Upravljanje
Gušenje zbog obveze iskrcavanja
Gušenje zbog obveze iskrcavanja:
pomiješane poruke, teška pitanja i različita mišljenja u Bruxellesu
Bruxelles, 31. svibnja 2018.
Brian O'Riordan
Obveza iskrcavanja (LO) je jedna od najdalekosežnijih i najkontroverznijih mjera koje su uvedene u reformiranu Zajedničku ribarstvenu politiku (ZRP) iz 2013. Osmišljen kako bi se riješila i etička (bacanje hrane) i pitanja očuvanja (selektivnost/prekomjerni izlov), došao je kao grom iz vedra neba nakon vrlo energične kampanje usmjerene i na širu javnost i na europske donositelje odluka, a koju su vodile televizijske osobe. Uopće nije bio predviđen u Zelenoj knjizi iz 2009., a malo je vremena posvećeno razradi načina na koji bi se takva mjera mogla provesti u praksi. Preferirani pristup DG Mare provedbi bio je postupno uvođenje LO-a tijekom razdoblja od 4 godine (2015. do 2019.), rješavajući probleme kako se pojavljuju, umjesto da se pokušavaju predvidjeti i riješiti problemi unaprijed.
Tri i pol godine od početka provedbe, a samo 7 mjeseci do potpunog stupanja na snagu, nadamo se da je do sada većina nedostataka na LO-u izglađena.
To je bio dojam koji je ostavio gospodin Karmenu Vella, povjerenik za pomorske poslove i ribarstvo, u govoru pred Odborom za ribarstvo Europskog parlamenta 15. svibnja. Istaknuo je da: „Pravila su jasna: od 1. siječnja 2019. obveza iskrcavanja primjenjivat će se na sve ulove vrsta koje podliježu ograničenjima ulova, a u Sredozemnom moru i minimalnim veličinama. To su pravila ZRP-a, o kojima su se svi dogovorili i koja su svima dobro poznata već više od četiri godine. Pravila se ne mogu mijenjati tijekom poluvremena utakmice... To bi potkopalo reformirani ZRP. I naštetilo bi našem kredibilitetu."..."
Međutim, takva jasnoća vizije i svrhe nedostajali su u raspravama u Europskom parlamentu prethodnog dana tijekom radionice na temu „Obveza iskrcavanja i vrste koje guše u viševrstnom i miješanom ribolovu“. Nakon prezentacije i rasprava o 3 studije slučaja iz sjeverozapadnih voda, Sjevernog mora i jugozapadnih voda, predsjednik Odbora za ribarstvo Alain Cadec sažeo je rekavši da: Dijagnoza je vrlo jasna: neizvjesnost, teškoća, složenost… Ne žalim što sam glasao protiv obveze iskrcavanja.".
Niti jedan od 9 zastupnika u Europskom parlamentu koji su govorili tijekom rasprave nije branio obvezu iskrcavanja (LO). Jedan je istaknuo da znanstvenici nisu ponudili nikakva rješenja te da se LO ne može primijeniti 1. siječnja 2019. Drugi je govorio o zbunjenosti i problemima te pozvao na dulje prijelazno razdoblje i veću fleksibilnost. Treći je izjavio da LO nije kompatibilan sa sustavom ukupnog dopuštenog ulova [TAC] / kvota te da ga je teško uskladiti s miješanim ribolovom. Čak se pozvao i na Plan B.
Predstavnik DG Mare složio se da postoji nesigurnost i kaos, ali je izrazio mišljenje da „Alat“ LO-a (zamjene/fleksibilnost kvota, de minimis odredbe, povećanja TAC-a, izuzeća itd.) ne koristi se dovoljno. Zastupnik je također primijetio da znanstvenici ne mogu dati potpunu sliku problema gušenja;prigušnice se ne guše jer LO još nije u potpunosti implementiran„S obzirom na to da se LO provodi postupno, potrebno je više vremena i strpljenja kako bi se vidjelo kako će se stvari razvijati, te je potrebno na LO gledati „drugačije“, zaključila je.
