Ourfish

Archives: news

  • World Ocean Day 2018: EU opportunity to make fish discarding history

    World Ocean Day 2018: EU opportunity to make fish discarding history

    This article was first published on Euractiv, on June 8th 2018

    By Rebecca Hubbard, Our Fish Programme Director

    This time five years ago, EU politicians were in the midst of negotiations over the reform of the EU Common Fisheries Policy. The reform, following broad engagement from civil society, industry, and politicians, and actively supported by almost 900,000 people across Europe, aimed to end decades of overfishing and discarding of fish at sea, which was clearly undermining the health of our oceans and coastal communities.

    The ban on discards – or the landing obligation, as it became known – became a key foundation of the reformed Common Fisheries Policy, and was sorely needed to drive improvements in fishing selectivity and catch documentation, and to prevent the massive waste of fish through bycatch that had become standard practice in EU seas. In 2011, 1.7 million tons of fish were thrown overboard in Europe – 23 percent of all catches. In most fisheries, most of this fish was caught by trawlers.

    While the intention of the landing obligation is to avoid unwanted catches in the first place, fishers who have become accustomed to discarding young (undersized) bycatch, now have to land them and sell them for non-human consumption at a lower profit or be destroyed. There is no significant difference in fish mortality, whether you throw the by-catch overboard or land it, as most fish simply do not survive being returned to the sea from the fishing net; usually only around 10% percent of the discarded fish survive. This is where the landing obligation makes a big difference: wasted fish become visible and measurable on land, and must be counted as part of fishers’ quotas.

    EU scientists recently reported that around 40% of all commercial and non-commercial species in EU Atlantic fisheries are known to be overfished, and the recovery of fish stocks to a healthy level is slowing down [1]. In the Mediterranean, the situation remains dire, with over 90% of fish stocks overfished.

    Implementing the EU’s landing obligation will mean that in the long term, more young fish swim in the sea, which also means more fish for the fishermen. It will encourage fishermen to fish more sustainably and selectively. Wherever such a law was introduced, such as in Alaska, Canada, New Zealand, the Faroe Islands, Norway and Iceland, fishing is now done differently and as a result, fewer fish are being wasted.

    But the enormous environmental benefits of the landing obligation can only be realised if the rules are monitored and enforced at sea. And almost five years after the ban on discards was made law in the EU, evidence suggests that nothing has changed and there is widespread illegal, unreported discarding at sea [2].

    The Commission is now proposing that remote electronic monitoring be introduced within all EU fishing fleets to enforce the landing obligation, through the process of updating specific control and inspection programs. Electronic monitoring of fishing activity at sea is considered by experts as the only reliable and effective way to ensure all catches are counted and the landing obligation succeeds [2]. And if applied equally to all fishing fleets based on risk assessments, it could deliver a huge improvement in data collection, and a transparent, level playing field in fisheries control, as yet unheard of across the EU.

    This year on World Oceans Day, Our Fish is asking politicians across all EU countries, not least national fisheries ministers, to accept our challenge to end overfishing and the waste of fish at sea – by supporting remote electronic monitoring in higher risk fishing fleets across all EU countries, in order to make the landing obligation a success for EU fisheries, fishers, and the long term health of our seas.

     

    This article was first published on Euractiv, on June 8th 2018

     

    [1] Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF), 2018, Monitoring the performance of the Common Fisheries Policy (STECF-Adhoc-18-01)

    [2] European Commission Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (2018), Towards new SCIPs, Advisory Council consultation.

  • World Ocean Day 2018: EU opportunity to make fish discarding history

    World Ocean Day 2018: EU opportunity to make fish discarding history

    This article was first published on Euractiv, on June 8th 2018

    By Rebecca Hubbard, Our Fish Programme Director

    This time five years ago, EU politicians were in the midst of negotiations over the reform of the EU Common Fisheries Policy. The reform, following broad engagement from civil society, industry, and politicians, and actively supported by almost 900,000 people across Europe, aimed to end decades of overfishing and discarding of fish at sea, which was clearly undermining the health of our oceans and coastal communities.

