'>

Monday, 25 February 2013

Can new technology save fish?



A technological revolution is needed for Europe to end the controversial practice of discarding fish, according to the EU’s fisheries commissioner.

Maria Damanaki is calling for boats to be fitted with smart nets to filter out fish which would later be discarded as too small or above quota.



Get Adobe Flash player


And she wants more on-board cameras to ensure that crews cannot cheat on fishing rules.

She told BBC News that the hoped-for reform of the Common Fisheries Policy could not happen unless fishermen harnessed new technology.



Spy-in-the-wheelhouse CCTV cameras trialled in the UK are said to have cut cod discards from 38% to just 0.2%.

Fishermen on the trial are obliged to land all the cod they catch, whatever the size. They have been rewarded with increased quotas and permitted extra days at sea.

Ms Damanaki says cameras will be essential – especially for the biggest boats – if the EU adopts a policy of zero fish discards.

Smart nets


The other key technology is fishing net design, which Ms Damanaki says is the single most important component of fisheries reform.

At the North Sea Centre in the Danish port of Hirtshals, fishery technologists are testing new styles of nets which may answer her prayer.


Fishing crews travel here to learn about smart nets which separate catches by new designs.
One innovation is a slanting plastic grid at the centre of a trawl net. Large fish are diverted by the grid into the keep end of the net whilst young fish and shrimps pass through the slots. The grid is bendable so it can be wound up with fishing gear.
CCTV camerasCCTV has been installed on some fishing boats in the UK
The bendy grid costs around £2,000 – a sum which prompted British fishermen visiting Hirtshals to laugh out loud.

But Mrs Damanaki told me she hopes to subsidise the cost of new technology for small boats by 85%. The bendy grid may prove the difference between being allowed to fish and being kept out of the water.
The Rollerball net is another recent arrival. Traditional beam trawlers seeking flatfish drag heavy gear along the sea bed, churning up the sand and destroying much that lies in their path.
Rollerball runs over the seabed on what look like beach-balls. It is said to reduce damage and drag by between 11 and 16%, and there are hopes further improvements. Cutting drag also trims fuel bills and pollution.

Embracing change


Mike Montgomerie from the UK quango Seafish introduces crews to the latest technologies at Hirtshals. He said: “In the past few years I have noticed a real change among crews. They are hearing that the public won’t put up with wasteful fishing any more, and a lot of them are embracing change.”
Ms Damanaki went further: “The most important (thing is) how we are going to implement selective gear so we can reduce unwanted catches. This is the most important element of the whole policy.”
The crews I met appeared to be accepting change rather than actually embracing it.

In Scarborough, Yorkshire, boat owner Fred Normandale said he resented the trial cameras on his trawler Emulator, but the trial made financial sense: “It feels like we are being spied on - I wouldn’t want the cameras to be mandatory,” he said. “I have only done it because they paid for it and made it worth my while in quotas and extra days at sea.”
Graphic
His skipper, Sean Crowe, told me the spy cameras have changed the way he operates. “It makes you think more about where you are fishing. In the past if we brought up a lot of young fish we might have another haul to see what would happen. Now we move somewhere else and we check with other boats to see what they are bringing up.”

The on-board spy is a sophisticated system employing cameras; GPS; and infra-red and hydraulic sensors to monitor the winches. It produces a map of exactly where the boat has fished in the last two months, as well as evidence of what it has caught.

The kit costs £7,000, installation adds £2,000 and software puts on a further £300 a year.
Vested interests?


But the Marine Management Organisation (MMO), which is running the trial, says this is still cheaper than human observers on boats – and much more effective, as the computer hard-drives hold far more information.

“A fisheries observer on a boat has one pair of eyes,” says Grant Course, head of the marine trials team. “With the cameras we can watch four areas of the boat at the same time, including the discards chute. We can see the fish being sorted. We really know what’s going on.”

The wheelhouse spy has been used for a decade in North America’s successful attempt to restore fisheries, but it may be resisted by some European governments.

The new net technologies are also effective, but the highly individual local conditions of fisheries may confound the sort of blanket technological rules that appeal to Brussels for ease of enforcement. A net that protects the environment in one fishery may not work well in another.

