Marine Report Tells Cautionary Tale for Scottish Government

SCOTLAND, UK - A parliamentary report highlighting a chronic “lack of clarity” with English marine protection plans sends a strong signal to the Scottish Government about its proposals for a marine protected area network to safeguard Scotland’s marine biodiversity.

The report by the cross-party UK Science and Technology Committee describes the “frustration” and “anxiety” for industry and other stakeholders caused during efforts to create Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs) in England. The consultation is being viewed by many Scottish stakeholders as a stark lesson about the potential pitfalls for Scotland’s Marine Protected Area project if not implemented robustly and comprehensively.

The UK report says Defra “shifted the goalposts” during the process regarding the level of scientific evidence required, which undermined public confidence in the MCZs. It also underlined the continued confusion over proposed management measures and Defra’s failure to properly examine the socio-economic benefits of MPAs. Research published in November 2012 found that a network of Scottish MPAs could provide benefits to Scotland to the tune of £10 billion, and potentially more.

Members of Scottish Environment LINK’s marine taskforce are now urging the Scottish Government to learn from the recommendations in the report and ensure that the Scottish process is clearer and less protracted.

A consultation on protected areas in England concluded last month, but Scotland’s 16-week consultation is due to commence this summer.

Calum Duncan, Convenor of Scottish Environment LINK’s marine taskforce said: “It’s unfortunate in many ways, but we Scots can learn a lot from the English MCZ process. It is essential that we follow the science. The Scottish Government’s own advice has proposed 33 new Scottish MPAs to help rescue our seas. Further work will also be needed to complete protection for seabirds, cetaceans, common skate and others species. This is urgent advice - our seas are in a declining and degraded state and we need to kickstart their recovery. We cannot delay protection as has happened in England.

"It is amazing to think that Scottish seas make up 61 per cent of UK waters, and we now need to fulfill our responsibility for protecting this share. Experience from across the globe has shown that MPAs provide economic and social benefits that far outweigh the costs of designation and management. The Scottish MPA network can be a world-leading project which recovers and safeguards our most precious natural resource for the long-term public benefit. The alternative is a public consultative mess that serves nobody’s long-term interests.”

Full story courtesy of the Fish Site news desk.

Kevin Penney - Newlyn punt fisherman

Video: Punt fishing from Newlyn

Dreckly Fish are a small group of Cornish fishermen, working out of the port of Newlyn. Our aim is to provide quality fresh fish direct from the people who caught them!

Line caught fish like mackerel, bass and squid, pot caught lobsters and crabs, which now come with complete traceability....

and how good those blues look tucked up in their brand new boxes!

CCTV is watching those discards

A new CCTV system for trawlers aims to keep any eye on fishermen in a bid to stop "discards" - throwing back fish when a catch exceeds the quota. Channel 4's Tom Clarke reports.

At 58 foot and a few years past her prime, Emulator looks just like many other English fishing trawlers.

Only she has been fitted with experimental CCTV technology in the hope of ending the perverse practice of "discards" - of throwing good fish back over the side dead.

Not every trawler owner would consent to having Big Brother-style cameras fitted to his boat. But Fred Normandale, who part-owns Scarborough-based Emulator, sees it as an opportunity to show what really goes on at sea.

"We're prepared to take cameras to prove to the scientists and the Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstalls of this country that we are not criminals and we want to preserve cod as much as anyone else does."

The dig is aimed at the celebrity chef whose TV campaign helped force European fisheries ministers agree to a ban on discards. Earlier this month, they agreed to ban discards of all fish under the common fisheries policy by 2018.

90 per cent discards

A basic flaw the CFP - set up in the 1980s to protect fish stocks - sees much of the fish European boats catch go straight back over the side.

The average European fishing trawler discards 38 per cent of its catch - for some species of fish 90 per cent are thrown away. But boats like the Emulator, involved in the current trial, have reduced discards to just 0.2 per cent.

The problem of discards results from the way fishing rights are shared out. Each vessel is awarded a strict quota in tonnes for the fish species it wants to catch. If it catches too much of that species, or members of another species, it faces a fine for landing them. Fishermen get round the problem by dumping the fish they can't land back into the sea.

The trial is for boats fishing cod in the North Sea and sole in the English channel.

