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.
Tuesday 27 November 2012
Hake stars at Venton Vean BandB's pop-up treat.
Local BandB and purveyors of good taste, fine dining and total tranquillity, the very cool blue Venton Vean ran a pop-up Venetian Feast last Friday evening. Doubtless, the diners enjoyed the very best of Newlyn fish as they were served home cured salt cod for starters and a main of hake - straight from the deck of the Newlyn netter, Ajax.
Long steam for MFV Antarctic, Irish pelgaic ship
Making the long steam south, the 50m Irish mid-water trawler FV Antarctic has just passed to the west of Land's End having been picked up bt the VesselTracker AIS network starting from the north coast of Scotland.
Oak Foundation and Fisheries Policy
On the back of the hugely detailed and inciteful Blue Charities report from France a few weeks back the NFFO has penned an excellent response, reiterating the need to challenge those organisations seemingly operating in rather paternalistic roles for the benfits of European fishermen.
The main Oak initiatives within this approach are to:
With regard to European fisheries policy, Oak’s aim is to fund "organisations that ensure the European fleet operates sustainable practices either in European waters or elsewhere".
The main Oak initiatives within this approach are to:
It is possible to question at least some of the assumptions that lie behind this choice of initiatives but the main feature of Oak's approach is its reliance on external third party intervention to achieve its goals.
Oak has apparently concluded that the best way to secure its objectives is to fund NGOs external to the fishing industry who are presumed to know better (or at least be better positioned) to secure the changes that Oak would like to see implemented.
This approach may have its origin in other fields, where it may or not be successful, but the underlying assumptions with regard to European fisheries seem to be:
This is where we have serious concerns about the direction in which Oak funding will take the Common Fisheries Policy if it is successful in achieving its aims.
It is exactly the top-down, well intentioned but misconceived, prescriptive, over-centralised, micro-management approach that has led the CFP to under-perform so spectacularly over the last 20 years. It is precisely the paternalist command and control assumptions that "we know best" that led to the catastrophic divide between the managers and the managed - that is only now being repaired.
Our view is that third parties like NGOs can't in the final analysis make the difference - precisely because they are third parties.
This is not to say that NGOs do not have a legitimate and important role to play in challenging the industry where it needs challenging. But putting all the Oak eggs in the NGO basket seems to us to be its Achilles heel in its approach to fisheries. And what eggs they are!
Good Intentions are not enough
If there is one thing that has become clear over the life of the CFP - and is an important message that Oak should hear- it is that good intentions are not enough. The classic example of misplaced good intentions was the hurriedly introduced seasonal closure, in 2001, of 400 square miles of the North Sea to protect spawning cod. The net result, according to ICES’ later evaluation, was little or nothing of any benefit for cod but fleets displaced into immature haddock grounds (where massive discarding then occurred) and into pristine, previously un-fished areas (causing extensive ecological damage). This should serve as a warning. Naivety can have its attractions but it has no place in the complex and difficult world of fisheries management. An institutional framework that facilitates and encourages fisheries management through cooperation between fisheries managers, industry stakeholders and fisheries scientists is the best, we would say only, way to achieve sustainable fisheries. This does not exclude wider influences from civil society such as NGOs but it does give fisheries management a sporting chance of designing and implementing practical, workable, ways of achieving agreed management objectives.
Legitimacy and Funding
Environmental NGOs derive their legitimacy from the notion that they represent the views of wider civil society. Without any direct link between the public opinion and the views expressed by NGOs, this notion becomes more problematic as the issues dealt with move from the general to the specific. But the legitimate link between society and detailed fisheries policy mediated by NGOs becomes very weak and hard to justify if the NGOs are dependent for their funding on a very narrow base and that base has an agenda of its own.
The paradox is that generous foundation funding for the NGOs may not even be good for the NGOs in the long term if their credibility is damaged.
Consumer Advice
Despite the hype, there is little evidence that consumers pay more than lip service to advice on which species are deemed to be fished sustainably. Whatever consumers might say when questioned about what influenced their purchasing choices, value for money and concern about quality universally trumps environmental concern, when it comes to what actually goes in the supermarket trolley. Furthermore, the advice given by the Marine Conservation Society and Fish-to-Fork (two recipients of Oak largesse) is consistently confused and confusing. Consumer guides may give the people who write them warm feelings about making a difference but there is little evidence to suggest that people actually pay heed to them.
Large retailers will naturally wish to defend their brands from criticism and will for this reason "edit consumer choice" but except in exceptional circumstances the evidence suggests that consumer guides have little effect on what is caught, landed, bought, sold or eaten.