It will be hard for politicians to sort genuine complaints about inappropriate gear from the vested interest that has driven Europe’s fish stocks to their current depleted level.

Commission sources fear that France and Spain may accept the principle of a discards ban but raise sufficient technical objections over gear rules to render reform ineffective.

That, insists Ms Damanaki, must not be allowed to happen. But it is a sign of the changing times that the EU is no longer talking about whether fishing reform is necessary, but how it is achieved.

Full storu courtesy of the BBC

Saturday, 23 February 2013

One chilly Saturday morning in Newlyn


Almost ready to let go of the ends...


not long to go for the big new netter...



not long to go for the big new beamer...


last minute tests on the way the gear is rigged...




checking the cod end and stocking can be raised high enough...


waiting for orders...



 the skipper's smiling this morning...

one of several lorries waiting to pick up fish...


bound away for another 10 day trip...



netters wait over the tide...



fresh fish for sale


from Trelawney Fish.

Friday, 22 February 2013

Tom Webb comments on Fish Fight Series 3 - shame this guy wasn't an advisor to HFW!

MOLA MOLAScience, seas, statistics and society

Tom Webb comments on Fish Fight Series 3 - shame this guy wasn't an advisor to HFW!


What with Brian Cox spending an hour explaining the importance of body size in ecological systems, and then prime time marine conservation courtesy of Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall’s ongoing Fishfight, I feel that my research interests have been rather well covered by TV of late. But whereas I have nothing but praise so far for Cox’s Wonders of Life, I find myself somewhat more ambivalent in my views of Fishfight.

On the one hand, it is fantastic to see the issue of marine conservation gain such prominence. Hugh F-W is an excellent and extremely savvy campaigner, and his energy and drive to reduce the wasteful practice of discards (subject of the first Fishfight series) has had a real, positive impact at the EU level. Of course, we need to make sure that the fish now landed instead of discarded at sea actually make it to market, rather than landfill – but that’s not to take away from what Fishfight achieved. And the focus of this second series, on marine protected areas, is also a really important issue – few would argue with the central tenet that we should take better care of the marine environment, and that protecting certain areas should be a part of this. Neither am I entirely averse to using shock tactics to elicit an emotional response in the audience – indeed, I attempt just this in my marine conservation lectures here in Sheffield, where I channel Jeremy Jackson in documenting the often calamitous history of human impacts on the ocean.

On the other hand, however – and notwithstanding the considered input of scientists whom I know, like and respect such as Alex Rodgers and Callum Roberts– we need to recognise that Fishfight is a campaign, and campaigning TV by its very nature is not especially fussed about issues of balance. This is the point made by SeaFish in their response to the series. SeaFish were derided on Twitter last night by George Monbiot as an industry quango whose interest is "minimum of conservation and maximum of exploitation", but actually they are a respected body who take science pretty seriously - although as an industry body of course they consider the social and economic as well as the ecological consequences of marine environmental policy. They have been making the point that MPAs in the UK ought to be established based only on sound scientific criteria – the reason rather few have so far been agreed is that often we lack these data.

Now, I used to be of a similar view to the Fishfight gang – that the priority ought to be just establishing  MPAs, on the assumption that even if they were suboptimally positioned, any protection of any area would be better than none. Then I started talking to people who study these things and was politely told that, actually, a poorly designed MPA can actually do more harm than good. So, my view now is that MPAs need to be carefully designed, set up with specific and explicit goals, and not simply placed willy-nilly.

More generally, and as always, the truth will usually lie somewhere between environmental campaigners and industry groups. Some scientists have been quite vocal regarding the oversimplification of complex issues that is inevitable in campaigning TV. Marine conservation biologist Mike Kaiser, for example, has been quite active on Twitter putting across a fisheries science view, and I agree with this blog post by Jess Woo, that framing this campaign in terms of a ‘fight’ is unfortunate – “the last thing marine conservation (and particularly fisheries management) needs is a ruckus”.