It requires fishermen to land all the fish they catch. If they have caught undersized fish, they are unable to sell them, and if they meet their quota allocation, they have to stop fishing. In return for those conditions, fishermen are given more fishing quota than equivalent boats.

Black box monitoring

Compliance is tested by four CCTV cameras fitted to the boats. One monitors the catch coming over the side, others watch which fish are kept and which are discarded.

The video, along with GPS data on exactly where the boat is fishing, is then stored on a black box which is sent to the Marine Management Organisation's monitoring centre back in Scarborough.

"It's not so much an intrusion as an incentive," said Grant Course, the trial manager with the MMO. "This encourages fishermen to be responsible for his own resource."

According to the MMO boats in the trial take more effort to avoid catching undersize fish which have no value at market, but under the conditions of the trial they are forced to land.

Reform priority

Banning discards is high on the list of reforms being negotiated today by the EU.

UK Fisheries Minister Richard Benyon said the British government, with the support of Denmark which is chairing the fisheries council, wants to see a ban in place by 2014. "This is a once in a decade opportunity to get this right," said Benyon.

But even if the minister can make discards ban work in British waters, it will not work unless it is adopted Europe-wide. The proposal will face tough opposition from France and some Mediterranean states who benefit most from the CFP in its current form. "What we have to do is get it back to local management instead of thinking that we can manage mesh-sizes from Brussels. That's been the absurdity and at last we're seeing a change in direction. 

Published June 2012 Wikipedia Article on EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP)

Wednesday shrouded in mist

Yellow wellies...

out of the cold...

cracking lemons from the Innisfallen...

and a dollop of reds...

enough turbot to feed an army...

along with the rest of the trip from the Ocean Spray...

when it comes to quality inshore fish the Tracey Clare shines...

not only monk tails nut cheeks...

and livers too!...

a fresh fleet of pots ready to be put out aboard the Kastel Paol...

Kevin Penney from Dreckly Fsih! gets a few new pots aboard...

and a nicely fermented bait bin at the ready...

as a couple of punts come in after another morning's fruitless search....

for those elusive mackerel shoals...

the latest ultra-high-tech RNLI lifeboat continues her trials in the Bay...

a detail shot showing her water jet propulsion which gives her huge maneuverability  able to turn easily in her own length...

didn't see that mist coming...

visiting classic Scandinavian yacht...

very ship-shape...

and Bristol fashion...

bunting display...

two of a kind from Ocean Fish's Cornish Sardine fleet...

days gone by recorded by a Newlyn School artist...

along with several other works...

in the forthcoming Lane's sale.

Next time you think it seems the trip is a long one...

A single page in a Merchant Navy seaman's pass book.  When things were a little different in the 1930s.  These were the days when many sailors began their careers on wooden and steel square riggers.  Six weeks on and two weeks off was a long way off - just check out the detail from his discharge book for most of the 1930s.  

Joseph William Burnett was at home when his daughter was born. Was next at home when she was nearly two, and was next at home when she was nearly six years old.  She met her father on that occasion only when her aunt had insisted that her mother took her out of school (in South Shields) and travel to Leith where the boat was undergoing repairs in the Albert Dock. How times have changed.

Fishing: the World Bank at the helm.

"When the media, think tanks and even research funds are controlled by a small faction of the population whose interests are well identified, equality before the vote becomes a fiction"

Issues of environmental summits.

One may question the results of large masses devoted to the environment, from Rio 1992 to Rio 2012 through Johannesburg in 2002. Fishermen are virtually absent, but we realize in retrospect that these summits are important steps in a process that ensures the future of fishermen. In 1992, the Rio Summit resulted in the Convention on Biological Biodiversity, the Agreement on Straddling Stocks in 1995 and the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. In 2002, in Johannesburg, are signed commitments for the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and the creation of marine protected areas and reserves. In 2012, Rio + 20 delivers a Global Partnership for Oceans (GPO) initiated by the World Bank. Under the guise of protecting the oceans, it is in fact a large program to promote the privatization of resources involving governments, companies, research institutes, foundations and ENGOs. It takes several years before the fishermen and their organizations perceive concretely the impact of choices made and driven at these summits. There may be positive effects, but the artisanal fishermen and their representatives are not associated with the guidelines implemented during such summits. It is mainly thanks to ICSF that fishworkers’ organizations are aware of the challenges of these summits and have attempted to make their voices heard. They did it in certain places such as the FAO, but it is far from the case elsewhere. In fact, when the guidelines are adopted, the forces that implement them are already working to define strategies and implement them, their documents are ready. There is no plot, the documents are public, but these are strategies with their goals, their actors, their intellectual and financial resources, Their timelines. There is no unanimity among the players either, but convergence of objectives and means

