Fishermen will be paid to catch plastic rather than fish under new EU initiative

Scofflaw

Interesting move - out of the box thinking even:

Fishermen will be paid to catch plastic, rather than fish, under bold new plans from the EU's fisheries chief, aimed at providing fleets with an alternative source of income to reduce pressure on dwindling fish stocks.

Maria Damanaki, commissioner for fisheries, will unveil a trial project in the Mediterranean this month, which will see fishermen equipped with nets to round up the plastic detritus that is threatening marine life, and send it for recycling.

The move is intended as a sweetener to fishermen who have bitterly opposed the European commission's plans to ban the wasteful practice of discarding edible fish at sea. Fleets fear they will lose money by not being able to throw away lower-value catch.

Damanaki vowed yesterday to press on with her plan to eliminate discards, citing the strength of public opinion on the issue, whipped up in large part by the Fish Fight campaign waged by the food writer Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall. Two-thirds of the fish caught in some areas is thrown back, usually dead, because fleets exceed their quota, unintentionally catch juveniles or species for which they lack a quota, or because they prioritise higher value fish and throw away lesser species. About 1 million tonnes are thrown back each year in the North Sea alone.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/04/eu-fishermen-catch-plastic

It seems to me to kill two birds with one stone - helping to make fishing sustainable, and clearing up a marine litter problem.

In addition:

In a boost to Scottish fishermen, Damanaki also said she was seeking a legal instrument that would allow the EU to ban imports of fish products – such as fish oils and fish meal – from countries that did not meet high sustainability standards. This would help to level the playing field, she said, between EU and non-EU fleets. It would also deprive Iceland of a significant export market, and cheer Scottish fleets who have complained that Icelandic fishermen have too high a quota of mackerel, putting huge pressure on the shared stock.

There is opposition, of course:

Proposals to end the wasteful practice of throwing away edible fish have met strong opposition from the European fishing industry.

But at a hearing in Brussels on Tuesday afternoon, held by Damanaki and attended by fishermen's representatives, green groups and consumer groups, some members of the fishing industry vehemently opposed the plans, while others suggested the proposals should be modified.

But fishermen are concerned that they will lose money as a result of a ban, mainly because they will be forced to land lower value fish for which there is little consumer demand. One told the meeting: "The consequence of this will be a much, much smaller fleet." Another said it was simply not possible to end discarding completely.

Mike Parker, chief executive of the Scottish White Fish Producer's Association, said: "Dictatorial practices [from the European commission] will not work."

Jon Harman, of pan-industry body Seafish UK, added that the EU must not be "prescriptive".

Sections of the fishing industry and some member states have come up with an alternative proposal that would water down the commission's plans. Under this alternative, discards would not be banned outright but would rely on fishermen signing up voluntarily.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/03/fishing-industry-eu-discards-plan

An innovative approach, and overdue. Decision-making in respect of this is by co-decision, which means the Parliament as well as the Council of Ministers:

Since the end of 2009, following the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament (EP) has a greatly increased role in deciding fishing policy. Previously, the Parliament had to be consulted on most draft legislation, but its opinion did not have to be taken into consideration by the Council of Ministers (for Fisheries, usually the Ministers responsible for fisheries policy in the Member States), who agreed laws. Now the EP has co-decision powers, giving it equal decision making authority with the Member States, bringing fisheries policy in line with the procedures in many other fields of policy, including environment and transport.

Note however, that there is an important exclusion to this new decision making process: measures on the fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities (ie. total allowable catches, “TACs” and Quotas) will continue to be adopted by the Council on a proposal from the Commission, without involvement of the EP.

As far as international fisheries agreements which involve a financial transaction are concerned, they must be approved by the Parliament before they can be concluded. This power of veto is known as the Assent Procedure.

Source: http://www.cfp-reformwatch.eu/2009/12/how-to-influence/

Given the opposition from "several member states", we can expect a reasonably protracted decision-making process, with plenty of opportunities for the proposals to be hamstrung or watered down. It will be interesting to see which way the Parliament jumps.