    The ban on discards – or the landing obligation, as it became known – became a key foundation of the reformed Common Fisheries Policy, and was sorely needed to drive improvements in fishing selectivity and catch documentation, and to prevent the massive waste of fish through bycatch that had become standard practice in EU seas. In 2011, 1.7 million tons of fish were thrown overboard in Europe – 23 percent of all catches. In most fisheries, most of this fish was caught by trawlers.

    While the intention of the landing obligation is to avoid unwanted catches in the first place, fishers who have become accustomed to discarding young (undersized) bycatch, now have to land them and sell them for non-human consumption at a lower profit or be destroyed. There is no significant difference in fish mortality, whether you throw the by-catch overboard or land it, as most fish simply do not survive being returned to the sea from the fishing net; usually only around 10% percent of the discarded fish survive. This is where the landing obligation makes a big difference: wasted fish become visible and measurable on land, and must be counted as part of fishers’ quotas.

    EU scientists recently reported that around 40% of all commercial and non-commercial species in EU Atlantic fisheries are known to be overfished, and the recovery of fish stocks to a healthy level is slowing down [1]. In the Mediterranean, the situation remains dire, with over 90% of fish stocks overfished.

    Implementing the EU’s landing obligation will mean that in the long term, more young fish swim in the sea, which also means more fish for the fishermen. It will encourage fishermen to fish more sustainably and selectively. Wherever such a law was introduced, such as in Alaska, Canada, New Zealand, the Faroe Islands, Norway and Iceland, fishing is now done differently and as a result, fewer fish are being wasted.

    But the enormous environmental benefits of the landing obligation can only be realised if the rules are monitored and enforced at sea. And almost five years after the ban on discards was made law in the EU, evidence suggests that nothing has changed and there is widespread illegal, unreported discarding at sea [2].

    The Commission is now proposing that remote electronic monitoring be introduced within all EU fishing fleets to enforce the landing obligation, through the process of updating specific control and inspection programs. Electronic monitoring of fishing activity at sea is considered by experts as the only reliable and effective way to ensure all catches are counted and the landing obligation succeeds [2]. And if applied equally to all fishing fleets based on risk assessments, it could deliver a huge improvement in data collection, and a transparent, level playing field in fisheries control, as yet unheard of across the EU.

    This year on World Oceans Day, Our Fish is asking politicians across all EU countries, not least national fisheries ministers, to accept our challenge to end overfishing and the waste of fish at sea – by supporting remote electronic monitoring in higher risk fishing fleets across all EU countries, in order to make the landing obligation a success for EU fisheries, fishers, and the long term health of our seas.

     

    This article was first published on Euractiv, on June 8th 2018

     

    [1] Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF), 2018, Monitoring the performance of the Common Fisheries Policy (STECF-Adhoc-18-01)

    [2] European Commission Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (2018), Towards new SCIPs, Advisory Council consultation.

  • Dutch Fishers Protest Against Their Own Practices

    Dutch Fishers Protest Against Their Own Practices

    By Frederieke Vlek, Our Fish Netherlands Campaigner

    First published in Dutch, on joop.nl

    On June 2nd, Dutch fishermen protested in  Amsterdam against, amongst other things, the new European fishing laws, in particular the ‘landing obligation’ – and  they refer to the obligation to land fish that they are not allowed to sell as ‘catastrophic’. Nevertheless, this landing obligation is the prelude to more sustainable fishing and is therefore certainly good for the whole ecosystem of the North Sea, both for popular and less commercial fish species.

    While fishermen are used to discarding too young (undersized) bycatch, they now have to land them and largely destroy them. Fishermen emphasize in their protests that they do so against their will. Their protest is strongly emphasized with dramatic photographs, showing how young fish unfit for consumption are destroyed using red dye, cleverly framing the the landing obligation  as a unworkable set of rules from Brussels.

    But in the long term, more young fish swimming alive in the sea means more fish for the fishermen. This law will ensure that young fish remain in the sea. It will encourage fishermen to fish more sustainably and selectively. That is badly needed, because in the decades before the new law, there was a massive waste of fish  through bycatch. In 2011, 1.7 million tons of fish were thrown overboard in Europe, which was 23 percent of all catches. In the Dutch fisheries this amount was 57 million kilos of bycatch, of which the lion’s share (47 million) was caught by Dutch demersal trawlers. To put an end to this wasteful practice, the EU came up with the landing obligation.

