, Öztürk B (eds) The state of the Turkish fisheries. Turkish Marine Research Foundation, Istanbul, pp 516–550

    Google Scholar 

  72. Vollan B, Ostrom E (2010) Cooperation and the commons. Science 330(6006):923–924. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1198349

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Witter A, Stoll J (2017) Participation and resistance: alternative seafood marketing in a neoliberal era. Mar Policy 80:130–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.09.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Yeldan E (2006) Neoliberal Global Remedies: from Speculative-Led Growth to IMF-Led Crisis in Turkey. Rev Rad Polit Econom 38:193–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0486613405285423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Yenal D, Yenal NZ (1993) The changing food order: the case of Turkey. New Perspect Turkey 9:19–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pinar Ertör-Akyazi.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Handled by Maria Hadjimichael, University of cyprus, Cyprus.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 17 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ertör-Akyazi, P. Contesting growth in marine capture fisheries: the case of small-scale fishing cooperatives in Istanbul. Sustain Sci 15, 45–62 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00748-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Degrowth
  • Coastal fisheries
  • Industrial fisheries
  • Alternatives
  • Blue Economy
  • Food sovereignty