This is not all the NGO’s fault. The changing definitions of what overfishing actually is and the public's justified scepticism about media sensationalism makes this approach to sustainable fishing an uphill struggle. One has to ask whether Oak's money wouldn't be better spent elsewhere.
A Role for Charitable Foundations?
So, given that we think that Oak’s approach to sustainable fisheries, despite its good intentions, has a number of fundamental flaws, is there any kind of useful or legitimate role in fisheries for charitable foundations?
Direct investment in fisheries improvement projects aimed at transitioning to a more sustainable basis are a possibility. But the key here is working with the fishing industry rather than seeking to impose rules or conditions from the outside. This requires dialogue, understanding and collaboration - a diametrically opposite approach from the NGO megaphone diplomacy and currently funded by Oak.
More broadly however, Oak is only one of the charitable foundations currently pumping vast amounts of money into environmental NGOs dealing with fisheries. The Pew Charitable Trust, David and Lucille Packard Foundation, Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation, in addition to the Oak Foundation, have put an estimated $75million into direct lobbying activities in Europe since 2000, triggering expressions of public concern.
At the very least there should be a wide public debate about the significance and legitimacy of this important influence on fisheries policy.
What are we to make of the astounding sums of money put at the disposal of environmental lobby groups working on European fisheries issues by the charity Oak Foundation? Around $24million has been paid to a range of environmental NGOs since 2006.
It is hard to deny the many good intentions and motivations that lie behind the Foundation's donations. Good work is done across a wide range of issues including slavery, housing and child protection.
But what are the implications of this scale of external funding to the fishing sector, fisheries managers, fisheries scientists and the democratic process?
Oak’s stated aims in relation to the marine environment are to:
With regard to European fisheries policy, Oak’s aim is to fund "organisations that ensure the European fleet operates sustainable practices either in European waters or elsewhere".It is hard to deny the many good intentions and motivations that lie behind the Foundation's donations. Good work is done across a wide range of issues including slavery, housing and child protection.
But what are the implications of this scale of external funding to the fishing sector, fisheries managers, fisheries scientists and the democratic process?
Oak’s stated aims in relation to the marine environment are to:
The main Oak initiatives within this approach are to:
1. Improve ocean governance and the sustainable use of coastal and marine resources
2. Mitigate impacts of large scale industrialisation on local communities, and
3. Reduce overfishing and foster community-based stewardship of marine resources
With regard to European fisheries policy, Oak’s aim is to fund "organisations that ensure the European fleet operates sustainable practices either in European waters or elsewhere".
The main Oak initiatives within this approach are to:
1. Recover fish stocks and ecosystem health through the aims of the overarching Common Fisheries Policy and ensure its implementation2. Promote growth of sustainable seafood in Europe through demand and supply side initiatives; and3. Increase stakeholder engagement; improve fisheries management decision making and provide the pressure parliamentarians require to support progressive fisheries policy.
It is possible to question at least some of the assumptions that lie behind this choice of initiatives but the main feature of Oak's approach is its reliance on external third party intervention to achieve its goals.
Oak has apparently concluded that the best way to secure its objectives is to fund NGOs external to the fishing industry who are presumed to know better (or at least be better positioned) to secure the changes that Oak would like to see implemented.
This approach may have its origin in other fields, where it may or not be successful, but the underlying assumptions with regard to European fisheries seem to be:
1. Being disinterested (in the financial sense), NGOs apparently know better than fishermen, fisheries managers and fisheries scientists what is required to put European fisheries on the road to salvation2. The European Parliament is the appropriate vehicle to determine top-down rules that will oblige the fishing industry, and by implication fisheries managers, to behave in sustainable ways3. It is possible and productive to lead consumers away from unsustainable to sustainable fish consumption, through information campaigns of various kinds
This is where we have serious concerns about the direction in which Oak funding will take the Common Fisheries Policy if it is successful in achieving its aims.
It is exactly the top-down, well intentioned but misconceived, prescriptive, over-centralised, micro-management approach that has led the CFP to under-perform so spectacularly over the last 20 years. It is precisely the paternalist command and control assumptions that "we know best" that led to the catastrophic divide between the managers and the managed - that is only now being repaired.
Our view is that third parties like NGOs can't in the final analysis make the difference - precisely because they are third parties.
This is not to say that NGOs do not have a legitimate and important role to play in challenging the industry where it needs challenging. But putting all the Oak eggs in the NGO basket seems to us to be its Achilles heel in its approach to fisheries. And what eggs they are!