All of which has got me thinking: what does marine conservation need? Well, some kind of clear vision would be useful, regarding how we balance the needs of conservation with feeding 9 billion people. There have been studies looking at this from a fisheries perspective, but it struck me that there are real parallels here with the land sharing vs. land sparing debate in terrestrial conservation. Should we concentrate conservation effort into the preservation of wild areas, and exploit other areas for food production as intensively as we can? Or should we aim for a more balanced approach, seeking a way to allow human activities and nature to coexist? In farming terms, this is the difference between a mosaic of industrial farms interspersed with nature reserves, and a more extensive system of wildlife-friendly farms.

The obvious upshot of this terrestrial debate is that if you want a large network of fully protected nature reserves, you have to balance that with farming the fuck out of what’s left. Translating this to a marine context, a network of no-take MPAs requires fishing the fuck out of unprotected areas. There is no real incentive for more responsible fishing outside the MPAs: the focus should just be on productivity. So the depressing images of dredged and trawled habitats that Fishfight uses to tug the heartstrings would not disappear if MPAs were widely established. In this case, you’re pinning an awful lot on not only the (widely supported) in situ success of MPAs, but also in their (often positive, but more variable) spillover effects. Responsible fishing, by contrast, requires more extensive areas to be exploited, which may limit the extent of fully protected MPAs.

More generally, whilst we should be cautious extending the fisheries—agriculture analogy too far (fishing, remember, still largely targets wild, and often highly mobile organisms), I think it does provide some useful context. Ray Hilborn, a fisheries ecologist who also happens to be a farmer, has commented on this before: how farmers are praised for bringing the landscape under the plough in order to produce food, whereas fishermen are castigated for doing similar (often in farm more hazardous circumstances). Let’s just remember that (to use Oxfam’s terminology) the social foundation of access to an adequate, healthy food supply is of equal importance to the environmental ceiling of preserving biodiversity. If we get marine management right, we should be able to do both. I’m not convinced that starting a fight with some of the most important and knowledgeable marine stakeholders is the best way to achieve this.

Printed in full from SciLogs - Mola Mola, Science, seas, statistics and science.

Seafish: The Fish Fight Charter is simplistic, indiscriminate and lacking in scientific evidence.

Seafish has today published a ten point response (below) to the Fish Fight Charter, which it describes as "simplistic, indiscriminate and lacking in scientific evidence in many areas." 




Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall's Fish Fight campaign, which is urging people to march on Parliament and demand the implementation of 127 Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in UK coastal waters is, in Seafish's view, in danger of undermining and undervaluing years of environmental improvements, unless it stops its vilification of the UK fishing industry.

Paul Williams, CEO of Seafish, said: "The Fish Fight Charter is simplistic, indiscriminate and lacking in scientific evidence in many areas. The inconvenient truth to campaigns such as Fish Fight is that fishermen's knowledge has shown how the boundaries of a number of proposed MPAs, and the location of features within them, are wrong. So you need fishermen on board in order to achieve the environmental, social and economic improvements that everyone is striving for, and the science must be in place before you designate MPAs. Going down the 'evidence-lite' route, as this Fish Fight campaign does, is likely to achieve very little and the campaign will simply alienate the fishing industry - a sector that is vital to leading environmental improvements in our seas.

"Hugh's Fish Fight has lost sight of the fact that 31 proposed MPAs have been approved, out of the original 127 proposed, for a reason. That reason was that the Government's Scientific Advisory Panel found that the review of the scientific basis for the additional areas - what was being protected, why it was important, what would be the benefit - simply wasn't adequate. To put pressure on the industry and Government for more at this stage is therefore irresponsible and opportunistic as it is our understanding that more MPAs will eventually be considered anyway once proper scientific evidence for them has been gathered."

Seafish's response tackles many of the assumptions made in the Fish Fight Charter and also questions why the celebrity chef is raising these issues now when industry and environmental groups have been working with Government for years to improve the vibrancy and productivity of the marine environment. Some of the key points raised hinge on the assumption that all mobile gear destroys the sea-floor. The fact is that the right mobile gear used in the right place and at the appropriate intensity does not destroy the seafloor.

