Jelovnik

vijesti

wave-1913559_960_720

LIFE poziva na uključivi plavi rast

, ,

LIFE calls for inclusive Blue Growth at the Our Ocean Conference

 

Brussels, 16th of October 2017

Brian O’Riordan, Deputy Director of the Low Impact Fishers of Europe (LIFE) welcomed the FAO initiative on Blue Growth, that put small scale fisheries at its centre. This contrasted with the approach taken by the European Commission that differentiated between the Blue Economy, which included all elements of the marine economy, and Blue Growth. The latter focussed on cherry picked economic sectors considered to have potential for growth, excluding those considered to have limited potential. He felt that in shaping Blue Growth strategies, greater emphasis needed to be put on sustainable development of the Blue Economy, built as it was on three pillars of sustainable development; economic, environmental and social. The Blue Economy should work for all maritime sectors, not just a few.

Over the last 35 years, small-scale fisheries have been overlooked by the European Commission, and excluded from policy making processes in Europe. In effect, the small-scale sector – using vessels under 12 metres and non-towed gears – has become a “forgotten fleet”. The opportunities presented by the “Green Paper process” in 2009 to review Europe’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) prompted a group of fishers to launch LIFE in 2012 on the eve of a new CFP.

In Europe, analysis by the Scientific, Technical, and Economic Committee on Fisheries (STECF), an official advisory body of the European Commission, highlights that Europe’s small scale fishing fleet accounts for 82% of the overall fleet by numbers, and 74% of the active vessels , some 8% of the gross registered tonnage, uses 7% of the fuel, and lands 5% of the catch by weight and 12% by value. This, the majority fleet provides 51% of the employment, and at 65% GVA/revenue, has the highest gross value added as a percentage of revenue (official infographic by the EC: https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/sites/fisheries/files/docs/publications/2016-small-scale-coastal-fleet_en.pdf ). However, earnings and wages are low, partly because the fleet is unable to access sufficient quota, having to fall back non-quota species.   

It is incoherent that small-scale fisheries, with its inherent potential for added value and increased earnings, and its synergies with tourism, should be excluded from European Blue Growth strategies, whilst aquaculture is included. Over the last 10 years, aquaculture production in Europe has stagnated, showing declines of up to 20%. Yet, it is included as a “growth” sector, and, according to DG Mare Maritime Policy and Blue Economy Director, requires “business certainty, lean administrative procedures and adequate space” to develop.

This recognition that aquaculture requires space to develop, whilst overlooking that with similar dedicated space and policies, small scale fisheries also have significant potential to grow, to provide jobs, and to contribute to local economies is misguided.

Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) is a tool with great potential to secure productive fishing grounds for small scale fishers, and to ensure that other interests competing for ocean space do not encroach in these areas. Around Europe, there are both good and bad examples of MSP being used to favour or discriminate against small scale fisheries. In the case of Malta, there are ambitious plans to establish Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) under the European Natura 2000 scheme. Natura 2000 sites have been identified by scientists within the 3-mile zone, which occupy over 40% of the small-scale fishing grounds. Small-scale fishers have not been consulted about this, and are to be excluded from fishing in these areas. Ironically the areas have been selected because of their “good environmental status”, which would imply that the centuries old fishing activities that have used these grounds are low in impact, and compliment conservation objectives.

Under EU law, these Special Areas of Conservation must address the conservation of species and habitats in conjunction with the social and economic activities in place, including fisheries.

In Catalonia, the government are passing a decree that will make fisheries co-management law, putting fishermen at the centre of governance. This will enable fishers not only to have a say in how fisheries are managed, but to ensure that their voices are heard when it comes to allocating ocean space for other activities.

It is time that decision takers recognize the importance of fishing to local and national economies, and the potential of fishing to provide sustainable jobs, food supplies, and livelihoods, if developed and managed correctly.

♦ ♦ ♦

 

Workshop_AC_5

LIFE u savjetodavnim vijećima

, , ,

LIFE in the Advisory Councils: Foot in the door, but more seats at the table needed.

Too set in their ways, small-scale fishers find that Advisory Councils are resistant to change.

 

Monday 9th of October

Brussels, Belgium

Brian O'Riordan

 

2 October 2017. Meeting in Hamburg Germany, around 30 small-scale, low impact fishers from Sweden, Denmark, Poland, Germany, and Netherlands, shared experiences and lessons learned from their engagement with the Advisory Councils (ACs). They were joined by technical experts and academics from the Baltic region, and supported by LIFE staff.