Slučaj Sjevernog mora istaknula je složenost definiranja specifičnih ribolovnih područja, kategoriziranih prema velikom rasponu metarija, godišnjih doba, vrsta itd. Izlagačica, francuska znanstvenica, istaknula je da ribolovna smrtnost u Sjevernom moru ponovno raste te da bi se prošli dobici mogli izgubiti. Također je napomenula da će problemi s gušenjem postati problem samo ako se LO strogo provodi. Trenutno problemi s gušenjem nisu uočeni niti prijavljeni STECF-u, što je ona uočila.
Slučaj jugozapadnih voda istaknuo je da će kombinacija FMSY-a i LO-a stvoriti ozbiljne probleme i zatvoriti ribarstvo. Uočeno je da je gušenje dinamično pitanje, posebno s obzirom na klimatske promjene. Utjecaj gušenja mijenjao bi se s vremenom – složena situacija koja će vjerojatno ostati složena, zaključeno je.
Zastupnici u Europskom parlamentu postavili su razna pitanja, uključujući i jedno od galicijskog zastupnika u Europskom parlamentu o utjecaj LO-a na malo ribarstvo s obzirom na nejednakost u raspodjeli kvota. U Galiciji, najvažnijoj europskoj ribarskoj regiji i regiji koja najviše ovisi o ribarstvu, 90% od 4500 ribarskih plovila klasificirano je kao „artes menores“, što obuhvaća plovila prosječne duljine 8,8 metara koja koriste pasivne alate. Većina tih plovila djeluje u mješovitom ribolovu, gdje se nalaze i vrste koje podliježu kvoti i one koje ne podliježu kvoti.
Međutim, kao i u drugim europskim državama članicama, flota malih plovila s pasivnom opremom ima ograničen pristup kvotama jer floti nedostaje potrebna povijest ulova da bi se kvalificirala za njih. Upravljanje kvotama uvedeno je kao mjera za veće flote i sada se nameće malim flotama putem Zakona o lojalnosti (LO), unatoč tome što je većina kvote dodijeljena većoj floti. Zbog toga je upravljanje kvotama, a time i LO, nepravedno diskriminirajuće prema manjim plovilima.
Također je postavljeno pitanje u ime škotskih operatera pridnenih koćarica, za koje je bakalar jedna od glavnih ciljnih vrsta i na koje će gušenje imati velike posljedice. Pitali su koji „stup“ ZRP-a treba žrtvovati – razine ribolova utvrđene na razini najvećeg održivog prinosa, provedbu LO-a ili ribare.
Prezentatorica slučaja Sjevernog mora primijetila je da ukidanje LO-a neće ništa riješiti, da se problem odbacivanja ulova neće riješiti sam od sebe. LO je, po njenom mišljenju, bio koristan alat za podizanje svijesti o problemu odbacivanja ulova, ali sada je bilo vrijeme da se sagledaju dva različita, ali povezana cilja:
a) želja za smanjenjem odbačenog ulova i
b) želja za izvlačenjem svih ulova.
Potonje se često smatra najgorom opcijom, ali nekontrolirano odbacivanje ulova također znači nekontrolirani ribolovni napor. Smatrala je da „Točno dokumentiranje odbačenog ulova na moru ima veći prioritet za postizanje održivosti od obveze iskrcavanja. SVE ulovljena riba„Što se tiče malog ribolova (MSF), smatrala je da je provedeno mnogo istraživanja i da se pitanje odbacivanja ulova u SSF-u može sažeti u maksimu da su, poput djece, mali brodovi = mali problemi, veliki brodovi = veliki problemi. Takvo gledište ne odražava se u različitim stvarnostima s kojima se različite flote moraju nositi, posebno ograničenom lokacijom i sezonskom prirodom malog ribolova u usporedbi s vrlo mobilnom prirodom, širim rasponom i cjelogodišnjom aktivnošću većih operacija. Bilo da su velike ili male po veličini, LIFE smatra da je za sve segmente flote prijetnja neposrednog bankrota veliki problem, bez obzira na veličinu plovila.
