EU discards politic
2008 —   Fisheries Management and Research – the birthplace
of an unsustainable and unethical malpractice.  
There is consensus across the EU (and world) that
discarding of fish is a waste of much-needed natural resources and
needs reducing. According to the EU, the main reason for the huge
amount of discarding is excessive catching effort, and that capacity
need reducing even further. The number of fishing vessels in Denmark
and Scotland are all ready greatly reduced since the launch of the
decommissioning program a few years ago. Discarding has increased
year by year in certain fisheries. The amount of cod discarded in the
Scottish whitefish fishery in the North Sea was greater in 2008 than
in 2007, despite various measures of mitigation. Discards could at
times be as much as, 80% by number and 40% by weight of each catch.
Discards of cod were mainly of fish over the legal landing size 35cm.
The term “discards” is rather vague, since the term
covers everything that is caught and subsequently thrown back into
the sea. That use of active fishing gear accounts for by far the
largest amounts of discards. Discarding can be caused by: •
Discards of fish below the minimum landing size, due to poor size
selection properties of net meshes. • Catch of non-target
species. • Hi-grading, retention of only the largest and
best-paid fish,. This is most often due to low quota or quota that
does not extend to as by catch in other fisheries. • Can also
occur as “invisible” catches of juvenile cod, haddock and whiting
in fishing for species in the production of meal and oil. •
Catch of non-commercial species and benthos. The EU’s plan
for re building demersal fish stocks in the North Sea has been
strongly influenced by castle in the sky thinking and is shamefully
ineffective. The plan has lacked potency, both practical and
political. It helps little with fishing capacity and quota
reductions, when these reductions do not affect the behaviours of
fishermen to the positive for the fish stocks, some thing which in
turn will again benefit the fishermen. Fishermen in the North Sea
have been entrapped over a long period in a negative spiral of bone
scraped fish quotas and the insane mandatory practice of returning
under sized and non-target fish back to the sea, fish that in reality
are either dead or dying. Minimum landing sizes need to be related
towards the protection of fish under spawning age. The best
protection for immature fish is by avoidance. .Fishermen and
scientists around the North Sea basin have worked intensely to prove
that it is possible to reduce the amount of discards in their
respective fisheries… An example of this is the Fisheries Science
Partnership in Scotland and England, where the fishermen themselves
have taken the initiative to provide real-time-area closures and to
use the trawls with a better selection capability. The goal is to
achieve “conservation credits” that would justify larger
quotas based on less discards. . Fishermen in Denmark have developed
the use of video surveillance (CCTV) in order to document both the
capture and quantity of discards. The catch of under sized fish has
been effectively reduced through the increase of mesh sizes and the
use of trawl types that exploit the fish’s natural behaviour: •
Nephrop trawls with low height, and without netting in the square and
over belly – reducing the catch of haddock, whiting and at times cod.
• Flounder Trawl with low height, and without netting in the
roof – reducing the catch of haddock, whiting and sometimes cod. •
Separatortrawl / seine separate cod / demersal fish from haddock and
whiting. • Eliminatortrawl, separates fish / bottom fish from
haddock and whiting. • Orkneytrawl, reduce catches of
cod-especially juveniles • Square mesh cod ends. • Four
panel extension piece,T 90 meshes in bottom and sides in conjunction
with the square mesh top panel. • Sorting grid. The use
of more selective trawl types and devices are not without
consequences. Research shows the loss of certain types of catch / by
catch. This loss can lead to weakened economy in the short term, but
can be compensated in the long term with larger quotas. . .
To date, the EU’s “policy makers” have lacked the will to
implement the most relevant technical devices most suited to the
dynamics of the various fisheries. Fisheries management is not
just about the management of fisheries resources, but also that of
human behaviours. Management of fisheries must become less academic
and more “hands on”   Fisheries management in EU
and Norway need to become better at using the “carrot and the
stick” approach, instead of” chemotherapy and amputation”
as the “cure”. Take for example, fisheries in the U.S.A, where
fishermen are given access to certain areas on the condition that
they use a separatortrawl in fishing for haddock. The paradox is that
the separator trawl originated from Scotland. Fisheries
in the North Sea are now showing signs of a positive development. The
big question now is what will be necessary to keep the development
moving in a forward direction? We need to strengthen and intensify
cooperation between the fishing fleet, scientists and the Coast Guard
to be able to practice “real-time management. Resource
management must focus on having an overview and management of fish
stocks and not only to maintain control over the fishermen. Effective
“polising” of fisheries depends on: attendance, ability /
means to uncover non compliance, effective sanctions, and not least
a “good working relationship” based on professional
knowledge and mutual respect. . The proposal for a reduction in
days at sea is certainly not a good solution. What the fishermen need
now is rather an increase in days and the possibility to plan and
execute an ecological and economically viable fishery. Fishermen are
“practitioners” of the highest calibre and possess of an
ocean of knowledge and ability to solve the challenges related to the
future of their industry. Norway has a unique position and
chance to influence the EU’s fisheries policy in a positive
direction. The fishing industry has the necessary will and tools: the
question is whether the government has the courage and resolve to
make the use of them! Ian Kinsey

ian@kinsey.no

 
Catch Quota scheme and the use of CCTV  cameras.