Under discussion were the “nitty gritty” of how ACs function, in theory and in practice, the experience of small scale fishers of engagement in the ACs, and what needs to be done to make negotiations and decision taking more open to including issues of importance to small-scale fisheries (SSF).

The Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) emerged from the 2002 reform of the Common Fisheries Policy as stakeholder led bodies, designed as a vehicle through which fishers, vessel owners, trade unions, processors, traders, consumer groups, NGOs, fish farmers and others could feed their views and recommendations into policy making processes at EU level. Under the 2014 CFP reform the RACs were revised and renamed “Advisory Councils”, with the aim of ensuring a wider and more balanced representation, with an emphasis on small-scale fleets, in line with the new objectives of the CFP. By the time of the 2014 reform, most of the RACs had been operational for a decade, but without the participation of organizations dedicated to representing small scale fishers.

Recognizing the need to be at the negotiating table if you want your voice to be heard, it has been a priority of LIFE to encourage and facilitate the participation of SSF in the ACs since its launch in 2012 at the first European Artisanal Fishermen’s Congress. However, it is only in the last 12 to 18 months that LIFE has been able to provide the necessary support to its members to enable them to participate in the ACs, mainly through its Baltic and North Sea and Mediterranean Coordinators.

A big challenge has been to break the mould of decision taking in the ACs, dominated as it is by the interests of larger scale fishing (LSF) interests, processing industry, retail sector, and others. LIFE has found considerable resistance to change the status quo, and especially for its members to get elected on to the Executive Committees (ExComs) of the ACs, where decisions are made. The exceptions have been the Baltic Sea and the Market ACs, where some inroads have been made to putting issues of concern to small scale fishers on the agenda.

As emphasised by Wolfgang Albrect from the Fischereischutzverband Schleswig-Holstein in Germany, recently elected on to the ExCom of the Baltic Sea AC (BSAC) “things look good in theory, but in practice it is very important for active fishers to be present in the ACs. This requires a considerable effort, both to prepare for the meetings, and then to be there personally. As a fisher, you have to reflect whether it is more important to spend 2 days fishing, or to be in the ACs to try and make more fish in the sea. We have been through the first hurdles, we have our foot in the door, but we do need more fishers at the table.”

Katarzyna Wysocka from the Środkowopomorska Grupa Rybacka in Ustka, Poland, highlighted that the majority of fishers had to learn a new language when joining the ACs, to understand the meaning of many new terms and concepts, and the significance of ICES advice, MSY, Ecosystems Approach, Landing Obligation, and to interpret for other small-scale fishers. “The job is not over by just being there. Larger-scale operators work hard to get what they want. We have to do the same. But there are constraints. In particular, most of us do not speak English, and the ACs say there is no budget for interpretation*.”

It was also noted that up to now, the CFP has “lacked local roots”, and it was recommended that SSF should form alliances with local municipalities to promote “quality over quantity”, and to ensure that small ports were kept open. The importance of SSF in providing local jobs and local supplies of quality fresh fish was highlighted, compared to providing high volumes of fish for the processing industry. “There is simply not enough cod in the Baltic sea to provide for the needs of the processors, or enough fish to support the fishmeal industry. Greater emphasis needs to be given to supplying low volumes of high quality fish to local consumers, tourists and restaurants”.

Looking to the future, and how to make ACs and decision taking processes more open to SSF, the new legislative framework which allowed for greater SSF participation was welcomed. But more needed to be done outside the ACs to bring issues to light that are not possible to discuss in the ACs, including how to solve the conundrum of trawling and the landing obligation – the “blue whale in the room”. Many participants also expressed frustration over the implementation of Article 17, intended to reward selective, low impact fishing, but which had been a “disaster”. The language was too vague, and the provisions easy to circumvent.

It was also highlighted that the constant push by the LSF to obtain ever greater quantities of quota worked both against the sustainability of the fish stocks and the interests of the SSF. With ITQs, SSF was vulnerable to losing access, and there was a need to ring fence fishing opportunities (quota and reserved fishing areas) for SSF that could not be transferred to LSF.

Despite the large amount of work still needed to be done to redress the imbalances between LSF and SSF, participants were optimistic about the future. The ACs were providing a useful tool to inform policies, but they were not the only tool.

* This comment refers to a past practice within BSAC, which has recently been changed upon LIFE Members’ request. Since 2017, a service of on-demand whispered interpretation has been included in the BSAC budget.

