For the last 3 years we have been involved with the UK's catch quota scheme (CQT). This has involved us carrying camera's on board our vessel and continuously recording our catches and not discarding any quota species. In year one we worked solely with haddocks, by year two we had moved onto 3 species (haddocks, Megrims and monks), this year we have been observing a full no discards on all quota species, Fully documenting our catch. We have also run an economic impact study alongside as well from the different trials of nets we have run.
We have been lucky in that we have been able to undertake this work and make full use of the small incentives available under the CQT scheme, and for us we were more than happy to step up and prove, that if fisherman are given a reasonable chance to manage their own fishery they can really deliver a more reactive and responsive fishery. However I would stress that this should not be seen as (that’s ok landings obligation solved all vessels try this), as we all know the situation is more complicated than that. Although on the surface, the work we have done looks good, when you look deeper into what is happening then the picture that comes out doesn’t look quite so rosy.
We have had a lot of success with the adaptions we have made with our gear in eliminating juvenile haddocks, and the total capture of haddocks of all sizes. We have reduced under the MLS haddock catches by 87% and the total volume of haddocks is now well under 70% of what we would expect to see in our control nets (the gear we worked prior to the trial.)
We have also had to use area avoidance and many nights we have been unable tow, due to volumes of haddocks still being too large for the quota we have available. This has come at a cost, we have lost our catch of whiten almost completely, our squid catch is down by half. We have been unable to work all of our grounds as well, so we haven’t always been in the best place to fish.
Also by not towing at night from April through to October we have missed 25% of our hauls in this time period, with the resulting loss of all that fish we would have obviously taken, (megs, monks, lemons , ray, whiten Gurnard, Dover sole , and many more).There has been a fairly considerable financial loss this year, as well as a loss to the markets, of fish that we would have otherwise caught during our laying at night and area avoidance.
We have used 4 methods to reduce haddock juveniles and total haddock capture, we have cut the cover in our nets by 13 feet, we have fitted 100 mm and 120 mm regulatory SQMP, and the 100 mm SQMP in the cod end, we also fitted agitators in the stocking below the regulation panels to entice the fish through the SQMP. All of the methods have worked in differing ways to get the results, however they have their drawbacks and should be only used when conditions require it, and to skippers discretion, we don’t need these measures made law, apart from the one’s already in place.
However by working with the cameras and fully documenting our catch it has given us an insight of what the full landings obligation will look like in 2019 if its fully implemented. The one thing we can say for sure, is that if it comes in as its intended, even with the flexibility's it has built in. There is no way we could fish all year round, and that includes the steps we have taken. We would choke on haddocks by the end of august or earlier, so although we have suffered a loss we have learned valuable lessons for the future of our business.
Although the camera’s are primarily an enforcement tool, from our experience over the last 3 years we have found them more friend than foe. With continuously working with the cameras under the MMO’s CQT trial, we have been able to utilise the data we have captured and build a very good picture of the effects our experiments have had on our fishery, both environmentally and economically. The MMO has taken a very pragmatic approach in the way it runs the CQT scheme and this has been the biggest factor in the success of the scheme and delivering its outcomes. A simplistic approach of using the camera’s as just enforcement would not of worked at all.
Importantly for us we have seen that the data we have captured, become very useful and it is now being added into the scientific system and although it is only one data set, it is a lot of data, and we have been able to add a lot of weight to the scientific evidence. We have probably now come as far as we can in what we can achieve, for us it’s maybe too far, as we have received a fairly sizable financial loss, we have shown that fisherman can react and improve their fishery, however there is a limit when that starts to have a large economic impact and a problem of under catching species for which they have quota available.
We hope from the work we have done that the scientist and policy makers take a closer look at the reasons why fisheries are choking too early, and react to this with a more flexible approach. There are many reasons for discards and just blaming the fisherman for the problem, as many in the NGO's, journalists and politicians, have done in the past is just not good enough. The fish that were discarded before the landing obligation was introduced were mainly over the MLS( minimum landing size), and this was due to policy, now they will become a choke species (species that will close a fishery).
I would say bad policy creates far more discards than so called bad fishing practices, there are many complex reasons why a species becomes a choke, for our choke (area 7 haddocks) this is a multi layered problem. Essentially from what we are seeing on the grounds I think the lack of scientific data and more importantly the way that data is collected is causing a problem with the stock estimates of this species.
Coupled with that basing the quota amounts on historical catch data records is going to have huge implications across the EU as we all know fish move, and distribution cycles have changed in the last 25 years dramatically. This is the problem for us for area 7 haddock, before 95 we hardly saw a haddock now they are everywhere. The same can be said for many species around the UK and Ireland take hake for example in the North Sea.
Also drawing lines on a chart that determine stock coverage is no way to manage a fishery, the fish follow the feed and they will pass through area's and pay no attention to imaginary lines on a map, something is needed to address this issue as well.
It’s time that the commission understood that most of our fisheries are mixed fisheries and we need a balance of quota, simply working with single stock management will never work. Also relative shares have a big impact on some species when you apply a landings obligation to a mixed fishery. For example the UK takes around 20% of the EU quota in area 7, our choke( area 7 haddock) we only have 9% of the EU allocation so when you then apply that to a mixed fishery the UK has less than half the haddock it needs to start with, the same applies for differing species across many areas and member states.
Then the future is still not quite so assured, as when we come to the uplifts instead of looking at the discard for a certain species at member state level it will be applied at EU discard rate level, so once again relative shares have not been addressed.
This approach needs a rethink, obviously relative shares are a big issue and not easily broached, and I doubt we would ever see movement in this area, so we need other options to rectify this problem. Maybe something like Norway works, like the Norwegian others system of quota amounts, could help alleviate this contentious problem or a quota currency system.
I would say on reflection although we have lost out in what we have done financially we have learned a great deal from our experience, we have made a few mistakes along the way, that’s inevitable.
As the landings obligation stands at present with the proposed flexibility's on the table, by 2019 the fleets in our area and probably across Europe, the fleets will be tied up by half way through the year, the supplies of fish will cease and the consequences will ripple through the entire supply chain.
This will result in unemployment, bankruptcies, losses to market share and fish supply shortages, a total disaster!
However I hope from what we have learned policy makers can get a good grasp of what problems we will encounter and more importantly the reasons why, fisherman’s voices need to be heard more clearly in this process, we have seen first hand the impact this policy will create and it doesn't look good.
The CQT scheme has given us the ability to prove where policy and science is letting the fishery down and for the first time as fisherman we are able to reverse the burden of proof and lead the way. However the challenge now is that, we have to be able to supply even more data and trust into the system so that scientists and policy makers can apply better policies in future.
|