    With slogans like ‘give baby fish a chance’, the fishermen actually protest against their own current practices. There is no significant difference in fish mortality, whether you throw the by-catch overboard or land it. Most fish simply do not survive the return from the fishing net (on-board-back-in-sea); usually around 10 percent of the catch and for a few species up to 30 percent. The big difference that the landing obligation makes is that the waste on the land becomes visible and measurable, and the quotas must be added up. And that goes, of course, at the expense of the amount of saleable fish. Normally the fish is the victim in bycatch, but now the fisherman is feeling a loss also.

    Thirty per cent of all commercial and non-commercial species in the North Sea are known to be overfished, and for three quarters of these species, the state of the fishery can not be scientifically determined at all. EU scientists recently reported [1] that the recovery of fish stocks to a healthy level is also slowing down in the North Sea.

    More selective fishing for flatfish is the answer. The landing obligation is a nice step-by-step approach, because it requires more selective fishing and at the same time protects other vulnerable by-catch species such as sea bass and turbot. Wherever the law was introduced, such as Alaska, Canada, New Zealand, the Faroe Islands, Norway and Iceland, fishing is now done differently and fewer fish are being wasted. A strong backbone of the Dutch government will be an important factor in the coming years, which can make the landing obligation a success for the North Sea.

    [1] Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) Monitoring the performance of the Common Fisheries Policy  (STECF-Adhoc-18-01)

     

  • Vissers protesteren tegen eigen praktijken

    Vissers protesteren tegen eigen praktijken

    Behalve de vissen, gaan nu ook de vissers iets van de bijvangst voelen

    Vandaag protesteren de Nederlandse vissers in Amsterdam onder andere tegen de nieuwe Europese visserijwet, met name tegen de aanlandplicht. De verplichting om vis die ze niet mogen verkopen toch aan land te brengen noemen zij ‘catastrofaal’. Toch is deze aanlandplicht de opmaat naar duurzamere visserij en dus wel degelijk goed voor het hele ecosysteem van de Noordzee, zowel voor populaire als de minder commerciële vissoorten. Regelgedrocht Terwijl vissers voorheen te jonge (ondermaatse) bijvangst overboord kieperden, moeten ze die nu aan land brengen en grotendeels vernietigen. Vissers benadrukken in hun protesten dat ze dat tegen hun zin doen. Hun protest wordt dik aangezet met dramatische foto’s waarop jonge vis met behulp van rode verf ongeschikt wordt gemaakt voor consumptie. Zo wordt de aanlandplicht slim geframed als het zoveelste regelgedrocht uit Brussel. Maar meer levend rondzwemmende jonge vis in zee betekent op lange termijn ook meer vis voor de visser. Deze wet zal er voor zorgen dat de jonge vis in zee blijft leven. Hij gaat vissers stimuleren om duurzamer en selectiever te vissen. Dat is hard nodig, want in de tientallen jaren voor de nieuwe wet liep de verspilling van bijvangst de spuigaten uit. In 2011 werd in Europa 1,7 miljoen ton vis meer dood dan levend weer overboord gegooid, wat neer komt op 23 procent van alle vangst. In de Nederlandse visserij was dat 57 miljoen kilo bijvangst, waarvan het leeuwendeel (47 miljoen) door onder meer de protesterende kottervissers. Juist om aan deze destructieve praktijk een einde te maken kwam de EU, onder publieke druk, met de aanlandplicht.  Baby fish Met leuzen als ‘geef baby fish een kans’ protesteren de vissers in feite tegen hun eigen gangbare praktijken. Er zit namelijk geen significant verschil in de vissterfte, of je de bijvangst nou overboord gooit of aan land brengt. De meeste vis overleeft het retourtje visnet (aan-boord-terug-in-zee) gewoonweg niet: meestal rond de 10 procent van de vangst, van een enkele soort haalt 30 procent het. Het grote verschil dat aanlandplicht maakt is dat de verspilling op het land zichtbaar en meetbaar wordt, bij de quota moet worden opgeteld. En dat gaat natuurlijk ten koste van de hoeveelheid verkoopbare vis. Behalve de vissen, gaan nu ook de vissers iets van de bijvangst voelen. Dertig procent van alle commerciële en niet-commerciële soorten in de Noordzee wordt nog steeds overbevist en voor driekwart van deze soorten kan de stand überhaupt niet wetenschappelijk worden vastgesteld. EU-wetenschappers rapporteerden onlangs dat het herstel van visbestanden naar een gezond niveau ook in de Noordzee te langzaam gaat. Meer selectieve visserij op platvis is het antwoord. De aanlandplicht is hiervoor een mooie, geleidelijke opstap, omdat die vraagt om meer selectieve visserij en tegelijk ook andere kwetsbare bijvangstsoorten, zoals zeebaars en tarbot beschermt. Overal waar de wet is ingevoerd, zoals Alaska, Canada, Nieuw Zeeland, de Faroer Eilanden, Noorwegen en IJsland wordt nu anders gevist en minder vis verspild. Sterke knieën van de Nederlandse overheid zijn komende tijd een belangrijke factor die de aanlandplicht tot een succes kunnen maken voor de Noordzee.

