Welcome to Through the Gaps, the UK fishing industry's most comprehensive information and image resource. Newlyn is England's largest fish market and where over 50 species are regularly landed from handline, trawl, net, ring net and pot vessels including #MSC Certified #Hake, #Cornish Sardine, handlined bass, pollack and mackerel. Art work, graphics and digital fishing industry images available from stock or on commission.
New research finds that restoring EU fish stocks offers huge economic gains. Research published today by the New Economics Foundation (nef) finds that restoring European fish stocks could generate huge returns on investment. Key Findings:
Most overfished stocks could be fully restored within five years, with a few needing four more years
Investing £9.16 billion in restoring fish stocks would generate £4.43 billion profit by 2023
After stocks are restored the total value of landings would almost triple, generating £14.62 billion in revenue each year
The Return on Investment (ROI) of restoring fish stocks is 148% by 2023
By 2052 the returns are £14 for every £1 invested
Years of mismanagement have left the majority of EU fish stocks overfished.
A new report, No Catch Investment, from the New Economics Foundation has calculated the costs of restoring fish stocks and found they are far outweighed by the economic benefits in the short and long term. Most overfished stocks could be fully restored within five years The research estimates the costs of restoring fish stocks by assuming a temporary moratoria is placed on overfished stocks. Of 54 studied in this research, 49 are overfished. If we were to stop fishing each of the 49 (out of more than 150 in European waters) overfished stocks from January 1 2013:
Fish supply could be higher than current levels within 4 years
Most fish stocks can be fully rebuilt within five years including Icelandic cod, all Hake, Mackerel and Whiting.
All fish stocks, including North Sea Cod could be fully restored within ten years.
Investing £9.16 billion would generate £4.43 billion profit by 2023 By quantifying the economic cost to the fishing industry of a temporary moratorium on fishing stocks,nef modelled the total cost of maintaining income and vessels over the restoration period.
To ensure a temporary pause in fishing does not hurt fishermen:
£10.4 billion of investment would be needed over 9.4 years (£9.16 billion in present value terms)
These costs should come from private funds. Public funding (European Maritime and Fisheries Fund) should be targeted towards creating a favourable context for this investment to happen.
Rebuilding fish stocks should remove the need for subsidies to fishers after 2023.
Restoring fish stocks offers significant returns on investment If we stop fishing overfished stocks from January 2013 and fish stocks are restored to their Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) by 2023 at the latest.
All investment costs are recovered within 4.6 years, with each year thereafter seeing a net benefit on the investment.
For every £1 invested, a £1.48 is generated within the first decade (ROI of 148%). Within the first 40 years (2013-2052), the returns are £14 for every £1 invested.
After stocks are restored the total value of landings would almost triple, generating £14.62 billion in revenue each year
Over a 40-year period (2013-2052) the current-value profit from investing now is £120.2 billion, with restoration delivering twice the value of catches as without (£260 billion compared with £130 billion).
Given that the stocks are restored to their full potential (MSY) by mid-2022, the benefits continue to be generated indefinitely as long as fishing does not exceed MSY.
Aniol Esteban, Head of Environmental Economics at nef, said: “In the context of the current EU debt crisis, these figures speak for themselves. This is a no-catch investment that offers huge financial returns.
“Continued overfishing is bad for European economies. Restoring fish stocks means more jobs, more income for coastal communities, and less industry reliance on subsidies from taxpayers. It makes perfect economic and environmental sense.” Rupert Crilly, Environmental Economics researcher at nef and lead author of the report, said: “Overfishing is a serious problem, currently affecting the majority of EU stocks. For too long the focus has been on the short term cost of a solution, rather than the economic, environmental and social benefits of proper stock management.
In determining the initial cost of rebuilding fish stocks, we see that an end to overfishing in EU waters is affordable as well as desirable. Policy makers must now take action to ensure healthy, sustainable fish stocks for this and future generations.”
including the Newlyn contribution, lightly salted cod in Spanish colours, piquant chorizo yet to be added...
and the subject of some discussion after a visit to the big smoke, an eatery that comes highly recommended if you are Richmond way Eonoteca, al boccon di vino - a banquet Italian style, cooked, served and presented by Italians, not cheap but good.
