b-uppsats, måns kyhlbäck, maria swebilius. ban on discards of fish, advantages and...
DESCRIPTION
Måns Kyhlbäck and Maria Swebilius. (2014). Ban on discards of fish, advantages and disadvantages of the European Common Fisheries Policy reform. This paper is a B-Uppsats.TRANSCRIPT
Environmental Science program, Linköping University
Ban on discards of fish, advantages and
disadvantages of the European
Common Fisheries Policy reform
This paper is a B-Uppsats
2014-05-19
MÅNS KYHLBÄCK AND MARIA SWEBILIUS
1
Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 2
1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 2
2.0 Background ....................................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 The impact of discards on the environment: biologically ............................................................. 2
2.2 The use of resources and LCA ....................................................................................................... 3
2.3 Other reasons for the regulations.................................................................................................. 4
2.4 Related science .............................................................................................................................. 5
2.5 The new regulations ...................................................................................................................... 5
3.0 Purpose of this study ......................................................................................................................... 6
3.1 Research questions ........................................................................................................................ 6
4.0 Methodical approach ......................................................................................................................... 6
4.1 Choice of method ........................................................................................................................... 6
4.2 Philosophy of science .................................................................................................................... 6
4.3 Ethical aspects ............................................................................................................................... 7
4.4 To build questions ......................................................................................................................... 7
4.5 Structuring interviews ................................................................................................................... 8
4.6 Ways to analyse results ................................................................................................................. 8
4.7 Analytical framework .................................................................................................................... 8
4.8 Method constraints ........................................................................................................................ 8
5.0 Results ............................................................................................................................................... 9
5.1 The Small Scale Fisherman ........................................................................................................... 9
5.2 The European Parliament representatives .................................................................................. 11
5.3 Marine Manager at the County Administrative Board in Sweden .............................................. 12
6.0 Discussion ....................................................................................................................................... 13
7.0 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................... 17
8.0 References ....................................................................................................................................... 17
8.1 Interviews: ................................................................................................................................... 18
2
Abstract
The study discusses the discard ban for all fisheries in the European Union that is proclaimed
by the European Common Fisheries Policy’s new regulations. For the study we have
conducted interviews, of which the data have been compared to other research in order to
contribute with an updated understanding. A number of conclusions were drawn, among them
that the rules are good for achieving sustainable fisheries, and that lesser discards of fish will
provide better information which can be used to keep better control on fish stocks. We also
request, that the boundaries for trading quotas between large and small fisheries are held, this
to maintain small fishing communities and the marine biodiversity.
1.0 Introduction
The unique marine biodiversity is severely threatened by commercial fisheries all around the
globe. Pontecorvo and Schrank (2014) discusses whether global catches since the 1950s has
steadily increased. Despite constant development of new fishing gears, in 1996 a reversal
trend appeared. The simple conclusion is that the world's fish stocks are in decline, and an
increasing population does not make the problem smaller regarding the future (Tidwell &
Geoff, 2001). Yet another problem is that fishermen not only catch unwanted fish, yet also
other marine life, which often include endangered species like sea mammals and birds
(Weissenberger, 2013). According to Alverson et al. (1994) studies of over 800 papers in
1994 have shown that global discards of fish from commercial fisheries were around 17,9 and
39,5 million tons with an average of 27 million every year. The commercial fisheries in the
European Union (EU) contribute to these high numbers, with around 1,7 million tons, which
is approximately a quarter of all catch each year (Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Committee, 2012). In February 2013 new rules with a discard ban were established, and
thereby landing obligations of all fish caught by commercial fisheries, were adopted by the
Council of The European Union (Coveny, 2013). However, there may be some problems with
the new regulations, Sardà et.al (2013) argues they might create a new market for unwanted
fish, which will increase a demand and an increased fishing as a result. This study examines
the advantages and disadvantages of the new regulations.
2.0 Background
2.1 The impact of discards on the environment: biologically
When discussing the effects of discarding, on a biological level, one important issue is
whether the fish thrown back are dead, or not. There is a controversy, and some mean that fish
often are dead or dying, when brought on board to then be thrown back again (Jennings,
Greenstreet and Reynolds, 1999). On the other hand, Sardà et.al (2013) mean that a lot of the
caught fish actually survives and they have therefore a good chance of surviving and to
reproduce. Whatever the case, it is especially important for the smaller fish to reproduce and
moreover it is especially important in such ecosystems where there are many different types
3
of fish species, such as southern Europe, the Bay of Biscay and the Black Sea. If some species
disappears, it will eventually be only a few that thrive and this changes the entire ecosystem
structure. However, despite the positive effect it can give a negative impact seen by the
introduction of the fishing ban. Sardà et.al (2013) discusses that a negative effect is that the
population of fish will significantly increase because the fish´s mortality will be reduced.
