|
Analytical review of the current state of the Russian fisheries industry
3. A Book on a Nonexistent Topic - Russian Fisheries Policy
Interview with, Anatoly N. Makoyedov, Doctor of Biology and ex-director of the Fisheries Policy Department of the Russian Ministry of Agriculture
Discussion of the book The Basics of Russian Fisheries Policy, written by A.N.Makoyedov and former governor of the Koryak Autonomous Region Mr. O.N.Kozhemyako.
Anatoly Nikolayevich Makoyedov
Anatoly Markoyedov served as Director of the Fisheries Policy Department in the Russian Ministry of Agriculture (2004 to 2006) and is the former deputy Chairman of the Russian State Committee on Fisheries (2001 to 2004). He was born on September 6th, 1958 in Perm’, and graduated from the biology department of Perm’ State University in 1980 with a Doctorate in Biological Sciences. From 1980 to 1993, he worked at the Institute of Biological Problems of the North (Far Eastern Branch) of the Russian Academy of Sciences (in Magadan), and from 1995 to 1999, as director of the Chukotka branch of the Pacific Fisheries Research Center (TINRO-center, Anadyr’). From 1999 to 2001, he was the First Deputy Director General of the state enterprise "National Fish Resources" in Moscow. In May 2001, Mr. Makoyedov was appointed Deputy Chairman of the State Committee on Fisheries of the Russian Federation (Goskomrybolovstvo). The Committee was abolished during administrative reforms, in accordance with the Decree of the Russian President Mr. V.Putin "On the system and structure of federal executive authorities," March 9th 2004. Mr. Makoyedov is the author of over 90 scientific papers, including seven monographs.
Oleg Nikolayevich Kozhemyako
Oleg Kozhemyako is the Assistant to the Head of Administration of the President of the Russian Federation and the former governor of Koryak Autonomous Region. Born on March 14th 1962 in the Chernigovka settlement of Primorksy Krai, My. Kozhemyako graduated from Khabarovsk Technical School of Construction, then from the Far Eastern Institute of Soviet Trade (renamed Pacific State Economic University). After serving in the Soviet Army, he then worked as technical manager at the Primorskaya Hydropower Station, and later organized and led the food processing and production company "Primorskoye". Since 1995, he has been the deputy head of the Council of Directors, and in 1998 to 2002, Chairman of the Council of Directors of the "Preobrazhenskoye Trawling Fleet Base" Joint Stock Company. On December 9th 2001, he was elected to the 3rd Regional Duma of Primorsky Krai, where he served as a member of the Committee on Food Policy and Nature Management. On November 27th , 2002, he was appointed a member of the Council of Federations of Russia representing the Regional Duma of Primorsky Krai, where he was a member of Committee on Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, and participated in the Commission on Youth and Sports and the Commission on Information Policy. On September 29th, 2004, Mr. Kozhemyako resigned from his position as Senator upon transfer to another job as counsellor to Mr. Sergei Mironov, the Chaiman of the Council of Federations. On January 18th, 2005, by decision of the Governor of the Koryak Autonomous Region Mr. V.Loginov, he was appointed as Deputy Governor responsible for northern supplies and fuel deliveries, and after the Governor was dismissed on March 9th, 2005, Mr. Kozhemyako was temporarily appointed as the acting Governor for Koryak AR. On April 14th, 2005 he was elected to the position of the Governor by the Koryak Regional Duma, and in July 2007 was included in the consultative commission of the State Council of Russia as an authorized state counsellor (3rd rank) of Russian Federation (this rank was assigned by order of the president on December 13th 2007).
"Why did you decide to write a book?"
Sergei Vakhrin, Editor in Chief of the "Fish of Kamchatka" website: Anatoly Nikolayevich, as soon as I began reading your book The Basics of Russian Fisheries Policy, which you wrote with Oleg Kozhemyako, and which was recently published, I was faced with a rather paradoxical situation: You yourself wrote in the introduction to the book, that "It is difficult to discuss that which does not exist, at least as perceived by the majority.
Anybody who knows at least a little about the state of affairs in the Russian fisheries would confidently state, that there is no fisheries policy in our country at all".