Here's a further extended response to the Australian Government's hastily concocted legislation brought in to prevent the ex-EU trawler, Margiris from fishing off the coast of South Australia - despite the transparent and legal right of the operation in the first place.
"First the ill-fated live cattle trade ban by hapless Agriculture Minister Joe Ludwig, and now Sustainability Minister Tony Burke knowingly introduces a piece of legislation to ban a trawler that, under existing law, cannot take more than a sustainable catch.
The Abel Tasman could trawl the Southern Ocean for a thousand years and not cause harm to the fish stock. Existing law prevents it from so doing. If it or other vessels have depleted stocks elsewhere, they have done so not because of the size and efficiency of the trawler, but because those places are poorly governed. Australia is not West Africa but, by goodness, it is starting to look like it.
Burke wants to give himself more power. While introducing the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Fishing Activities) Bill 2012 in the House of Representatives on Tuesday, he said that as "the act does not provide sufficient powers to suspend a fishing activity where there is uncertainty as to the potential environmental, social and economic impacts of the activity, a precautionary approach is the only decent option".
Precautionary principle my backside.
The precautionary principle advises that a proponent should proceed with caution before undertaking an action where there is risk of possible harmful outcomes. The principle does not assist in managing risk.
The way to manage risk in fisheries is to have a bloke from the government sitting on the Abel Tasman. This is what existing powers allow.
Invoking a broad principle is nonsense. If there is an actual risk of harm, then the principle tells us to take care: it is a cliche.
If, on the other hand, threat of harm simply means the public perception of hazard, then the precautionary principle tells us to slow or stop benefits, on the basis of no evidence.
Following Ken Cussen, who has warned that the precautionary principle is used to override cost-benefit analysis, the minister should invoke an alternative definition: "When a lack of activity raises a threat of harm to wealth creation, precautionary measures should be taken, even if some cause-and-effect relationships are not fully established."
The usual version of the precautionary principle is biased in a green direction. The minister has fallen into the trap of using a biased principle. The opposition should not fall into the same trap.
Burke wants to reinforce this bias by giving himself power to suspend fishing on the basis of any perceived risk. Every time that a harebrained green group wants to play havoc with a pet issue, it needs only to pull a stunt and crank up cyberspace. Out the door goes certainty in fishing licences granted on the basis of caution and sustainability.
Burke's retreat is no way to run a country, no way to protect a resource. Remember, a resource that is locked up is not a resource. A resource has to be exploited (or appreciated): fishing is no different. The issue is defining sustainability. To retreat behind an extended definition is cowardly.
The advice from the Australian Fisheries Management Authority is crystal clear:
No more than 7 per cent of the fish stock may be taken from this fishery.
There is no evidence that larger boats pose a higher risk to the fish stock or the marine ecosystem.
The net on the Abel Tasman is similar in size to nets in the Australian fishing fleet; the vessel is so much larger than other fishing boats only because it has factory and freezer storage on board.
Midwater trawling is one of the most selective types of fishing, with a very low bycatch.
The Abel Tasman would be fitted with a GPS tracking system, carry an AFMA observer and use a seal excluder device to prevent capture of seals and dolphins; and strict catch limits could be set.
There is a bill in the house - the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No 1) - aimed at bolstering e-monitoring, which involves the electronic recording of fishing for data collection and compliance through the use of specialised equipment installed on boats.
There has been trial monitoring since 2004, including for dolphin protection.
The minister should have shown sufficient courage to tell the electorate that this is the case. This is how to manage risk.
Burke claims that a new section of the act would allow "scientific work to resolve unanswered questions about fishing activity". What unanswered questions? Is this the sort of scientific work that the Japanese whaling fleet undertakes? Burke says, "This creates a situation where we are not flying blind."
But minister, you are not flying blind - you are The Wizard of Oz's Tin Man, you lack heart, and you are the Lion, you are timid, but you are not blind.
AFMA is an independent government regulator.
