Menu

Baltic

2019 ICES advice for the Baltic Sea

, , ,

Troubled waters in need of real solutions

Warsaw, 6th of June 2018

Marcin Ruciński

 

On 31 May, ICES have released their annual catch advice for the main stocks in the Baltic Sea, which will guide decision-makers in negotiations of fishing opportunities for 2019. LIFE takes a first look at ICES recommendations, on the basis of initial views and comments provided by our Members. We will come with more suggestions later, as our internal discussions progress.

 

Cod: a tale of two crises

The Eastern Baltic cod is now clearly in a state of deep crisis and far-reaching measures are needed. The stock suffers from many difficulties, among which scientists enumerate: illegal and unreported discards, continuing despite a comprehensive ban, mobile gear modifications leading to high levels of undersized fish in catches, food deprivation caused by intensive pelagic effort in the cod distribution area, anoxic areas inhibiting spawning in areas other than Bornholm Deep, lack of large fish in the stock to positively impact spawning success and the impact of an increasing grey seal population. The TAC has not been fully taken since 2010 and has no limiting effect on the fishery. It is clear that managers will need to look for solutions outside the usual toolbox to help cod turn the corner. These should include:

  • dealing with the illegal discards problem and ending the practices that are causing it, once and for all;
  • strong measures, effectively enforced to protect cod spawning, especially in the Bornholm Deep;
  • overcoming the cod food deprivation issue by moving at least a part of the pelagic fishing effort north of Subdivisions 25 and 26.

LIFE is now in the process of elaborating detailed suggestions for this crucial stock in the form of an Action Plan.

The Western Baltic cod stock and allied advice show clear signs of improvement after the 2016 crisis, on the basis of the strong 2016 year-class and high stock productivity assumed by ICES using the relatively high “breadth” of Fmsy ranges. However, the 2016 year-class is surrounded by two years of very low recruitment in 2015 and 2017; the last of them is the lowest on record. Being precautionary when it comes to the level of TAC increase is thus an absolute priority.

Herring: a tragic surprise in the West, declining stock in the East

The Western Baltic herring stock advice is a tragic surprise, especially in view of a good spring fishing season for this stock that has just finished. Livelihoods of many small-scale fishermen who depend on this stock are directly threatened as a result of zero catch advice. We note that as a result of advice benchmarking this year, the key stock reference points (Blim, MSY Btrigger) have been revised upwards. This needs to be properly explained, given that the recruitment and SSB estimates in the advice have been revised downwards.

Further East, the Central Baltic herring stock is also not doing well, as is confirmed by the disappointing results of the herring season, at least in coastal waters. Also here, a dependence on the 2014 year-class is a reason for concern.

Sprat

ICES advises that a spatial management plan is considered for the fisheries that catch sprat and LIFE strongly agrees with this advice. It is high time that at least a good part of fishing effort on sprat be moved north of the Subdivisions 25-26, which can easily be done by simple quota management solutions. Overcoming the cod food deprivation scenario is a major concern for the Baltic ecosystem as a whole and must be a priority for the managers.

All stocks

When applying the necessary cuts, managers should bear in mind the need to provide sufficient quotas to the small-scale, low impact fishing communities, which depend on their traditional fishing grounds and do not, unlike their larger brethren have the ability to simply steam away to other fishing grounds.

Ecosystem overview: a very useful tool that needs further elaboration

We thank ICES for giving the traditional yearly advice a context going beyond just the mathematical models and MSY- or precautionary approach-based numbers and issues related to these. In addition to placing fisheries within the wider ecosystem, it is also important for decision-makers to locate fisheries as an integral part of a wider maritime sector and Blue Economy development actions. Within this approach, small-scale fisheries and its role in providing livelihoods and contributing to the economy and cultural heritage of local coastal communities across the Baltic Sea needs to be spelled out and understood more clearly.

LIFE is grateful to ICES for reminding everyone that the fishing effort with gillnets may be a problem for certain water bird species, if not properly addressed at a regional or local level, in a correct temporal and spatial context. We are ready to work together with ICES to help to positively deal with the issue by looking for solutions that are best tailored to the needs of local ecosystems and fishing communities they support. Some of our Members can share examples of cooperative approaches successfully used in practice elsewhere, in the Baltic Sea and beyond, which could be a useful inspiration. For example, a new pinger system tested in cooperation with fishers in German waters decreased by-catch of porpoises more than 70 %.

