I remember when I, some six or seven years ago, explained to a professor in marine biology that I was going to write a book on Swedish and European fisheries policy. His short, surprised laughter. His compassionate glance at me – the journalist with the impossible idea. And his comment: “Well, good luck. But you won´t make it. No one can understand fisheries policies. No one. It´s just too stupid and corrupt to be ever comprehended”.
This reaction of course made me even more determined to try and understand what was going on. How policies and so called “management” of fish stocks could have emptied Swedish seas of about 70 – 90 percent of its cod, eel, haddock, ling, sole and whiting in just a decade or two. But also I very soon had to admit to myself that maybe he was right – maybe I had gotten into too deep waters for my own capacity. First of all: interviewing people, and reading official documents, was practically impossible without a basic knowledge in fisheries biology and management issues. The vocabulary itself was the first obstacle. What was the “resource” that everyone was talking about? (answer = the fish) What was the “spawning biomass”? (= adult fish) What were ” discards”? (= fish killed by dumping into the sea) And what was the TAC, the RAC and the EEZ? And the ICES advice and the MSY that was going to be reached by respecting Bpa, Fpa. Blim and introducing ITQ:s, abolishing IUU and reducing effort, especially in the demersal fishery?
It was not always crystal clear to me, to say the least. (You can have some help to dechifre the above by using the cfp-reformwatch glossary, though!)
Anyway, somehow, through hard work and good help I finally succeeded in my goal, and finished the book “Tyst hav” (meaning “Silent seas”, which has not yet been translated into English), a book that came out in 2007 and that eventually in 2009 got me into politics for the Swedish Green Party. Now I am in the European parliament as a member of Fisheries Committee, a committee that I actually have described in my book, and I am trying my best to be a constructive part of the upcoming reform of the CFP ( = the Common Fisheries Policy).
Now, why the need of a website such as this: the cfp-reformwatch.eu ?
The answer is quite simple: I believe that it is crucial to the reform of the CFP that as many stakeholders as possible (including scientists, consumers, ordinary citizens, students, fishermen and sport anglers) can follow in an open and transparent manner what is actually going on an EU level. Some may want to follow by reading documents, getting a knowledge on agendas on topics that are going to be discussed in parliament or in council, or will want to get into the play when they see what proposals are in the pipeline of the commission. Others may not use the cfp-reformwatch themselves but should anyway have the right to follow this extremely important process through the news media.
My biggest hope is in fact that this website can become the news hub of journalists that are in any way interested in environment issues, and of course particularly the seas. Because there is no doubt that the new CFP that will be implemented in 2012 will have huge impacts on the marine environment, world wide. The European Union is in fact the world’s largest fish import market. It is also the world’s second largest fishing power, after China. The EU fishing fleet operates all over the planet, and EU fisheries policies, in terms of import policies, subsidies or fisheries agreements with third countries, all have an enormous impact on the world’s oceans.
With that in mind it is really not encouraging to see the results of the CFP so far, in EU waters only. The EU Commission has stated in the so called Green Paper that 88 per cent of EU fish stocks are overfished, that 93 per cent of the cod in the North Sea is fished before it has had been able to breed even once. We also know that species that are acutely threatened of extinction such as the European eel are still being fished, and that discarding (dumping) of fish is allowed and going on everywhere even though valuable fish dies for no use and that no one defends this practice. As a result: European catches are constantly going down, and eco-systems threaten to collapse. Now almost seven out of ten fish eaten in Europe are imported.
While this is a website financed by the European Greens, the primary intention is in fact not to promote Green policies, but to provide a platform of information for those who seek it. At the bottom of the site we have a section which have the purpose of explaining everything you ever wanted to know about the EU institutions but were afraid to ask. At the top we will feed in the different agendas, with links to relevant documents, as well as we will provide calendars and “Don´t miss” -links, to news stories and new (and old!) interesting reports that can give background to news stories, or give inspiration to bigger thematic or investigative articles. Who has for instance seen a decent article on the connection between overfishing and co2 sequestration in the worlds oceans? Check out more on http://www.grida.no/publications/rr/blue-carbon/ where the recent FAO “Blue carbon report” shows that loss of healthy marine ecosystems is destroying the oceans ability to capture co2!
