World Wildlife Fund (WWF) is launching the 2014 International Smart Gear Competition, which seeks and supports innovative solutions to address fisheries bycatch, the unintentional catch of fish and other marine species.
The competition begins Saturday and ends August 31, 2014.
“The Smart Gear Competition aims to spur ideas for environmentally-friendly fishing gear that allows fishermen to fish smarter while helping to maintain ocean health,” stated Bill Fox, Fisheries Vice President at World Wildlife Fund. “In addition to fishermen losing millions of dollars each year due to bycatch, many other species, including endangered marine life, are unintentionally and needlessly killed by antiquated fishing gear and it is jeopardizing their survival.”
The 2014 International Smart Gear Competition will offer its largest prize purse to date, totaling $65,000, including:
A grand prize of $30,000 and two $10,000 runner-up prizes, sponsored by Fondation Segré.
In partnership with John West Foods, a $7,500 special prize will be awarded to the idea that identifies a solution to reduce the amount of bycatch found in both purse seine and longline tuna fisheries in the waters of the Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission.
Finally, with the Marine Mammal Commission and the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) sponsorship, a $7,500 special prize that will be awarded to the entry judged to most effectively reduce the bycatch of marine mammals in gillnet fisheries.
After the prizes are awarded, WWF works with each of the winners to bring their ideas to life and see them implemented in fisheries around the world.
“Today, more than 40% of the winning ideas identified by the competition in previous years are being used regularly in different types of fisheries,” Fox said.
Since its launch in 2004, the International Smart Gear Competition has demonstrated that conservation and industry can successfully work together to identify and eventually implement solutions to reduce bycatch. Past winners have included specially designed lights that reduce the bycatch of turtles in gillnets, and a device to reduce the bycatch of seabirds on tuna longlines.
This year, the competition is being supported by Fondation Segré, Bumble Bee Foods, John West Foods, the Marine Mammal Commission, NOAA, and WWF. Full details and entry forms are available at www.smartgear.org.
For more information, official competition rules, and instructions on how to enter, visit www.smartgear.org
The International Smart Gear Competition is open to entrants who are at least 18 years old at the time of entry. Employees, directors, agents, current contractors, and relatives of employees and directors of WWF, Marine Mammal Commission, National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Bumble Bee Foods, Fondation Segré, and John West Foods are ineligible. Judges and relatives of judges are also ineligible. The competition is void where prohibited. Odds depend on number of entries received. No purchase is necessary.
The competition begins March 1st, 2014 and ends on August 31st, 2014.
Friday 28 February 2014
Blustery north west winds hit 50mph which means its a fresh 'n freezing #FishyFriday
Caught pretty much in sight of Lamorna, cracking pollack up for auction...
good to see the Gordon's fish on the market this morning...
along with the Cornishman's haddock, the buyers need all the fish they can get at the moment having had to maintain a workforce with very little fish to handle or process for nearly three months...
always plenty of work for the Cefas boys...
Newlyn Fish keeping an eye on things...
especially these examples of gold dust...
quick fish ID course for the new recruits...
"that's never a large med"...
at 42cm more like a jumbo mackerel...
gets the blue flash light treatment...
another one of those fish vying for the ugly awards, this good looking chap sporting the piscine equivalent of the goatee - the ling...
one of Newlyn's big gill netters lays to the fish market.
Supertrawler Margiris in Irish waters
With a huge kerfuffle in her wake after trying to fish in the waters off the coast of Australia and after steaming half way round the planet the second largest trawler in the world will shortly be making her way up the West coast of Ireland. How will she be received by the boats working in those waters? Where will she land?
Fishing industry has "reason to be optimistic" after minister meeting in London
Fishermen’s leaders say they there is “reason to be optimistic” following a crunch summit with ministers about losses to the industry which it is estimated could run into millions of pounds.
Newlyn-based Paul Trebilcock, chairman of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO) and chief executive of the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation, led the delegation to speak to George Eustice, fisheries minister and Camborne and Redruth MP. Mr Trebilock said after the meeting in London that it had gone well, although not all their demands had been met.
“It was a positive meeting,” he said. “There was genuine interest from the minister and I think there are reasons to be optimistic.”
The industry leaders had gone into the discussion with the aim of pressing for action in a number of areas, including:
• Immediate access for fishermen to the Government’s small business support scheme for businesses affected by the severe weather
• Gear replacement funding for static gear damaged or lost in the storms
• An announcement on how Government is going to help repair the infrastructures damaged by the storms
• Steps to help fishermen recoup the lost earnings suffered from being unable to go to sea for prolonged periods over December, January and February
• Deferral of the Government’s intention to charge the fishing industry for light dues, a levy which contributes to the cost of lighthouse services.
Mr Trebilcock said fishing communities had been hard hit by the unprecedented storms, which had left boats sunk and beyond repair even if they were moored in a harbour. He said that taking into account the entire industry, from lost earnings for fishermen, due to very few days at sea, processors, markets, transport and gear, the bill could well run into over £1million. The meeting with Mr Eustice secured an important guarantee that fishermen would be able to access a fund set up for businesses affected by flooding and gales.
The minister also told the NFFO delegation that he had instructed officers to expedite applications for European grant money which could be made available. Mr Eustice also told the delegation that he had spoken to ministerial colleagues about harbour repairs and that he understood the importance to the industry. The minister also said he would consider reviewing light due, the levy fishermen pay to help fund the lighthouse service.
Quota guidelines may also be made more flexible to allow for the hiatus in putting out to sea.
However, Mr Trebilcock said there was no commitment to a scheme to fund gear losses. “The minister was interested and wanted to understand about the levels of losses and what could be repaired, but there was no commitment to scheme, although the minister did say he was going to consider it. “I would have liked to have him say that we can have this scheme and that they just have to work out the details, rather than hear him say it is something they could consider. “But overall, it was a good meeting. “The minister was sympathetic and generally interested in the scale of the problem.
He did appear to want to understand but we do need more than sympathy.” Mr Trebilcock said the NFFO and members of the fishing industry in general would be closely monitoring the situation. Fisheries Minister George Eustice said: “The severe weather over recent months has had a significant impact on a number of fishing communities.
“The government has made a £10 million grant fund open to flood affected businesses, and further options are being considered to help fishermen affected by storms.”
Read more: http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Fishing-industry-reason-optimistic-minister/story-20719011-detail/story.html#ixzz2uciSp8Fd
Newlyn-based Paul Trebilcock, chairman of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO) and chief executive of the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation, led the delegation to speak to George Eustice, fisheries minister and Camborne and Redruth MP. Mr Trebilock said after the meeting in London that it had gone well, although not all their demands had been met.
“It was a positive meeting,” he said. “There was genuine interest from the minister and I think there are reasons to be optimistic.”
The industry leaders had gone into the discussion with the aim of pressing for action in a number of areas, including:
• Immediate access for fishermen to the Government’s small business support scheme for businesses affected by the severe weather
• Gear replacement funding for static gear damaged or lost in the storms
• An announcement on how Government is going to help repair the infrastructures damaged by the storms
• Steps to help fishermen recoup the lost earnings suffered from being unable to go to sea for prolonged periods over December, January and February
• Deferral of the Government’s intention to charge the fishing industry for light dues, a levy which contributes to the cost of lighthouse services.
Mr Trebilcock said fishing communities had been hard hit by the unprecedented storms, which had left boats sunk and beyond repair even if they were moored in a harbour. He said that taking into account the entire industry, from lost earnings for fishermen, due to very few days at sea, processors, markets, transport and gear, the bill could well run into over £1million. The meeting with Mr Eustice secured an important guarantee that fishermen would be able to access a fund set up for businesses affected by flooding and gales.
The minister also told the NFFO delegation that he had instructed officers to expedite applications for European grant money which could be made available. Mr Eustice also told the delegation that he had spoken to ministerial colleagues about harbour repairs and that he understood the importance to the industry. The minister also said he would consider reviewing light due, the levy fishermen pay to help fund the lighthouse service.
Quota guidelines may also be made more flexible to allow for the hiatus in putting out to sea.
However, Mr Trebilcock said there was no commitment to a scheme to fund gear losses. “The minister was interested and wanted to understand about the levels of losses and what could be repaired, but there was no commitment to scheme, although the minister did say he was going to consider it. “I would have liked to have him say that we can have this scheme and that they just have to work out the details, rather than hear him say it is something they could consider. “But overall, it was a good meeting. “The minister was sympathetic and generally interested in the scale of the problem.