Takvo je stajalište izrazio španjolski znanstvenik predstavljajući slučaj jugozapadnih voda. Smatrao je da su, budući da su SSF i LSF prilično različiti, za svaki segment flote potreban drugačiji pristup.
Izlagač za sjeverozapadne vode, irski znanstvenik, odgovorio je na škotsko pitanje rekavši da ako sektor ribarstva ne lovi ribu na održiv način, ne radi se o odustajanju od ribara, već o tome da će ribari izgubiti svoja tržišta zbog pritiska potrošača. To je bio izbor koji je smatrao; ili se pridržavati Ugovora o ribolovu ili izgubiti svoja tržišta. Što se tiče malog ribarskog sektora (SSF), raspodjela je nacionalno pitanje, smatrao je, a na državama je da odluče kako će dodijeliti kvote i postupati s malim ribljim sektorom (SSF).
Prema mišljenju Udruge ribara s niskim utjecajem na okoliš (LIFE), LO će imati nesrazmjeran utjecaj na ribolovne operacije malog polivalentnog pasivnog ribolovnog alata (plovila kraća od 12 metara koja koriste nevučene alate). Uglavnom, ove su operacije vrlo selektivne, s vrlo niskim stopama odbacivanja ulova u usporedbi s koćarenjem i drugim vučenim alatima. Samo zato što je manje odbacivanja ulova u malom ribarskom području (SSF) ne znači da su manje pogođeni LO-om. LO je sigurno osmišljen imajući na umu sektor mobilnih alata velikih razmjera, a ne sektor pasivnih alata niskog utjecaja. To se odražava u činjenici da je u posljednjih nekoliko desetljeća objavljeno 3924 znanstvena rada vezana uz pitanja odbacivanja ulova, 3760 se usredotočilo na operacije velikih razmjera, a samo 164 je razmatralo implikacije za SSF.
Nedostatak pristupa malih ribara kvotama potrebnim za ostanak u održivosti kada se LO u potpunosti provede 2019. godine čini ih vrlo ranjivima na „gušenje“ i prisiljavanje na ukidanje poslovanja i bankrot ili na kršenje zakona i suočavanje s posljedicama. Što se tiče malog ribarskog fonda (SSF), LIFE se boji da bi politika nultog odbacivanja mogla postati politika nultog ribolova i nultog prihoda za SSF.
Stoga LIFE zagovara dvostruki pristup visini napora za ribolov male ribe (SSF). Prije svega, potrebno je osigurati potrebnu i pravednu raspodjelu kvota kako bi se SSF-u omogućilo planiranje i upravljanje svojim poslovanjem. Takva raspodjela trebala bi uključivati određeno objedinjavanje kvota koje se mogu koristiti po potrebi za rješavanje problema gušenja kada se pojavi. Drugo, za obalni segment flote SSF-a, prelazak na upravljanje naporom mogao bi pružiti pravedniji i učinkovitiji način rješavanja problema pristupa i odbacivanja ulova.
Dodatne informacije:
Vellin govor Parlamentu sljedećeg dana https://ec.europa.eu/commission/commissioners/2014-2019/vella/announcements/speech-commissioner-vella-european-parliament-pech-committee_en
Informacije o DGMareu: https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/discards/
Radionica Odbora za ribolov o obvezi iskrcavanja i vrstama koje se guše: https://research4committees.blog/2018/05/28/pech-workshop-landing-obligation-and-choke-species-in-multispecies-and-mixed-fisheries-2/
Malo ribarstvo i cilj nultog odbacivanja ulova. Glavna uprava Europskog parlamenta za unutarnju politiku. 2015. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/540360/IPOL_STU(2015)540360_EN.pdf
♦ ♦ ♦
Doprinos članova iz Španjolske o Planu upravljanja za mediteransku obalu - ENG/ES
Organizacije članice programa LIFE u Španjolskoj predstavljaju izmjene i dopune „Sveobuhvatnog plana upravljanja za očuvanje ribolovnih resursa pogođenih ribolovom koji se provodi mrežama plivaricom, koćama i pasivnim alatima na sredozemnoj obali Španjolske“.
