More than 45,000 people walked the trails of the Hipódromo de Palermo in Buenos Aires during the recent edition of the Bioferia.
Amid immersive proposals and productive stands, the foundation Sin Azul No Hay Verde managed to spark an inevitable debate about the health of the marine ecosystem and the concerning opacity in the national fishing industry.
The organization’s initial goal was to bring the ocean closer to an urban audience that often ignores its immense fragility. To achieve this, they set up an educational panel aimed at showcasing local species, although the tour quickly exposed the flip side of that natural wealth.
Juan Coustet, a member of Sin Azul No Hay Verde, explained that as visitors moved through the space, they encountered the consequences of trawling, a practice he described as “one of the greatest threats to biodiversity” due to its enormous intensity and the imminent risk of causing the collapse of species.
The citizens’ questioning of extraction methods
The response from attendees surprised the organizers themselves by generating a profound and immediate inquiry. The foundation’s representative highlighted the genuine interest of people in understanding how the sweeping of the seabed operates and recalled the usual reaction to the harshness of the extractive method.
“The first question that arose was whether there isn’t a more selective method that isn’t as harmful to the ecosystem,” Coustet noted about this citizen concern that fully aligns with the historical demand of environmental groups.
The astonishment of the Buenos Aires and federal public at trawl nets demonstrates that knowledge about industrial practices in Patagonia and the South Atlantic is still very incipient in major urban centers. However, when assessing the damage, social consensus in favor of conservation is unanimous.
The lack of public information under scrutiny
The moment of greatest argumentative tension was experienced during the debate panels at the fair, where the organization denounced the severe obstacles to accessing official data on maritime extraction.
The diagnosis presented points to an alarming lack of clarity from both the State and the business sector when it comes to accounting for volumes and methods of capture. According to the environmentalist, a resource that constitutes the natural heritage and cultural heritage of Argentina is currently being manipulated, but the entire scheme is managed under “a veil perhaps of mystery or secrecy.”
This opaque dynamic ultimately violates the right to access public information guaranteed by the Escazú Agreement.
Faced with a panorama of such institutional uncertainty, the organization returned from the meeting with the absolute certainty that it is essential to begin to make the productive scenario transparent.
In this regard, Coustet emphasized the imperative need to know “who really fishes in the Argentine sea, how they fish, and in what way” to determine once and for all whether the activity is truly sustainable.
An environmental consensus that recharges energies
The final balance of the three days went beyond the mere exposition of an ecological conflict to become a true space of resistance and support from civil society.
During the event, the delicate situation of sharks in the country was also addressed to consolidate a warning message about groups of animals highly vulnerable due to lack of regulation.
Coustet reflected on the climate experienced in Buenos Aires by highlighting that, in a national scenario extremely delicate for the environmental agenda, the fair allowed thousands of people to come together with an integral and unified perspective on the protection of nature.
The support of this enormous flow of visitors reaffirms the direction of coastal campaigns and values the daily effort for conservation, a support that for the work team represents “energy and value to go for more.”