    Dit artikel werd eerder gepubliceerd op Joop.nl: Vissers protesteren tegen eigen praktijken

  • EU Eel Evaluation Roadmap: NGO submission

    EU Eel Evaluation Roadmap: NGO submission

    Evaluation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007 of 18 September 2007 establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of European eel.

    “We strongly support the upcoming evaluation and welcome this opportunity to provide feedback on the effectiveness and implementation of the EU Eel Regulation.”

    The population of European eel has declined dramatically since the 1970s*. Recruitment of juvenile eels remains extremely low despite the joint EU management framework, which has now been in place for 10 years. The state of European eel remains critical and further action is urgently needed.

    Earlier evaluations indicate that the current EU management framework is insufficient and show that implementation of the regulation and of the national eel management plans has been delayed, piecemeal and focused on efforts with little discernible impact on the recovery of the European eel population. Notably, it has been very difficult to measure progress against the main target – at least 40% escapement of silver eels. While a strong focus of resources has been placed on restocking of eel, there is no evidence that this effectively contributes to future recruitment. Most countries maintain a directed fishery, and illegal catches and trafficking of glass eels remain a major problem.

    Habitat loss and deteriorating water quality also affect eel. The latest assessment of the implementation of the Water Framework Directive shows poor status for around 60% of surface water bodies and a massive presence of migration barriers**.

    Since the Eel Regulation came into force, some major changes in related EU policies have taken place. Notably, the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy resulted in the new commitment to restoring the biomass of all harvested fish stocks above levels capable of producing Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY). MSY is also used as a key criterion to assess Good Environmental Status under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. We are therefore particularly pleased to see the evaluation’s focus on coherence with other EU legislation, as well as with international instruments.

    We ask the European Commission to ensure that this evaluation of the effectiveness and coherence of the measures taken to aid the recovery of European eel assesses all aspects of eel management and potential options for the future, including:

    • The objective of 40% escapement of silver eels and whether it is in coherence with the precautionary principle and the MSY objective
    • The effectiveness of fisheries closures/restrictions for all life stages
    • The targets and indicators set in the national eel management plans, as well as the national monitoring to measure progress
    • Reporting and data collection obligations
    • Restocking practices and the associated overall effectiveness in terms of conservation
    • Progress on measures to address other major anthropogenic impacts on eel, primarily habitat restoration and removal of migration barriers
    • The use of public funds (EMFF) and whether it has aided eel recovery
    • The substantial illegal trade of European eel outside of and inside the EU and its effect on eel conservation
    • Control and enforcement issues related to the entire chain, from glass eel fisheries to consumption of eel products, including more coordinated action between the Member States’ enforcement agencies
    • The implementation of EU commitments within the framework of CMS and CITES

    Bearing all of the above in mind, we look forward to a thorough evaluation of all aspects of the European eel management framework, and to future opportunities to engage with this process.

    It is our hope that through implementation of urgent measures and better management and protection in the future, we can enable long-term recovery and sustainable exploitation of European eel, but we note that we are a very long way from there today. 

