Is the Commission’s stance on fish discarding a kneejerk reaction?
At a specially convened meeting of EU member states, Maria Damanaki, European Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, starkly told delegates she considered the practice of fish discarding ‘unethical, a waste of natural resources and a waste of fishermen’s effort’.
And she added that if 2004 FAO estimates of 7.3 million tonnes or 8% of the total fish catches being discarded was not striking to some members, ‘European fisheries are doing much worse than the global average,’ where discarding in the whitefish fishery is up to 50 per cent and 70 per cent in the flatfish fishery.
The net is never taken from the water – it is simply opened to release the fish, the majority of which are already dead. These fish are not accounted for and the extent of the damage is unknown
‘If we continue with our policy, then we will soon face a situation where the production capacity of marine ecosystems is at risk,’ she warned.
Outlining her basic ideas, Commissioner Damanaki said the approach should be gradual, ‘starting with pelagic fisheries and then to cover a few important demersal mixed fisheries after a short phase in period. The list of species covered could be enlarged year by year,’ she explained.
On the question of which management system to choose in order to manage fish stocks, Commissioner Damanaki said one possibility would be to only manage mixed fisheries with an effort system:
‘The idea is to preserve relative stability by translating relative stability in quotas into relative stability in effort for mixed fisheries. Such a management system is relatively simple as all catches would need to be landed. Control is also easy as the time spent at sea can be easily controlled by the vessel monitoring system,’ she said.
Another possibility she outlined was the catch quota system with by-catch quotas:
‘All catches would have to be counted against quotas and then later against by-catch quotas. In such a system it would also be necessary that Member States allocate quotas more in line with the real possible catches of their vessels. A catch-quota system would need guarantees that it would work, because it will be more complicated,’ she explained.
‘Whatever system is chosen in the end – whether it is effort management or catch quotas – a discard ban needs consistency in all rules of the CFP,’ she added.
‘So far we have tried to tackle discards with technical measures. But let’s be honest, if we continue this it is like treating a serious illness with Aspirin. We have to recognize that our policy gives sometimes incentives to discarding. So, I am convinced we have to start thinking outside the box,’ Commissioner Damanaki declared
On 1 March, Commissioner Maria Damanaki invited members of the European Parliament, EU fisheries ministers and the Court of Auditors for an informal political discussion on how to end discards in the context of the Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP).
|
INDUSTRY REACTION The Federation of Irish Fishermen (FIF) has called for an ‘informed debate’ on discards at EU level ‘particularly in light of the recent banner headlines issued by Commissioner Damanaki of a blanket ban on discards. ‘FIF is fully supportive of reducing the wasteful practice of discards and has been at the forefront in putting forward workable solutions to address this complex issue. It may be populist to call for a blanket ban; however without a workable means to achieve this, it will only make a bad situation even worse. Sean O Donoghue FiF chairman of FIF said he was ‘fully aware of the importance of tackling the discards issue and the need to find workable solutions. Discards is a multi-faceted complex issue that requires a suite of solutions. Using the sound bite of banning discards maybe populist but does not address the issue,’ he said. He added that Commissioner’s Damanaki recent proposals concentrating on landing all discards ‘fails to address the real issue of avoiding catching discards in the first place. Her proposals do nothing to address stock sustainability and would only lead to a market collapse in the EU whitefish sector,’ he stressed. The FIF chairman considers that operating on a fishery by fishery basis by allowing the unwanted fish to escape unharmed through changes in gear design and fishing practices is the way forward. ‘The Irish fishing industry has been at the forefront in proposing such changes in recent years,’ he added. ‘Ongoing CFP review affords an excellent opportunity to work proactively with stakeholders, the Commission, the European Parliament and Member States to progressively reduce discards, fishery by fishery and to work towards their eventual elimination. ‘This type of approach – unlike the blanket discards ban – will deliver a sustainable, economically viable and ecologically-friendly fishing industry for the future.’ |
|
BIM COMMENTS Speaking to Inshore Ireland, Michael Keatinge, fisheries development manager with BIM outlined three elements that need to be addressed when regarding discards: Causation, the Commission proposal of a blanket ban – and the alternative. Discards have become something of a cause célèbre since exposure on television; now suddently the public are aware that discarding occurs. So, what is the problem with discards, and what causes it? In fact, it’s the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) itself that actually causes some of the discarding. Minimum landing sizes Secondly, and this is more subtle and probably more invidious, there is very often a mis-match between the principle of relative stability and what is actually happening in the sea. Ireland and the other member states are given their quotas under the rules of relative stability – in other words, so much cod, so much haddock and so much whiting. When a fisherman goes fishing however, what occurs in his net is driven by what’s happening biologically in the sea. And if the proportions that arrive in his net don’t match the proportions he’s been given through relative stability, he reaches a point eventually where he might still have quota for one or more species, but no longer for a third. Consequently, he starts throwing that species back. Another issue is mini quotas whereby some member states have tiny quotas for one species, for example, in the Irish Sea. They are quite legally entitled to fish for species X but don’t have quotas for other species. This leads to discarding, so why are these retained? Biology For the period after they are born until they reach a certain size – and