We are also ready to expand our close cooperation with BirdLife International[1] to address the issues mentioned. We would also be grateful for a cooperation with ICES to look at the data on the actual gillnet fishing effort, given its recent and marked decline in many Baltic small-scale fishing communities.

We find it much more worrying though that ICES’s Ecosystem Overview makes no mention whatsoever of the impact of certain predators, in particular grey seal and black cormorant, on fish stocks and particularly small-scale fisheries across the Region. There are a number of initiatives to find constructive solutions to this important issue which weighs heavily on many Baltic small-scale fishing communities[2], This should also have been referenced in the ICES document.

♦ ♦ ♦

[1] Our joint letter available here https://lifeplatform.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/JointLetter-BirdLife-LIFE.pdf

[2] Records of the recent discussions on the predators’ impact question can be found here (BSAC) http://www.bsac.dk/getattachment/Meetings/BSAC-meetings/Executive-Committee-and-sub-group-on-ecosystem-bas/BSACreportEBMsubgroup031017EXCEPTSALMONFINAL.pdf.aspx?lang=en-GB , point 2 and here (HELCOM) https://portal.helcom.fi/meetings/FISH%208-2018-509/MeetingDocuments/Outcome%20of%20FISH%208-2018.pdf , points 7.9.-7.12. Furthermore, a transnational cooperation project implemented by FLAGs https://balticfisheries.com is worth noting

clean baltic

Polish fishers lead the way on ghost nets

, , , , ,

147 tons of marine litter fished from the Baltic:

Polish small-scale fishers show leadership in dealing with ghost nets

Warsaw, 16th of January 2018

Marcin Ruciński

Fishing gears lost at sea and their impact on the marine environment are subject to numerous research and actions globally. One of the most successful projects in this respect , “Clean Baltic”, is being finalized along Poland’s coastal waters including the Lagoons, with the involvement of over 500 small-scale fishers.

3 LIFE Polish Member Organizations got involved in this large-scale project. The latter was developed thanks to the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund monies made available to Poland as part of the “Fisheries and the Sea 2014-2020” Operational Programme. We are glad to see that EU subsidies have been used for a universally positive purpose – improve the state of the marine environment where Polish small-scale fishers operate, while also benefitting other sea users.

The fishers retrieved a total of just under 147 tons of waste. Most retrieved fishing gears were gillnets, but trawls, trap nets, lines and pots were also fished out. The retrieved nets contained fish and other marine organisms, such as birds and mussels and even one dead grey seal. The project was not confined to fishing gears only and fishers took out many other objects, such as buoys, Styrofoam, boxes, lines, tires, remains of steel elements, as well as smaller waste such as gloves and plastic bags.

LIFE is proud to be part of the project, and we take the opportunity to thank all those involved – the fishers and their organizations, the MARE foundation (http://fundacjamare.pl) and administration bodies. But most importantly, we are pleased to witness the strong involvement of the fishers in the project activities, and their feeling of co-responsibility for the state of marine environment, including fish stocks, on which their livelihoods depend.

See the fishermen in action below !

eel-563940_960_720

Saving European Eel AND small scale fishermen

, ,

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.

♦ ♦ ♦

 

 

germany

Baltic Sea fishing opportunities for 2018: LIFE views

, ,

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

Baltic Sea fishing opportunities for 2018: LIFE views

 

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 and 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/

rockhopper

Recommendations for Western Cod

, ,

rockhopper

Crunch Time in Baltic: Opportunities and Threats for Cod and Small Scale Fishers.

Brussels, 29 September 2016

LIFE Platform

As 2017 Baltic TAC negotiations near conclusion, lobbyists are taking a plethora of public stances. Rather than muddying the waters further, LIFE would like to recall the main elements of its Action Plan for Western cod, elaborated in July.

Access LIFE’s recommendations for the management of Western Baltic Cod by clicking here

sprats

Baltic stocks: comments and highlights

, ,

sprats

 Warsaw, 25 July 2016

LIFE Platform

Following ICES advice for 2017, LIFE’s Members of the Baltic Region (including Poland, Sweden, Denmark and Germany) elaborated the comments and highlights below, to be presented to decision-makers, with concrete proposals for a correct management of Baltic stocks. 