Organisation
|
Title
|
Programme
|
Country
|
Year
|
Amount (USD)
|
New Economics Foundation
|
Economics for fair & sustainable fisheries
|
Environment
|
UK
|
2011
|
249,683
|
Keo Films
|
Fish fight
|
Environment
|
UK
|
2011
|
496,752
|
Seas at Risk
|
Making sustainable regionalisation part of the future CFP
|
Environment
|
Belgium
|
2011
|
524,969
|
Globe Europe
|
Common Fisheries Policy Political Initiative
|
Environment
|
Europe
|
2011
|
135,900
|
Client Earth
|
European Fisheries
|
Environment
|
Europe
|
2011
|
350,000
|
Pew Charitable Trusts
|
Core support – Reforming the CFP in the EU
|
Environment
|
USA
|
2011
|
495,000
|
Oceana Inc
|
Oceana Europe (2011 renewal)
|
Environment
|
Europe
|
2011
|
2,000,000
|
Ecotrust
|
Sustainable Fisheries Trust Policy & programme Innovation
|
Environment
|
USA
|
2010
|
274,877
|
Greenpeace International
|
Seafood Markets & CFP reform
|
Environment
|
Nether-lands
|
2010
|
859,728
|
WWF International
|
CFP Reform
|
Environment
|
Switzer-land
|
2010
|
4,378,318
|
WWF International
|
Ending Subsidies that Drive Overfishing
|
Environment
|
Switzer-land
|
2010
|
1,000,000
|
Oceana Inc
|
Core support
|
Environment
|
USA
|
2010
|
4,275,000
|
Marine Stewardship Council
|
Harnessing Market forces to encourage sustainable practices in Spanish fisheries
|
Environment
|
Spain
|
2009
|
299,205
|
Client Earth
|
EU Marine Programme
|
Environment
|
Belgium
|
2009
|
244,969
|
International Collective in Support of Fishworkers
|
Bringing together European Small-Scale fishing voices in the Reform of the CFP
|
Environment
|
Belgium
|
2009
|
161,000
|
Fisheries Secretariat
|
Tracking IUU fishing, Control & enforcement through NGOs in Poland
|
Environment
|
Sweden
|
2008
|
300,375
|
Pew Charitable Trusts
|
Reforming the CFP
|
Environment
|
Belgium
|
2008
|
600,000
|
Oceana Inc
|
EU Discards Policy
|
Environment
|
USA
|
2007
|
266,040
|
WWF International
|
Reforming Europe’s Fishing fleets & Implementing the EU CFP
|
Environment
|
Belgium
|
2007
|
2,654,050
|
Institute for European Environmen-tal Policy
|
Processing the Ecosystem-Based approach in EU Fisheries Management
|
Environment
|
UK
|
2006
|
102,851
|
SeaWeb/Seafood Choices Alliance
|
Seafood Choices Alliance European Programme
|
Environment
|
USA
|
2006
|
1,140,525
|
Oceana Inc
|
Oceana Europe
|
Environment
|
USA
|
2005
|
3,691,200
|
Total $24,500,442
One cannot look this funding without:
One cannot look this funding without:
a) Wondering whether its sheer scale has a corrupting effect on the whole political process, distorting the terms of the political debateb) Questioning who are really "stakeholders" for Oak, and what exactly is their "stake" and their legitimate roleC) Worrying that this level of external funding, dwarfing genuine stakeholders’ contribution, has the capacity to misdirect the CFP reform from the decisive break with paternalism envisaged in the CFP reform Green Paper, towards a different form of centralised control.
Good Intentions are not enough
If there is one thing that has become clear over the life of the CFP - and is an important message that Oak should hear- it is that good intentions are not enough. The classic example of misplaced good intentions was the hurriedly introduced seasonal closure, in 2001, of 400 square miles of the North Sea to protect spawning cod. The net result, according to ICES’ later evaluation, was little or nothing of any benefit for cod but fleets displaced into immature haddock grounds (where massive discarding then occurred) and into pristine, previously un-fished areas (causing extensive ecological damage). This should serve as a warning. Naivety can have its attractions but it has no place in the complex and difficult world of fisheries management. An institutional framework that facilitates and encourages fisheries management through cooperation between fisheries managers, industry stakeholders and fisheries scientists is the best, we would say only, way to achieve sustainable fisheries. This does not exclude wider influences from civil society such as NGOs but it does give fisheries management a sporting chance of designing and implementing practical, workable, ways of achieving agreed management objectives.
Legitimacy and Funding
Environmental NGOs derive their legitimacy from the notion that they represent the views of wider civil society. Without any direct link between the public opinion and the views expressed by NGOs, this notion becomes more problematic as the issues dealt with move from the general to the specific. But the legitimate link between society and detailed fisheries policy mediated by NGOs becomes very weak and hard to justify if the NGOs are dependent for their funding on a very narrow base and that base has an agenda of its own.