♦ ♦ ♦

 

 

 

 

eel-563940_960_720

Spašavanje europske jegulje I malih ribara

, ,

How to save the European Eel AND the small scale fishermen of the Baltic

Warsaw, 14 September 2017

Marcin Ruciński

The management of the European Eel, a fascinating, elusive fish with a very complex and not completely understood life cycle has long posed a difficult challenge for all involved. Labelled a critically endangered species by the IUCN, listed in Appendix II of the CITES Convention, and subject to an EU-wide recovery plan since 2007 both in sea and inland waters, it  is nevertheless a severely troubled stock.

In its October 2016 advice, ICES advised that all anthropogenic impact on eels – including recreational and commercial fishing at all stages, hydropower, pumping stations, and pollution should be kept as close to zero as possible. At the end of August of this year, LIFE Members from the Baltic Sea area, along with many other fishers, have seen and considered the annual European Commission proposals for 2018 Baltic Sea Fishing Opportunities, which includes a total ban on any eel fisheries in the maritime waters of the Region .

The Commission’s zeal to protect European Eel is understandable. However, one cannot forget an important number of small-scale fishers, that fish for eels in the waters of the Baltic Sea. For some of them, eel is an important source of income. Many contribute to financing of restocking activities and have embarked on the elaboration and implementation of national Eel Management Plans. Their catch reports provide an important basis for scientific assessment of the stock status, which has suffered from data deficiencies for years.

Is it really necessary and indispensable to impose a total ban on them? Do we have to sacrifice them? And most importantly: will it help European Eel?

At LIFE, we think there are better ways to protect this stock than simply instituting a total ban on exclusively small-scale marine fishing in just one EU region, which also happens to be particularly productive for silver eel, while leaving things as they are in other EU regions, some of which matter much more to the European eel’s future, such as glass eel-producing ones. Given the level of management complexity and time constraints, we focus on highlighting specific issues that should, in our opinion, be urgently addressed by fisheries managers and other stakeholders at European, regional and national levels, if the stock situation is to improve.

  1. Introduce an all-encompassing Catch Documentation Scheme for European eel – for all stages of its life cycle

Data deficiency has been plaguing scientific assessments of European eel for long enough. Even if the data from national level are available, they come in sets and formats making it impossible to form a meaningful overall picture. The latest ICES advice is yet another example of this unfortunate phenomenon. Furthermore, despite some real efforts, illegal fishing remains a big issue for the European eel – one that will not be solved by simplistically banning the legal fisheries in the Baltic. We therefore propose that those responsible for European eel management and control are tasked– as a matter of urgency – with elaborating a single document and system to record all eel catches in a uniform way across Europe, in marine and inland waters alike, for all eel life stages. This will achieve two important aims: it will give scientists a solid basis to determine real stock status and trends, and at the same time equip the control authorities with an important instrument to combat illegal fishing. There are of course serious challenges along the way, legal ones and others, such as the very extent of the Common Fisheries Policy for example. But at LIFE, we believe in the good will of European Institutions, including their Legal Services, to help solve the problem.

 

  1. Do more to weed out illegal eel fishing – at European level

With the pan-European span of fisheries and trade, combating illegal fishing and marketing of eel must be intensified and coordinated at European level. The existing knowledge, experience and national-level achievements in combating eel-related IUU should be presented and analyzed to identify and then implement best practices. We are lucky to have the European Fisheries Control Agency at our disposal, and an existing multiannual plan to implement. A coordinated approach, supported by a genuine and proactive approach from individual member states has the capacity to make a significant contribution to the protection and survival of the European eel and those that rely upon it for a living.

 

  1. Facilitate downstream eel migration

It is high time for a serious effort by all stakeholders – including those outside the fisheries sector – to help in downstream river migration of the silver eel. It is particularly important to make the key migration routes accessible and safe to silver eel during the migration period. This could, for example take the form of coordinating the timing of hydropower dams’ maintenance works (so that they remain idle, not lethal to silver eels) with the migration period. The small-scale, low impact fishers should, of course, play their part as well, by restricting fishing effort during silver eel migration time, in order to “close the cycle”.

 

  1. Reserve the glass eel fishery for restocking only

A properly conducted restocking with glass eels can bring about positive effects to the stock. It is particularly true for glass eels entering uninhabitable inland waters. Effects of certain national Eel Management Plans from the Baltic Sea region, as illustrated by the latest ICES advice, are a good example of this. The more glass eels we can reserve for restocking, the more silver eels will migrate back to the Sargasso Sea.

