JPH+End+of+the+Line

**Director:** Murray, Rupert **Year:** 2009
 * Film:** The End of the Line

**What is the central argument or narrative of the film?** The End of the Line is a documentary film that brings to light the current state of the global fish populations. Countless examples and statistics are used to demonstrate the depletion of global fishing populations. Fishing practices are depleting fish populations so rapidly that some local populations have crashed and by it is predicted that by 2050 most fishing populations across the world will crash.

**What sustainability problems does the film draw out?** //__Over-Consumption of Resources:__// The most visible problem that this film draws out is how humans are consuming resources faster than they can naturally be replenished. The mathematical models presented in the film show a complete crash of many commercial fish populations by 2050 based on current accepted fishing rates. Scientists have made proposals to limit fishing to the point that fish populations will remain stagnant and won’t crash. Actually amount of fish harvested is currently around four times those proposed values. There are not enough companies, consumers or fishermen that are informed or concerned about future fish populations to reduce fishing to sustainable levels. //__Lack of Sustainable Government Policies and Enforcement of the Policies in Place:__// Governments have proved to either be ineffective in enacting sustainable fishing policies or enacting them far too late to prevent anything better than extinction. This is exemplified by the Canadian Government’s ban in 1995 on cod fishing in Newfoundland after the crash of the local cod population. It was a policy enacted far too late and the cod population has not been able to recover. Another example is how the EU ignored the suggestions of a panel of scientists who created a quota that would prevent the local fish population from crashing. The government set the quote twice as high as the scientists claimed would be able to sustain a population. Once policies are enacted it is very difficult for governments to enforce them as it is extremely difficult to patrol the open seas. Catch numbers for the fish that the EU set the quota for are predicted to be twice as high as the set quota which is four times higher than the scientist recommended catch numbers. //__Local Disenfranchisement:__// Local disenfranchisement is an especially important issue for coastal Africans. To make money many coastal African countries have sold fishing rights to overseas corporations. These corporations bring in sophisticated equipment to decimate the fish populations. They are rarely, if at all, regulated and have no concern for local stock. If the population becomes too depleted for them to make a profit then they will move on to another location. The locals who have a firsthand understanding of the local fish supply have no say in how fishing is conducted in their area. They are often forced to abandon their jobs and often move to Europe looking for work. In Europe they are discriminated against and the fish have no defense back home. //__Data Collection and Interpretation:__// A huge problem that scientists face is how to accurately calculate the number of fish in the sea. Mathematical models that scientists bring forward are easily shot down by corporate interests or even locals worried about their local economy. The opposition to such modeling has a relatively easy time of discrediting data provided by scientists because it is absolutely impossible to count the exact number of fish in the sea. It is hard for regulatory decisions to be made on observational data alone without undisputed mathematical models.

**What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?** I found the cod decimation in Newfoundland to be a very convincing argument made by the film. They showed just how hard it was for the government to enact the ban on fishing with scenes of local fishermen rioting. This showed the types of opposition that regulators face when they have to make tough decisions. They also had a scene where they went out in recent years to try to determine if the ban has helped the cod population come back; they only caught one fish. After almost 15 years the cod population was unable to regain a sustainable population. The other aspect of the film that I found to be convincing was the information about how the EU responded to scientists’ recommendations for a fishing quota. They enacted a regulation that was twice the recommended quota and the recommended quota was just low enough to prevent a total population crash. Then on top of that they presented data that suggested that actual catch was four times what scientists recommended and twice what the official quota was. This revelation made me convinced that there was a severe problem within the fishing industry that is not be addressed by governments or corporations.

**What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?** The film focused on the idea that consumers could be the driving force in fixing this issue. Through buying Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certified fish products we could cut our consumption of seafood and stocks could recover. The solutions seemed to ignore that the fact that only a small fraction of seafood eaters in the world would watch the movie and take its message to heart. The solutions seemed overly simplified and there was not a discussion of the effectiveness of the MSC. I was not particularly convinced by the solutions to the problem that were presented in the film.

**What audiences does the film best address? Why?** This film best addresses people who are young adults and older and who are seafood eaters. This film could be used for people without regard to their affinity towards or against any environmental issues. The statistics and meaningful examples such as the Newfoundland Cod reveal that it is an issue that it is an issue that is hard to ignore and that most people do not know about. The issues presented should be fairly easy for most people to connect with. The simplicity of the proposed solutions also led me to believe that this film is for a broad audience. The film doesn’t want to make the problem seem so large that it is unsolvable. Instead they focus on how individuals can make an impact.

**What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?** A valuable addition to the film would have been a study of how long it would take for the Newfoundland Cod population to return to stable levels. It would have been good to note if there are any proposed methods for farming stocks of Cod to be released in Newfoundland to jump start the population. Solutions for how to properly set and enforce government quotas would also have been a valuable study for the film. Although Alaska was a good example it would be good to note why the rest of the world doesn’t use Alaska as an example and what can be done to reverse the trend of bad policy and lack of enforcement.

**What kinds 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.** The film suggests that consumers take on the primary responsibly for sustainable fishing by buying food that MSC certified. They also suggested that consumers make seafood purchases from companies that are protecting their future inventory by buying sustainable fish products such as McDonald's and Wal-mart. The final suggestion was that consumers should return to eating smaller fish such as anchovies as these fish can reproduce faster and are currently not fished beyond their means.

**What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out?** I looked into more information regarding the [|MSC] and learned that the MSC primarily focuses on certifying fisheries and that over their first 10 years only 42 fisheries have been certified around the globe. If the MSC is going to have an impact it appears that they are going to have to rapidly expand in a short amount of time if they are going to keep fish populations from crashing before 2050. I also looked into the Cod fishing in Newfoundland and found a recent article that suggested that the cod population had been so depleted that the cod are gone forever with no hope of naturally returning. [|BBC - Cod Fishing]