RoveretoThe+End+of+the+Line


 * Title:** The End of the Line
 * Director:** Rupert Murray
 * Release Year:** 2009

This film discusses the problems associated with mankind’s fishing practices worldwide. The movie focuses on overfishing due to our love of eating fish and the massive scale of production dedicated to catching and processing fish. The fishing regulations put in place by many governments are nowhere near restrictive enough to allow for healthy or even stable populations of fish. Our cultural sense of rarity and delicacies has led to a great demand for certain fish, like bluefin tuna, which are now in danger of a collapsing population. In 2003, the film states at one point, one-third of the world’s fish species stocks are in a collapsed state, and it is believed that by 2048 all fish stocks will collapse.
 * What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

There are many problems the film touches on in its exploration of the problems with man’s fishing practices. The first is visited in a case study early in the film about Newfoundland, and its cod population. Cod had been a mainstay in Newfoundland, their entire culture based upon it, and they used to have the highest cod population in the world. By 1992, however, the cod had been fished nearly out of existence, and their population has not recovered. About 40,000 fishermen lost their jobs due to overfishing. This just shows how little science and government acted to prevent this from happening, or even investigating the possibility this could happen. All Newfoundland saw was profit, and this led to the loss of their collective livelihoods. The rest of the movie explores this same problem, but on a worldwide scale. In an EU fisheries meeting, international fishing quotas on bluefin tuna were set, and studies by scientists showed that a limit of 15,000 tons per year was necessary just to prevent population collapse, with a 10,000 ton limit for recovery. Despite this, the fisheries ministers agreed on a quota of 29,500 tons per year. International fishing law and its lack of regulation and stringency is a central point in the film, as it allows many fishing companies to basically ignore the laws entirely with little or no consequences. A study by Lourdes of the UK found that 50% of fish on the market are caught illegally.
 * What sustainability problems does the film draw out?**

This also brings up the issue of fishing rights. Who has the right to fish off the coasts of countries, and to what extent are they allowed to fish? In many developing nations, the governments are willing to trade use of their fishing areas for the revenue generated by this, but the fish leaves the country, most of the profit leaves the nation, and the traditional fishermen lose their jobs and are forced to find another type of job or to work for these companies for very little money. This also causes a problem with immigration, as some see little left for them in their country, and immigrate hoping for a better chance. Usually, this only ends in them finding themselves in another country with no use for them, and they become even more destitute.

Worldwide, catch rates are dropping. The advances in the technology of industrial fishing and the massive production capacity have led to overfishing since the end of World War II, when industrialized fishing practices began. Since that time, catch rates have dropped by 90%. Our overpowered production capacity has the power to fish out and process the annual catch several times over, each year alone. To compound this problem, industrialized fishing is not very efficient, as bycatch is a huge problem leading to undesired marine species being caught along with the desired fish. About one-tenth of the world’s catch is thrown back dead, including turtles, dolphins, and other marine species. Trolling the ocean for fish also has the effect of disturbing and destroying the ecosystem on the seabed. This, in turn, affects the rest of the ocean, as all these ecosystems are interconnected. There is no wall isolating them from each other. All the oceans are interconnected; what affects one affects them all to an extent.

Our culture and how corporations and their advertising have augmented it plays a key part in this issue as well. The western culture of today is a gluttonous one, desiring more of everything, and the corporations are happy to oblige. Mitsubishi, known for its automobile division, also has its hand in fish, as 60% of bluefin tuna production is owned by the company. 1.2 billion people have fish as a big part of their diet. Advertising shows fish as the healthy alternative to beef, pork and other proteins, but the massive demand and processing of these fish is not a healthy choice for the world. Bluefin is the most expensive fish on the market today, and they are being caught at highly unsustainable levels, mainly due to the perception of its flesh as an opulent food, a very trendy meal to have. Chefs on television promote its use and upscale restaurants feature it on their menus.