How is it possible to write on something that really doesn’t exist? Why, then, did you decide to write such a book?"
Anatoly Makoyedov: After the Russian State Committee on Fisheries was dissolved in 2004, I worked for two years in the fisheries policy department of the Russian Ministry of Agriculture. As such, I can confirm that there is no fisheries policy in our country. This certainly does not mean that leaders and managers at different levels are not making attempts to improve the situation in national fisheries, but there are certainly not any pronounced development targets in this sphere. At least none so far.
If we remember the definition given by Vladimir Dal’, "policy" is a science of state management, which presumes that certain aims and objectives exist. It is possible to understand the aims and objectives of national fisheries policy of the Soviet period. This is also one of the things we discuss in our book. However, the role and position of the fisheries industry in the current system of state priorities remains undefined.
Sergei Vakhrin: Anatoly Nikolayevich, you worked as the head of the Fisheries Policy Department, so you had to be aware of and understand all this policy at that level. Am I right? Or did you come to understand the situation only when you wrote your book? That seems unlikely. You must have understood a lot that time. But only a minimal amount could be done. Would you agree?
Anatoly Makoyedov: An old Soviet film comes to mind. The heroine says this wonderful phrase: "I am sick of walking from one office to another, where nobody resolves anything." But I don’t really agree with her. Things are resolved in the offices, but it’s as if they’re trying to empty the sea with a teaspoon. And the teaspoon is always full, as officials are working hard day and night - but the sea remains at the same level, with the same problems unresolved.
"The State (not so much the mechanism to govern the people, but the aggregate of nations united within one country) really acts as the consumer of these "inedible scraps", or more precisely, of the wastes resulting from the use of state-owned marine biological resources.
"If only a small part of decisions related to fisheries, made at the highest possible levelhad been implemented in the way they were initially intended, then the businesses would be showing completely different figures from their operations, and the state would have different volumes of marine biological resources, and the income for the state budget from the exploitation of these resources would be significantly higher. However, unfortunately, such problems pertain not only to the fisheries industry". ().
In 2004, the Department developed a draft of the "Law on Fisheries". All positive aspects of the previous version, which was accepted by the State Duma and the Council of Federations, were included. Amendments were largely related to mergers, which were already included in the well-known Statement ¹ 704 of the Government "On fishing quotas". All the articles of the Law were meant to be direct-acting. That is to say, all that could be legally regulated at that time in fisheries, should have been regulated by this law. Minister A.V.Gordeev had a special meeting on this issue with fishing industry representatives, and the latter supported the proposed draft. However, after a lengthy reworking in the Duma, the result was this sort of stump, that required the development of a lot of supplementary legislation. As I see it, this is a good indicator of whether or not a fisheries policy exists in the country.
The natural conclusion to be drawn from this example, is that the development of administrative decisions obviously does not require initiative, responsibility and professionalism. As a result, to this day, for three years now, we have been merely practicing the development of documents intended to implement the Law "On Fisheries and on Conservation of Aquatic Biological Resources". And at the same time, we are trying to amend that law. And these amendments are the very same ones that were crossed out in the first draft that was initially worked out by the department. This is an example of running in circles. And in this, we clearly see the principle that guides many state officials: do not hurry to complete your job, if the outcome effects you. A true state official in Russia is distinguished primarily by the unwillingness and inability to make decisions, because the fact is, that the true state official is not responsible for anything. It’s a good thing that there are still misguided state officials in place sometimes. They are the ones who provide at least some kind of management over the fisheries industry.
By the way, the most important government statements and orders of the Ministry of Agriculture for the regulation of fisheries were developed and introduced while I was in charge of the Department. And it seems that our efforts were not in vain. Methods for developing solutions that have not yet been implemented are described in the book I wrote with Mr. Kozhemyako.
"It is also worth mentioning the link between the responsibility of the leaders, for example in the fisheries industry, and the outputs of that particular industry. There is, in fact, no connection. Appointed ministers (chairmen) and their deputies never acted as one team proposing a single programme to the country’s political leaders, such that the implementation or failure of that programme could be considered a result of that team’s work. As a result, whatever judgement (and even demand for resignation) emerges, it could be treated simple as a demand to hand over the position from one political and economic group to another. Not to suggest, God forbid, that somebody is making a business out of trading these positions. So as it turns out, the faster the resignations come up, the more profits somebody is making". ().