    Submitted by: ClientEarth, European Anglers Alliance, FishSec, Good Fish Foundation, Our Fish, Pew Charitable Trusts, Seas At Risk and WWF

    Download as PDF: Eel Evaluation Roadmap NGO submission

    *www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/ele.2737.nea.pdf
    **www.eea.europa.eu/themes/water/status-and-monitoring/state-of-surface-waters

     

     

    Background: EU begins evaluation of eel management

    On 13 April 2018, the European Commission released a Roadmap for the upcoming evaluation of the Eel Regulation. The evaluation is set to help the Commission decide whether to review the regulation or focus on improving implementation. Stakeholders are invited to provide feedback on issues related to the implementation of the Eel Regulation until 11 May 2018, and then in a second consultation in October.

    The so called Evaluation and Fitness Check Roadmap of Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007 of 18 September 2007 establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of European eel provides background on the issue and explains the process and focus for the evaluation. The intention is to inform stakeholders and enable them to participate effectively in the process as well as provide views and possible solutions for better eel management. It is the first step of a process that may take several years.

    The evaluation process started in Spring 2018, with a final report expected in the first quarter of 2019. It consists of three parts: an external evaluation of the management framework, an ICES assessment of the biological aspects and a Commission review of the use of public funds to support implementation. The first public feedback period (open 13 April to 11 May) is intended to inform the initial phase of the evaluation, whereas the second public consultation in October will give stakeholders a chance to reflect on some of the initial results and provide views on potential measures.

    First evaluation found significant delays

    This will be the second EU evaluation since the Eel Regulation came into force in September 2007. The previous evaluation took place after the first national progress reports were submitted in 2012 and a report was presented to the Council and European Parliament in 2014 (in line with requirements in the regulation (Art. 9.2)).

    The first evaluation found that the status of the European eel remained critical and in need of urgent action and that the implementation of the Eel Regulation had suffered significant delays. It also found that most of the management measures taken were related to fisheries, whereas other measures such as improving habitats or controlling predators and parasites had been postponed or only partially implemented. Altogether, it was difficult to assess progress towards the main objective of increasing silver eel escapement due to all the delays and the long timeframes involved. It also highlighted that few countries had reached their restocking targets and there was concern that restocking practices may not contribute to increased escapement but instead sustained the fishing for eel.

    This second evaluation is therefore crucial in terms of assessing the effects of management measures, as more time has passed. Also, since the previous Commission report, the reformed CFP (Regulation (EU) 1380/2013) objective of Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) has been applied to stock management.

    Effectiveness and coherence in focus

    The emphasis of this evaluation is on the effectiveness and coherence of the measures taken to aid the recovery of European eel, in particular through the national Eel Management Plans. A number of areas are listed, including the design and implementation of restocking efforts, the management of glass eel fisheries, enforcement and monitoring both in marine and inland waters, coherence with other EU legislation and international instruments, including CITES and CMS, as well as the use of public money from the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) to aid implementation.

    The Commission is now awaiting Member State reports on the use of EMFF funds, implementation of the Water Framework Directive and, in particular, the national eel management plans in order to gather the information needed for the external and internal evaluations. ICES has put out an extended data call on eel to support its work.

    When the evaluation report is finalised in early 2019, the Commission will make its decision on the way forward, probably including an Impact Assessment of potential measures. If the regulation needs to be revised, this is a longer process with proposals for amendments that will need to be discussed and agreed between the Council and the European Parliament. It could take years, particularly considering that 2019 is the year of European Parliament elections, the appointment of a new European Commission and Brexit.

    Meanwhile, European eel remains listed as Critically Endangered by IUCN, trade is restricted under CITES Annex II and efforts are ongoing to support its conservation under the Convention on the conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS). European eel is still in need of urgent actions to support its recovery.

    A Commission attempt last year to close all EU fishing of adult eels – arguably the most rapid way to aid increased reproduction – was not supported by the Member States. Instead, a joint Declaration on strengthening the recovery for European eel was agreed, committing Member States to step up their actions, including a review of current restocking practices and fighting illegal fishing and trade. In the context of fishing opportunities for 2018, a 3-month ban on fishing for European eel of 12 cm or more is to be implemented by the Member States between 1 September 2018 and 31 January 2019. .

    Across the wide geographical spread of European eel, responses to its plight have been slow, patchy and largely ineffective. The first reports of substantial decline came already in the 1970s, but it took over three decades to get agreement on a management framework for the European Union and a listing under CITES Annex II to restrict trade.