 

LIFE comments on Baltic Sea fish stocks: TACs and accompanying measures

following the ICES advice for 2017

 

Eastern cod and relation to pelagic species

LIFE is strongly concerned about the continued lack of analytical assessment of this stock by ICES, in spite of numerous efforts to this end. The lack of larger cod individuals and reliance on small number of incoming year classes increase risks ahead of this key Baltic Sea stock.

Furthermore, ICES points to increasing discard rate, which is most probably higher than 15%. LIFE Members’ observations confirm the information available to ICES that “modification of selectivity properties” does take place at large scale in demersal trawl fishery.

The condition of cod individuals has improved a little, but it is still much worse than long-term average; this must not be used as an excuse for complacency. There is no single cause of this phenomenon. However, LIFE Members point to a root cause of continued cod food deprivation, especially for 3 to 4-year-old cod, which should mainly feed on sprat in normal conditions. In LIFE’s view, it is because forage fish is simply not available, due to excessive effort exerted on pelagic species, particularly sprat in Subdivisions 25 and 26. ICES advice is quite clear on this.

The situation described above calls for a moderate TAC decrease, in view of increased risks for the stock. It is, however, immensely more important for decision-makers to adopt without delay measures leading towards:

  • Much better food availability for 3 to 4-year-old and older cod individuals;
  • Significant and strong decrease of discards. They are a disgrace to the region hitherto seen as example for the rest of Europe to follow.

Small-scale fishers of the Baltic Sea can ill-afford a repetition of the situation of Western cod stock in the East.

Sprat

LIFE considers that, in a situation of cod food deprivation in Central Baltic and on the basis of just one strong year class, the TAC increase suggested by ICES should not be followed. We hope that decision-makers shall act moderately here to avoid steep sprat TAC decreases in the future. LIFE recommends a rollover of the TAC with a robust spatial management plan to move large-scale pelagic effort away from SDs 25 and 26 and leave the sprat as prey for hungry cod, as advised by ICES.

Central Basin Herring

LIFE feels it necessary to bring to the table a worrying anecdotal evidence provided by one of our Members: some fishers specialized in herring for bait, operating in southern Swedish waters, have pointed out to very bad situation of herring in their area, with i.e. the fish growing very thin. This has resulted in some bait-specialized boats going out of business this year.

Impact of seal predation

LIFE calls upon ICES to take full account of the extent of fish mortality caused by the huge increase in seal population over the last decade. This is particularly important for the assessment of cod and salmon stocks. Furthermore, environmental organizations, as well as the relevant EU and national authorities, need to re-think their seal conservation policies to ensure that the balance in Baltic Sea ecosystem is kept.

 

Baltic_Sea_map

LIFE’s Baltic Members launch an Action Plan

, ,

Baltic_Sea_map

Warsaw, 25th July 2016

LIFE Platform

 

Following ICES advice for 2017, LIFE’s Members of the Baltic Region (including Poland, Sweden, Denmark and Germany) elaborated the following action plan, to be presented to decision-makers, with concrete proposals for a correct management of the Western Baltic Cod stock. Cod is one of the main sources of income for small-scale fishers and is vital to maintain the livelihoods of local coastal communities in the Region.

 

Action Plan for Western Baltic cod stock following the ICES advice for 2017

 

The situation

LIFE is extremely worried at the latest ICES advice outlining the fishing opportunities for Western Baltic cod stock for 2017. The advised TAC of 917 tons constitutes an annual reduction of ca. 93%. It is perhaps the toughest practical stress test yet for the reformed CFP.

LIFE is of the opinion that the productivity of Western Baltic cod stock has been over-estimated for many years on the face of relatively strong year classes of 1990s and early 2000s. This unfortunate error allowed the long-lasting overfishing of the stock. The latest re-calculation of recruitment figures by ICES (table 8.3.4.11. as compared to advice from previous years) confirms this view. Another important problem is the amount of cod discards in pelagic trawling (SD24) and in demersal trawling (SD22), which may be higher than officially reported. Furthermore, towed gears are often used in a way that decreases or nullifies selectivity.

Moreover, recreational fishing and environmental/ecosystem factors, in particular the cod mortality caused by increasing seal population, add to the pressure on the stock. The seal damage to catches causes extra hardship for small-scale fishing communities, as the seals eat fish caught in their passive gears.

For 2017, ICES draws particular attention to very weak recruitment. The latest incoming year class is estimated at roughly 6% of long-term average, even if the F is slightly falling and SSB seems to have stabilized at level below Blim.