Furthermore Sardà et.al (2013) states that one thing that can give both negative and positive
effects on marine biology is if the fishes that die are thrown back into the sea. They will
become food for other organisms that live on the ocean floor, these scavengers might not
become part of the current ecosystem if not offered such excess food. Scavengers change their
behaviour and therefore neglect their previous birthplace and this leads to various problems in
the ecosystem because of their absence, there is no longer anyone who takes care of the
decomposition.
According to Sardà et.al (2013) some types of birds have also adapted their way of life in
order to take advantage of the discard; they have changed their breeding grounds so they are
close to the places where the discards occur. At the level of the ecosystem, the fishing
industry not only affects the structure, but also the flow of energy. Discarded biomass is a
source of energy that is removed and then immediately returned to the exploited ecosystem.
So if one actually had taken care of, instead of throwing it back, it disappears from the energy
source ecosystem. This means that the net loss from the biomass therefore increases in the
ecosystem; this may therefore affect the resilience of the already exploited ecosystem and
accelerate the deterioration by reducing secondary production and recycling of energy.
One conclusion that can be drawn is that ecosystems must be properly evaluated before the
introducing of the ban (Sardà et.al, 2013), as mentioned before; the whole ecosystem can be
damaged by such a change because many species have changed their entire lifestyle after the
discarding of fish.
2.2 The use of resources and LCA
Due to the increasing problems with the discarding of fish, a new ban has been proclaimed.
This ban is central to understand the changes that will occur in the fishing industry, which we
will discuss more detailed later on. To help understanding the underlying factors in this new
ban a dialogue about possible difficulties is much needed. According to Hornborg et.al.
(2013) the fishing industry has to extend their attitude towards a sustainable fishery, to reach a
maintainable use of the oceanic resources. To assess how a sustainable use of resources can
be achieved, some kind of tool is required. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is by ISO standards a
method that investigates the environmental impacts of use of the earth's various assets, this by
using a wide-ranging and organized technique.
Hornborg et.al (2013) are discussing, when it comes to the fishing industry, many aspects
must be included to be able to make a good analysis and thereafter to make improvements.
The biggest problem lies in how to make measurements on fish stocks and how the stocks are
affected by the hard fishing as currently are being conducted. Some aspects that play a
4
significant role in measurements are economical, time-related, social and also biological. A
number of agencies have today been established. Their purpose is to manage these surveys,
with respect to the new regulation of unwanted fish. Furthermore, Hornborg et.al (2013)
writes that the authorities involved in the new ban mostly focus on the statistics relating to
how fish stocks recover, in terms of fishing. However, it is important to review the purely
technical in fisheries, such as the development of the nets that are being used because they
bring many negative consequences for the marine environment. Further, Hornborg et al.
(2013) discusses that the improvement of the European Common Fisheries Policy (CFP)
suggests that ecology need to be seen as an important question and a requirement for other
subdivisions. However, social and economic penalties will remain as an excessive impact on
the upcoming CFP forms. The net structure, rendering to fishermen, is disposed to greater
misfortune risks and might be banned.
2.3 Other reasons for the regulations
A public opinion have for a long time been against discards of fish. For example Wirtén et al.
(2009) demanded new rules regarding the fishing policy, by highlighting the threats against
the future of fishing industries and the unique marine biodiversity. They mean that in the long
run, continued poor conditions, will affect the fishing industries. Greenpeace (2011) has
pointed out that there is no way to justify discards of perfectly good fish, and that EU thereby
must take responsibility. However, Greenpeace argues that this is not the only measure that
needs to be done, there is also a need of a more selective fishing. For example, to catch the
right species and to stop destructive fishing methods such like bottom trawling. Politicians of
different belongings have also put pressure for a stricter fisheries policy. Larsson, Ehn and
Johansson (2006) from the Swedish red-green opposition parties, where early to argue against
the waste of resources by requesting a discard ban. Representatives from Sweden's incumbent
government has also pointed out the importance with a discard ban (Hjälmered and Fjellner,
2013). Those are only some of several examples that will be given.
In February 2013, The Council of The European Union made a press release about
agreements regarding a reform of the CFP (Coveny, 2013). Coveny (2013) writes further
about the new regulations which been adopted to make the fishing industry more sustainable.
This will be achieved by new rules concerning discard, along with other policies regarding
commercial fishery. The main reason for the regulations to be adopted now is a proposal the
European Commission (EC) presented in July 2011. European Commission, (2011) argues
that the reason for the proposal is, shortly described, because of the current unsustainable
regulations regarding ecology, economics and social factors. With a bigger public debate, new
science and different evaluations in mind, this proposal were created by the commission and
now also adopted by the EU.