Charting a Course to Sustainable Fisheries

In July 2012, a group of California researchers published a very elaborate program of action, as we have noted in the report "Blue Charity Business." It is the action plan for implementation in fishing of the GPO World Bank. Its development has brought together the elite promoters liberalization of fisheries under the auspices of big liberal foundations that fund and steer the project. They include the Walton Family Foundation, related to Walmart, and Moore, Packard and Oak foundations. The Pew foundation is absent, it distanced itself from some liberal options and focuses on the promotion of reserves and political action at the highest level with governments and the United Nations. Pew and other foundations share the same objective of priority to the conservation and wilderness, coordinate their action in the United States within EGA (Environmental Grantmakers Association) and are frequently found to fund all programs or organizations (Oceana Ocean in 2012, Global Ocean Commission, etc.) that can clearly commit themselves to liberal options (Oceana). There is no unanimity between all these foundations, but a division of labor and the belief that conservation is the priority before human rights and imposes to put fishermen under tutelage. Alongside foundations, the Advisory Committee consists of researchers (Hilborn and Worms), the Danish Minister of Fisheries, ENGOs representatives (Environmental Defense Fund, WWF), international organizations (World Bank), representatives of Fishing Companies (Scotland, tuna), various consultants, etc. Lead authors are scientists in California (Costello) and representatives of EDF, great promoters of liberalization of fisheries in the United States. For this team, the aim is to transfer the American liberal model to the rest of the world.

Conservation through privatization.

Fishing activity is designed according to the priority of preserving habitats, biodiversity and resources. A healthy and resilient ecosystem must allow to create wealth and reduce poverty, but it is a secondary objective that must flow naturally from the first. Yet we know that this is far from always being the case. We must first pay the price of adjustment and the availability of resources is no guarantee that they actually benefit those who need it to live, especially in a liberalized system. There is even a resource curse for the poor.

The conservation objective leads to constraints that can undermine the livelihoods of coastal communities. The authors also recognize that the creation of reserves does not guarantee that the benefits outweigh the constraints. Indeed reserves lead to the loss of fishing areas, significant costs of control, a lot of money is also needed for scientific monitoring and organization of the reserve. These costs are largely borne by the coastal fishermen as the preferred solution is to allocate them territorial use rights (TURFs) on their fishing zones linked with reserves. The allocation of these collective rights - positive in itself - is therefore under the supervision of conservationists organizations (ENGOs and Scientists).

For deep sea fishing, the choice of the report is clear, it is to generalize transferable, individual or collective quotas. It is also recommended to prohibit some fishing zones, severely restrict, if not prohibit trawling, ban driftnets and to fight against all by-catches. All these objectives can be achieved through the implementation of "Policy-market dynamics". It is of course ITQs (Individual Transferable Quotas) and transferable concessions, various pressures on buyers, processors, distributors and consumers through the dissemination of lists, labels (MSC), boycott campaigns, mobilizing chefs. The questionning of subsidies and tax exemptions. The successes of management are improperly presented as the result of the implementation of ITQs while mere compliance with catch limits (TACs) or limitation of the fishing effort, without portability, would suffice to explain them. The aim is conservation, as well as reaching the Maximum Economic Yield, that is to say, even beyond the profitability of fishing, the maximum profit. This MEY involves a small number of boats and fishermen and makes it possible to privatize and get paid in full by the fishing companies all costs associated with the activity (research, monitoring, control, administration, port development, security, etc. ). The rapporteurs forget to mention that all of these costs are added to the price of quotas and usually involve lower income for the crew. Contrary to what is often claimed, these costs of control for ITQs and various constraints are also very high (estimated at 20% of the catch value). We understand why we should reach a maximum profit!