He did appear to want to understand but we do need more than sympathy.” Mr Trebilcock said the NFFO and members of the fishing industry in general would be closely monitoring the situation. Fisheries Minister George Eustice said: “The severe weather over recent months has had a significant impact on a number of fishing communities.
“The government has made a £10 million grant fund open to flood affected businesses, and further options are being considered to help fishermen affected by storms.”
Read more: http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Fishing-industry-reason-optimistic-minister/story-20719011-detail/story.html#ixzz2uciSp8Fd
Thursday 27 February 2014
One of those nights
Has to be one of the must see things in life - all the way from Essex, South Wales, Northern Ireland up to the Shetlands people were treated to a display of the Northern Lights tonight - #jealous
STORM SUPPORT MEETING WITH MINISTER - WHERE? WHEN? WITH WHOM?
A National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO) delegation is scheduled to meet today (27 February) with Fisheries Minister, George Eustice, to discuss an aid package for the fishing industry, following the unprecedented succession of storms that have affected the fishing industry.
“We have been talking to officials about the possible shape of a rescue package”, said Paul Trebilcock, Chairman of the NFFO, and also Chief Executive of the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation, one of the areas most severely hit by the storms.
“Now, we are meeting with George Eustice to hear what level of political support there is for a realistic and rapid support package. “What is needed is immediate short-term support to put fishing businesses back on their feet. We are not looking for long-term subsidies, but we do believe that government has a responsibility to underpin a return to profitability in these exceptional circumstances. There should also be parity with the treatment afforded to the farming industry. “The kind of support we have been pressing for includes:
Immediate access for fishermen to the Government’s small business support scheme for businesses affected by the severe weather Gear replacement funding for static gear damaged or lost in the storms An announcement on how Government is going to help repair the infrastructures damaged by the storms Steps to help fishermen recoup the lost earnings suffered from being unable to go to sea for prolonged periods over December, January and February
Deferral of the Government’s intention to charge the fishing industry for light dues” “Obviously, fishermen will judge the Government on how much support it is willing to give and how easy it is to access that support. These are exceptional circumstances; although, having said that, when this latest calamity hit, the industry was only just recovering from the losses arising from the unusually cold start to the previous year. “This is an opportunity for the Government to demonstrate its commitment to the fishing industry and to the fishermen who put food on our tables in sometimes very difficult circumstances.”
For more information visit http://www.nffo.org.uk/
Looking for an alternative to cod? - Rick Stein cooks Cornish hake
Clip courtesy of BBC Saturday Kitchen Best Bites broadcast on Sunday 23rd february 2014.
Cornish chef and champion of sourcing local produce where possible Rick Stein gets an airing on James Martin's Saturday Kitchen Best Bites when Rick extolls the virtues of using hake instead of cod - and so say all of us down here in Cornwall where, as he points out, we have abundant supplies of hake coming through both Newlyn and Brixham markets on a regular basis - keep abreast of all things hakey check out the web site of the Ajax, a netter from Newlyn that fishes for hake all year round.
From across the pond: So how’s that “catch shares” revolution working out for groundfish?
So how’s that “catch shares” revolution working out for groundfish?
“Recent scientific analyses show us that fisheries managed with catch share programs perform better than fisheries managed with traditional tools. Even in the first years after implementation, catch share fisheries are stable, and even increase their productivity. The scientific evidence is compelling that catch shares can also help restore the health of ecosystems and get fisheries on a path to profitability and sustainability. These results, … these scientific analyses, … are why moving forward to implement more catch share programs is a high priority for me. I see catch shares as the best way for many fisheries to both meet the Magnuson mandates and have healthy, profitable fisheries that are sustainable.” (Former NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco to the New England Fishery Management Council pressing for catch share management in the New England groundfish fishery in Boston on May 19, 2009)
Several weeks back NOAA/NMFS released the 2012 Final Report on the Performance of the Northeast Multispecies (Groundfish) Fishery (May 2012 – April 2013). The 121 page report is rather formidable, but fortunately for those of us who aren’t interested in the minutia of sociology, anthropology and economics as applied to the situation that our nations’ oldest and at one time most important commercial fishery has been forced into, its first table (Summary of major trends (May through April, includes all vessels with a valid limited access multispecies permit) says about all that needs to be said concerning the efficacy of federal fisheries management under what the Magnuson Act has been turned into by the mega-foundation supported ENGOs. It’s also a fairly good indicator of Ms. Lubchenco’s prowess as an analyst/prophetess/seer.
I’ve attached Table 1 from the Report. For purposes of this exercise the most important figures included in the table are those reporting the groundfish revenue for groundfish vessels from 2009 – the year that catch shares were first inflicted on the fishery - to 2012. They were $82 million, $83 million, $90 million and $70 million respectively. In spite of Ms. Lubchenco’s assurances that “even in the first years after implementation catch share fisheries are stable, and even increase their productivity,” in the third year of the New England groundfish catch shares program – called a “Sector Program” here – the stability that she had assured everyone was just around the catch shares corner was as dead as a dodo because of a pronounced decrease in productivity. (Note here that the most obvious measure of productivity, the weight of groundfish landings, was not included in the chart. Considering the fact that the average price of New England groundfish in particular and, as evidenced by the non-groundfish prices reported in Table 1, domestic finfish in general have increased significantly in the last four years, the decrease in productivity is even greater than it appears.)
Delving more deeply into the report we find: · Executive Summary - "Fishermen in the groundfish fleet were unable to offset the declines in groundfish revenues with increases in non-groundfish revenues. In 2012, total landings of all species on all trips taken by the groundfish fleet declined by 5.4% and total all species revenue fell by 7.7% ($25.3 million) from 2011. Groundfish landings declined 24.9% from 2011, to a four year low of 46.3 million pounds. Although groundfish average price rose by 2.7% from 2011 to 2012, it did not compensate for the drop in groundfish landings, and groundfish nominal revenues fell 22.9% in 2012 to a four year low of $69.8 million. At the same time, non-groundfish landings remained nearly constant, with a 0.4% increase, and average nongroundfish price fell 2.6%, which led to a 1.9% decrease in non-groundfish revenues in 2012 from 2011.”
· 2.2. Gross Nominal Revenues – “Gross nominal revenues for the groundfish fleet further indicate that groundfish fishermen were unable to use non-groundfish revenues to offset their losses in groundfish revenues in 2012. Total gross revenue in 2012 from all trips was $305.5 million, a decrease from 2011 ($330.8 million), but higher than in 2009 ($262.9 million) and 2010 ($293.8 million) (Table 2)15. Groundfish revenue in 2012 decreased to a four-year low of $69.8 million (22.9% lower than in 2011). Non-groundfish revenue decreased to $235.7 million (2% lower than in 2011), but was still higher than in 2009 and 2010.
Total nominal revenue from all species on groundfish trips in 2012 was $95.4 million, a four-year low (Table 3). Groundfish revenue on groundfish trips in 2012 was $69.7 million, also a four-year low. Non-groundfish revenues on groundfish trips decreased in 2012 to $25.8 million, from $31.8 million in 2011. Non-groundfish revenue earned on groundfish trips washigher than it was in 2010 ($22.3 million), but essentially the same as it was 2009 ($25.9 million)”
· 2.2.2. Nominal Revenues by Species – “Revenues from cod, haddock, yellowtail flounder, witch flounder, and pollock all decreased in 2012. Cod and haddock revenues experienced very significant drops, falling to four-year lows (45% reduction for cod; 62% reduction for haddock from 2011) (Table 8). Given higher average prices in 2012 for cod and haddock, these reductions in revenue can be attributed to sharp declines in landings.”
Concluding Remarks – “Our analyses of fishery performance measures of the limited access Northeast Multispecies (Groundfish) Fishery showed marked changes in the fishery during 2011-2012, with many of the positive economic trends observed in last year’s groundfish performance report reversing their course in 2012. After increasing in 2011, landed pounds of groundfish are at their lowest point in 2009-2012 for all vessels. Non-groundfish landings are at a four year high, but grew less than 1% from their 2011 levels. Non-groundfish landings and revenues did not compensate for losses in groundfish landings and revenues.”