It is clearly in the interests of Baltic small-scale, low impact fishers to contribute to improving the European Eel stock situation. We will spare no effort to do so, including support for further fishing restrictions where justified. But this cannot be yet another nail in the coffin of our already threatened profession. The Commission proposal forces us all to commit to serious measures to protect the stock for the longer term. Let us not squander this chance.

♦ ♦ ♦

 

 

distribution

Raste zabrinutost zbog ribolova električnim pulsom

, , ,

Raste zabrinutost zbog ribolova električnim pulsom

Tuesday, September 5th

Jeremy Percy

A meeting in Nieuwpoort, Belgium on September 1st, organized by Belgian inshore fisherman Jan De Jonghe and attended by a variety of commercial fishermen from the UK, Belgium and Holland as well as staff from the Low Impact Fishers of Europe Platform [LIFE] and researchers from the Marine Institute, highlighted the increasing concerns over the negative impacts of the massive and uncontrolled rise in electric pulse beamers in the southern North Sea. A delegation from the meeting later met with a senior official from the Dutch government, Ms Bea Deetman, responsible for European fishing authorizations and regulations. Electric pulse trawlers do what it says on the tin, they fire electric pulses into the seabed and this effectively replaces the job that tickler chains normally do to push the fish up and into the path of the net. The gear used is much lighter than traditional beam trawls, uses less fuel to tow, appears to catch more Sole than Plaice and has much lower rates of bycatch.

So far so good, but despite the protestations of the pulse fishermen that the outputs in terms of both pulse shape and power can be and are strictly controlled, observations by other fishermen and scientists contradict the view expressed that it does no harm to either the target or other species on and in the seabed.

The use of electricity [as well as poisons and explosives] is specifically banned under the Common Fisheries Policy so all those currently using this gear [Dutch national and subsequently UK flag ships] are operating under a dispensation from the European Commission. They benefitted from an original derogation for 5% of the member state beam trawl fleet, together in some cases with very significant financial support from Europe and this number then increased dramatically through the imaginative use of Article 14 of the new CFP that states that “Member States may conduct pilot projects, based on the best available scientific advice and taking into account the opinions of the relevant Advisory Councils, with the aim of fully exploring all practicable methods for the avoidance, minimisation and elimination of unwanted catches in a fishery”.

What is abundantly clear is that there has been insufficient research and effective trials before the Commission, the Dutch government and beam trawl fishermen jumped in with both feet on the basis of the apparent benefits of the method [especially to profit margins]. Current numbers of pulse beamers are well over a hundred and probably increasing with much of the focus of effort on the southern North Sea. The pictures below illustrate the migration of what were beam trawlers converted to pulse fishing to the previously unfished areas off the Thames.

 

The meeting heard testimonies from a range of fishermen, all of whom highlighted that there had been a drastic decline in sole, cod and seabass since the introduction of large scale pulse fishing 3 years ago, some reported seeing and hauling up large quantities of dead fish. Some referred to the Southern North Sea as a dead zone. Others mentioned that the only fish they had seen were (spotted) dogfish and rays.

The concerns expressed were really summed up by a note written by Tom Brown of the Ramsgate Fishermen’s Association, a précis of which is reproduced below:

“In the Thames estuary, we have an area between the Knock and Falls that is just outside our 12 mile limit. [see pictures above. Ed] In the past the traditional beam trawlers could not work there because of the soft ground, we only had the occasional French trawlers.  However, for the past four years we have been inundated with Pulse trawlers.  This area is well known to us as being a Dover sole feeder area for the Thames estuary.  In the wintertime when the sea turns cold the sole heads for deep water and buries itself in the mud.  With the advent of the Pulse trawlers they have become vulnerable. When the Pulse Beamers first fished this area they couldn’t believe how lucrative it could be, so much so that they were rushing back to port changing crews and coming back out again. To top it all they were bragging about it on the radio. 

Four years later the Thames estuary has become almost devoid of fish to the point that a number of fishermen have gone out of business and the boats fishing in the Estuary declined. Possibly this is partially due to the excessive dredging that is being carried out in the Thames but I’m sure also Pulse trawling plays its part.

Our local boats have noticed that where the Pulse trawlers have been working there is any amount of dead shellfish, starfish and small mixed fish. It appears that when working deep water, they can turn the current up and in shallow water reduce it so as not to damage other fish. We are led to understand that in order to maximise the catching ability, the power is turned up all the time. We are not in the way of progress but it must not be at the expense of the environment and other fishermen.