Sergei Vakhrin: And by the way, why did you write this with Mr. Oleg Kozhemyako?
Anatoly Makoyedov: Well then you have to ask Mr. Oleg Kozhemyako, "why did he write a book with me?"
It just happened that way. I think the fact that each of the two authors has his own experience in fisheries industry contributed to this. Oleg Nikolayevich was an effective manager of industrial enterprises. Later, he successfully promoted and defended fisheries issues in the Council of Federations. He also led the administration of Koryak Autonomous Region, where all the challenges and problems that we discuss in the book exist, such as commercial fishing, traditional economic activities of local indigenous people, i.e. traditional fishing, and also issues with supplying fish and fish products to consumer markets. Likely, working on this book was also of practical importance for him, as it was a way to analyze and develop new approaches and new ways to manage fisheries in the region.
By the way, its very important to clearly define what "traditional use of natural resources" means, and to support truly traditional use, rather than to distribute quotas for personal consumption to certain representatives of certain ethnic groups. If you think about it, such an approach is a kind of ethnic discrimination. If we are citizens of one and the same country, why is it possible for one ethnicity to fish for its own consumption, while another ethnicity cannot?
Sergei Vakhrin: We already celebrate "Indigenous People of the Planet Day," as if all the other people on Earth are not indigenous, but rather came from other worlds.
"People’s attitude towards fishing has fundamentally changed"
Anatoly Makoyedov: Indeed one can spoil a meal by adding butter, if the butter is of poor quality.
It cannot be denied that the attitude of people towards fishing has changed significantly. Initially, people fished for their own consumption. And you can hardly dispute that fish is, first and foremost, a food product. However, if we look objectively at recent realities, we see a completely different picture. National fishing is a business, and only a business. If one tries to catch a fish at a river where salmon are spawning, where the water is churning with fish - this person is suddenly considered a poacher.
Fish must be caught by those who are in the business. The catch is then bought by wholesale buyers and resold to consumers. And then finally, you can buy the fish in stores, and then cook your own fish soup. As a result of all these economic processes, those who caught the fish will receive at most 20% of the final product price, and those trading in between will get more than 40%. All the additional losses and costs, many of which are very hard to justify, are paid by the final consumer, that is, by us.
In this remarkable way, the state secures the availability of fish products to the people, and supports population growth at the Far East. And here too, we see a non-existent fisheries policy.
For comparison, in Norway, every person living on the coast can freely catch and preserve as much fish as he or she needs for his or her own consumption. There, it is clear to all how the state makes fish available to the citizens, who, by the way, have the longest lifespan in Europe. What prevents us from doing the same? In the book, we discuss this issue in detail, working on the assumption that the most value asset to the state are its citizens.
"Our fisheries industry is a system of paradoxes. At every possible moment, officials remind us of the average consumption of fish per capita in Russia, but when the laws, decrees, and orders are adopted, they simply ignore the fact that fish is, primarily, a food product. It seems that everybody in the country just got used to the fact that the scale of illegal and unreported fishing is comparable to that of the officially registered harvest. Talking with those who are responsible for protection of marine biological resources, you can even sense a certain bravado in their attitude to the fisheries situation, that it will always remain the same". ().
Sergei Vakhrin: The same is true of Alaska. Not just indigenous people, but all the local people can fish. If you are living in an area where traditional fishing exists, let’s say on the coast, then you can harvest and preserve fish for your own needs. But of course, you don’t have the right to sell it.
Anatoly Makoyedov: Certainly, you cannot sell it. If you’re selling fish, there needs to be a business.
And I refer to the Norwegian experience just as one example. Some time ago, my colleague Jorn Krog, Norwegian Deputy Minister of Fisheries, who is also the Chairman of the Russian-Norwegian Commission of Fisheries where I represented Russia for five years, told me that he spends part of his vacations in his native town. When he’s there, he fishes and makes home preserves of salmon for his for the coming year. I was interested to know how that works. He replied that he had a small boat, and he goes on that boat out to the sea and just fishes. And what do you catch? - I asked. Well, we catch whatever we catch. Cod isn’t necessarily the major type.