Considering the cumulative cuts that have been instituted in the groundfish fisheries it’s safe to assume that the reported 2011 – 2012 trends will extend into the current fishing year, and without major changes in the Magnuson Act and in how NOAA/NMFS and the New England Council are allowed to manage the fisheries they will be extended beyond that.
So what, if anything, can be done?
First off, it’s important to be clear on one point. That is, this debacle can’t be blamed entirely on catch shares in general or the New England groundfish sector system in particular. In spite of Ms. Lubchenco’s inaccurate pronouncements, catch shares are not a guaranteed fix for any ailing fishery. From the perspective of the fish a catch share system is nothing more than a quota system (though from the fishing industry perspective it can be significantly different, depending on who – or what – ends up owning or controlling the quota), and quota systems are only as good as the quota setting and quota enforcing mechanisms behind them.
Unfortunately the quota setting mechanism in the New England groundfish fishery has been grossly ineffective – and this is in large part a function of the science that has supported it (let me stress here that I’m blaming the science, not the scientists, whose science might be skewed by bureaucratic, institutional and budgetary considerations). According to the science, in recent years the groundfish come and the groundfish go – though currently they appear now to be mostly going – with little connection to harvest levels.
Needless to say, when you have a fisheries management system which is predicated almost entirely on controlling fishing mortality, which out fisheries management system is, and there are other factors that impact fish stocks as much as or more than fishing mortality, your management system is going to break down, as it has in New England.
An obvious fix of this dismal situation would involve identifying and measuring these other factors and then adjusting our management systems to allow for them.
Can we do that? Not now, with the Magnuson Act forcing the managers and the fishermen into a straitjacket woven from the inflexible and glaringly ineffective “we have to control fishing because it’s the only thing we can control” fisheries management system.
And why are we stuck with this system? Because a handful of multi-billion dollar foundations, the ENGOs they control and the “fishing” organizations they have co-opted want us to be.
Is there a solution? You betcha!
The National Research Council of the National Academies of Science formed the Committee on Evaluating the Effectiveness of Stock Rebuilding Plans of the 2006 Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act which prepared a report titled Evaluating the Effectiveness of Fish Stock Rebuilding Plans in the United States.
On page 178 of the available (prepublication) report the Committee concluded
In fact, Congressman “Doc” Hastings, Chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources in the U.S. House of Representatives has been circulating a draft of amendments to the Magnuson Act that are largely focused on replacing the management flexibility that was intended by the Act’s authors back in 1976 but was subsequently nullified by the prodigious and expensive efforts of the handful of ENGOs whose budgets are and have been in large part dependent on demonizing fishermen and fishing. His legislation is titled the "Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act" (available at http://tinyurl.com/HastingsDraft).
In spite of what the National Research Council has to say, the ENGOs, their supporters and allies are pulling out all the stops to oppose Congressman Hastings’ attempts to put some rationality back into fisheries management by substituting educated judgment for inadequate science when it is warranted. Some of their spokespeople are referring to it as Rep. Hastings’ Empty Oceans Act, though their frantic reactions make it seem as if in camera they might be looking at it as Chairman Hastings’ Empty the ENGO Coffers Act. Their misleading argument is that Magnuson is working now (just ask anyone who is in whole or in part dependent on the New England groundfish fishery about that) and that changing it would transport us back to the bad old days of overfishing. That’s not going to happen. The fishermen wouldn’t accept it and there are still enough safeguards so that the managers couldn’t allow it even if they were so inclined. But, like the misuse of the term “overfished” presently in the Act, that’s where these ENGOs get much of their fishing derived thunder, so right or wrong (and the NAS/NRC, which is among the most unimpeachable and credible scientific bodies in the world, unambiguously says they are wrong) they’re going to do their utmost to scuttle Congressman Hastings’ amendments.
“Through the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the United States has one of the world's strongest statutory frameworks for the management of sustainable fisheries. The Act is highly effective at preventing overfishing and rebuilding overfished stocks. However, in the years since the requirements of the last reauthorization have been implemented, it has become increasingly clear that the councils need more flexibility to make decisions that are tailored to the needs and circumstances of each fishery.” (Statement of Richard B. Robins Jr., Chairman of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council at a hearing on the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act held by the House Resources Committee on 02/04/2014. None of the fisheries managed by the Mid-Atlantic Council are overfished.)
This was originally posted on the Fishosophy blog, which is jointly hosted on the American Fisheries Society (http://fishosophy.fisheries.org/) and the American Institute of Fishery Research Biologists (http://www.aifrb.org) websites. The contents of the blog do not necessarily represent the views of the other Fishosophy bloggers, either organization or their leadership.
Several weeks back NOAA/NMFS released the 2012 Final Report on the Performance of the Northeast Multispecies (Groundfish) Fishery (May 2012 – April 2013). The 121 page report is rather formidable, but fortunately for those of us who aren’t interested in the minutia of sociology, anthropology and economics as applied to the situation that our nations’ oldest and at one time most important commercial fishery has been forced into, its first table (Summary of major trends (May through April, includes all vessels with a valid limited access multispecies permit) says about all that needs to be said concerning the efficacy of federal fisheries management under what the Magnuson Act has been turned into by the mega-foundation supported ENGOs. It’s also a fairly good indicator of Ms. Lubchenco’s prowess as an analyst/prophetess/seer.
I’ve attached Table 1 from the Report. For purposes of this exercise the most important figures included in the table are those reporting the groundfish revenue for groundfish vessels from 2009 – the year that catch shares were first inflicted on the fishery - to 2012. They were $82 million, $83 million, $90 million and $70 million respectively. In spite of Ms. Lubchenco’s assurances that “even in the first years after implementation catch share fisheries are stable, and even increase their productivity,” in the third year of the New England groundfish catch shares program – called a “Sector Program” here – the stability that she had assured everyone was just around the catch shares corner was as dead as a dodo because of a pronounced decrease in productivity. (Note here that the most obvious measure of productivity, the weight of groundfish landings, was not included in the chart. Considering the fact that the average price of New England groundfish in particular and, as evidenced by the non-groundfish prices reported in Table 1, domestic finfish in general have increased significantly in the last four years, the decrease in productivity is even greater than it appears.)
Delving more deeply into the report we find: · Executive Summary - "Fishermen in the groundfish fleet were unable to offset the declines in groundfish revenues with increases in non-groundfish revenues. In 2012, total landings of all species on all trips taken by the groundfish fleet declined by 5.4% and total all species revenue fell by 7.7% ($25.3 million) from 2011. Groundfish landings declined 24.9% from 2011, to a four year low of 46.3 million pounds. Although groundfish average price rose by 2.7% from 2011 to 2012, it did not compensate for the drop in groundfish landings, and groundfish nominal revenues fell 22.9% in 2012 to a four year low of $69.8 million. At the same time, non-groundfish landings remained nearly constant, with a 0.4% increase, and average nongroundfish price fell 2.6%, which led to a 1.9% decrease in non-groundfish revenues in 2012 from 2011.”
· 2.2. Gross Nominal Revenues – “Gross nominal revenues for the groundfish fleet further indicate that groundfish fishermen were unable to use non-groundfish revenues to offset their losses in groundfish revenues in 2012. Total gross revenue in 2012 from all trips was $305.5 million, a decrease from 2011 ($330.8 million), but higher than in 2009 ($262.9 million) and 2010 ($293.8 million) (Table 2)15. Groundfish revenue in 2012 decreased to a four-year low of $69.8 million (22.9% lower than in 2011). Non-groundfish revenue decreased to $235.7 million (2% lower than in 2011), but was still higher than in 2009 and 2010.
Total nominal revenue from all species on groundfish trips in 2012 was $95.4 million, a four-year low (Table 3). Groundfish revenue on groundfish trips in 2012 was $69.7 million, also a four-year low. Non-groundfish revenues on groundfish trips decreased in 2012 to $25.8 million, from $31.8 million in 2011. Non-groundfish revenue earned on groundfish trips washigher than it was in 2010 ($22.3 million), but essentially the same as it was 2009 ($25.9 million)”
· 2.2.2. Nominal Revenues by Species – “Revenues from cod, haddock, yellowtail flounder, witch flounder, and pollock all decreased in 2012. Cod and haddock revenues experienced very significant drops, falling to four-year lows (45% reduction for cod; 62% reduction for haddock from 2011) (Table 8). Given higher average prices in 2012 for cod and haddock, these reductions in revenue can be attributed to sharp declines in landings.”