We are being informed that Pulse fishing is up to 3 times more efficient as normal fishing.  If that is the case, are those countries that operate pulse fishing going to reduce their fishing effort pro rata? If pulse trawling was rolled out across the EU in order to prevent technical creep I presume everybody will have to reduce their fishing effort accordingly to stay within the present parameters and not destroy the stocks again”.

Specific comments from local fishermen include:

  • “It’s like fishing in a graveyard after the pulse trawlers have been in the area, virtually everything is dead”
  • “This is absolutely devastating for us because we have never caught so many fish that were already dead”
  • “I have fished there for 30 years and have never seen anything like it [electric fishing].
  • “They are just sitting there, hoovering up the Sole waiting to go up the Thames to spawn”
  • “we told our authorities that the damage was caused by the electric trawlers but they didn’t believe us”

 It’s not just inshore fishermen from around the southern North Sea who are concerned. The ICES Working Group on Electrical Trawling met three times (22–24/10/2014; 10–12/11/2015, and 17–19/01/2017) to discuss the ongoing research projects in Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany and provide an overview of the state of the art knowledge of the ecological effects. Their final report states that; ‘The sole pulse applies a higher frequency that invokes a cramp response that immobilise the fish species facilitating the catching process.  The use of electricity in fishing has raised considerable concern among stakeholders which is mainly focused on the unknown effects on marine organisms and the functioning of the benthic ecosystem but also altered fishing efforts & catch efficiencies’. It goes on to say that ‘……… Exposure to the sole pulse stimuli invoked vertebral fractures and associated haemorrhages in roundfish species (cod), but not in flatfish species (sole, plaice, dab) or seabass. The results suggest that fractures are restricted to the larger size classes of cod that are retained in the net…..’

The report concludes that “Although the irreversible effects of electrical stimulation seem to be restricted to the vertebral fractures in cod and whiting, further research on the effects of electrical stimulation on marine organisms and ecosystem functioning is needed to assess the effects on the scale of the North Sea”

These comments underline the concerns expressed at the meeting. The Genie is out of the bottle and despite clear evidence, both scientific and anecdotal, that there are significant adverse impacts from electric pulse fishing, there appears to be no reduction in the headlong rush by managers and beam trawl fishermen for this sort of gear.

Just what the public will make of the fish on their plate having been electrocuted and their backs broken in the name of increased profits and reduced physical impacts remains to be seen although some of the larger buyers are avoiding purchasing electrofished products at present.

As Tom Brown’s note makes clear, the increased use of electric pulse fishing by increasing numbers of large vessels is undoubtedly having an adverse impact on stocks, especially those previously unfished. Whilst there is an argument that fishing effort, by whatever means, is ultimately controlled by quota, the ability of electric gears to focus effort on a relatively small area is of concern, as is the unknown and possibly long term effects on the wider marine ecosystem.

No one really expects the Commission to withdraw its current derogation but they should certainly act now contain effort, spatially, numerically and in terms of effective management of impacts until such time as there has been significantly more research into the potentially damaging aspects of this form of fishing.

If we should have learnt anything from the abject failures of fisheries management over two centuries it is that no amount of short term profit for the few should be used as a reason or excuse for ignoring longer term impacts and the rights of the many.

Access the official testimonies from the meeting here

♦ ♦ ♦

germany

Ribolovne mogućnosti u Baltičkom moru za 2018.: LIFE stavovi

, ,

A Glimmer of Hope for Baltic Cod, overshadowed by discards and food scarcity in the East 

Ribolovne mogućnosti u Baltičkom moru za 2018.: LIFE stavovi

 

Warsaw, 10 July 2017

Marcin Ruciński

 

As every year, the prospects for LIFE’s members, and the fate of the resources they depend on, hang on the discussions, negotiations, and decisions on setting catch levels and accompanying measures for Baltic fisheries in 2018. Our position, based on numerous discussions with our Members, is outlined below, a position that is also briefly reflected in the relevant BSAC Recommendation[1]. For the sake of sustaining both small scale fishing livelihoods in the Baltic and the resources they depend on, we very much hope to be heard and heeded by decision-makers.