The EC proposal presented several shortcomings and problems in the old CFP, some of these
are: “Lack of focus in the objectives on environmental, economic and social sustainability”,
“Fleet overcapacity, overfishing, total allowable catches (TACs) that are set too high, and
low compliance have resulted in a large majority of Union stocks being overexploited.” and
“Unacceptably high levels of discards.” (European Commission, 2011). With new light on
5
these problems the EU (Coveny, 2013) applied new regulations for a discard ban, and
possible by-catch quotas. New regulations will be implemented gradually between 2014 and
2019 (Coveny, 2013). In summary, the new directives will ban discards and thereby introduce
landing obligations for commercial fishery and annual quotas will be made by scientific
advice.
2.4 Related science
Some of the research that we refer to in the introduction and in the background, is also of
great importance for the rest of this study. When discussing fish ecology in general and
fishing techniques Weissenberger (2013), Hornborg et.al. 2012 and Sardà et.al (2013) are of
high importance. When speaking of discards and the effects of it, Palsson (2003), Gray
(2002), Sardà et.al (2013), Tidwell and Geoff (2001), Jennings, Green Street and Reynolds
(1999) are referred to. Sardà et.al (2013) and Weissenberger (2013) are also of high relevance
when discussing market issues regarding the discard ban.
2.5 The new regulations
The following piece is a compact summary of the new EU (2013) regulations: Fish who have
certain catch limits, or size limits (separately for the Mediterranean) that become caught by
Union fishing vessels in or outside EU waters, must not be discarded. It should be brought on
board, registered and then brought to land. This new regulations will take effect in several
steps year by year, to finally be fully applied on 1 January 2019. Following are some
important dates and specifications.
In 1 January 2015 as latest, the discard ban takes effect on pelagic fisheries for all
EU waters, for example those who fish for herring, boar-fish and tuna, but also for
salmon in the Baltic Sea.
With start in January 1, 2016 further bans on discards will take effect for all
fisheries that deals with the following species. (See quotation further down).
With the latest date January 1, 2019, the ban take effect on all species not specified.
The regulations applies to all Union fishing vessels in all waters.
There will be possible to in some cases throw back 5% of the annual catches.
“(i) the North Sea
— fisheries for cod, haddock, whiting,
saithe;
— fisheries for Norway lobster;
— fisheries for common sole and plaice;
— fisheries for hake;
— fisheries for Northern prawn;
(ii) North Western waters
— fisheries for cod, haddock, whiting,
saithe;
— fisheries for Norway lobster;
— fisheries for common sole and plaice;
— fisheries for hake;
(iii) South Western waters
— fisheries for Norway lobster;
— fisheries for common sole and plaice;
— fisheries for hake;
(iv) other fisheries for species subject to
catch limits.” (EU, 2013)
6
3.0 Purpose of this study
The purpose of this study is to highlight the advantages and disadvantages of the reform on
the European Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) regarding ban on discards of fish. To succeed
with this, we will collect empirical data through interviews and also retrieve current studies
done in the field. The interview questions are based on research and legal documents related
to the topic.
3.1 Research questions
What are the positive and negative effects with the EU ban on discards of fish?
What are the expected impacts, in ecological and economic conditions, of the
discard ban?
How do people related to the fishing industry think the new rules will affect them
and the environment?
4.0 Methodical approach
4.1 Choice of method
A complete analysis of the advantage and disadvantage, of CFP's new regulations regarding
the discard ban, would be an enormous if not impossible task to perform. Therefor we chose
to do interviews and learn what people related to the fishing sector, and also politicians,
believes what effect the new regulations will have. The choice of interview method is made
with Svensson and Starin’s (1996) distinction in mind. For example, the qualitative way, as
we chose is seeking to reveal not yet known phenomena, when the quantitative is looking for
the distribution or the correlation between pre-defined phenomena.
We are doing inductive conclusions based on collected data. Since it is not possible to
conduct interviews with several of the prospective subjects, we also discuss on distance, by e-
mail or telephone. Although the distance communication in not an ideal, it is good enough for
obtaining answers in well formulated questions.
4.2 Philosophy of science
To answer the questions for this study, we use a hermeneutic approach in order to analyse the
interviews and distance conversations. This approach will provide relevant answers regarding
commercial fisheries and the new CFP regulations. With the hermeneutic approach, we reflect
and are able to overcome prejudices and to get an understanding of what the data is about
(Thurén, 2007; Kvale and Brinkman 2009). The approach help us to interpret the data, with
use of Kvale and Brinkman's (2009) guidelines about the hermeneutic way of analysing.
7
4.3 Ethical aspects
When planning the interviews, several ethical rules of behaviour are followed. To protect the
interviewees, and other related persons from any kind of harm, risk or wrong ethical aspects
and principles are very important (Boeije, 2010). Although some of those who are interviewed
are public figures, which make much of what they do public (e.g. email conversations), the
ethical principles are important.