Concluding Remarks – “Our analyses of fishery performance measures of the limited access Northeast Multispecies (Groundfish) Fishery showed marked changes in the fishery during 2011-2012, with many of the positive economic trends observed in last year’s groundfish performance report reversing their course in 2012. After increasing in 2011, landed pounds of groundfish are at their lowest point in 2009-2012 for all vessels. Non-groundfish landings are at a four year high, but grew less than 1% from their 2011 levels. Non-groundfish landings and revenues did not compensate for losses in groundfish landings and revenues.”
Considering the cumulative cuts that have been instituted in the groundfish fisheries it’s safe to assume that the reported 2011 – 2012 trends will extend into the current fishing year, and without major changes in the Magnuson Act and in how NOAA/NMFS and the New England Council are allowed to manage the fisheries they will be extended beyond that.
So what, if anything, can be done?
First off, it’s important to be clear on one point. That is, this debacle can’t be blamed entirely on catch shares in general or the New England groundfish sector system in particular. In spite of Ms. Lubchenco’s inaccurate pronouncements, catch shares are not a guaranteed fix for any ailing fishery. From the perspective of the fish a catch share system is nothing more than a quota system (though from the fishing industry perspective it can be significantly different, depending on who – or what – ends up owning or controlling the quota), and quota systems are only as good as the quota setting and quota enforcing mechanisms behind them.
Unfortunately the quota setting mechanism in the New England groundfish fishery has been grossly ineffective – and this is in large part a function of the science that has supported it (let me stress here that I’m blaming the science, not the scientists, whose science might be skewed by bureaucratic, institutional and budgetary considerations). According to the science, in recent years the groundfish come and the groundfish go – though currently they appear now to be mostly going – with little connection to harvest levels.
Needless to say, when you have a fisheries management system which is predicated almost entirely on controlling fishing mortality, which out fisheries management system is, and there are other factors that impact fish stocks as much as or more than fishing mortality, your management system is going to break down, as it has in New England.
An obvious fix of this dismal situation would involve identifying and measuring these other factors and then adjusting our management systems to allow for them.
Can we do that? Not now, with the Magnuson Act forcing the managers and the fishermen into a straitjacket woven from the inflexible and glaringly ineffective “we have to control fishing because it’s the only thing we can control” fisheries management system.
And why are we stuck with this system? Because a handful of multi-billion dollar foundations, the ENGOs they control and the “fishing” organizations they have co-opted want us to be.
Is there a solution? You betcha!
The National Research Council of the National Academies of Science formed the Committee on Evaluating the Effectiveness of Stock Rebuilding Plans of the 2006 Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act which prepared a report titled Evaluating the Effectiveness of Fish Stock Rebuilding Plans in the United States.
On page 178 of the available (prepublication) report the Committee concluded
“the tradeoff between flexibility and prescriptiveness within the current legal framework and MFSCMA (Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act) guidelines for rebuilding underlies many of the issues discussed in this chapter. The present approach may not be flexible or adaptive enough in the face of complex ecosystem and fishery dynamics when data and knowledge are limiting. The high degree of prescriptiveness (and concomitant low flexibility) may create incompatibilities between single species rebuilding plans and EBFM (Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management). Fixed rules for rebuilding times can result in inefficiencies and discontinuities of harvest-control rules, put unrealistic demands on models and data for stock assessment and forecasting, cause reduction in yield, especially in mixed-stock situations, and de-emphasize socio-economic factors in the formulation of rebuilding plans. The current approach specifies success of individual rebuilding plans in biological terms. It does not address evaluation of the success in socio-economic terms and at broader regional and national scales, and also does not ensure effective flow of information (communication) across regions.
In fact, Congressman “Doc” Hastings, Chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources in the U.S. House of Representatives has been circulating a draft of amendments to the Magnuson Act that are largely focused on replacing the management flexibility that was intended by the Act’s authors back in 1976 but was subsequently nullified by the prodigious and expensive efforts of the handful of ENGOs whose budgets are and have been in large part dependent on demonizing fishermen and fishing. His legislation is titled the "Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act" (available at http://tinyurl.com/HastingsDraft).
In spite of what the National Research Council has to say, the ENGOs, their supporters and allies are pulling out all the stops to oppose Congressman Hastings’ attempts to put some rationality back into fisheries management by substituting educated judgment for inadequate science when it is warranted. Some of their spokespeople are referring to it as Rep. Hastings’ Empty Oceans Act, though their frantic reactions make it seem as if in camera they might be looking at it as Chairman Hastings’ Empty the ENGO Coffers Act. Their misleading argument is that Magnuson is working now (just ask anyone who is in whole or in part dependent on the New England groundfish fishery about that) and that changing it would transport us back to the bad old days of overfishing. That’s not going to happen. The fishermen wouldn’t accept it and there are still enough safeguards so that the managers couldn’t allow it even if they were so inclined. But, like the misuse of the term “overfished” presently in the Act, that’s where these ENGOs get much of their fishing derived thunder, so right or wrong (and the NAS/NRC, which is among the most unimpeachable and credible scientific bodies in the world, unambiguously says they are wrong) they’re going to do their utmost to scuttle Congressman Hastings’ amendments.
“Through the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the United States has one of the world's strongest statutory frameworks for the management of sustainable fisheries. The Act is highly effective at preventing overfishing and rebuilding overfished stocks. However, in the years since the requirements of the last reauthorization have been implemented, it has become increasingly clear that the councils need more flexibility to make decisions that are tailored to the needs and circumstances of each fishery.” (Statement of Richard B. Robins Jr., Chairman of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council at a hearing on the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act held by the House Resources Committee on 02/04/2014. None of the fisheries managed by the Mid-Atlantic Council are overfished.)
This was originally posted on the Fishosophy blog, which is jointly hosted on the American Fisheries Society (http://fishosophy.fisheries.org/) and the American Institute of Fishery Research Biologists (http://www.aifrb.org) websites. The contents of the blog do not necessarily represent the views of the other Fishosophy bloggers, either organization or their leadership.
Latest news on implementing the new CFP rulings on discards
THIS weekend I will be visiting fishermen in Newlyn to discuss the problems they have had over the last six weeks as a result of the stormy weather which has severely restricted the number of days they have been able to spend at sea as well as causing considerable damage to boats and fishing equipment.
While it has undoubtedly been a very difficult start to the year for Cornish fishermen, I think the longer- term outlook gives some grounds for optimism because, at the beginning of January, the EU finally put into law a new reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) which has the potential to deliver radical change as well as become a potential model for further reform in other areas of European policy. There are a number of really important aspects to the new CFP deal. Firstly, there is a commitment to ban the discard of good fish. It has always been a disgraceful practice that perfectly healthy fish are thrown dead back into the sea simply because the fisherman who landed them did not happen to have the right quota.
That will now end. Secondly, to help make the discard ban work in practice, fishermen will receive a quota uplift so they can land more. They will also be granted much greater flexibility so that if they unexpectedly land more of one species for which they have no quota, then they will be allowed to count it against quota for another species instead, rather than be forced to throw it dead back into the sea. If they happen to do better than expected at the end of the year, then they will also be allowed to borrow some quota from the following year. The third key aspect of the new policy is that there is now a legally binding commitment to fish sustainably or at what scientists call Maximum Sustainable Yield.
This means that we have a policy that focuses on the outcome rather than getting too bogged down in process and all member states in the EU have accepted this approach.
Finally, the new CFP has moved away from a centralised model, where the entire EU sets out prescriptive policies. In future, small groups of member states who have a shared interest in a particular fishery will decide on the management measures that will deliver sustainable fishing. Because they all have an interest in the future of the fishery, they are more likely to put thought into getting things right.
Taken together, these reforms have the potential to be a radical reform. I really hope both the industry and all EU governments will roll their sleeves up to make this a success.
Read more: http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/Reform-Common-Fisheries-Policy/story-20715850-detail/story.html#ixzz2uWdzBiZc Follow us: @thisiscornwall on Twitter | thisiscornwall on Facebook
While it has undoubtedly been a very difficult start to the year for Cornish fishermen, I think the longer- term outlook gives some grounds for optimism because, at the beginning of January, the EU finally put into law a new reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) which has the potential to deliver radical change as well as become a potential model for further reform in other areas of European policy. There are a number of really important aspects to the new CFP deal. Firstly, there is a commitment to ban the discard of good fish. It has always been a disgraceful practice that perfectly healthy fish are thrown dead back into the sea simply because the fisherman who landed them did not happen to have the right quota.