We will invite new experts, policy makers, politicians and different kinds of stakeholders to write opinion articles every three weeks, in order to have a lively and informed debate, and also to introduce some perhaps new faces and people to journalists that are always seeking comments on their stories.
With all this we hope to contribute to a lively and informed debate on the new fisheries policy that will be put in place in 2013. After seven years of hard research into the matter I can honestly tell you that I am now convinced that this is our chance. It´s practically now – or maybe never. If the ongoing trend that have emptied our oceans of certain fish should continue in the same pace and same direction as the last fifty years, scientists actually tell us the oceans will be empty one day. More precisely in 2048.
Time to turn the trends – right now!
Isabella Lövin, MEP
Brussels, 5th May, 2010.
Very good page, good work!!
Thank you for doing this, Isabella.
Du har verkligen jobbat hårt för att få fram de fakta du beskriver i Tyst hav. Och nu fortsätter du lika passionerat! Heder åt dig, Isabella!
A very good initiative. I plan to contribute to it. Sidney Holt, Italy
Fisheries
Management and Research – the birthplace of an unsustainable and
unethical malpractice. There is
consensus across the EU (and world) that discarding of fish is a
waste of much-needed natural resources and needs reducing. According
to the EU, the main reason for the huge amount of discarding is
excessive catching effort, and that capacity need reducing even
further. The number of fishing vessels in Denmark and Scotland are
all ready greatly reduced since the launch of the decommissioning
program a few years ago. Discarding has increased year by year in
certain fisheries. The amount of cod discarded in the Scottish
whitefish fishery in the North Sea was greater in 2008 than in 2007,
despite various measures of mitigation. Discards could at times be as
much as, 80% by number and 40% by weight of each catch. Discards of
cod were mainly of fish over the legal landing size 35cm. The
term “discards” is rather vague, since the term covers
everything that is caught and subsequently thrown back into the sea.
That use of active fishing gear accounts for by far the largest
amounts of discards. Discarding can be caused by: • Discards
of fish below the minimum landing size, due to poor size selection
properties of net meshes. • Catch of non-target species. •
Hi-grading, retention of only the largest and best-paid fish,. This
is most often due to low quota or quota that does not extend to as by
catch in other fisheries. • Can also occur as “invisible”
catches of juvenile cod, haddock and whiting in fishing for species
in the production of meal and oil. • Catch of non-commercial
species and benthos. The EU’s plan for re building demersal
fish stocks in the North Sea has been strongly influenced by castle
in the sky thinking and is shamefully ineffective. The plan has
lacked potency, both practical and political. It helps little with
fishing capacity and quota reductions, when these reductions do not
affect the behaviours of fishermen to the positive for the fish
stocks, some thing which in turn will again benefit the fishermen.
Fishermen in the North Sea have been entrapped over a long period in
a negative spiral of bone scraped fish quotas and the insane
mandatory practice of returning under sized and non-target fish back
to the sea, fish that in reality are either dead or dying. Minimum
landing sizes need to be related towards the protection of fish under
spawning age. The best protection for immature fish is by avoidance.
.Fishermen and scientists around the North Sea basin have
worked intensely to prove that it is possible to reduce the amount of
discards in their respective fisheries… An example of this is the
Fisheries Science Partnership in Scotland and England, where the
fishermen themselves have taken the initiative to provide
real-time-area closures and to use the trawls with a better selection
capability. The goal is to achieve “conservation credits”
that would justify larger quotas based on less discards. . Fishermen
in Denmark have developed the use of video surveillance (CCTV) in
order to document both the capture and quantity of discards. The
catch of under sized fish has been effectively reduced through the
increase of mesh sizes and the use of trawl types that exploit the
fish’s natural behaviour: • Nephrop trawls with low height,
and without netting in the square and over belly – reducing the catch
of haddock, whiting and at times cod. • Flounder Trawl with low
height, and without netting in the roof – reducing the catch of
haddock, whiting and sometimes cod. • Separatortrawl / seine
separate cod / demersal fish from haddock and whiting. •
Eliminatortrawl, separates fish / bottom fish from haddock and
whiting. • Orkneytrawl, reduce catches of cod-especially
juveniles • Square mesh cod ends. • Four panel extension
piece,T 90 meshes in bottom and sides in conjunction with the square
mesh top panel. • Sorting grid. The use of more
selective trawl types and devices are not without consequences.