  1. Western Baltic cod: building on hope and luck, use the opportunities carefully!

Precaution is of paramount importance for any fisheries management. Too much optimism on Western cod, notable in decisions taken until 2015, has led us to the brink of stock collapse last year. This year, we were lucky with a very strong year class of 2016, which allows us to look at the future of this stock, so immensely important to many small-scale fishing communities, with a glimmer of hope.

A glimmer of hope, however, must not be answered by recklessness. So, no tampering please with the management measures that have enabled the recovery we are now starting to observe. This goes particularly for the extended spawning protection, which LIFE advocated as top priority last year. The closed season enacted last year must not change. Any relaxation here, let alone its abolishment, would be premature and risky for the fragile stock recovery, based as it is on just one year class. It may well be that prolonging the spawning closure in question, enacted back in 2015, allowed for the successful 2016 spawning.

The newly recruited cod need additional protection from being prematurely caught and discarded in trawl fisheries. As the results of EFCA campaigns[2] show, this risk is terribly real with trawls currently in use and industry practices at sea. Therefore, LIFE lends its careful and conditional support for the repeated BSAC calls to promote the use of innovative mobile gears. The condition of our support is simple: there must be strong “checks and balances” by the authorities, at both national and EU level, ensuring that: a) new gears have been proven more selective than the currently used ones in a transparent scientific peer-review process, and b) intensive at-sea inspection campaigns are undertaken to weed out and deter from any practices nullifying selectivity.

On the TAC level, at LIFE we trust in the wisdom of decision-makers, as last year. We hope they will be mindful of the heavy TAC cut last year, swallowed with big difficulty by small-scale, low impact fleets. Many of us were forced to switch to fishing flatfishes for part of the season, with rather poor economic results. We note that ICES advice allows for a moderate TAC increase (around +9%), in full compliance with the multiannual plan. The real levels of discards in trawls observed by EFCA make case for the use of Article 17 of CFP Basic Regulation even stronger. We therefore very much hope that any increase will predominantly benefit those who behave responsibly and whose activities have the lowest possible impact on the resources.

  1. Eastern Baltic cod: curb illegal discarding and think of the food chain!

At first glance, ICES advice for the stock does not differ very substantially from that of last year. The difference in advised level of catches is about 3%. There are two particularly worrying signs though: the decline in stock size indicator and the level of discards, which ICES considers to be much higher than officially reported. This is confirmed by what our Members observe, and the situation seems to be even worse than last year in certain areas. It is therefore of paramount importance that the illegal cod discarding problem in the Eastern Baltic is urgently addressed – both by introducing innovative, more selective towed gears peer-reviewed by scientists i stepped-up at-sea inspections to weed out and deter any practices from nullifying selectivity.

It is equally important to analyze and fully respect the ICES advice, which points to the important role played by large-scale pelagic fisheries in current cod condition, characterized by food deprivation. ICES confirm the view already expressed by LIFE last year[3] that there is excessive effort on forage fish, which makes their long-standing call for a spatial management plan for large pelagic fisheries in subdivisions 25-26 stronger than ever.

Managers must no longer ignore this call. The arguments presented by large pelagic fleet representatives simply won’t wash: modern pelagic trawlers of 25 meters length and (much) more are perfectly able to steam north of Subdivisions 25-26 to reap the benefits of strong pelagic species’ concentrations. ICES confirm that it would also be beneficial for the pelagic stocks there if they did.

As to the TAC level, we hope the managers will take on board that 3 years of consecutive TAC reductions have not relieved the woes of Eastern cod. Please don’t make the small-scale, low impact fishers of the Baltic Sea pay the heavy price for a difficult stock situation that is not of their making.

♦ ♦ ♦

 

[1] http://www.bsac.dk/BSAC-Resources/BSAC-Statements-and-recommendations/BSAC-recommendations-for-the-fishery-2018

[2] See slides 8-9 of presentation by EFCA Executive Director, Pascal Savouret, available here http://www.bsac.dk/getattachment/Meetings/BSAC-meetings/BALTFISH-BSAC-EFCA-Workshop-on-implementation-of-t/FromEFCA-BSAC-EFCA-BALTFISH-presentation-9-March-2017.pdf.aspx?lang=en-GB

[3]See LIFE comments on 2017 Fishing Opportunities https://lifeplatform.eu/baltic-stocks-comments-highlights/

scale1

Bluefin tuna in the dock

, ,

Bluefin tuna in the dock: French small scale fishers take collective action to challenge unfair, non-transparent allocation system.