That will now end. Secondly, to help make the discard ban work in practice, fishermen will receive a quota uplift so they can land more. They will also be granted much greater flexibility so that if they unexpectedly land more of one species for which they have no quota, then they will be allowed to count it against quota for another species instead, rather than be forced to throw it dead back into the sea. If they happen to do better than expected at the end of the year, then they will also be allowed to borrow some quota from the following year. The third key aspect of the new policy is that there is now a legally binding commitment to fish sustainably or at what scientists call Maximum Sustainable Yield.
This means that we have a policy that focuses on the outcome rather than getting too bogged down in process and all member states in the EU have accepted this approach.
Finally, the new CFP has moved away from a centralised model, where the entire EU sets out prescriptive policies. In future, small groups of member states who have a shared interest in a particular fishery will decide on the management measures that will deliver sustainable fishing. Because they all have an interest in the future of the fishery, they are more likely to put thought into getting things right.
Taken together, these reforms have the potential to be a radical reform. I really hope both the industry and all EU governments will roll their sleeves up to make this a success.
Read more: http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/Reform-Common-Fisheries-Policy/story-20715850-detail/story.html#ixzz2uWdzBiZc Follow us: @thisiscornwall on Twitter | thisiscornwall on Facebook
Julie Girling - Aid for storm-hit fishermen
Conservative Euro MP Julie Girling has highlighted the plight of local fishermen who have not been able to fish since December due to the relentless storm conditions which have prevented them from going to sea.
These fishermen were finally able to return to the sea only last weekend after almost two months of inactivity. Inshore fleets, particularly in the South West of England and along the Welsh coast, where most fishing activity involves day boats, have been severely impacted. But many fishing communities around the entire UK have also been affected.
Fishermen have faced the choice of risking their lives by putting to sea in life-threatening conditions, or not having enough money to pay their bills and feed their families.
Jeremy Hosking who operates out of Newlyn in West Cornwall said; “The exceptional weather of recent months has had a devastating impact on fishermen like myself who fish from small boats. In my case I have recovered 60 pots that are beyond repair and have a further 125 unaccounted for. The fishing industry is a primary food producer yet for many of us the damage to our gear has meant we can not go about our daily business".
Derek Thomas, Prospective Conservative MP for the St Ives Constituency said; “The fishing industry is an important part of our local economy. Already our fishermen are working in all weathers to make a living and the storms of recent months have added considerable strain to hard working families. These fishermen need access to help quickly. Many jobs on land and at sea depend on the success of this vital industry.”
The EU's state aid rules for the fisheries sector also allows for certain national schemes to support these types of losses incurred by fishermen and other professionals in the sector as a result of adverse meteorological conditions.
These fishermen were finally able to return to the sea only last weekend after almost two months of inactivity. Inshore fleets, particularly in the South West of England and along the Welsh coast, where most fishing activity involves day boats, have been severely impacted. But many fishing communities around the entire UK have also been affected.
Fishermen have faced the choice of risking their lives by putting to sea in life-threatening conditions, or not having enough money to pay their bills and feed their families.
Commenting on the situation, Mrs Girling said; “The difficulties our local fishermen face cannot be underestimated. Many of the small scale (under 10 metre) fleet in these affected areas have had no income whatsoever since before Christmas. The extreme weather conditions involving violent storms and excessively high tides have also caused severe damage to harbours, ports, infrastructure, sea defences, vessels, static fishing gear and even shingle beaches. The situation is dire and urgent help is needed."
Mrs Girling added; “I urge local fishermen to contact the Marine Management Organisation. The recently agreed European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) may co-finance mutual funds for fisherman, to allow them to finance special insurance schemes to compensate income losses in cases of adverse climatic conditions. As for fishermen losing their fishing gear due to adverse climactic conditions (e.g. storms), the EMFF may support the purchase of new more selective gear.”
Jeremy Hosking who operates out of Newlyn in West Cornwall said; “The exceptional weather of recent months has had a devastating impact on fishermen like myself who fish from small boats. In my case I have recovered 60 pots that are beyond repair and have a further 125 unaccounted for. The fishing industry is a primary food producer yet for many of us the damage to our gear has meant we can not go about our daily business".
Derek Thomas, Prospective Conservative MP for the St Ives Constituency said; “The fishing industry is an important part of our local economy. Already our fishermen are working in all weathers to make a living and the storms of recent months have added considerable strain to hard working families. These fishermen need access to help quickly. Many jobs on land and at sea depend on the success of this vital industry.”
The EU's state aid rules for the fisheries sector also allows for certain national schemes to support these types of losses incurred by fishermen and other professionals in the sector as a result of adverse meteorological conditions.
Wednesday 26 February 2014
Classical meets Folk at the Centre, Newlyn
Come and enjoy a musical evening where the nationally acclaimed voice of the Fishwives Choir's soloist Hannah Pascoe makes magic with Folk duo Delia and Dave Brotherton at the Centre Newlyn on Saturday the 29th March.
Photo Galleries Bottom trawling may be good for fish, study suggests
A new study conducted by Dutch scientists in the North Sea suggests there may actually be some unexpected benefits from bottom trawling.
The report, entitled "When does fishing lead to more fish? Community consequences of bottom trawl fisheries in demersal food webs," was commissioned by the Wageningen Institute for Marine Resources and Ecosystem Studies (IMARES) in the Netherlands. The findings were published Wednesday by the London-based Royal Society.
The study focused on flatfish such as plaice and sole, and how those species — and their food — reacted to standard beam trawling. Some of the results were surprising. "What we found is that the indirect effects or side-effects of trawling — namely, the sort of selective removal of certain types of bottom life — sort of makes the system more productive in terms of food for the fish that fishermen target," said Tobias Van Kooten, one of three authors of the report, along with Daniel van Denderen and Adriaan Rijnsdorp.
The focus of the research was to model the effects of bottom trawling on fish species and food sources that are either resistant or susceptible to bottom trawling. The authors found there are indications bottom trawling may actually "increase the availability of food and promote growth, and even yield of target fish species."
Van Kooten said the scientists used a food web model to come to their conclusions. "(We took) a number of assumptions about how scientists think that the interaction between fisheries and fish works, and put them together in a food web model that allows you to evaluate the consequences of those assumptions," Van Kooten explained. "The results you get from the total (food web) can be very different from the individual pieces."
Expected to spur controversy
The study's results will undoubtedly generate discussion, especially given the environmental and habitat-based concerns that have been expressed about bottom trawling over the years. In fact, some have called for the fishing method to be banned altogether in Canadian waters. In Newfoundland and Labrador the issue of bottom trawling has been a controversial one given the high value of fish species harvested that way — like shrimp.
Those who oppose it insist it destroys sensitive marine habitat and negatively affects species like snow crab. Those who support it say the damage is limited and warn that a ban of bottom trawling would be the end of commercial fishing in the Northwest Atlantic. Van Kooten said it is clear there are negative impacts with respect to bottom trawling. But he says those drawbacks should be considered in concert with any potential benefits. If anything, he says the report's findings show how important it is to have the complete ecosystem picture in focus when making fish management decisions. "We definitely realize this will lead to many questions from many people, but we are willing to talk with anyone who is willing to listen," he said. "The assumptions that give rise to these results are fairly accepted mechanisms for how people think trawling affects the ecosystem."
In addition to being published by the Royal Society, the findings were also presented at an ecology conference in London, England in August, and are also going to be featured during an international conference in Iceland later this month.
The report, entitled "When does fishing lead to more fish? Community consequences of bottom trawl fisheries in demersal food webs," was commissioned by the Wageningen Institute for Marine Resources and Ecosystem Studies (IMARES) in the Netherlands. The findings were published Wednesday by the London-based Royal Society.
 |
| Plaice and sole were studied |
The study focused on flatfish such as plaice and sole, and how those species — and their food — reacted to standard beam trawling. Some of the results were surprising. "What we found is that the indirect effects or side-effects of trawling — namely, the sort of selective removal of certain types of bottom life — sort of makes the system more productive in terms of food for the fish that fishermen target," said Tobias Van Kooten, one of three authors of the report, along with Daniel van Denderen and Adriaan Rijnsdorp.