We are strongly convinced that the current state of Western cod stock calls for a development of broad and inventive Action Plan, rather than just focusing on business-as-usual: the short-sighted fight over the TAC levels or their allocations to Member States for next year we’ve been observing for too long.

Therefore, LIFE refrains from taking a position on specific TAC level for now, pending the developments on the Action Plan called for and outlined below. It is clear that overall,
a serious reduction of fishing opportunities, significantly more substantial than that of last year (-20%), has to be decided upon.

General thrust of the Action Plan

LIFE calls – in strongest terms – for recognition that just as we take utmost care for our most vulnerable fish stocks, we are obliged to take the utmost care for the most vulnerable fishers.

In concrete terms, this means that harsh measures needed to safeguard the stock should predominantly be targeted at those fleets that contribute the most to the fishing pressure on Western Baltic stock and are able, at least technically, to re-locate their effort to other areas and stocks.

The Action Plan is put together in the spirit of Article 5 of the new Baltic Multiannual Plan, which calls that all appropriate remedial measures be taken to ensure rapid return of the stock concerned to MSY levels and above.

LIFE calls upon EU Institutions, BALTFISH and Member States concerned to ensure that the measures outlined below are implemented without delay and become applicable as of 2017.

Elements of the Action Plan

  1. Protect the spawning stock by prolonged total trawling closure aimed at preserving pre-spawning and spawning concentrations. The closure should apply throughout February and March in the Subdivisions 22 and 23, i.e. where spawning occurs. Preserving the (still remaining…) spawning stock must be everyone’s priority.
  2. In the spirit of Article 17 of Basic CFP Regulation and in view of the significant TAC reduction, adopt incentivized cod avoidance plans for those fleets that are technically able to shift away from cod to other fisheries. In function of adopting cod avoidance plans, allocate the “released” fishing opportunities to those fishers who have no alternative and fish predominantly outside cod spawning zone with passive gears.
  3. Facilitate technical adjustments in towed gears that avoid by-catching cod – for the period outside the closure time mentioned in point 1. This goes particularly for directed flatfish fisheries with trawls.
  4. Managers should prioritize minimizing of by-catch of undersize and small cod, by new gear designs (including increasing the mesh size) and increase in the Minimum Conservation Reference Size, as deemed appropriate.
  5. Step up the control activities to prevent cod discards on the basis of risk analysis.
  6. Raise awareness of recreational fishers as to the situation of the Western cod stock to voluntarily decrease their pressure on it – until the cod stock has recovered. Introduce regulations on recreational fishing, such as bag limits for rod fishing. The regulations should assume equal burden-sharing compared to commercial fisheries.
  7. Take locally tailored measures to reduce damage to catches and gears caused by seals, by a.: facilitating movement to seal-safe gear, compensating for lost catches and gears, reducing seal and cormorant populations where allowed by environmental laws. In the longer run, environmental organizations need to re-think their seal and cormorant conservation policies.
  8. Use EMFF funding to offset the effects of these measures on the affected fleets.

LIFE is ready and willing to discuss this action plan with all the interested entities and persons, in particular the decision-makers of all appropriate levels.

It is the call for action with a set of concrete and constructive proposals from those whose livelihoods are directly and definitively threatened by the Western cod stock crisis. We ask all concerned to please act decisively before it’s too late – for the stock and for us.

MK_twinningproject_Nov2015_rev

Meet Marcin Ruciński, LIFE’s new Baltic and North Sea Coordinator!

, , ,

 

MK_twinningproject_Nov2015_rev

Meet Marcin Ruciński, LIFE’s new Baltic and North Sea Coordinator!

 

Brussels, 12 July 2016

Claudia Orlandini

LIFE Platform

 

The Low Impact Fishers of Europe have recently been granted funds by the European Commission to provide additional support to the low impact small-scale fleet working in the Baltic and North Sea. The first step of the two-years project has been recruiting a new member of staff to design and implement a specific strategy for the Region, coordinate the work between members, help local communities to set up new organisations and liaise with relevant institutions.

After a tough selection process, thanks to his extensive experience in fisheries management, high level language skills and most of all great enthusiasm, Marcin has been selected by the Board of Directors to become the new Coordinator! Learn more about him in our welcome interview!

Hello Marcin, and welcome to LIFE! How did you learn about the Platform and what motivated you to apply?