In line with ICCAT, Europe is celebrating the successful application of Bluefin tuna recovery measures in its waters and the rebuilding of stocks by increasing quotas allocated to the industrial and sports fishing sectors. Once again Europe’s small-scale fishers have been over looked and their interests discriminated against.

To draw attention to this omission, and to open up a dialogue with the authorities, the Union of Small-scale fishers from Occitanie (former SPMLR) took the initiative to mount a legal challenge to the French Ministerial decree through which tuna quota is allocated. In this endeavour, they are joined by 4 other associations, representing small scale fishing interests from the French Mediterranean and Atlantic coasts, and at European level.  Between them, these associations represent over 1,500 French small-scale fishers, and around 7,000 fishers from 12 European Member States. These organisations include:

  • The French Platform of Small-scale Artisanal Fisheries (PPPAF);
  • The Low Impact Fishers of Europe (LIFE)
  • The Varoise Departmental Committee for Marine Fisheries and Aquaculture (CDPMEM Var);
  • The Regional Committee for Marine Fisheries and Aquaculture for Alps and Côte d’Azur Province (CRMEM PACA).

The diversity and strength in numbers represented by these bodies highlights both the frustrations and the high hopes of the professional fishers concerned, on both the Atlantic and Mediterranean seaboards of France. The engagement of LIFE in the campaign underscores the importance of the European dimension, where despite a significant overhaul of the regulations in the 2014 Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) reform, Member States are still able to go about their business as usual, ignoring the interests of the small-scale fleet segment.

In a general sense, the grievances that have led to the action are the same as those voiced by small scale fishers for years. They demand that the way fishing quotas are shared out must change to ensure a fairer allocation and a wider spread of benefits amongst small scale fishers who have been excluded up to now. In particular that the provisions of Article 17 of the CFP be fully applied, and not merely using catch history as the main method for quota allocation.

Article 17 obliges Member States to use transparent and objective criteria including those of an environmental, social and economic nature when allocating fishing opportunities, and encourages them to provide incentives to fishing vessels deploying selective fishing gear or using fishing techniques with reduced environmental impact.

This demand is not restricted to France, nor to Bluefin tuna. Across Europe, traditionally polyvalent, seasonally diverse small-scale fishery activities are increasingly being forced to adopt more homogeneous fishing methods, and to fall back on non-quota species, being deprived as they are of access to quota species.

The legal challenge addresses the following shortcomings of the tuna quota allocation system in France:

  • Its disregard for Articles 16 and 17 of the CFP Basic Regulation (EU 1380/2013), which oblige Member States a) to inform the Commission of the methods used for allocating fishing opportunities; b) to use transparent and objective criteria to allocate quota; and c) to provide incentives to fishing vessels that use fishing techniques with a reduced environmental impact;
  • Its contravention of EU competition law by using catch history almost exclusively as the allocation criteria for quota;
  • Its quasi-exclusive use of catch history as the criteria for allocating quota;
  • The ill-considered way it calculates and allocates “socio-economic” quota; and
  • The non-respect for the principle of equality in setting by-catch quotas for Bluefin tuna that exclude small scale fishers, whilst trawlers and some longliners benefit.

This action does not signify a split amongst the professionals, with “small” pitted against the “large”. The problem of sharing out the quotas is a recurring one with a long history. The purpose of this action is rather to break the deadlock; it should not interfere with negotiations between professionals in the sector. That is not the intention of those bringing the action. On the contrary, questioning the law should provide a lever, to make those in the profession take heed, and to make the authorities aware of the disproportionality and inequality of the current situation.

Last November, Commissioner Vella informed LIFE that “it is for the Member States to decide on how BFT fishing opportunities are allocated” within the limits set. He assured LIFE that the Commission would continue to address this allocation issue regularly with Member States to ensure that the provisions are correctly applied (https://lifeplatform.eu/correspondence-vella-tuna-quota/). LIFE welcomes the Commissioner’s response, and hopes that this new action will highlight where Member States are falling short in putting their commitments into practice, and open the way for the Commission to oversee the correct application of the CFP provisions.

Finally, both ICCAT and the scientific community agree unanimously on the improving health status of Bluefin tuna stocks, which are well on the road to a full recovery. This is confirmed by the regular sightings made by small scale fishers, who watch tuna swimming past without being allowed to catch them. Rarity is no longer an acceptable excuse for denying access to small scale fishers.

Discriminating against the interests of the small-scale fleet segment, whose potential catch rates are relatively low, and whose hook and line techniques are highly selective and discard free through such a differentiated treatment is not acceptable.