It is only in our country, that if we speak of the indigenous people of the Far East, we immediately presume that we are speaking of salmon fishing. Along the coasts of the Koryak Region, it is possible to catch many other marine species. In the coastal waters of the Far East alone, there are at least one million tons of marine biological resources that are not used annually. Maybe it would be reasonable to allow all the people living along the coast to harvest these resources for their own needs? The question is: why can’t the people of Kamchatka catch and eat the fish that lives there? They certainly can. And they should be allowed to. But somehow, it turns out that this is prohibited. Or some people are allowed, and the others are not. And this is happens at a time when there is already no special line for ethnicity on passports, and when it is not at all clear what criteria define these or those persons as "indigenous people of the North, Siberia and the Far East".
Sergei Vakhrin: Returning to the book, I want to say that the issue of traditional fishing is only one from the long list of issues addressed. By the way, thank you, and Anatoly Nikolayevich, for the opportunity to be among the first to read the book. You’ve done tremendous work. The book is almost five hundred pages. And all the different situations, and approaches to solving existing problems, are analysed.
There is one large chapter on the issue of disproportionate size of the fishing fleet, compared to the size of the resource base. Could you explain this?
"The key problem facing today’s fishing industry"
Anatoly Makoyedov: In my opinion, this is the key problem for today’s fishing industry. And if this problem is not resolved in a rather short amount of time, the consequences will be dire. It all comes at the cost of our marine biological resources, and the state of these resources. In fact the most important target of fisheries, i.e. Alaska Pollock, is already demonstrating how nature responds to our bad attitude towards the harvests. Total allowable catch have been reduced more than threefold, just within the last decade.
"Fishermen, at all their gatherings and councils, are calling upon the authorities to bring order to the industry, to introduce clear rules, - but in reality everything is done to prevent such order and to block any rules. The major principle, the most popular among fishermen, is that "today I know whom to bribe and what amount to give, such that I have sufficient quotas and no problems catching these amounts". Many fishermen are acting not as wise harvesters, but rather like pirates in their own seas. But they are not pirates to the foreigners passing through. Rather, they are depleting the resources of their own people, the resources of their children and grandchildren. That is probably the reason the state has no respect for the unions and associations of fishermen, which have been organized in large numbers in all regions with substantial fish resources" ().
In this regard, we can’t help but be glad to hear the intentions voiced recently by the head of Russian State Agency on Fisheries Mr. A.A. Krainy, to switch to allocating fishing quotas to the fishing vessels, the way it has been done for hundreds of years in, again for example, Norway. This echoes what was said in December 2005 at the Russian Government hearings by Minister A.V. Gordeev.
These are good proposals. However, the patient, in this case the fisheries industry, needs not just a therapist, but a surgeon. On the other hand, its good that we still don’t have to call in the coroner.
Linking TACs to the fishing vessels was already introduced as part of the already mentioned Government Statement ¹ 704. However, implementation of this document turned out differently. The carriage was put ahead of the horse. There is no sense in looking for somebody to blame now, because it was collective irresponsibility.
Sergei Vakhrin: Do you think that the beneficiaries might have revolted?
Anatoly Makoyedov: Nobody simulated a situation in which these beneficiaries might have emerged. This is just one consequence of the fact that the Government Statement was not implemented, at least not the part we’ve just discussed.
Sergei Vakhrin: And now it means that the TAC shares are sold at auction?
Anatoly Makoyedov: These are not just lingering ideas; it is something that is being actively lobbied in the State Duma. What worries us is not that reallocation of duties and benefits is being proposed again, but that this reorganization will bring the whole fisheries industry to a new level, new stage of chaos. And the state as a result will lose a substantial part of its marine biological resources.
Sergei Vakhrin: As you know Mr. K.Sh. Iskhakov, Plenipotentiary of the President, suggested in his speech to the Kamchatka fishermen that a draft of the Presidential Statement should be prepared to start an experiment at Kamchatka. This experiment would be geared towards creating optimal conditions for the development of the fisheries industry. What is your attitude to such idea of "building communism within one particular area"?