Službenom PR-u na engleskom/španjolskom jeziku možete pristupiti ovdje.
Službeni dokument na ES-u možete pronaći ovdje
Las organizaciones miembro de LIFE en el mediterráneo español presentan alegaciones al “Plan de Gestión Integral para la conservación de los recursos pesqueros en el Mediterráneo afectados por las pesquerías realizadas con redes de cerco, redes de arrastre y artes fijos y menores”.
Acceda a la Nota de prensa oficial en ENG / ES aquí
Acceda al documento oficial en ES aquí
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
♦ ♦ ♦
A Question of Balance
A Question of Balance:
Small-scale and large-scale fleets could play complementary roles
given a level playing field.
Brussels, 20 June 2017
Brian O'Riordan
There is self-evidently a place and a need for both small and larger scale fishing fleets, but this requires first of all establishing a level playing field that ensures fair access to resources, to markets, to sector support, and to decision taking processes for all fleet segments.
When Commissioner Vella asked LIFE whether or not all small-scale fishing activities in the Mediterranean and Black Sea were really low impact, he had already answered his own question. Earlier in his speech to the fishery stakeholders in Malta on 29 March 2017, European Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries had pointed out that 80% of the Mediterranean “fleet belongs to small-scale fishermen (with vessels under 10m long), who fish a quarter of the total catches”. This means that, according to Commissioner Vella, just 20% of the fleet, the larger-scale segment, take 75% of the catch, thus having by far a greater impact on fish stocks and the marine environment than 80% of the fleet with 25% of the catch[1].
Of course, not all small-scale activities are low in impact, and not all larger scale fishing is destructive. Stocks may be more vulnerable during certain seasons when they aggregate to spawn, feed, and develop. Both small and large-scale activities that target these aggregations may have significant impacts on them. High concentrations of small scale gears in inshore waters, for example, despite being worked from very small [<6m] vessels may have a big impact on these aggregations. So too, relatively small vessels kitted out with modern fish finding and navigation technology, gear haulers, and powerful engines, that fish intensively may also have a considerable impact. Small, like large, also requires effective management and regulation, but the same regulatory and management measures are not necessarily appropriate for these two fleet segments.
Small size can be an indicator of sustainability, in as much as small in fishery terms implies using gears low of environmental impact, vessels with a relatively low carbon foot print, with activities rooted in coastal communities, undertaken by small family based enterprises that provide jobs and income in areas with few economic or employment alternatives, and where women play a key role, albeit often unseen and unrewarded economically. It is certainly the case that it is far easier for a vessel pulling a trawl net the size of a football pitch, with an engine power measured in the 1000’s of kilowatts, or a seiner using heavy metal wire rather than the traditional ropes to do far more damage, far more quickly than the average small scale vessel.
In this sense, the Members of the European Platform “Low Impact Fishers of Europe (LIFE)” aspire to having the least possible impact on both the fish stocks and on the fishing grounds through adopting a best practice approach – using the right gear, at the right time, in the right place. Our answer to Mr Vella’s question, is therefore: “No, of course not. Not all small-scale fishing activities are low in impact, but they could be if given a fair chance and adequate support"..."
