Small is beautiful, but fluffy round the edges…
Brian O’Riordan, ICSF
Nearly everyone agrees that when it comes to fisheries small is beautiful. The world-renowned fisheries scientist Dr Daniel Pauly has even stated that “based on the cold facts… our society is, in many cases, better served by small scale fisheries.”
But what makes small beautiful is not just size, but what size implies. Small size is 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 and 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, if unseen and unrewarded economically.
Management/regulation
And small is not necessarily beautiful. Where vessel size has been used as a regulatory measure, this has caused perverse effects, encouraging investment in powerful vessels that fall just under the maximum size limitations. So too the aggregated impact of small-scale vessels may have real consequences for stocks – and be harmful to stocks and to sensitive coastal habitats. Small, like large, also requires management and regulation; but not necessarily the same regulatory measures.
When it comes to size however, no-one seems to be able to agree on where small ends and large begins. Or put another way, defining or characterising small-scale fisheries is a huge challenge.
The English speaking world prefers the term ‘small-scale’ applied to its fisheries. In the UK for instance, all vessels under 10 metres are considered small scale, never mind their engine power or fishing capacity. But this does not translate easily into French or Spanish, where ‘artisanal’ is preferred.
These countries also talk about ‘petites métiers’ (‘small activities’ – France) and ‘artes menores’ (‘lesser gears’- Spain) – terms that refer to the small-scale nature of the activities and the gears (generally static) used.
“There are also a number of terms that are used synonymously to mean more or less the same thing, including ‘coastal’; ‘inshore’ and ‘traditional’ but which like ‘small’ are rather vague and fluffy round the edges,” advised Arthur Bogason, President of the Small Boat Owners Federation of Iceland.
“If you want to know what small-scale fishing is, just go down to the quay and ask any fisherman. He will tell you,” he adds.
Defining ‘small’
A view which implicitly ignores that across countries and regions; what is perceived as small scale differs not only in size, but also in terms of kind of fishing equipment used; who owns and operates the fishing vessel (family owned and owner operated); how long the vessel spends at sea and so on.
But Bogason does hit the nail on the head, that small is relative and is best defined at local level; and that no one size can fit all.
The issue is not just of academic interest; it is an issue of pressing importance to resolve in the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. At issue is whether a separate management regime, or a differentiated approach is required for small-scale fisheries in order to protect them from large scale fisheries and the kinds of management regime that apply to them.
In this regard, the European Commission has taken the bold step of proposing a definition of small-scale fisheries for the CFP reform, based on two criteria: vessel length (vessels under 12 metres) and gear used (non-trawl).
Their reform proposals also include a bold, if draconian measure: mandatory transferable fishing concessions (TFCs) for all Member States for the majority of managed stocks by 31 December 2013.
These proposals however also note that the ‘specific characteristics and socio-economic vulnerability of some small-scale fleets justify the limitation of the mandatory system of transferable fishing concessions to large vessels’. Hence, they offer Member States the option of excluding small -scale fisheries from such a regime.
Diversification
And Commission support does not stop there. The new financial instrument, the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) is packed full of provisions to enable small-scale fisheries to diversify and improve their skills and marketing.
All this would be fine if it were not for one catch. The Commission has no powers to enforce these measures. They are only proposals on paper that now have to be approved or amended by the Council of Fisheries Ministers and the European Parliament (through co/decision). Secondly, if approved, these measures would only apply if Member States chose to apply them.
But even if applied, unless small-scale fisheries are given fair access to resources with a ring- fenced access regime and quota allocation, such measures will not benefit them.
As noted by Pat the Cope Gallagher: “If the aim is to protect the small-scale sector, then it is important to ring-fence a percentage of the quota for them. Otherwise there will be no future for this segment of the fleet.”