Anatoly Makoyedov: Kamchatka is in need of experiments. What is the aim of this one?
Sergei Vakhrin: Naturally, the aim is to revive the fisheries industry…
"If in the majority of countries they are trying to secure priority access to fish and seafood for those who want to harvest them for personal consumption, in Russia, fishing is perceived exclusively as a sector of commercial activity. If most countries develop conditions that favour the development of fisheries industry, in Russia the fishermen are driven almost to exhaustion, to maintain, at any cost, a 0.4% increase in income to the state budget from the industry
Sometimes, it seems like they talk about the necessity of providing fish to people in one country, about improving efficiency in the fishing industry in another country, and collecting taxes in a third country. As discordant as these actions and the regulatory system are, they are being institutionalized." ().
"The true purpose of the fisheries industry"
Anatoly Makoyedov: Every person in the country has his own ideas for the revival of fisheries. First of all, let’s define what we mean by fisheries revival, under optimal conditions. It is also worth determining the aims and intentions of the state management structure in the fisheries industry as a whole. Currently, the major purpose of the whole industry is to provide money to the federal budget. Do we have other economic sectors, especially those tied to food security, where on top of numerous obligatory taxes, additional costs exist just for the fact that the resource is being used? And the payments for these resources have no relation to natural resource royalties or anything similar. Again, there is no policy and no vector for the development of the fisheries industry.
"Judging from the estimated value of the total catch by Russian fishermen of 90 billion Roubles, we can guess that the value of IUU catch is similar. At least, these were the assumed IUU catch figures in the mass media in the second half of the 1990s. Even if we assume that that the figures of the "shadow" business are about 50% of the official statistics - this is still a lot. Add to this the lost profits due to the low value of fish products coming from Russia, we come to the conclusion that the national fisheries are working three times less effective than they could in current conditions - that is, with the same resources and harvesting and processing capacity that exists today.
It is obvious that the following trend is in place. As long as we were following international standards in fisheries, our country remained among the world’s top three leading fishing states. Nowadays, Russia dropped to tenth place among the leading fishing countries, and we can conclude that this resulted only from of all these recent ‘innovations’". ().
Sergei Vakhrin: And returning to the book, what directions and vectors for development should be considered?
Anatoly Makoyedov: Let’s ask a question: why, for what reasons should we revive the fisheries industry? If the answer is, that we want people to increase their consumption of fish and fish products per capita, then we have to give fishing rights to all people who can do it for their own subsistence and consumption. Of course, within some reasonable limits.
Sergei Vakhrin: Just like in the US, without the right to sell?
Anatoly Makoyedov: Yes, without the right to sell. But when I discussed this idea with some important state officials, they immediately raised the question - who would be in control of such harvests? And this is yet another question: why do not we trust our own population?
Sergei Vakhrin: That is probably the most important question in our country.
Anatoly Makoyedov: And note, that the question is WHO would be in control, not HOW to organize effective control. After the Law on Fisheries was introduced, the central question in the Russian fisheries remains WHO would be issuing permits.
Sergei Vakhrin: And the argument continues; meanwhile the bosses are fighting, but the average person has problems to solve…
"Domestic fishing companies have managed to produce really outstanding results. Having depleted the major commercial fishing resources, they simultaneously caused the dramatic collapse of global prices for their products. And even given these conditions, and this is confirmed by statistical data, the total value of the products of national fisheries grew. In other words, Russian fisheries even defy simple mathematical rules. The fishing industry posts losses one year after another, yet the state acts as if it believes this.
Federal executive authorities have not taken a single effective measure to prevent or to limit the depletion of biological resources, which are still general state property. All efforts were directed towards imposing more and more on the fishing industry.
In fact it was kind of a middle-age principle of indulgence: pay money to the state budget and do whatever you want with the resources". ().
Anatoly Makoyedov: Yes, the stupid populace, as always, doesn’t know how lucky it is. It’s a deadly situation.
If we want to provide people with as much fish as is recommended from the medical point of view - let’s just do that. This is food security in its purest meaning. And then the people of Kamchatka will not be considered poachers, as many of them are fishing and preserving fish for themselves, in whatever way they can, legally or illegally.