There is also the false assumption that all MPAs enhance fishing communities. Fundamentally, mobile gear fleets are important to many economically fragile coastal fishing communities. Another false assumption that the campaign operates on is that MPAs bring unalloyed environmental benefit. On the contrary, displacing fishing activity from MPAs could negate the ecological benefits afforded by an MPA network.

There are some areas where Seafish does agree with the Charter such as the importance of establishing MPAs in order to protect the environment and enable sustainability. This is already being done in many areas and has created vibrant and productive seas around the UK. The difference of opinion is how this is achieved and also in how the campaign has chosen to illustrate the need for action.

More Twitter talk - there's a real need for dialogue from the guys at HFF!

From Colin Leask aboard the Antarctic from Shetland.




Hugh's Fish Fight:

Heres a photo Hugh to show you what we endure to get fresh MSC sustainable fish to your colleagues' restaurants. Hugh, you always push the saying "Dont Ignore The People", well you should listen to us fishermen and authorities before broadcasting dangerous lies to the public, which could in turn destroy Fishing communities, its not a game Hugh, it's real people's lives your playing with...........


Looking over the stern of the Antarctic 

James Anderson @jameslk57 @jamieoliver what do you think of the massive increase in cod stocks. Remember your simplistic misleading graph on HFF. Make amends time now

James Anderson @jameslk57 More anti fishing propaganda from HFF- "as fish stocks continue to decline". Cod stocks doubled in last 5 yrs, N sea stocks rising. Fact! 1h

James Anderson @jameslk57 @GeorgeMonbiot .. Put them back into sea. Reduce, debate alter gear etc, but a ban is ridiculous. Ban nuke waste and see if it disappears. 1h

James Anderson @jameslk57 @GeorgeMonbiot who said "you can't wish waste away"? This is what HFF does with discards! Something has to be done with them and best ... 1h

william grafton @fishywillie Terrible news of one of the crew from the Achieve passing away in hospital last night,tragic. Thoughts are with them and family today. Retweeted by James Anderson 1h

James Anderson @jameslk57 @GeorgeMonbiot @seafishuk How should we not be interested in humanity? Unbelievable vilification fro some. We feed "humanity". 1h

James Anderson @jameslk57 @GeorgeMonbiot @seafishuk why would industry not want long term conservation?I have 3 sons coming behind me. Praise us for good management! 1h

James Anderson @jameslk57 @GeorgeMonbiot Seafish trying to put some balance back into debate. No chance of that from HFF. Check local NTZ's pic.twitter.com/Xo3ZPvTFEb

2h

James Anderson @jameslk57 @GeorgeMonbiot You should base your opinion of the industry on more than HFF. Now more fish than ever, reward for industry led conservation 2h

James Anderson @jameslk57 @GeorgeMonbiot if the stocks are increasing (cod stock doubled in last 5 yrs, haddock, saithe, whiting all rising) do we need to change? 20h

Seafish @seafishuk Our view of @hughsfishfight Charter ‘simplistic, indiscriminate and scientifically illiterate’; read our analysis seafish.org/about-seafish/… Retweeted by James Anderson 13h

Seafish @seafishuk @GeorgeMonbiot Even a cursory glance at our statements would see we are for MPA's, but science based not celebrity led #fishfact #fishfight Retweeted by James Anderson 5h

Yan Giron @PecheFraiche @JMacL the original is here trawlingfortruth.blogspot.fr/2013/02/fal-st… with some hints at the end Retweeted by James Anderson 2d

Chris Crosby @Chris4128 @chazbruce69 Scallop dredging disturbance on sea bed is relatively minor compaired 2 all the NATURAL disturbance youtube.com/watch?v=sJpMPP…

Retweeted by James Anderson 9d

Blueshell Mussels @BlueshellMussel Wow wow another beauty 160grammes!!! Better than fillet steak yfrog.com/h6z3eekyj

Retweeted by James Anderson 4d

James Anderson @jameslk57 @ValFrankiesFish no probs val. 4d

James Anderson @jameslk57 @Lord_Sugar @hughsfishfight urge you to read this tiny.cc/jptjsw Theres a lot more to it, lets work with, not against our fishermen” 4d