It is in the interests of all professional fishers and the sustainability of their professions that a fair re-balancing of quota allocation is made.

Access the official PR of the French Platform of Small-scale Artisanal Fisheries by clicking here (in French)

Access the official PR of the Union of Small-scale fishers from Occitanie by clicking here (in French)

Access article by the french magazine Le Marin by clicking here (in French)

♦ ♦ ♦

danger8

Electric Pulse Trawling: a highly charged issue

, , ,

Electric Pulse Trawling: a highly charged issue

Brussels, 22 June 2017

Brian O'Riordan

A highly charged debate on electric pulse fishing, organized by the Intergroup for Biodiversity & Ecosystems Services, took place in the European Parliament yesterday, Wednesday 21 June. Under discussion was the issue electric pulse trawling as a more sustainable alternative to beam trawling. A pulse trawl uses electric current to shock fish off the seabed, and is more than 10 times lighter than a conventional beam trawl (240 kgs vs 3,000 kgs). It has huge benefits for fuel economy, carbon footprint, and mechanical seabed impact.

However, the lighter weight of the gear means that it can be used in areas inaccessible to beam trawls, and the lethal, sub lethal, and wider ecosystem impacts of electric pulses are as yet not sufficiently researched. LIFE therefore urges precaution prior to deregulating the gear. For details see https://lifeplatform.eu/shocking-the-fish/

Small scale inshore fishers using fixed gears are concerned that, thanks to pulse technology, beam trawl effort is now shifting into more sensitive and environmentally fragile areas, where the impact of overfishing and electric pulses on marine fauna and associated habitats threatens their activities. Allowing the encroachment of electric pulse trawling into these inshore areas in the absence of any effective regulatory and control framework flies in the face of any precautionary or ecosystems based approach to fisheries management.

Representing DG Mare, Elisa Roller hailed pulse trawling as “the most innovative, most researched and most fuel-efficient gear”, which she sees as a crucial tool for dealing with the challenges of the landing obligation. As Head of Unit for CFP and Structural Support, Policy Development and Coordination, she is sufficiently satisfied with the evidence from research to allow the mainstreaming of the pulse technique throughout the EU. She highlighted a few outstanding issues that need to be taken care of, which essentially boil down to a misunderstanding on pulse issues, she said.

Pim Visser for the Dutch industry called for an increase in the number of licenses for brown shrimp vessels, highlighting the 60 to 70% reduction in by-catch obtainable.

Ricardo Serrao Santos drew attention to the ethical issue of fish welfare, and pointed out that innovation could be both Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. Innovation was a two-edged sword that was both the cause of and potential solution to climate change, pollution, ocean acidification, and  plastic waste.

Hans Polet from ILVO – the Flemish Agriculture and Fisheries Research Institute – highlighted that despite much research, there are still significant knowledge gaps as regards the wider ecosystem and longer-term impacts.

Bjorn Stockhausen for Seas at Risk urged that regulatory conditions governing licence restrictions for pulse trawling are strengthened not weakened, and that existing licenced operations are evaluated. Small mistakes can make big impacts he said. He pointed out that the repetitive and cumulative effects of electricity over time were unknown.

Frédéric le Manach for Bloom drew attention to the ethical issues, stating that it is not acceptable to electrocute Nature; that electric pulses are not selective, all fish are electrocuted.

♦ ♦ ♦

willem

WIEŚCI Z POKŁADU – maj 2017

,

WIEŚCI Z POKŁADU

Comiesięczny Biuletyn Informacyjny Europejskich Rybaków o Niskim Wpływie na Środowisko

Biuletyn zawiera:

  • Najnowszy raport Europejskiejgo Trybunału Obrachunkowego potwierdza brak przejrzystości
    w alokacji możliwości połowowych
  • Członkowie LIFE z Finlandii, Francji, Danii oraz pracownicy LIFE ambasadorami europejskiego rybołówstwa małoskalowego podczas Slow Fish w Genui (Włochy)
  • Inne wydarzenia w UE
  • Wiadomości z organizacji
  • Witamy na pokladzie

Kliknij na link do biuletyn maj 2017 

Učitaj više

PRIJAVITE SE NA NAŠ NEWSLETTER

* označava potrebno
hrCroatian
en_GBEnglish nl_NLDutch fr_FRFrench de_DEGerman elGreek it_ITItalian pl_PLPolish ro_RORomanian es_ESSpanish maMaltese hrCroatian