And then, the products obtained by the fishing industry, without any harm to large part of the Russian population, could be delivered to where there is the highest demand, and to where they are paid the best. In this respect, one could consider Kamchatka as a good place to test such practices.
Sergei Vakhrin: And if one considers "revival of fisheries" to mean the development of the fisheries businesses, in terms of profitability and income for the state budget…
Anatoly Makoyedov: Then we should probably refrain from such experiments on Kamchatka, where the fisheries business is a vital foundation of the entire economy, and where the negative aspects of such experiments could have the worst consequences. Unfortunately, many good ideas get changed when implemented. It often happens that attempts at improvement result in the opposite.
If we consider the country as a whole, then the Kaliningrad region could be a reasonable area for such an experiment. And if we speak only about the Far East, then Khabarovsk is the most likely region. In this region, we have, first of all, rather stable administrative resource and stable political elite. Secondly, almost all types of fishing are already developed in Khabarovsk region. And at the same time, the fraction of the overall structure of incomes and in the regional economy that fisheries represents is not so substantial, that one could fear catastrophic consequences in case of a failure.
Sergei Vakhrin: Yes, and if we are talking about corruption as one factor in the current situation with fisheries, then Kamchatka also has a long way to go to get free from the influence of the fisheries mafia. Is this maybe why you state, for the country as a whole, that we do not have fisheries policy in place? And no economic policy either?
Anatoly Makoyedov: I am not an economist, and thus I cannot say whether an economic policy exists in the country or not. However some things are obvious. Obviously, the country has serious problems with development of science-intensive industries. It seems reasonable that in such a situation, keeping in mind also that there are demographic gaps, it would make sense to concentrate all attention on the development of science-intensive industries that do not require so much manpower. Instead of this, they are promoting and lobbying for development of coastal processing, which is from the outset based on large numbers of rather low-qualified employees. Just like in China, which has become the world leader in this sphere.
But there is another model on which to develop fish and seafood processing. Again from that same Norway. This country has demographic challenges similar to ours. And because of that - fish is processed in Norway by Finns, Swedes, Russians, - by whomever, except Norwegians. For the sole reason, that the state does its best to employ Norwegians in more technologically advanced jobs, such as ship-building, production of navigation devices, operating of the oil platforms at sea, etc.
Table. The Total allowable catch in Russia, for the years 2000-2020 (thousands of metric tons)
| Type of fisheries |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2005 |
2010 |
2015-2020 |
| Total harvest |
8599,6 |
8040,8 |
7645,7 |
8074,8 |
8792,3 |
9517,8 |
| Including |
| Oceanic fisheries |
8143,5 |
7577,8 |
7200,3 |
7643,3 |
8094,4 |
8692,9 |
| Which includes, |
| Exclusive economic zone of Russia |
4481,6 |
4112,2 |
3709,7 |
4086,6 |
4537,5 |
5136,3 |
| Exclusive economic zones of other states |
2046,2 |
2060,2 |
2157,9 |
1950,6 |
1950,6 |
1950,6 |
| Open seas |
1645,7 |
1405,4 |
1332,8 |
1606,0 |
1606,0 |
1606,0 |
| Fisheries in Internal waters |
456,0 |
463,0 |
445,4 |
431,5 |
698,2 |
885,9 |
| Which includes, |
| Seas |
274,7 |
266,7 |
260,3 |
196,5 |
230,6 |
268,3 |
| Freshwater bodies |
110,8 |
120,7 |
120,7 |
115,0 |
117,6 |
117,6 |
| Commercial aquaculture |
70,6 |
75,6 |
64,3 |
120,0 |
350,0 |
500,0 |
We’ve mentioned already the components of the final product price. It is clear that in the current situation, the entire fisheries industry will tend towards transforming into a trade sector only, as it is twice as profitable to trade fish and seafood, as opposed to harvesting or processing it. If the state does not want to lose the fisheries industry, it has to define what the added value to the product should be, at every stage, from harvesting to final consumption. Just as it was done in already economically developed countries, with well-established market economies. Prices and components of prices have to work as a stimulus to industry development, instead of bringing the industry into the shadows, and to total collapse. The catching and processing of fish should not be less profitable, compared to trading. And here again we return to the issue of fisheries policy.