    The European eel regulation (EC 1100/2007) was finally adopted in 2007. It is a framework regulation with an overarching objective (Art. 2.4) – 40 % escapement of silver eel biomass compared to pre-anthropogenic levels – and an agreed set of measures to use. It requires Member States to create and implement Eel Management Plans for each “eel river basin”, and to submit progress reports every third year, beginning in June 2012.

    The implementation of the eel management plans has been riddled with problems, including delays, a lack of reporting, a misuse of measures to support fishing rather than conservation and a very substantial illegal trade in glass eels with countries outside of the EU. Against this background, the upcoming evaluation is incredibly important.

    Photo: Actress Florence Keith-Roach “98.4% of the European eel population is already GONE. Continuing to fish for them is like hunting pandas!”

    Photo credit: @Fishlove/Jillian Edelstein, fishlove.co.uk. Check out this story on the collaboration between Our Fish and Fish Love.

  • Save Our Seas: 173,000+ EU Citizens Demand Action from EU Environment and Fisheries Ministers

    Save Our Seas: 173,000+ EU Citizens Demand Action from EU Environment and Fisheries Ministers

    Last October Our Fish joined with Seas At Risk and WeMove.EU to petition the Environment and Fisheries Ministers of the EU to deliver on their promise to end overfishing and protect our seas. Today, we joined forced with the Bulgarian Biodiversity Foundation to organise a demonstration and deliver over 173,000 signatures to Environment Ministers meeting at the EU Council in Sofia. Local activists working on plastics, nature conservation and fisheries, joined our demonstration and spoke with national news media.

    The petition, signed by 1730,000 EU citizens calls on governments to act on laws already agreed upon,  so that we can ensure clean and healthy seas for the future, and to end overfishing by 2020 at the latest. The petition reads:

    “It’s time to stick to the commitment you made to save and protect our seas by 2020 under the EU Marine Directive. More needs to be done to end overfishing, and fish are not waste and should not be discarded. At least 30% of EU seas need to become Marine Protected Areas and further ambitious measures should be taken to achieve ecologically diverse, clean and healthy seas as prescribed by EU law.

    Over 40% of fish stocks in the North-East Atlantic are still overfished, while a staggering 90% of EU fish stocks in the Mediterranean are overfished. Throughout EU waters millions of fish are still being wasted at sea, despite the EU discard ban introduced in 2014. Wildlife protection is a joke: We still only have 9% of seas in Marine Protected Areas around Europe and not 30% as recommended by scientists. Most of the existing protected areas are “Paper Parks” with only a small percentage fully protected. 

    We should be able to trust EU Environment and Fisheries Ministers to make decisions that support healthy oceans, thriving fisheries, and sustainable coastal communities. But they need to earn our trust, and right now, we’re not convinced. Fisheries ministers must start following both scientific advice and EU law, rather than the narrow profit-based interests of a small number of fishing industry heavyweights. We have sent our message – have you sent yours?  Add your voice here.

    Rebecca Hubbard is the Programme Director of Our Fish

     

     

  • Staying Up All Night to Get Quota esp

    The Our Fish team is in Brussels, where EU fisheries ministers are gathering to decide on fishing levels for over 120 species from the North Sea and Atlantic. In previous years, quotas have been set far higher than is recommended by fisheries scientists.

    On Wednesday morning, when minister stumble, bleary-eyed, out of all night negotiations, will they have chose the path of sustainability, or continued down the road of destructive overfishing? Our Fish Eye is here to find out – keep checking this page, where we will be adding live video and news updates and trying to find out just what goes on behind the closed doors of the EU fisheries council.

  • Staying Up All Night to Get Quota

    The Our Fish team is in Brussels, where EU fisheries ministers are gathering to decide on fishing levels for over 120 species from the North Sea and Atlantic. In previous years, quotas have been set far higher than is recommended by fisheries scientists.

    On Wednesday morning, when minister stumble, bleary-eyed, out of all night negotiations, will they have chose the path of sustainability, or continued down the road of destructive overfishing? Our Fish Eye is here to find out – keep checking this page, where we will be adding live video and news updates and trying to find out just what goes on behind the closed doors of the EU fisheries council.

  • Europese regelgeving; drama voor visser of kans voor zeenatuur?