The use of CCTV surveillance cameras has been in use on
board fishing vessels now for some 30 years.   Fishermen have in general
 reacted positive to having their place of work under surveillance,,
seeing the benefits of  having the skipper being able to hold a watchful
eye on what at times is a dangerous workplace.  The use of CCTV cameras
to record and document catches, and working practises is something
else. There are few occupations that are subject to the amount of micro
management as the fishing industry – so whom in their “right mind” would
voluntarily consent to more control? –  A “madman”?, a “desperado”? –
or maybe a fed up, desperate and conscientious hard working fisherman,
with the courage to make positive changes, and document them in the
making.

Fishermen all
around the North Sea have been entrapped over a long period in a
negative spiral of bone scraped fish quotas and the insane mandatory
practise of returning under MLS, non- target species and over quota fish
over MLS back to the sea, fish that in reality are either dead or
dying. A  discarded dead fish is a dead fish – where dead fish over MLS
 are a loss of income for the fisherman in the present time, where as discarded dead fish under MLS are aloss of his future.
 Minimum landing sizes need to be related towards the protection of
fish under spawning age. The best protection for immature fish is by
avoidance. The fishermen blame the scientists for inaccurate data on
which they base their quota recommendations on – the EU Fisheries
Commission blames the fisherman and his “non compliance” for the
terrible state of the stocks, and  hence the need for low TAC,s and even
bigger reductions of days at sea. The method used by the EU Fisheries
Commission and it,s under lying management is a classic sawing off the
table legs , bit by bit in the hope of getting rid of the wobble – and
sadly only resulting in the table being reduced to no more than just a
plank! The intelligent approach would be to put a wedge or shim under
the short leg, but no!, its more of the same old medicine - ” chemotherapy and amputation” as the “cure”,  instead of the  ”carrot and the stick” approach.

The Catch quota scheme is a step in the
right direction in documenting that it is fully possible to  make huge
reductions  of fish that otherwise would have been discarded – the big
shame is that it only covers cod and not other species.

Incentives to take part in
the CQS come from amongst other reasons, the extra quota allowance of
cod given to participating vessels,  on the condition they document and
land all cod catches. So where do the “extra quota ” allowances come
from? When the scientists put forward their recommendations as to the
size of the TAC,s, they are made from an assumption as to the present
state of the breeding stock biomass, and to some degree it,s interaction
with other species. The scientist takes also into account assumed
mortality due to discarding and unaccountable natural mortality due to
predation etc. The extra allowances come from the “discard allowance” –
fish that is assumed to be caught and discarded anyway. Many fishermen
ponder over why the scheme has  not been expanded to include a greater
number of vessels and to other species. maybe the reason lies in the
fact that the scheme has been subject to controversy, with for example:
the scepticism to CCTV and the “surveillance society”, cost of managing
the scheme etc. The scheme cannot be expanded indefinitely  due to the
limits of “the discard quota” base. 

So where is the CQS going, and what should
it lead to in the near and not so distant future? There reigns no doubt
that catching and discarding both marketable and juvenile fish is an
unethical misuse of much needed marine resources. The way forward can
only be through reducing mortality,  by using  a combination of fishing
gear with better selective and environmental  properties, and spatial/
temporal restrictions  - proof of this is documented by the CQS and
numerous other selection and avoidance initiatives suggested and
implemented by the industry over recent years. It has been estimated
that the Scottish fleet alone have discarded  marketable fish over MLS
 to the value of approx 30-40 million Gbp yearly. These figures do not
take into account future losses due to discarding of juveniles. 

The catching  sector and management  has an
array of discard mitigating measures at their disposition. Management
has also the legislative powers to implement them.  The cost of
implementing and legislating a fast tracking ” gear change” must be seen
 only as a “drop in the ocean”, compared to the vast amount of revenue
the fishing industry loses each year through bad exploitation practises.
 EU fisheries Commissioner Maria Damanaki informed the fishing industry
 in 2011, that funding will be made available  through the EU Axis 4
European Fisheries Fund, to assist in  making the transition to more
sustainable fishing practises. Funds will not be available before the
EFF 2014  funding period. Wasting good fish is unethical – wasting
valuable time when we have the means to radically improve exploitation
practises  and  minimise waste through discarding is outright stupidity.
The EU,s fishing Industry cannot afford a two year wait for funding. A
guarantee for funding “gear changes” should be given the
highest priority.