Research shows the loss of certain types of catch / by catch. This
loss can lead to weakened economy in the short term, but can be
compensated in the long term with larger quotas. . . To
date, the EU’s “policy makers” have lacked the will to
implement the most relevant technical devices most suited to the
dynamics of the various fisheries. Fisheries management is not
just about the management of fisheries resources, but also that of
human behaviours. Management of fisheries must become less academic
and more “hands on” Fisheries management in EU
and Norway need to become better at using the “carrot and the
stick” approach, instead of” chemotherapy and amputation”
as the “cure”. Take for example, fisheries in the U.S.A, where
fishermen are given access to certain areas on the condition that
they use a separatortrawl in fishing for haddock. The paradox is that
the separator trawl originated from Scotland. Fisheries
in the North Sea are now showing signs of a positive development. The
big question now is what will be necessary to keep the development
moving in a forward direction? We need to strengthen and intensify
cooperation between the fishing fleet, scientists and the Coast Guard
to be able to practice “real-time management. Resource
management must focus on having an overview and management of fish
stocks and not only to maintain control over the fishermen. Effective
“polising” of fisheries depends on: attendance, ability /
means to uncover non compliance, effective sanctions, and not least
a “good working relationship” based on professional
knowledge and mutual respect. . The proposal for a reduction in
days at sea is certainly not a good solution. What the fishermen need
now is rather an increase in days and the possibility to plan and
execute an ecological and economically viable fishery. Fishermen are
“practitioners” of the highest calibre and possess of an
ocean of knowledge and ability to solve the challenges related to the
future of their industry. Norway has a unique position and
chance to influence the EU’s fisheries policy in a positive
direction. The fishing industry has the necessary will and tools: the
question is whether the government has the courage and resolve to
make the use of them! Ian Kinsey
ian@intrepid.no
Rebuilding
Plan for demersal stocks in the North Sea - need
for effective juvenile protection through an enhanced technical
regulations and spatial management. The EU’s plan
for re building demersal fish stocks in the North Sea has
been strongly influenced by castle in the sky thinking and is
shamefully ineffective. The plan has lacked potency, both practical
and political. It helps little with fishing capacity/ effort and
quota reductions, when these reductions do not affect the behaviours
of fishermen to the positive for the fish stocks, some thing which in
turn will again benefit the fishermen. Fishermen in the North Sea
have been entrapped over a long period in a negative spiral of bone
scraped fish quotas and the insane mandatory practice of returning
under sized and non-target fish back to the sea, fish that in reality
are either dead or dying. Minimum landing sizes need to be related
towards the protection of fish under spawning age. The best
protection for immature fish is by avoidance.The
fisheries in the European sector of the North Sea takes place mainly
with bottom trawls. Trawl fisheries are mainly regulated by a
“one net” system, where white fish trawls TR1
and nephrops trawls Tr2 are regulated separately, with
respectively 120 and 80 mm mesh size. Despite different measures
taken over the last years by both management and the fishing
industry, the discard and the mortality rate is still too high. Much
time and effort has been devoted to the cod recovery plan in the
North Sea, under the “cod avoidance plan.” The plan
has been a mix of spatial management and voluntary attempts and use
of various technical devices, including the Eliminator and Orkney
trawls, as well as the use of diverse «squareless» nephrop trawls. ”
Cod avoidance” by the use of technical devices has provided
mixed results. The experiments with “eliminator trawl”
has shown good results in certain fisheries, with between 80-90%
reduction in cod catches without significant reduction in haddock and
whiting catches. Research has also shown that catches of other
bottom fish and benthos were dramatically reduced. The
loss of valuable demersal species such as lemon, megrims,
plaice and monkfish etc, has made a large dent into the
economy of these vessels.
The research
trials with the “orkney trawl” has shown some positive
results, with up to about 60% reductions of cod under the MLS 35cm
being caught. The effect of the “orkney trawl”diminishes
with larger sizes of cod , with reductions being down to 7-8% for cod
over 70 cm. The
use of the Orkney trawl as with the eliminator trawl” has also
resulted in reduced catches of valuable demersal species
such as lemon, megrims, plaice and monkfish etc.