Sergei Vakhrin: Honestly, it’s saddening to hear your conclusions, that you do not see the light in the end of the tunnel.
Anatoly Makoyedov: In the book I make the opposite conclusion. Though the question is: what kind of light do you want to see at the end of that tunnel yourself?
Sergei Vakhrin: A future for the fisheries industry…
"There is a future for the fisheries industry"
Anatoly Makoyedov: Well, there is a future for the fisheries industry. Again the question is - what kind of future?
We always delay decisions and their implementation. And we postpone till tomorrow the things that should have been done yesterday. And so we’re trying to treat pneumonia with medicine intended for colds. We make up for the inability to organize the working process by spending meaningless days in the office, even weekends.
In the book, we tried to formulate some proposals meant to improve the situation for the future.
Sergei Vakhrin: That is clear. The question is whether they could be IMPLEMENTED in our country. And regrettably, they likely couldn’t be.
Anatoly Makoyedov: Time will tell. A lot depends on who will be in the group of leaders responsible for the management of fisheries. And on the extent to which the formal leadership will be connected to the informal. And whether the fishing companies will learn to interact in a civilized way with each other and with the state.
If this rotation of staff in the leadership continues to take place faster than the fisheries employees can remember the leaders’ names, and if the fishing executives continue to get fat off the failures of their colleagues, then the outlook for the industry will be accordingly dire.
For some reason, nobody notices the obvious drawback to the system of payments to state officials. Of course, we can assume that some people prefer power to money. But the eventual choice, when we have 250 billion rubles paid in bribes in the country for the "services" of state officials, is also well known. It all means that officials are not governing in order to develop their respective spheres, but just to make money, and in doing so create additional, insurmountable challenges for the citizens and the business sector. And this is bad, because in the end, it does not benefit the country. So perhaps it’s time to work on this Gordian knot? Why is it impossible to employ professionals for these jobs, instead of those who, like in Disney cartoons, have only dollar signs in their eyes? To be able to do things right, one must know what is wrong. And perhaps a primary school education is not enough for such things.
Sergei Vakhrin: In other words, to be able to implement rational ideas, there is a need to change Plutocratic state, the state where all power is in the hands of the bureaucracy?
Anatoly Makoyedov: No state can exist completely free of bureaucracy. And at that, our national bureaucracy is nothing compared, for example, to the bureaucracy in the US or in Japan. The truth is that in the management of fisheries, we have a sort of system called ochlocracy, in which people in power loses any sense of responsibility, in which behaviours and decisions are determined by group or tribal instincts, and in which the willingness to get and secure one’s own prosperity, at whatever cost, prevails. It is precisely in these actions that we have something completely opposite to effective management, and if one looks at it objectively, it is very similar to dictatorship. All that is good for the health tastes bad. But wasting and neglecting lots of opportunities leads to only one unavoidable end. It’s basic physiology. It is the simplest way, but it has no future. Regrettably, thus is the path that is most often followed. It is probably the reason why there are still no clear strategic and tactical aims and objectives for the industry.
Sergei Vakhrin: It’s all very sad. And what further plans do you have?
Anatoly Makoyedov: Time will tell. In our reality, it is hard to plan beyond tomorrow. And the struggle for existence takes so much effort that very little time and strength is left for existence itself. Certainly, we are looking forward to a so-called public feedback on our book.
Sergei Vakhrin: I, as one of the first readers, can say that your book has the most important element - it’s written from the position of the citizens. You are not simply reviewing certain parts of fisheries history, but thinking of what could be done better for the benefit of your country.
Anatoly Makoyedov: And who says that this is good? It sounds strange: to take the position of the citizens, in the absence of a real public opinion. I immediately remember two such people. One of them was sent out of the country, and another one was in exile for years in Nizhny Novgorod, the town of Gorky.
But as rural Russians say: If you’re going to die, die, but you still have to plant the seeds into the soil. If something is not done today, it will be impossible to do it tomorrow. The train is already leaving the station…
|
top
prev
back