the size could be the MLS or the economically viable size – the very fact that Nature has been good means there is a lot of very small fish in the sea. The result is that discarding will increase. Why, because in the first instance they are thrown back back because they cannot be legally landed and also they are not economical to sell. So, Nature whilst being good can itself cause problems and difficulties. Economics Many consider the Commission’s blanket ban is little more than a knee-jerk reaction that could in fact be counter-productive. Forcing fishermen to land boxes and boxes of fish that have no commercial value could seriously undermine the industry. . So what will become of these fish? Yes, they may end up going for fish meal, but the simple fact remains: They have been taken from the stock, they are already dead. So, what’s the big advantage here? In their proposal, the Commission suggests counting these fish against quota, so effectively shortening fishing time as quota will be used up. So, fishermen will now no longer be economically viable? It’s just a knee-jerk reaction that could end up being counter-productive. Discarding is not a good thing but at least when fish are thrown back into the sea they are not unused, they are recycled by Nature. They go back into the sea as biomass and are eaten by other creatures. The productivity of that part of the sea therefore benefits. Of course you could end up with a sea without any large animals as all the big fish have gone. Blanket ban alternative Certain types of fishing will experience greater problem than others. It’s not simply the rate of discarding, it’s the total amount. That’s what you need to reduce. Firstly, to define which fishery is generating in biomass terms the largest degreee of discarding. How do we tackle this? This is where the Marine Institute and BIM are involved. Earlier this year the Department, BIM and the Marine Institute met with the producer organisatoins (Pos) to discuss technical conservation measures that could be introduced at very little cost. For example, a square mesh panel in the Celtic Sea could be introduced ‘overnight’ at little cost. This simple measure could reduce critical whiting and haddock discarding by 70-80%. So what should we do? This is a dynamic scenario. Currently there is a lot of haddock, cod and whiting in the Celtic Sea; other years it could be other species. So it varies from time to time because of biological issues, and it varies from fleet to fleet. For example, a vessel fishing prawns may actually catch and discard white fish. But if we go back and look at the total volume in a given year versus other fleets, it can be actually quite small. So, while the rate may be high, the volume – in total terms at the end of the year – may not be high. It varies from fleet to fleet. We need to identify and focus on the fleets in a specific time period or place that are actually at the heart of the matter. There are simple techical measures available that would cost just a few hundred Euros to insert panels in the net. It would not adversely impact on the economic viability of the vessels and it would pretty much solve the problem. BIM genuinely believes that the Irish fishing industry will embrace this type of change; however Ireland is just one of many players. We need to find leadership within the CFP to make these changes occur quickly. One example could be the creation of regionalised common policies. In ‘Irish waters’ , for example, this would involve France, the UK and Spain and ourselves, who could impose corrective action to emerging problems. So to recap. Because of telelvision publicity on discards, the Commissioner has responded with a knee-jerk reaction to ban discarding; however the implications are horrendous. What will become of the landed but unusable fish and how will this impact on the viability of fishermen? |
|
STATEMENT BY HARM KOSTER, COMMUNITY FISHERIES CONTROL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Discarding is an unethical practice, a waste of natural resources and a waste of fishermen’s effort. They may be harmful to the ecosystem and undermine the sustainability of fisheries. It is therefore necessary to take action to stop these practices so that sustainability can be ensured. There are no easy solutions to this problem. The measures that are being considered to reduce or eliminate discards remain a challenge. The European Commission in cooperation with Member States and the fishing industry have taken steps to make proposals on how to reduce discards. The Council Regulation that underpins 2011 fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks also lays down certain provisions regarding this problem. On a voluntary basis for several Member States, certain fleets have accepted video cameras on board to prove they do not discard. In exchange, these vessels receive additional fishing possibilities. The UK and other MS also apply real-time closures of areas with a high proportion of small fish, in order to avoid catches and subsequent discards of undersized fish. These are promising initiatives to reduce discarding. Where requested by MS or the Commission, the CFCA will assist in the implementation of these measures. Sustainable exploitation in line with scientific advice is the only long term option for fisheries which is good for fish stocks and for the fishing industry. |
|
In a statement to Inshore Ireland, Simon Coveney TD, Minister for Agriculture, Marine and Food said he was committed to the progressive reduction of discards and their elimination to the greatest extent possible as part of the CFP review. “I do not disagree with the general thrust of what Minister Smith said recently [see below]and will be meeting the industry and other stakeholders over the course of the CFP reform process to see how we can make real and measurable progress to reduce discards as soon as possible.” [Minister Smith said he fully shared the Commissioner’s concern about discards and that the problem was ‘one of the priorities in Ireland’s submission on the review of the CFP’ and should be ‘a fundamental cornerstone of the new CFP. There is no disagreement between Ireland and the Commissioner on the objective to reduce discards, the discussion is about the means to achieve this objective.’ Minister Smith added that whilst the media had ‘quite rightly’ focused on this issue, ‘I believe a clear road map over a specified time period [to]deliver-long term and sustainable improvements is preferable to a short-term set of measures that may not deliver in the long run.’] |