    Europese regelgeving; drama voor visser of kans voor zeenatuur?

    Afgelopen weken is de visserij vaak in het nieuws en wat vooral blijft hangen is dat de Nederlandse vissers op het randje van de afgrond staan door de Europese regelgeving. Is het niet het verbod op pulsvisserij dat als een zwaard van Damocles boven het hoofd hangt, dan is het wel de nieuwe wet die verplicht bijvangst en zogenaamde discards of onbruikbare vis naar de wal te brengen, waardoor ‘de toekomst van de vissers naar de donder wordt geholpen’. De andere kant van de regelgeving, de noodzaak voor het herstel van zeenatuur, lijkt alleen geen grote rol te spelen in het debat.

    De eeuwenlange exploitatie van de Noordzee heeft het zeeleven beschadigd, daarom zijn stevige regels nodig. Op de Noordzee wordt al decennialang visserij bedreven met niet-selectieve bodemberoerende trawlers. Bijvangsten zijn hierdoor onvermijdelijk. Maar door regels in te stellen gefocust op een handje vol commerciële vissoorten hebben we een Noordzee gecreëerd waarin het erg goed gaat met schol en tong, maar waar andere soorten als zeebaars en tarbot, die in deze visserij worden bijgevangen, er een stuk minder goed voorstaan. Om te voorkomen dat de Noordzee verder verschraald en echt veranderd in een monocultuur waarin alleen platvissen kunnen floreren, zal er moeten worden geïnvesteerd in selectievere visserij. Dat is de noodzakelijke opdracht die Brussel geeft aan de lidstaten.

    Het lijkt een ingewikkeld verhaal en uiteindelijk blijft er voor het brede publiek het beeld hangen van vissers die om zeep worden geholpen door de Europese wetgeving. Bijvoorbeeld door een visserman die staat te snikken bij een grote bank met ondermaatse of te kleine vis die onverkoopbaar en vernietigd moet worden met rode vloeistof. Maar daar tegenover staat de realiteit; Het is precies deze kleine en ondermaatse vis die al decennia lang wordt gevangen in de Nederlandse visserij en weer grotendeels dood overboord wordt gegooid. Uit onderzoek blijkt dat het gaat om een gigantische iaarlijkse verspilling van rond de 50 miljoen kilo gequoteerde soorten in kottervisserij in 2011. Om deze verspilling tegen te gaan en om kwetsbare soorten ook goed te kunnen beheren, wil Europa juist dat ondermaatse vis en bijvangstsoorten niet of een stuk minder worden gevangen. Iets wat vanwege het niet-selectieve karakter van de Nederlandse visserij niet gemakkelijk is, getuige de weerstand op deze regelgeving. Hierdoor worden nu grote hoeveelheden vis aan wal gezet. Maar dat laatste is natuurlijk niet de bedoeling van de nieuwe wet. De wet is een stok achter de deur voor de visserij om veel selectiever te gaan vissen. Is het perfect? Absoluut niet, maar het is wel een belangrijke maatregel die in ieder geval iets doet aan deze lang voortdurende misstand.

    Bijvangst bycatchEr liggen al tal van mogelijkheden op de plank om meer selectiever te vissen. Maar vaak krijgt het publiek voorgeschoteld dat deze oplossingen te grote economische consequentie hebben voor de visserij. Een visserman gaf deze week in een tv-reportage aan dat wanneer hij maatregelen treft die bijvangst met 40% reduceren, hij ook 12% minder vangt van de vis waar hij goed aan verdiend. Hier valt de discussie dood, terwijl hij hier zou moeten beginnen. De overheid moet verantwoordelijkheid nemen voor goed beheer en te grote economische consequenties moeten worden opgelost. Die ruimte kan juist nu worden genomen, want zo benauwd is de positie van de vissers in Nederland niet. Niet alleen de schol is op een hoger niveau dan ooit, ook de financiële situatie van de Nederlandse kottervloot was in 2016 op een historisch hoogtepunt, met de beste resultaten in 50 jaar tijd.

    Frederieke Vlek

    Campagne coördinator Nederland, Our Fish

    Dit artikel werd ook door Trouw gepubliceerd: Om het zeeleven te herstellen zijn regels nodig