LIFE has always held that both large-scale (lsf) and small-scale (ssf) fishing activities, at all stages of the supply chain from catch to consumption, are needed, and play complimentary roles in providing income, employment, and food supplies, creating wealth, and contributing to the culture and social wellbeing of coastal communities. Stocks further off shore may be more effectively caught by larger vessels able to deal safely with offshore conditions, and with the capacity to store larger catches. Bulk landings from larger scale fleets may be more suitable for large processing facilities supplying mass retail markets. At the same time, there are advantages to reserving inshore areas, for smaller scale fixed gear operators, who have traditionally supplied high quality fresh fish to local and more niche markets. These coastal fishermen and fisheries also underpin numerous vulnerable coastal communities, often with few alternative employment opportunities, not just in terms of food production but also for the added value they bring to the tourist experience, the significant number of shore based jobs they support and the maintenance of maritime related knowledge and skills.
Indeed, it is in everyone’s interest that the intrinsic complementarity between large scale and small-scale, artisanal and industrial fleets, and between traditional and modern activities should be recognized, and synergies identified and capitalized on. This can only be done if a level playing field is established where competition and conflicts do not put one or other sector at a disadvantage, where each fleet segment is provided with a fair and transparent share of access rights, where good practice is rewarded and innovation encouraged.
This also requires a governance system that puts those who fish and are active in the supply chain centre stage, enabling them to engage meaningfully in the decision-making processes that affect both them and the resources they depend on. Such governance systems do exist, and require that authorities and fishers sit together on co-management committees to solve problems and agree courses of action together, with these committees fully empowered by the administration through formal power devolution procedures. It is to be welcomed that the Government of Catalonia is now making such co-management law through a new decree http://international-view.cat/2017/05/23/its-the-governance-stupid/.
By contrast, for over 30 years, fisheries in Europe have been governed by the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), a policy that has turned a blind eye to small scale fisheries, treating it as a national issue, and making exceptions for smaller vessels to many EU rules. This has proved to be a poisoned chalice for the small-scale sector, which has effectively been often operating under the regulatory radar. It has meant that catches from the sector have not been properly recorded and documented, and this has put smaller vessels at a disadvantage when it comes to quota allocation. It has also meant that small scale fishing organizations have been disempowered from engaging in decision taking processes at EU level, as no support has been provided to establishing structures like small scale producer organizations.
This aspect was recently highlighted by a special report from the European Court of Auditors on EU fisheries controls http://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=41459. This highlighted that, as a result of the application of the rules of the Control Regulation, 89% of the EU fleet, 95% of which comprises vessels under 12 metres long, is not monitored by a vessel monitoring system (VMS). This significantly hinders effective fisheries management in some fisheries and for some species. The report also highlighted that a lack of transparency in the way that some producer organizations manage quotas increases the risk that specific interests of certain economic operators are favoured at the expense of others, creating unequal competition between fleet segments.
In many EU member states, small scale activities, traditionally polyvalent using a variety of gears around the year, targeting a seasonally diverse array of species – right gear, right place, right time – are now only permitted to catch a limited range of non-quota species. Thus, for example in the UK the small scale under 10 metre sector, representing 77% of the fleet by number, has access to only 1.5% of the UK quota by tonnage, and must rely mainly on non-quota species like whelk, brown crab and lobster. This increases pressure on these species, and tends to flood markets, often depressing prices.
In Ireland, small-scale fishers from island communities are not allowed to catch the fish in their coastal waters. Meanwhile, supertrawlers that fish around the world are allowed to, catching the species traditionally caught by them and hauling away their gear with impunity. Irish islanders, represented by the Irish Islands Marine Resource Organisation (IIMRO), are proposing that Ireland adopts a system of “heritage licences”, allocated to smaller scale fixed gear vessels, owned and operated by fishers from island communities. These vessels would operate in waters adjacent to the islands, and would be managed under a locally led co-management regime.
Financial support is another area where larger scale fishing activities have gained huge advantages at the expense of small-scale activities. Whilst it is often said that subsidies to industrial fishing is subsidizing overfishing, at least in Europe, it could be said that in the case of the small-scale sector, subsidies have been subsidizing underfishing.