The focus of the research was to model the effects of bottom trawling on fish species and food sources that are either resistant or susceptible to bottom trawling. The authors found there are indications bottom trawling may actually "increase the availability of food and promote growth, and even yield of target fish species."
Van Kooten said the scientists used a food web model to come to their conclusions. "(We took) a number of assumptions about how scientists think that the interaction between fisheries and fish works, and put them together in a food web model that allows you to evaluate the consequences of those assumptions," Van Kooten explained. "The results you get from the total (food web) can be very different from the individual pieces."
Expected to spur controversy
The study's results will undoubtedly generate discussion, especially given the environmental and habitat-based concerns that have been expressed about bottom trawling over the years. In fact, some have called for the fishing method to be banned altogether in Canadian waters. In Newfoundland and Labrador the issue of bottom trawling has been a controversial one given the high value of fish species harvested that way — like shrimp.
Those who oppose it insist it destroys sensitive marine habitat and negatively affects species like snow crab. Those who support it say the damage is limited and warn that a ban of bottom trawling would be the end of commercial fishing in the Northwest Atlantic. Van Kooten said it is clear there are negative impacts with respect to bottom trawling. But he says those drawbacks should be considered in concert with any potential benefits. If anything, he says the report's findings show how important it is to have the complete ecosystem picture in focus when making fish management decisions. "We definitely realize this will lead to many questions from many people, but we are willing to talk with anyone who is willing to listen," he said. "The assumptions that give rise to these results are fairly accepted mechanisms for how people think trawling affects the ecosystem."
In addition to being published by the Royal Society, the findings were also presented at an ecology conference in London, England in August, and are also going to be featured during an international conference in Iceland later this month.
Tuesday 25 February 2014
Latest fishing reform promises a net gain for fisherman
George Eustice, Conservative MP for Camborne and Redruth and Fishing Minister, says new EU fisheries rules could be radical
Later this week I will be visiting fishermen in Newlyn to discuss the problems they have had over the last six weeks as a result of the stormy weather which has severely restricted the number of days they have been able to spend at sea as well as considerable damage to boats and fishing equipment.
While it has undoubtedly been a very difficult start to the year for Cornish fishermen, I think the longer term outlook gives some grounds for optimism because, at the beginning of January, the EU finally put into law a new reform of the Common Fisheries Policy which has the potential to deliver radical change and to become a potential model for further reform in other areas of European policy.
The old CFP epitomised the shortcomings of decision making at a European level. The policy tended to be slow to adapt and reform. Because the marine environment is so complicated, a centralised system of management at a European level has always led to unintended consequences which have been counterproductive to the aims of creating a sustainable fishing industry.
However, we know that some form of policy to manage the marine environment is also essential. A successful fishing industry depends on all countries adhering to fishing practices which mean there will be fish tomorrow and an industry for the next generation to enter. It is neither good for the marine environment nor for our fishing industry if we hammer stocks of declining fish species. We also have to recognise that most fishing takes place in international seas and many nations have historic access rights in one another's waters. So, whether or not there was a Common Fisheries Policy, we would still need to negotiate agreements with many other countries about how to manage shared fisheries. Indeed, at this very moment, we are in the middle of complex negotiations with Norway, Iceland and the Faroe Islands about how best to allocate fishing opportunities for mackerel in the North Sea.
There were a number of important aspects to the new CFP deal agreed at the end of last year and now in force. Firstly, there is a commitment to ban the discard of good fish. It has always been a disgraceful practice that perfectly healthy fish are thrown dead back into the sea because the fisherman who landed them did not happen to have the right quota. That will now end.
Secondly, to help make the discard ban work in practice, fishermen will receive a quota uplift so they can land more. They will also be granted much greater flexibility so that if they unexpectedly land more of one species for which they have no quota, then they will be allowed to count it against quota for another species instead rather than be forced to throw it dead back into the sea. If they happen to do better than expected at the end of the year, then they will also be allowed to borrow some quota from the following year.
The third key aspect of the new policy is that there is now a legally-binding commitment to fish sustainably or at what scientists call Maximum Sustainable Yield. This means that we have a policy that focuses on the outcome rather than getting too bogged down in process and all member states in the EU have accepted this approach.
Finally, the new CFP has moved away from a centralised model where the entire EU sets out prescriptive policies. In future, small groups of member states which have a shared interest in a fishery will decide on the management measures that will deliver sustainable fishing. Because they all have an interest in the future of the fishery, they are more likely to put thought into getting things right.
Taken together, these reforms have the potential to be a radical reform. I really hope both the industry and all EU governments will roll their sleeves up to make this a success. It combines a common European objective on sustainability with the flexibility to recognise realities and decision making returned to member states, having all the ingredients of a potential new model for European cooperation that could be applied to other areas.
Courtesy of the Western Morning News - Read more:
Later this week I will be visiting fishermen in Newlyn to discuss the problems they have had over the last six weeks as a result of the stormy weather which has severely restricted the number of days they have been able to spend at sea as well as considerable damage to boats and fishing equipment.
While it has undoubtedly been a very difficult start to the year for Cornish fishermen, I think the longer term outlook gives some grounds for optimism because, at the beginning of January, the EU finally put into law a new reform of the Common Fisheries Policy which has the potential to deliver radical change and to become a potential model for further reform in other areas of European policy.
The old CFP epitomised the shortcomings of decision making at a European level. The policy tended to be slow to adapt and reform. Because the marine environment is so complicated, a centralised system of management at a European level has always led to unintended consequences which have been counterproductive to the aims of creating a sustainable fishing industry.
However, we know that some form of policy to manage the marine environment is also essential. A successful fishing industry depends on all countries adhering to fishing practices which mean there will be fish tomorrow and an industry for the next generation to enter. It is neither good for the marine environment nor for our fishing industry if we hammer stocks of declining fish species. We also have to recognise that most fishing takes place in international seas and many nations have historic access rights in one another's waters. So, whether or not there was a Common Fisheries Policy, we would still need to negotiate agreements with many other countries about how to manage shared fisheries. Indeed, at this very moment, we are in the middle of complex negotiations with Norway, Iceland and the Faroe Islands about how best to allocate fishing opportunities for mackerel in the North Sea.
There were a number of important aspects to the new CFP deal agreed at the end of last year and now in force. Firstly, there is a commitment to ban the discard of good fish. It has always been a disgraceful practice that perfectly healthy fish are thrown dead back into the sea because the fisherman who landed them did not happen to have the right quota. That will now end.
Secondly, to help make the discard ban work in practice, fishermen will receive a quota uplift so they can land more. They will also be granted much greater flexibility so that if they unexpectedly land more of one species for which they have no quota, then they will be allowed to count it against quota for another species instead rather than be forced to throw it dead back into the sea. If they happen to do better than expected at the end of the year, then they will also be allowed to borrow some quota from the following year.
The third key aspect of the new policy is that there is now a legally-binding commitment to fish sustainably or at what scientists call Maximum Sustainable Yield. This means that we have a policy that focuses on the outcome rather than getting too bogged down in process and all member states in the EU have accepted this approach.
Finally, the new CFP has moved away from a centralised model where the entire EU sets out prescriptive policies. In future, small groups of member states which have a shared interest in a fishery will decide on the management measures that will deliver sustainable fishing. Because they all have an interest in the future of the fishery, they are more likely to put thought into getting things right.
Taken together, these reforms have the potential to be a radical reform. I really hope both the industry and all EU governments will roll their sleeves up to make this a success. It combines a common European objective on sustainability with the flexibility to recognise realities and decision making returned to member states, having all the ingredients of a potential new model for European cooperation that could be applied to other areas.
Courtesy of the Western Morning News - Read more:
Monday 24 February 2014
The Titanic Sails at Midnight
Midnight January 1st 2016 marks the embarkation date for the EU discards ban for our demersal fisheries.
Like the Titanic, it is doomed to collide with some hard realities.
With fatal design flaws and a course that will lead it through treacherous waters, the EU landings obligation is a high-risk gamble that has great potential for catastrophe. Like the Titanic, where the expectations and aspirations of the owners set up time pressures that precluded a much safer course to the destination, the European co-legislators and the Commission have created a dangerous path to the objective of low discard fisheries. At risk are all the gains that have been made over the last 10 years in putting European fisheries on a sound and sustainable footing.