50 in 10

In November 2012, in Vancouver, 36 organizations came together for a few days workshop to finalize the implementation of the "Charting a Course". They named the project "50 in 10", which means restoring 50% of fisheries in 10 years. The plan was declined by major types of fisheries, of countris and especially for coastal fisheries. Among the organizations the big liberal foundationsare to be found : UN agencies (FAO, World Bank), researchers (Hilborn) ENGOs (WWF, Oceana, Rare, EDF, Conservation International, The Nature Conservancy, etc), Multinational Fishing companies (Nippon Suisan), fishermen's organizations from Sweden and the United States, representatives of States (The Netherlands and USAID). The workshop on coastal fisheries is particularly interesting because this sector is a headache for the Liberals, difficult to control and socially sensitive. They discussed how to attract private capital in this sector which requires large funds. ENGOs have been heavily involved in this sector by organizing reserves and MPAs and their role will grow. The introduction of ITQs is envisaged for certain resources, especially those that are shared with the deepsea fishermen. The report states « the need to do a widespread education campaign to overcome fear and initial rejection of rights-based management ». However, the most promising orientation is one that would link a company with a monopoly on the marketing of fish with a community that has territorial use rights and management of fishing areas integrating a reserve . The report, "Charting a Course" also indicated the need to change the laws to allow these traders monopolies. "The market be able to better facilitate the establishment of TURF systems if national laws are modified so as to give processors or buyers functionally exclusive access rights to certain areas." Inshore fishermen will then be completely in the hands of wholesalers and processors themselves subjects to ENGOs. This system begins to develop in Indonesia with the support of WWF. The role of ENGOs in this program is important and often central. Some also play a major role in the organization and running of the seminar, as EDF who prepared the introductory report and controlled the development of "Charting a Course". All ENGOs, whatever their orientation, are mobilized to advance the program, whether it is pressure on distributors, consumers, restaurant owners, the press, politicians and, for some,the direct implementation of projects. Thus the role of Greenpeace is widely emphasized even if this NGO is not directly associated with the project. The foundations are there to provide an abundance of the necessary funds and Greenpeace International largely benefits from them to launch campaigns towards the public and distributors.

Corporations, foundations and the United Nations.

The most recent initiative is the creation of the Global Ocean Commission, created in 2013 by the big Anglo-saxon foundations (Pew, Moore, Oak, Marisla, Waitt, etc.). It brings together high-level politicians (ministers and presidents), industrialists like Tata. Its stated goal is to develop proposals for submission to the UN in 2014 for the management and protection of international waters. So the private sector gets a position to recommend public policy in this domain. For Pew, it is mainly to promote its program of big reserves on the model of the Chagos or Palau. In Palau, a Pacific micro-state of 21,000 inhabitants, Pew got the prohibition of commercial fishing on the entire EEZ, the size of France, in exchange for a promise of tourism development. Pew is currently laying siege to the French authorities in the Pacific to advance its projects of giant reserves. Obviously, for Pew, tourism is always preferable to fishing divers admirers of corals and whales traveling by plane and staying in hotels, however, have a higher ecological footprint than fishermen, not to mention the social impacts of mass tourism .

Another clear objective of these foundations stemming from large multinationals is to control the development of all marine activities, from transport to the extraction of minerals. As on land, the creation of large reserves without fishing makes it possible to justify the development of potentially more destructive and polluting mining, even if they are highly regulated. A large meeting was held in Washington in April 2013 between the Global Ocean Commission and the World Ocean Council, an organization that brings together most of the major companies involved in international waters, oil, mining and transport companies with also, curiously the "Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association." These liners from New England are funded with millions of dollars by some foundations, a good excuse to show that the foundations support small-scale fishermen, but are not they bribed to be used as support for a Corporate Control of marine resources of the planet?

Very clearly the organizations of artisanal fishermen grouped in two forums, the WFF and WFFP, took a stand against the Global Partnership for Oceans and its optionsin favour of widespread privatization policies of fish resources. They complain that the fishermen have not at all been associated to the development of this policy and demand that fisheries policies be defined in the respect for human rights and to ensure the freedom, food sovereignty and dignity of fishermen. For its part, FAO has initiated a long process of meetings with artisanal fishermen throughout the world to develop a program of support for small-scale fisheries. This is an important step towards the recognition of the rights of small-scale fishermen, but what weight do they have against the financial powers that control the decision-making process with the connivance of large ENGOs who claim to represent the citizens and even the interests of fishermen, shameless?

Alain Le Sann,

secretary of « Collectif pêche & Développement » 17 April 2013

Stelissa at sea working!