For me, the persuasiveness of the movie was in the blending of great imagery with its excellent use of experts in articulating the problems being presented. One part in the movie I found very persuasive was with the discussion of the EU fisheries meeting, where they decided on the quota for bluefin tuna catching. Their scientists told them that the annual catch needed to be 15,000 tons maximum, just to prevent the population from collapsing, but they decided on a quota nearly double that, at 29,500 tons. This just showed the enormous disconnect between the fishing business and the scientists who study the effects industrialized fishing has on the fish populations. When told explicitly to what extent they should limit their fishing, they basically said “That’s nice” and went on with what they wanted to do anyway.
 * What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

That brings me to the second part I found to be very compelling, the way in which fishing regulations can be ignored with little or no repercussions for the offenders. The film showed that this was due partly to the leniency of most of these laws, in addition to the poor enforcement of these laws. After the EU agreed on a maximum annual catch of 29,500 tons, official records showed that 61,000 tons were caught annually, ignoring the recent regulatory change. Fishermen even used ocean plane spotting, a practice banned over 10 years ago, to spot schools of fish. It made me ask how fishing companies can completely disregard laws without any real danger of punishment.

I found the majority of the film to be very compelling and on a very important topic as well. However, I felt as though the ‘solutions’ part of the film did not do the rest of the film justice. The movie covered very serious issues and problems with overfishing that involved many nations and fishing companies, yet the solutions they give ask consumers to be more knowledgeable about the fish they buy and to only buy fish caught or raised from a sustainable source, as certified by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). To me, this solution seemed like an oversimplified solution to a complex problem. Realistically, a small percentage of fish consumers in the world will see this movie, and only a portion of them will internalize the message of the film, so a message relying on consumer power in this sense will not be effective.
 * What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?**

This film seems tailored to appeal to the general public, as it is a worldwide immediate issue with a large amount of proven evidence and facts. The issue is large, and the aspects of the overall problem are explained well, without going so far into detail to alienate the average viewer. This is not to say it’s not of worth to the environmentally aware, just that it makes itself accessible to a wide range of viewers. The solutions section in particular is where it reaches a wide range of viewers, as its solutions are very simplified and make the consumer feel as if there is a meaningful way to help solve the issue in an easy, hassle-free way.
 * What audiences does the film best address? Why?**

Personally, I felt as if the film was very effective in its use of just enough detail to convey the right message without scaring the average viewer away, or oversimplifying to the point of uselessness. With that said, I feel as though elaboration at some points in the film would have been beneficial. For example, a follow-up to the Newfoundland story would have really brought the message home. When talking about the solutions, the role of the Marine Stewardship Council and some of their certification process would have helped to make the solutions section much more substantial and compelling. While Alaska was mentioned as having good enforcement of their fishing regulations, and exploration of how international regulations and enforcement could be improved would have been time well spent.
 * What could have been added to the film to enhance its environmental education value?**

The film talks about the increasing movement for marine reserves, which would ban fishing in certain protected areas, and how it has helped significantly in the Caribbean. It also suggests that consumers take an active role in fixing the problem of over-fishing by purchasing only seafood that is certified as sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council. Also along these lines, it urges the consumer to purchase from food services that only use fish from sustainable sources, and the film includes McDonald’s and Wal-Mart as being two such companies. Another action the film suggests is for people to purchase and eat smaller fish, like anchovies, that are lower in their food chains, as they can mature faster, and are not currently being overfished beyond their ability to maintain a healthy population.
 * What kind of actions and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.**

When I heard about the Marine Stewardship Council from the film, the only information it provided was that it certified sustainable fish sources. I really wanted to learn more about it, so I went on their website, [], and found out that they were founded in 1997 by the World Wide Fund for Nature and the company Unilever, but then became independent in 1999. It really only certifies wild fisheries, but has begun to look at aquaculture (fish farms).
 * What additional information has the film compelled you to seek out?**

I also checked out news on the progress of creating marine reserves, and found a great article from the [|Science Daily] on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef in the Proceedings of the US National Academy of Sciences. Among other things, the article stated that the numbers of coral trout doubled on some reefs within two years of the closure of fishing. 32% of the Great Barrier Reef is protected by no-take (no fishing allowed) marine reserves.