I have learned about the LIFE initiative back in 2012, in the midst of the CFP reform process. I was impressed by the synergy between promoting small-scale fisheries and conserving the environment, which LIFE so nicely encapsulates. As far as I know, no other fisheries or marine environment organisation in Europe does that. Also Jerry’s decades-long background as a professional small-scale fisherman makes the organization special. At a personal level, I needed a change from a civil servant’s life to something a bit more modern and very exciting!

You have more than 10 years of experience in the fisheries sector, with a special focus on Baltic and North Sea Countries. What are, according to you, the biggest challenges for the small-scale sector in the Region?

I think the challenges are best summarized by the word « competition », which has many facets here, such as:

  • Competition to access fishing quotas with those more efficient and financially stronger;
  • Competition for marine space with other users of the sea, such as all kinds of: energy generating installations, marine protected areas, army drill areas, sea tourism, marine transport, etc.
  • Competition in product markets with the fish imported from outside the EU, as well as aquaculture products and fish caught by bigger fleets
  • Last but definitely not least, competition with seagoing predators (seals, cormorants) in catching the fish.

In all these areas, I’ll do my best to be of help for small-scale low impact fishers of Baltic and North Sea!

You have worked both as Chair of  the Fisheries Working Party of EU Council and Chair of Baltfish and Helcom Fish. Based on your experience, why is it important to bring the voice of small-scale fishers at institutional level, and how can this have an impact on the everyday life of coastal communities?

LIFE rightly points out that the 83% of Europe fishers are small-scale. Small-scale means, among others, being occupied with (or-overwhelmed by…) your business and making a decent living (or-a living…) in a highly competitive environment.

There’s very little or no time left for small scale fishers to successfully voice their concerns or make strong policy proposals at national or European level. The decision-makers in Brussels or national capitals are usually assisted by those voicing the concerns of larger-scale fleets, who can afford being professionally represented in the right places.

To be sure: there’s nothing wrong with that – as long as decision-makers have the full picture, including the knowledge of what small-scale fishers think and want. That’s why I think that what LIFE does has so much relevance. And I am happy to contribute to this process personally. It will surely result in CFP rules being more tailored to small-scale fishers’ needs.

As the new Coordinator for the Baltic and North Sea, what will be your priorities and strategy to reinforce the network between the fishers of the Baltic and North Sea?

I basically see two main priorities: understand in-depth main concerns of small-scale fishers of Baltic and North Sea through intensive contacts, and then taking these concerns to the right fora and people with the decision-making system, at EU or national level.

I hope that, if the fishers’ concerns are taken into account by the decision-makers, the benefits of being part of LIFE will become self-evident. This would, hopefully help in expanding our regional network. Being just a few days in a new position, one has to assume some flexibility and patience as to how these priorities are implemented in detail.

Selling the product at a fair price is vital for small-scale producers. According to you what is the place of small-scale businesses within the bigger market? What is the role of consumers’ education in this respect?

Luckily, the markets for fish are quite diverse and have many different segments. Not all of us like Pangasius, right? I think that, from the small-scale fishers’ perspective, it is important to define the best market niche for them and do everything possible to establish strong presence within it. There is a number of clear advantages of the product offered by small-scale fishers: it’s super-fresh, it’s caught sustainably and low-impact, it’s local, it’s traditional. Just how to exploit these advantages in local conditions of say, Southern Sweden, Schleswig-Holstein, Northern Poland, The Netherlands, Bornholm, Mecklemburg-Vorpommern or Baltic States – we need to see. There are encouraging examples from some of these regions, often using most modern technologies to quickly reach the consumer willing to pay extra for top-quality fish.

I am sure LIFE has lots of work to do here. The key point of departure must be: fishing for value, as opposed to fishing for volume.

Part of your role is meeting with fishing communities, listening to their problems and advocating for their rights where decisions are made. Did you already plan which will be the first communities that you are going to meet?

My plans are focused on the agendas of the upcoming BSAC and BALTFISH meetings. We have a crisis situation with the Western Baltic cod stock, where ICES is advising a cut in fishing opportunities of 93%! This needs urgent attention and strong response from LIFE. Livelihoods of our Members are at stake here. We also need to keep a weather eye on the Eastern cod stock, where scientists can’t get out of uncertainty for too long – and we must avoid repeating the Western cod situation at all cost. My intention is to personally meet all the LIFE Members, in the time and the format that’s most appropriate for them!

♦ ♦ ♦

SIGN UP TO OUR NEWSLETTER

* indicates required