In Europe, over the period 2000 to 2006, the large majority of subsidies for vessel construction and modernization went to vessels over 24 metres, whilst vessels under 12 metres received twice as much funding for scrapping as they did for modernisation and construction[2].
A recent study by the University of British Colombia reports that at global level, 84% of subsidies to the fishing sector, valued at 35 billion US$, go to vessels over 24 metres in length. It highlights how fuel subsidies promote fuel-inefficient technology and help large-scale fishers stay in business, even when operating costs exceed total revenue gained from fishing. Subsidies for port development and boat construction, renewal and modernization also give the large-scale fisheries sector significant advantages over their small-scale counterparts, who receive only a small percentage of those subsidies https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-06/uobc-spo053117.php.
So, how can a more level playing field and a more transparent and fairer system for allocating fishing rights and financial support be established?
First and foremost, the small-scale sector must be brought into the regulatory fold. This could be done by establishing a differentiated approach to managing small and large-scale fishing activities, based on spatial management, with exclusive fishing areas designated for small scale, low impact fixed gears, and confining the activities of more heavily impacting mobile gears further out to sea.
The benefits of such an approach are highlighted in a recent report by the Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation (SCFF) http://www.scottishcreelfishermensfederation.co.uk/report.htm. The SCFF point out that the combination of Marine Scotland’s “hands off” approach, and de facto creel limits imposed by the trawl sector has resulted in trawlers managing to secure 87.7% of the Scottish Nephrops prawn catch; a level of access to stocks, according to SCFF, not warranted by the trawl sector’s economic or environmental performance, or indeed any coherent performance indicator. Fishing with creels not only delivers more jobs per tonne caught, it is economically more efficient (i.e. profitable) to catch a tonne of Nephrops using creels rather than trawling the sea bed. By reallocating access to Nephrops in favour of creeling, and by establishing creel only areas, Marine Scotland has the opportunity to increase total employment, total household incomes, total profits /economic efficiency and the number of individual fishing businesses in coastal areas. Many of these areas are remote and suffer from a narrow range of economic opportunity.
Secondly, a differentiated approach would involve establishing different access regimes for polyvalent low impact small scale fixed gear operators on the one hand, and larger scale mobile gear operators on the other. The former would involve regulating access using input controls, such as days at sea, spatial and temporary fishery closures, and putting restrictions on the quantity of gear that any vessel could deploy within a given time frame. The latter regime for larger scale operators could involve a mixture of both input (restricting effort, for example, through days at sea) and output (restricting catches, for example, through quotas) controls.
The quid pro quo of this would be that ssf operators would need to engage more proactively with scientists and fishery managers in providing data on fish catches generated by them using new technologies available thanks to the development of mobile applications for smart phones and tablets.
New, simple and powerful, electronic technologies are available that make the whole process of data logging at sea relatively easy to do http://abalobi.info/, using smart phones and tablets. Already such mobile technologies are being used by fishers to improve their marketing arrangements and to engage more effectively as data providers in fisheries management. Such data gathering tools could also be developed as electronic log books.
The current focus on the blue economy, sustainable development goals, and climate change provides a useful opportunity to reflect on the state of play in European fisheries, to highlight some hard facts, and put forward solutions.
LIFE exists to provide a dedicated and specific voice for the previously silent majority of fishers in European waters. LIFE also believes that there is a need for much increased transparency, a fairer and more equitable approach to access to the resource, a differentiation in some form between mobile and passive gears and vitally, much improved co-management systems for fisheries in coastal near-shore waters.
Exploiting the synergies and complementarities between small and large-scale fleets should provide the possibility for putting European fisheries on a fairer and more sustainable footing for the future. It is an opportunity there for the taking and one that all concerned ignore at their peril.