Those design flaws include:
A rushed timetable for implementation; the Norwegian experience suggests that an incremental and adaptive approach is required to resolve the multiple issues associated with the biggest change in the history of the CFP Signs that the clean sweep of all discard generating rules within the CFP, prior to the application of the discard ban will be inadequate and incomplete Imposing an obligation on EU fleets which requires Norway’s agreement on critical elements to make it workable Applying a discard ban before serious data deficiencies have been resolved Embarking without a plan on how to deal with choke species (where the premature exhaustion of one (often bycatch)species prevents uptake of the main economic species Unreasonable and unachievable requirements that crews provide “detailed and precise records” of every last fish discarded, when even “experts” can have problems distinguishing between species on deck Devolving implementation responsibility to the regional level but then imposing unachievable conditions.
Like the Titanic, the discard ban is a grandiose, eye-catching initiative. The great white ship impressed those who knew little or nothing about ship design, navigation or seamanship; similarly, fishermen, scientists, control authorities and fisheries administrators, have all voiced their concerns about the implementation of the new discard legislation. Agreed in a maelstrom of publicity as the centrepiece of the CFP reform, even some environmental NGOs are now backing away from the monster that they have helped to create and set on course towards the ice fields.
Like the Titanic, the owners of the discard ban will be miles away and long gone when tragedy strikes. Commissioner Damanaki, TV celebrities, MEPs and ministers who created the bandwagon will no longer be there to take responsibility. Some ministers, including our own, have already gone, and more MEPs and the Commissioner will leave the stage this year - having milked all the credit possible for the media-inspired policy and leaving the policy to make its fateful rendezvous with the iceberg.
A Change of Course?
A change of course could save the ship even at this late stage, despite its grievous design flaws, by navigating away from the danger zone. Member states have the scope and responsibility to design and shape regional discard plans in ways that could reduce the risks. Altering course through exemptions and quota flexibilities, by applying a pragmatic control regime and by facing down some of the more poorly thought-through aspects of the owners' demands, could save the vessel even at the 11th hour.
There is much to be said for regionalisation of the CFP. It offers a means to at least begin to break away from the over-centralised command and control approach which lies at the heart of so many of the CFP’s failures. But to confront regionally cooperating member states on their first outing with mission impossible - the implementation of the discard ban – could look like a devious plan by the Brussels technocracy to discredit decentralisation; a plot beyond even the most swivel-eyed conspiracy theorist.
But regionally cooperating member states, working with stakeholders in the advisory councils, is all that lies between an industry and policy moving at full-speed towards the iceberg. That is why with our own fisheries department in DEFRA, in the regional advisory councils and in discussions with scientist in ICES and STECF, the NFFO has been working assiduously to secure a post-2016 regime that is consistent with the viability of the industry and which does not squander the hard won gains made in recent years.
Pilots and Preparation
We are also urging a dramatic expansion in funding and quota availability to undertake pilots and trials that will allow us to anticipate the choke species - and develop solutions consistent with the landings obligation.
One of the central issues which will determine the fate of the discard ban, and the fishing industry’s attitude to it, will be the scale and sequence of the quota uplifts to cover fish previously discarded. Given the extent of data uncertainties, this has to be a central worry and we are arguing vigorously for a thoughtful rather than a fingers-crossed and hope for the best approach.
Follow that Ship?
Before the discard ban hits its main target - the mixed demersal fisheries - the landings obligation will be applied to the pelagic fisheries from 1st January 2015. Whether there will be lessons learnt from this experience and whether they will be the right kind of lessons is a moot point. Pelagic fisheries certainly present a lesser challenge than the mixed demersal fisheries but that it not to say that there are no problems. Lessons will surely be learnt but is doubtful that this will provide a helpful overall template for whitefish.
Unnecessary Voyage
One important omission in the extensive and intense media coverage of discards has been that before it hit the headlines, discarded fish was a problem progressively reducing in size. Discards in the English fleet for example had reduced by 50% in the previous decade and there is every reason to believe that this progress would continue. Similar initiatives and trends have taken place in other parts of the UK and in other member states.
Admittedly, the CFP needed a shake up to remove all the legislation that currently helps to generate discards - the catch composition rules and effort control spring to mind - but this could have been approached in a different manner. Even in Norway, where a discard ban has been applied pragmatically and incrementally over 20 years, the evidence is that discarding still takes place at some level, possibly as high as 15%. That is great progress from over 50% but it is not zero. At least with an incremental approach there is a chance to adjust to address the inevitable problems as they arise.
North Sea Realities
It's been a while since there were icebergs in the North Sea but there are certainly plenty of potential complexities and pitfalls in implementing the landings obligation there.
The emerging statistics on the North Sea discard pattern are instructive. 40% of the catch in the North Sea is discarded. Of that 40%, 80% is comprised of two species: plaice and dab. Plaice (depending on a range of factors) is estimated to have a 60% survival rate when returned to the sea. Does it make sense to retain on board and land (dead) plaice in those circumstances, depriving the biomass of that 60%? Is this not a prima facie case for a high survival exemption?
And the reason that dabs are discarded is that there is low market demand for them. This is somewhere that celebrity chefs and their TV programmes could actually do some good.
All this illustrates that the discard ban is going to be anything but straightforward. Even before we get to the problems associated with exemptions there are the issues of inter-species flexibility, choke species and negotiating TAC arrangements for shared stocks with Norway.
Western Waters Complexities - special regard for the waters off Cornwall
If anything, the complexities are even greater in Western Waters, the seas traversed by the Titanic on its fateful voyage. There are certainly more data limited stocks in these fisheries, notwithstanding the close collaborative work undertaken between ICES and the North West Waters RAC. And the fisheries are much more mixed, raising multiple questions about quota uplift and choke stocks. Much work remains to be done.
Disaster Averted?
Despite the parallels with the Titanic there is still time to steer the landings obligation clear of the ice. It will not be easy, constrained as we are by the owners' orders. But if the captain has the courage and skill to set a new course and to challenge, and if necessary defy, his superiors, there is a chance that disaster can be averted.
From the NFFO
Like the Titanic, it is doomed to collide with some hard realities.
With fatal design flaws and a course that will lead it through treacherous waters, the EU landings obligation is a high-risk gamble that has great potential for catastrophe. Like the Titanic, where the expectations and aspirations of the owners set up time pressures that precluded a much safer course to the destination, the European co-legislators and the Commission have created a dangerous path to the objective of low discard fisheries. At risk are all the gains that have been made over the last 10 years in putting European fisheries on a sound and sustainable footing.
Those design flaws include:
A rushed timetable for implementation; the Norwegian experience suggests that an incremental and adaptive approach is required to resolve the multiple issues associated with the biggest change in the history of the CFP Signs that the clean sweep of all discard generating rules within the CFP, prior to the application of the discard ban will be inadequate and incomplete Imposing an obligation on EU fleets which requires Norway’s agreement on critical elements to make it workable Applying a discard ban before serious data deficiencies have been resolved Embarking without a plan on how to deal with choke species (where the premature exhaustion of one (often bycatch)species prevents uptake of the main economic species Unreasonable and unachievable requirements that crews provide “detailed and precise records” of every last fish discarded, when even “experts” can have problems distinguishing between species on deck Devolving implementation responsibility to the regional level but then imposing unachievable conditions.
Like the Titanic, the discard ban is a grandiose, eye-catching initiative. The great white ship impressed those who knew little or nothing about ship design, navigation or seamanship; similarly, fishermen, scientists, control authorities and fisheries administrators, have all voiced their concerns about the implementation of the new discard legislation. Agreed in a maelstrom of publicity as the centrepiece of the CFP reform, even some environmental NGOs are now backing away from the monster that they have helped to create and set on course towards the ice fields.
Like the Titanic, the owners of the discard ban will be miles away and long gone when tragedy strikes. Commissioner Damanaki, TV celebrities, MEPs and ministers who created the bandwagon will no longer be there to take responsibility. Some ministers, including our own, have already gone, and more MEPs and the Commissioner will leave the stage this year - having milked all the credit possible for the media-inspired policy and leaving the policy to make its fateful rendezvous with the iceberg.
A Change of Course?