. Precautionary
areas have been established in the Norwegian sector, for both the
Patch Bank and Viking Bank. Fisheries in these areas are very
important for many fishermen from Scotland and Denmark. Large
quantities of juvenile fish can pose a problem at times in respect to
keeping
catches
within the legal allowance for fish under MLS . (Measured
in number in the Norwegian sector – not by weight)Area closures
are common, especially in the spring and early summer. Catches
of undersized fish have been as high as 40%, despite the use of
various voluntary measures to improve selectivity.
Selection
capabilities of a cod end and extension piece with diamond mesh in
the normal position, has the greatest effect at the catch zone where
the meshes are splayed out by fish retained in the cod end.
Water speeds may be more favorable in this area, aiding the fish to
escape the open meshes. Selection capabilities decrease
reasonably fast towards the middle of the extension – the mesh
opening can be as low as 30%. Mesh size provisions for Tr 1
120mm refer only to the minimum mesh size, maximum number of meshes
round the cod end and the total length of the cod end / extension
piece. Present gear regulations do little to set specific
requirements to functionality regarding the selection capabilities of
cod end / extension piece combinations.
The
use of 4 paneled extension piece/ cod end, with the combination
of T90 and square mesh over panel, will give more form stability and
increase the selection capabilities significantly. Selection
should be made as far forward in the trawl as possible to reduce the
hard physical stresses young fish may be exposed to on the way down
to the cod end. . Species selection can be further enhanced by
the use of trawls designed to make use of behavioral patterns
specific to target species. Use of the eliminator
and orkneytrawl has provided both fishermen and scientists
with invaluable information of the relationship between mesh size in
trawl mouth and the fish’s behavior pattern – this is an important
tool in the making of trawls that are more target species selective.
Research done by Seafish with
a trawl divided by 2 vertical panels, and having 3 separate cod ends
, has provided useful information on the behavior of different
species in the mouth of the trawl. The
sum of these research projects, and the knowledge gained, provides a
good basis for constructing a
trawl type that is most suitable for white fish fisheries in the
northern part of the North Sea After having discussed the
need for a new improved white fish trawl/ extension piece and cod
end, with gear technologists from Sintef Fisheries and
aquaculture, Seafish and others, – the conclusion was
unanimous – the industry has an acute need, and the capabilities of
designing a trawl/trawls that would better address both the
requirements for selection and retention of target
species. Selection in mixed demersal fisheries
will be in varying degrees, subjected to “trade-offs.”
- the clue is to make the trade offs that benefit both man and
fish.The CPF reform takes aim at introducing a discard
ban over a 3 years period from 2014. To
reach this goal in an ethical and credible manner, a discard ban has
to be founded on the effective selection and avoidance of juveniles
and non target species.
Time
passes quickly, and the ever faster moving «sustainability train»
has long since left the station, loaded with consensus from NGO,s
for a discard ban, CCTV monitoring, catch credit systems and the
like. The fishing industry needs to adopt a «back to scratch»
approach to size and species selection – starting at the trawl
doors, and down to the cod end. There has never been or will be a
better time to make the necessary gear changes than now in relation
to knowledge base, gear monitoring equipment, gear component
etc. Much of trawl gear research start with model experiments in
the flume tank in Hirtshals. The center is a hub for
fishing gear research in and around the North Sea, and a natural
choice as project manager / partner for joint projects. The
industry has loads of «tools» at it,s disposition- it,s now as
always a question of putting the right tools in the right«tool box»
… [Trackback]…
[...] Read More here: cfp-reformwatch.eu/fr/2010/05/mep-isabella-lovin-on-why-the-new-website/ [...]…
La députée européenne Isabella Lövin présente le nouveau site web…
[...]Lucky me I discovered your web site by accident, and I’m stunned why this coincidence didn’t happened earlier![...]…
…Click here for or more Information…
[...]I will right away clutch your rss as I can not find your email subscription link or newsletter service.[...]…
… [Trackback]…
[...] Read More here: cfp-reformwatch.eu/fr/2010/05/mep-isabella-lovin-on-why-the-new-website/ [...]…
… [Trackback]…
[...] Informations on that Topic: cfp-reformwatch.eu/fr/2010/05/mep-isabella-lovin-on-why-the-new-website/ [...]…