My guess would be that if the pilot project (!) works out the plastic catching part will be retained, while the discards scheme will get watered down (!) and the 'sustainable imports' scheme will be taken to the WTO, most likely by Iceland.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Cookie_Monster

Good idea, Great Pacific Trash Vortex ho --->

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch

HeisenbergBB

Great idea.. if its financially viable for the fishermen. How much money can they actually make from collecting plastic?

Scofflaw

HeisenbergBB wrote: »

Great idea.. if its financially viable for the fishermen. How much money can they actually make from collecting plastic?

Initially, it's going to be grant-funded, but the Commissioner appears to be sanguine about the initiative being self-sustaining:

Fishermen who clear plastic will be subsidised initially by EU member states, but in future the scheme could turn into a self-sustaining profitable enterprise, as fleets cash in on the increasing value of recycled plastics. Cleaning up the rubbish will also improve the prospects for fish, seabirds and other marine species, which frequently choke or suffer internal damage from ingesting small pieces of non-biodegradable packaging.

Since fishing is already heavily subsidised worldwide - often in a way that encourages unsustainable fishing - it doesn't seem unreasonable to divert some of the subsidies in an environmentally beneficial way.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Macha

Shame to see the automatic negativity from the fishermen to what could be a very beneficial measure all round.

I know one measure being discussed is the idea of preferential access to stocks for cleaner boats that use more environmentally friendly gear. This could be another condition of access, albeit a paid one.

The sooner we get some solid economic figures on the costs of pollution etc, the better.

dan719

Macha wrote: »

Shame to see the automatic negativity from the fishermen to what could be a very beneficial measure all round.

I know one measure being discussed is the idea of preferential access to stocks for cleaner boats that use more environmentally friendly gear. This could be another condition of access, albeit a paid one.

The sooner we get some solid economic figures on the costs of pollution etc, the better.

The piece is tripe from the Guardian. I have no doubt that some fishermen oppose the decision to ban discards, but many many more have campaigned for a complete overhaul of the CFP for sometime.

Scotland actually provides a good example, as with the introduction of more selective fishing methods and the installation of CCTV to monitor discards, quotas have been increased.

Quite simply the quota system has to either be changed so that boats can buy and sell fishing rights from each other, or otherwise abolished and replaced by a solely days at sea scheme that concentrates on fishing effort.

Has anyone any idea how th EU intends for fishermen to catch plastic? i can't see how it's going to be done without catching fish also. Which would be the height of irony.

Scofflaw

dan719 wrote: »

The piece is tripe from the Guardian. I have no doubt that some fishermen oppose the decision to ban discards, but many many more have campaigned for a complete overhaul of the CFP for sometime.

I don't think that particularly contradicts the idea of opposition to the proposal, though. And presumably the fishing lobbies in Brussels either did or didn't mark their opposition to the proposal.

dan719 wrote: »

Scotland actually provides a good example, as with the introduction of more selective fishing methods and the installation of CCTV to monitor discards, quotas have been increased.

Quite simply the quota system has to either be changed so that boats can buy and sell fishing rights from each other, or otherwise abolished and replaced by a solely days at sea scheme that concentrates on fishing effort.

Transferable quotas make sense, but they wouldn't eliminate the discards entirely, or even make much of an impact - unless of course you're talking about trading quotas at sea, which would make a reasonable impact, and should be technically feasible.

dan719 wrote: »

Has anyone any idea how th EU intends for fishermen to catch plastic? i can't see how it's going to be done without catching fish also. Which would be the height of irony.

Different kind of gear - according to the Commissioner's blog, it's something that already happens in France:

Our European Fisheries Fund gives financial assistance to small scale fishers participating in the collection of litter and lost fishing gears. In France this practice is already in place in the context of the “contrats bleus“. I am very interested in the dissemination of this type of measures whereby, for example, fishermen collect plastic garbage during spawning seasons, during which they are not allowed to fish.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dan719

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't think that particularly contradicts the idea of opposition to the proposal, though. And presumably the fishing lobbies in Brussels either did or didn't mark their opposition to the proposa

Of course opposition exists, but there is also a level of widespread support, so it's disingenuous to suggest fishermen are simply digging in their heels on the issue.