[1] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/commissioners/2014-2019/vella/announcements/press-statement-meidterranean-fisheries-conference-malta_en
[2] http://www.smh.com.au//breaking-news-world/eu-subsidies-have-encouraged-overfishing-study-20100331-re68.html
♦ ♦ ♦
Bass management measures for 2017: recommendations from LIFE
Sea Bass: A major cause for concern
Bass management measures for 2017: recommendations from LIFE, the Low Impact Fishers of Europe Platform.
Brussels, 23 september 2016
Brian O'Riordan
Meeting in Lille, France over two days, member organisations from the Netherlands, France and the UK representing small scale fishers reliant on Bass, discussed and agreed a ŽIVOT position for transmission to the European Commission and Member States.
The state of Bass stocks in the North Sea, English Channel and western waters creates ongoing concerns for many fishermen, which many see as catastrophic.
For some key ports around Lorient in southern Brittany, members reported that catches from hook and line fisheries were only 20% of those even a year ago, and as many as 60% of these small Bass dependent enterprises have gone out of business in 2016.
On the other hand, Bass fishing along the south coast of England has held up in a few areas or decreased only in line with the restrictions imposed in recent times.
Focussing very much on fisheries north of the 48ti Parallel, whatever the local situation, members agreed that the current restrictions needed to continue for the time being in light of scientific advice and their own observations.
They did however make clear that any further restrictions mora be accompanied by the provision of emergency financial aid if any small scale fishers are to survive until stock levels improve. European Commission sources have informed ŽIVOT that if such a provision is not already included in Member State EMFF Operational Plans, then these plans could be modified to include such.
After exhaustive discussions, members agreed the following position for measures on Bass North of the 48ti Parallel:
- The current 6-month moratorium from January to June to be moved to run between November and April inclusive to ensure maximum protection over the main Bass spawning period.
- Where any additional restrictions are imposed for 2017 and beyond, these must be accompanied by adequate financial compensation in order to ensure that small scale fishers are able to survive until stocks improve. An urgent revision of individual Member State Operational Plans may be necessary in order to provide emergency financial support under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund.
- The current 1% by catch allowance for mobile gears should remain in place. The proposed increase to 5% by-catch allowance should be resisted, incentivising as it does the targeted by-catch of Bass.
- Fisheries managers should give serious consideration to providing incentives to all fishers to avoid Bass wherever possible.
- Member States must prioritize and improve monitoring, control and enforcement of all vessels catching Bass, irrespective of whether targeted or as a by-catch, commercial or recreational. This must include the by-catches of the larger trawlers, both pelagic and demersal and include Danish fly shooters operating in areas of known Bass activity.
- Strengthening of monitoring and enforcement by Member States with regard to both commercial and recreational fishers, including an improved focus on public education related to the marketing of illegally taken Bass. There was a clear failure in implementing previous additional management measures by Member States, importantly including significant delays during the initial introduction phase.
- Whilst recognising the difficulties inherent in attempting to assess the impact of current measures in the short term, ŽIVOT members urged the Commission to pursue what information and data they could in order to more clearly understand the environmental, social and economic impacts of increased regulation.
- Increased protection for existing Bass Nursery Areas, to protect the positive increase in recruitment in recent years from any damaging activities. Member States should also conduct an urgent review leading to the designation of new protection areas where necessary. At the same time there is a clear need to improve management and enforcement in this respect as current Nursery Area protections are largely ineffective.
- With regard to Bass fisheries in the Bay of Biscay, ŽIVOT members stated that, with notable exceptions, similar trends could be observed to those North of 48ti parallel, with significantly lower catches being taken. They highlighted the urgent need for improved scientific studies to ensure that Bass management there did not follow the same ruinous route observed further north. Members did recommend a complete moratorium for Bass fishing for February and March, for all metiers operating in the Bay of Biscay.
- Members finally requested for all areas that additional research, to better understand the role of other fishing activities in disturbing the seabass spawning be undertaken.
♦ ♦ ♦
Croatian 
English 
Dutch 
French 
German 
Greek 
Italian 
Polish 
Romanian 
Spanish 
Maltese