Farmers and fishermen are often mentioned together when it comes to sustainability. After all, they both produce food and symbolize tradition, family farms and craftsmanship. Yet there are also many differences. The farmer cultivates his own land, often for generations, while the fisherman hunts and gathers in a shared, natural space that stretches across European and international waters. What they do share is the increasing pressure of regulation, markets and climate change. The European Union largely determines how they may produce. And both on land and at sea, the same call sounds: it must be more sustainable.
The limits of regeneration
In the field, regenerative agriculture is often presented as the new panacea. Farmers working on soil regeneration, crop diversity and fewer chemical inputs: it sounds like the desired future. The central government is therefore betting on regenerative agriculture with the Re-Ge-NL project, €129 million funded from the National Growth Fund. Between 2030 and 2040, regenerative agriculture should be the new normal. Very ambitious, but is it realistic? Related to regenerative agriculture is organic farming. In the Netherlands last year 4.5% of the total agricultural land was farmed organically, according to CBS. Despite years of growth, it is still a marginal subsector in the Netherlands. Price seems to be the main limiting factor for further growth. As long as sustainable products remain more expensive than conventional food, sustainability will remain economically vulnerable for farmers. Thus, the ideal of regeneration is primarily a moral and ecological compass, but not (yet) a revenue model.
Boundaries at sea
Something similar is at play in fisheries, but with different constraints. Small-scale sea fishing, with low impact on the
There is certainly a living to be made from small-scale sea fishing, but the opportunities are limited. Wind farms, protected natural areas, sand mining and shipping lanes are taking up more and more space. Small-scale fishing within wind farms and nature reserves may offer opportunities. But making a living with passive gear in the remaining fishing areas is a major challenge. The same goes for other fishermen, by the way. The Dutch fishing fleet has shrunk by more than sixty percent since 1990, according to Wageningen Social and Economic Research. As a result, though, the ecological impact of the entire fleet is now considerably lower than it used to be.
Sustainability in figures
European fisheries are further along with sustainable management than is often thought. According to the European Commission, last year 70 percent of the fish stocks surveyed in the Northeast Atlantic, including the North Sea, met the Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY): the maximum sustainable yield at which no more is caught than accrues annually.
In fact, for species such as plaice and sole, catches remain well below that level. The low fishing pressure allows fish stocks to grow, which is in fact already regenerative: it gives the fish stock and the ecosystem room to recover. Only in the case of mackerel does it falter because non-EU countries such as Norway and Russia do not keep to the agreed quota. Ironically, it is precisely Dutch fishermen who feel the consequences, for example when supermarkets remove “mackerel from overfishing” from their shelves.
The paradox of labels
Many Dutch fisheries, including beam trawlers, are now MSC certified. That certification is an open, science-based process, in which NGOs and other stakeholders have a say. But economically, the certification delivers little. Fishermen do not get a higher price for sustainably caught fish. The market does not reward good behavior, while the costs of sustainability do rise. If sustainability really wants a chance, then politicians will have to intervene: by taxing non-sustainable fish more heavily or giving sustainable fish a tax break.
Towards a fair comparison
Both on land and at sea, sustainability ultimately revolves around the same principle: harvesting within the limits of what nature can handle. Farmers are learning to work with nature rather than against it. Fishermen are already largely doing that, fishing at or below MSY levels. That is, whichever way you look at it, regenerative management.
Nevertheless, both sectors will remain vulnerable as long as sustainable production is not economically rewarded. Regeneration is not only an ecological, but also a social and financial issue.
In conclusion
Farmers and fishermen are not opposites, but mirror images. One works in the earth, the other fishes above it. Both try to survive within ever tighter frameworks of policy, market and climate. And both are proving that sustainability does not happen by itself. It requires space, trust and a fair price. Only then can the sea learn from the land, and the land from the sea.
This column was previously posted on Fishtrend.com