Transferable quotas make sense, but they wouldn't eliminate the discards entirely, or even make much of an impact - unless of course you're talking about trading quotas at sea, which would make a reasonable impact, and should be technically feasible.

This. Also, a system based solely on days at sea could theoretically reduce discards to zero.

Different kind of gear - according to the Commissioner's blog, it's something that already happens in France:


cordially,
Scofflaw

Having read that and had a google, I'm still no wiser what type of gear will be used though. I assume it will have to be some sort of trawl? As static gear would have limited effectiveness? Yet bottom trawling is seen as eniromentally destructive. It is also claimed that it is indiscriminate in species targeting. (While this can be the case, modern trawls are designed to catch specific species)


Also, it seems that this scheme will also be used to target discarded stationary gear such as gillnets. In reality, this gear 'rolls up' within a week or two of being at sea. Finding it would require dropping a dragger to the sea floor and pulling it along. Since gillnets are used in places such as reefs etc (not suitable for bottom trawling) you again could argue that it will be destructive to the ocean floor. There is also the difficulty of actually hauling such damaged gear on board.

Sorry to be such a pain, but I can't find the information on how this scheme will actually work, and as such am just a little sceptical.

jakdelad

Scofflaw wrote: »

Interesting move - out of the box thinking even:



Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/04/eu-fishermen-catch-plastic

It seems to me to kill two birds with one stone - helping to make fishing sustainable, and clearing up a marine litter problem.

In addition:



There is opposition, of course:



Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/03/fishing-industry-eu-discards-plan

An innovative approach, and overdue. Decision-making in respect of this is by co-decision, which means the Parliament as well as the Council of Ministers:



Source: http://www.cfp-reformwatch.eu/2009/12/how-to-influence/

Given the opposition from "several member states", we can expect a reasonably protracted decision-making process, with plenty of opportunities for the proposals to be hamstrung or watered down. It will be interesting to see which way the Parliament jumps.

My guess would be that if the pilot project (!) works out the plastic catching part will be retained, while the discards scheme will get watered down (!) and the 'sustainable imports' scheme will be taken to the WTO, most likely by Iceland.

cordially,
Scofflaw

what a stupid idea plastic fish
mind you the idea most likely came from wooden politicians
no surprise there

Macha

Infraction for trolling.

Corsendonk

I wonder what nation will commit the first fraud? Pretty tempting way to make extra money, firstly get paid to recycle plastic then rent your cargo of plastic to a fisherman who collects payment without having to waste all that fuel fishing, then get paid by the government to recycle again. Nice little money scam if not policed correctly from the start.

Cookie_Monster

In relation to how will the junk be caught...

While there are lots of different types of rubbish I presume it would be easy enough at the start to concentrate on floating debris. Since a lot of plastic will float on or just under the surface it would be relatively easy to have nets that skim along the surface to a small depth, would it not?

Maybe I'm way off the mark but that seems like the obvious start point to me.

Macha

Actually, around 70% of marine litter is either on the sea bed or low down in the water column.

dan719

So bottom trawling or midwater trawling is the way to go? Gillnetting's effectiveness would be severely limited, as having fished them for years (up to and including ten miles of gear a day) I would be surprised if all the plastic I've caught in that time added up to more than a fishbox of the same in total.

So how do you prevent fish being caught again?

Scofflaw

dan719 wrote: »

So bottom trawling or midwater trawling is the way to go? Gillnetting's effectiveness would be severely limited, as having fished them for years (up to and including ten miles of gear a day) I would be surprised if all the plastic I've caught in that time added up to more than a fishbox of the same in total.

So how do you prevent fish being caught again?

Where are/were you fishing? I suspect the Atlantic has quite a different profile from the Med in terms of plastic litter.

cordially,
Scofflaw

CJhaughey

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

While there are lots of different types of rubbish I presume it would be easy enough at the start to concentrate on floating debris. Since a lot of plastic will float on or just under the surface it would be relatively easy to have nets that skim along the surface to a small depth, would it not?

Actually thats quite a difficult way to tow a net, aside from the practicalities its also where dolphins and marine animals spend a lot of time.
Catching a big bag of dolphins instead of rubbish probably wouldn't go down that well.