A change of course could save the ship even at this late stage, despite its grievous design flaws, by navigating away from the danger zone. Member states have the scope and responsibility to design and shape regional discard plans in ways that could reduce the risks. Altering course through exemptions and quota flexibilities, by applying a pragmatic control regime and by facing down some of the more poorly thought-through aspects of the owners' demands, could save the vessel even at the 11th hour.
There is much to be said for regionalisation of the CFP. It offers a means to at least begin to break away from the over-centralised command and control approach which lies at the heart of so many of the CFP’s failures. But to confront regionally cooperating member states on their first outing with mission impossible - the implementation of the discard ban – could look like a devious plan by the Brussels technocracy to discredit decentralisation; a plot beyond even the most swivel-eyed conspiracy theorist.
But regionally cooperating member states, working with stakeholders in the advisory councils, is all that lies between an industry and policy moving at full-speed towards the iceberg. That is why with our own fisheries department in DEFRA, in the regional advisory councils and in discussions with scientist in ICES and STECF, the NFFO has been working assiduously to secure a post-2016 regime that is consistent with the viability of the industry and which does not squander the hard won gains made in recent years.
Pilots and Preparation
We are also urging a dramatic expansion in funding and quota availability to undertake pilots and trials that will allow us to anticipate the choke species - and develop solutions consistent with the landings obligation.
One of the central issues which will determine the fate of the discard ban, and the fishing industry’s attitude to it, will be the scale and sequence of the quota uplifts to cover fish previously discarded. Given the extent of data uncertainties, this has to be a central worry and we are arguing vigorously for a thoughtful rather than a fingers-crossed and hope for the best approach.
Follow that Ship?
Before the discard ban hits its main target - the mixed demersal fisheries - the landings obligation will be applied to the pelagic fisheries from 1st January 2015. Whether there will be lessons learnt from this experience and whether they will be the right kind of lessons is a moot point. Pelagic fisheries certainly present a lesser challenge than the mixed demersal fisheries but that it not to say that there are no problems. Lessons will surely be learnt but is doubtful that this will provide a helpful overall template for whitefish.
Unnecessary Voyage
One important omission in the extensive and intense media coverage of discards has been that before it hit the headlines, discarded fish was a problem progressively reducing in size. Discards in the English fleet for example had reduced by 50% in the previous decade and there is every reason to believe that this progress would continue. Similar initiatives and trends have taken place in other parts of the UK and in other member states.
Admittedly, the CFP needed a shake up to remove all the legislation that currently helps to generate discards - the catch composition rules and effort control spring to mind - but this could have been approached in a different manner. Even in Norway, where a discard ban has been applied pragmatically and incrementally over 20 years, the evidence is that discarding still takes place at some level, possibly as high as 15%. That is great progress from over 50% but it is not zero. At least with an incremental approach there is a chance to adjust to address the inevitable problems as they arise.
North Sea Realities
It's been a while since there were icebergs in the North Sea but there are certainly plenty of potential complexities and pitfalls in implementing the landings obligation there.
The emerging statistics on the North Sea discard pattern are instructive. 40% of the catch in the North Sea is discarded. Of that 40%, 80% is comprised of two species: plaice and dab. Plaice (depending on a range of factors) is estimated to have a 60% survival rate when returned to the sea. Does it make sense to retain on board and land (dead) plaice in those circumstances, depriving the biomass of that 60%? Is this not a prima facie case for a high survival exemption?
And the reason that dabs are discarded is that there is low market demand for them. This is somewhere that celebrity chefs and their TV programmes could actually do some good.
All this illustrates that the discard ban is going to be anything but straightforward. Even before we get to the problems associated with exemptions there are the issues of inter-species flexibility, choke species and negotiating TAC arrangements for shared stocks with Norway.
Western Waters Complexities - special regard for the waters off Cornwall
If anything, the complexities are even greater in Western Waters, the seas traversed by the Titanic on its fateful voyage. There are certainly more data limited stocks in these fisheries, notwithstanding the close collaborative work undertaken between ICES and the North West Waters RAC. And the fisheries are much more mixed, raising multiple questions about quota uplift and choke stocks. Much work remains to be done.
Disaster Averted?
Despite the parallels with the Titanic there is still time to steer the landings obligation clear of the ice. It will not be easy, constrained as we are by the owners' orders. But if the captain has the courage and skill to set a new course and to challenge, and if necessary defy, his superiors, there is a chance that disaster can be averted.
From the NFFO
The humble haddock - from sea to plate
Sea to Plate from Beard Askew Productions on Vimeo.
This is exactly what the people that feature in the series believe. Peter Bruce has been going to sea for more than 30 years. He is the skipper of the Budding Rose, a pair trawler in the North Sea. We spoke to Peter immediately after he landed 400 boxes of MSC sustainable haddock and he explained his part of the process.
Danny Couper Jr is a second-generation fish merchant. His father Danny Snr started Couper Seafoods and his son Jaime is now working for the business. Danny explains the role of the buyer and processor in the journey of a North Sea haddock. Calum Richardson owns The Bay Fish and Chips, Stonehaven, which is currently the Independent Fish and Chips Shop of the Year 2013! So he knows a thing or two about cooking haddock. He is also a big supporter of sustainable fishing. Calum tells us how important sourcing the best fish possible is, and how vital it is to support our local fishing communities.
Morse code
Looks like the Cefas Endeavour has some survey work to do off to the south of Mount's Bay - despite the weather being less than helpful. Although updates for the Endeavour's blog page appears to be a little thin on the ground so far this year. In the past not only the Cefas site but the JNCC team and others have done stirling work keeping all those interested in ocean research fed with excellent reports straight from the working deck and labs aboard the boat...
and found the time to shoot some of those moments that make all those poor weather days fade into the past.
Think big
It might look ugly - but the huge harbour - with its 550 berth yacht marina, fishing port, 2 story fish market and marine conference centre at Saint Quay Portrieux on the Cote d'Armor, Brittany suffered no damage in the recent severe storms - and all that with a tide of 27 feet (Newlyn has 19 feet max )...
 |
| Not an empty berth can be seen in the marina. |
the original port can be seen bounded by the two inside breakwaters - unlike Penzance Harbour, the Breton planners and town council figured that extending the harbour and creating a new car park was probably a smarter move than filling in part of the existing harbour - with all the recent damage which will cost millions to restore to its previous glory perhaps now is the time to think bigger and better?
Monday morning's market is full of fresh fish and #openforbusiness in Cornwall
Looking very sorry for herself, the Children's Friend heels heavily against the quay on the hard in front of the harbour offices - work will resume today to make her watertight and re-float her...
a busy Monday morning market included a good shot of ray...
Cornish haddock which is in much abundance and the subject of a huge debate over the inability of the quota system to acknowledge changing stock levels - possibly through poor data collection in the first instance...
luuuuuvly lemons...
some thing s move just too fast even at this hour of the morning on the market...
while the bidding process is somewhat more sedentary...
evidence that a seal had visited the Gary M's gear - seals usually just take a huge bite out of the belly or loin of fish thereby rendering that part of the body unsaleable - hence these boxes of tail pieces up for auction...
a mixed box of odds 'n sods...
it's the time of year when fans of fish roe get moist eyes...
making a note of the last bid, auctioneer Ian conducts...
there are still a few tubs of cuttles to tempt the beamers to fill their boxes with black gold though nothing like as abundant as they were two years ago...
yet another damaged pot waits on the quay from the Rowse crabbing fleet - flagship Emma Louise will be joined later this year by a sister ship currently being fitted out 'up country'...
waning moon over Newlyn set off against a sky heavy with cloud.
Pair team progress - Lapwing and Budding Rose
The Peterhead pair team Budding Rose and the Lapwing are picked by VesselTracker's AIS - the track left shows that the two boats are clearly pair trawling - towing a single net between the two boats - this reduces the amount of drag on the seabed as the method does not require the net to be spread by the use of trawl doors - both boats towing a single net provides plenty of spread and allows longer sweeps or bridles to be used - generally, this method provides a much bigger catch return than simply doubling the catch for using lees fuel...
the boats are working grounds south south east of the Shetlands.
Sunday 23 February 2014
Big haul of haddocks - hoppers full with a lifting bag still hanging aft - one heavy list!!
No fish in the sea? the Lapwing taking on board a single huge haul of haddock on the North Sea - it seems legislation can't change fast enough to cope with ever changing fish populations - it's all about fecundity and viability.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)