The paradox is that generous foundation funding for the NGOs may not even be good for the NGOs in the long term if their credibility is damaged.
Consumer Advice
Despite the hype, there is little evidence that consumers pay more than lip service to advice on which species are deemed to be fished sustainably. Whatever consumers might say when questioned about what influenced their purchasing choices, value for money and concern about quality universally trumps environmental concern, when it comes to what actually goes in the supermarket trolley. Furthermore, the advice given by the Marine Conservation Society and Fish-to-Fork (two recipients of Oak largesse) is consistently confused and confusing. Consumer guides may give the people who write them warm feelings about making a difference but there is little evidence to suggest that people actually pay heed to them.
Large retailers will naturally wish to defend their brands from criticism and will for this reason "edit consumer choice" but except in exceptional circumstances the evidence suggests that consumer guides have little effect on what is caught, landed, bought, sold or eaten.
This is not all the NGO’s fault. The changing definitions of what overfishing actually is and the public's justified scepticism about media sensationalism makes this approach to sustainable fishing an uphill struggle. One has to ask whether Oak's money wouldn't be better spent elsewhere.
A Role for Charitable Foundations?
So, given that we think that Oak’s approach to sustainable fisheries, despite its good intentions, has a number of fundamental flaws, is there any kind of useful or legitimate role in fisheries for charitable foundations?
Direct investment in fisheries improvement projects aimed at transitioning to a more sustainable basis are a possibility. But the key here is working with the fishing industry rather than seeking to impose rules or conditions from the outside. This requires dialogue, understanding and collaboration - a diametrically opposite approach from the NGO megaphone diplomacy and currently funded by Oak.
More broadly however, Oak is only one of the charitable foundations currently pumping vast amounts of money into environmental NGOs dealing with fisheries. The Pew Charitable Trust, David and Lucille Packard Foundation, Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation, in addition to the Oak Foundation, have put an estimated $75million into direct lobbying activities in Europe since 2000, triggering expressions of public concern.
At the very least there should be a wide public debate about the significance and legitimacy of this important influence on fisheries policy.
Out with the old in with the new
This week Newlyn can celebrate yet another family firm showing faith in the future of of the port and the fishing industry in general as...
the long time Newlyn resident the beam trawler Sapphire has been sold away from Newlyn and replaced...
by a beast of a towing machine, she's fitted with two huge net drums on her stern ...
giving the Corin family duo of father and son who skipper the boat the opportunity to bottom trawl if needs be...
there's plenty of room on the working deck with two raised fish pounds, fish washer and fish room conveyor.
the long time Newlyn resident the beam trawler Sapphire has been sold away from Newlyn and replaced...
by a beast of a towing machine, she's fitted with two huge net drums on her stern ...
giving the Corin family duo of father and son who skipper the boat the opportunity to bottom trawl if needs be...
there's plenty of room on the working deck with two raised fish pounds, fish washer and fish room conveyor.
Monday 26 November 2012
Mondays market mix
Boxes of bass just some of a big spread of trawl, beam trawl, net and line fish on the market this morning...
as the hake from the Ajax goes under the hammer with auctioneer Ian...
an almost albino monkfish filled this 7 stone (42kg0 box...
as did this rare 10kg hake...
two of the Rowse crab boats lay alongside the market...
as the Charisma lands her week's hard won trip...
watched by the MSC who log the landing...
evidence of the weekends crazy Newlyn floods is still around, sandbags at the ready outside the Coop...
and the local shops...
the Coombe river is still in full flood and the area on red alert for a repeat with more rain forecast today and beyond.
Newlyn flooded by the Coombe River - a first!
Thanks go to local Newlyn resident Ben Thomas who captured this unique event on video.
This is the first time Newlyn has flooded simply as a result of heavy rain causing the Coombe River to burst the bank by St Peter's Church. Although the centre of Newlyn has flooded on many occasions from the seaward side in the past due to a combination of high tides and high winds from the south - the river has never flooded the village simply from the sheer weight of water.
This video (from Burned Thane) was shot further up river by the church and shows how the sheer amnount of water coming down the Coombe river was too much to pass under the bridge to the newlyn Meadery which then helped push the raging torrent into the road.
Treacherous entrance to St Guénolé harbour
Enjoy more photos from Breton fishing ports around Guilvenec courtesy of the blog, |
What you cannot sea is the fact that the boat is navigating a narrow channel that was blasted out of the reef around 100 years ago - in very foggy weather the bigger St 'Gee' boats are prevented from entering or leaving via this channel as the shallow reef is barely covered by water even at high tide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)