James Anderson @jameslk57 @Lord_Sugar hard working small businesses being targeted unfairly by @hughsfishfight. Please follow @Realfishfight and help get truth out. 6d

Valency Boscastle @Boscastle_Dee “@MitchTonks: Watched @hughsfishfight ? Read this tiny.cc/jptjsw Always 2 sides to a story>> work with, not against our fishermen” Retweeted by James Anderson 6d

MitchTonks @MitchTonks Watched @hughsfishfight ? I urge you to read this tiny.cc/jptjsw Theres a lot more to it, lets work with, not against our fishermen

Results from Monday's Fisheries Council vote in Brussels


Reform of the common fisheries policy 

The Council is expected to adopt a second general approach on the proposal for a regulation on the common fisheries policy (CFP) (12514/11) replacing the basic provisions of the CFP as part of the CFP reform "package": 

A general approach constitutes a political agreement in the Council on a proposal for a regulation.  The agreement sought on the CFP basic provisions will follow up on the first general approach agreed by the Council in June 2012 (11322/12), which was not fully conclusive with respect to the following parts of the proposal: 

• implementation of the discards ban and the possibility of by-catch quotas;• responsibilities for implementing environmental obligations that impact on fishing activities; • definitions, delegated acts to be adopted by the Commission and recitals. 

The European Parliament voted on its position at first reading on 6 February 2013.

The proposal's general objective is to ensure fisheries and aquaculture activities that provide longterm sustainable environmental, economic and social conditions, and contribute to the availability of food supplies.

 New elements concern in particular: 

• a landing obligation, • maximum sustainable yield (MSY) as a compulsory reference for fisheries management, • regionalised decision-making, • individually transferable fishing quotas, • EU measures accompanying member state obligations under environmental legislation.

Thursday, 21 February 2013

Twitter exchanges between Scottish fishermen and Jame Oliver and others

Buy from local markets and stop sourcing fish from around the globe:

Here's a lively exchange of tweets traded this evening:


@jamieoliver UK fishermen are doing more to conserve the stocks then Hugh. Ask the scientists. Stocks are plentiful
Retweeted by Budding Rose PD418

Even my fish scientist boyfriend isn't impressed with HF-W!! Says it looks like he's got his own agenda & everyone else is wrong. #fishfight
Retweeted by Budding Rose PD418

@jamieoliver have heard about conservation credits ..??

@jamieoliver please come to Peterhead sometime we have great news for about the recovering stocks in the North Sea

@jamieoliver never 1 good word in his programme about some the things we have done to help recover !!

@jamieoliver your Aberdeen restaurant is 45 minutes from the UKs biggest fishmarket how much fish do use from there ?


@buddingrose418 why don't you go and find out fella

@buddingrose418 u cant tell every story in 48 mins im sure your doing great things! as u know its not people like you that are the problem

@buddingrose418 i sell all sustainable fish and i have a team on it all the time as its a very complex issue and i support and buy MSC



@jamieoliver why do you not support the local fishing industry in Aberdeen and sell msc haddock

@GeorgeMonbiot we should shut you down ..the likes you cost people their job with your lies !!

@GeorgeMonbiot that's absolutely rubbish what the conservation credit scheme .. I suppose you've never heard of it !

@GeorgeMonbiot massive areas around our coastline are never fished ..do fish flourish in these areas no .. Mpa have no benefit to fish!

@GeorgeMonbiot no wonder the fishing industry is fighting back you tell so much lies !!

@GeorgeMonbiot what about the hake we now see in the North Sea never 1 mention in the media !!

@GeorgeMonbiot never seen so much fish in the North Sea never a word in the media about it !!

@GeorgeMonbiot never 1 good word about the conservation work my industry does !

@RichardsonsFWD ha can l get that in writing please!!

@RichardsonsFWD just away a few days fishing yet !

Nice haul of haddocks just now probably about 7 ton

@seafishuk we are proud tonsupport @Realfishfight , its all about helping others and looking at "WE" instead of "ME"