Boeije (2010) discusses three ethical “dimensions” that have been in mind during all the
interviews. The first of them is the informed consent, which highlights the importance of that
those who are being interviewed are aware of this, and that they feel they can withdraw from
whenever they want. It’s also important that they are well aware of the benefits and risks with
the interview. The second one is privacy, which of course is important for the interviewees.
That those who are interviewed decide who they give information to, what shall be public and
what related information should be handled confidential. Boeije’s (2010) third principle are
about confidentiality and privacy. The data collected from the interviews shall therefore be
kept secure, so that it not fall into the wrong hands. It is also very important that they have the
possibility to be anonymous, and that this is made clear before the interview begins.
4.4 To build questions
There are many ways to perform qualitative interviews, we used Boeije (2010), Kvale and
Brinkman's (2009) guidelines in order to have a foundation when creating questions. For
example, as earlier mentioned Sardà et.al (2013) argues that the new regulations may create a
new market for unwanted fish. Which they mean will increase fishing over time. A question
with this in mind have been asked to several of the interviewees, however formulated to not
be leading. Instead we ask if the interviewees think there is an opportunity for new markets to
be created, as a result of the changes. Another example is the one Weissenberger (2013)
writes about, how the fisheries frequently catch a lot of unwanted species because of bad
selectivity gear. We ask how the interviewees see the fact that several species swim together,
and therefore are hard to catch without getting unwanted fish. Another common question and
argument for those who are against the regulations, are how fishing communities will be
affected, Schmidt (2013) for one talks about this, however, well aware that the regulations are
important. We use also this one, formulated in another way.
To reveal several aspects and different perspectives, the interviewees are chosen for their
different interests in the fishing industry. It is the small scale fisherman, a marine Manager at
the County Administrative Board in Sweden who choose to be anonymous and Isabella Lövin
and Axel Naver, who are representatives of the Swedish Green Party in the European
Parliament (in spring 2014). The interview conducted face to face, was with the fisherman.
All the other interviews are made by email conversations. It should also be noted that the
European Parliament representatives has been a driving force in creating a sustainable fishery
in the EU, with the regulations this paper examines, as a result.
8
4.5 Structuring interviews
Questions for the email conversations are made structured, but open ended with possibilities
to freely provide answers. The questions are lined up in a structured manner, each query is
done to provide a discursive response. This open-ended questions can therefore not be
answered with a yes or no. The interviewees are encouraged to answer the questions one by
one, to provide us with extra information, and to tell us if we had asked “the right questions”.
This to ensure us that we are not missing something of high relevance. In the face to face
interview (with the fisherman) we start with structured questions and later change to more
semi-structured questions. Boeije (2010) talks about how to differ the two methods from each
other. The structured have very defined questions with a specific order, this makes a frame in
which the discourse will be kept. The semi-structured are on the other hand more open but
with a clear focus. Both ways are considered to be good, however, in this way we mixed
methods in a relevant way. Also the interviewee are asked to tell if something was missing.
The interview was recorded with an audio recording device. After the interview were
completed and the recording device were stopped, a conversation of estimated 15 minutes
were carried on, this was not planned, but notes were made with paper and pencil.
4.6 Ways to analyse results
Our idea of analysing answers from the interviews are to first do encodings from collected
data. The distance conversation data is easily coded, the face to face data however takes more
time. We repeat listening to pick most relevant parts for encoding. The model is created with
Boeije (2010) Open coding model as inspiration. This to make it easier to analyse, by
highlighting parts of the answers which are of high relevance, and to isolate positive and
negative opinions. After doing this we compare our empirical data with questions which we
built from different peer-reviewed articles. We also include new aspects from questions that
have emerged during the interviews. A comprehensive discussion are then being made.
4.7 Analytical framework
The focus of this study is the new rules regarding the commercial fishing in EU waters, with a
specific aim on the discard ban (EU, 2013). To achieve this, interviews are being held with
people related to the fishing in different ways, all of them are from Sweden. Inspired by
several scholars we worked out our method for this study (Thurén, 2007; Boeije, 2010; Kvale
and Brinkman, 2009).
4.8 Method constraints
The persons we wanted to interview were high-ranking politicians, ministers and other
decision-makers. People with this kinds of professions are often highly busy, and we have
experienced the difficulties to schedule appointments and long waits in distance
conversations. Anyway, we got to make some distance conversation that ultimately did
answer our research questions. However real face-to-face interviews would be a better way to
collect data, this would create a more vibrant discourse where the misunderstanding risk
9
hopefully had fallen. The interview with the fisherman, made by combining structured and
semi-structured interview, turned out to go really well. The conversation was conducted in a
calm environment where it was on the person being interviewed conditions. A good discourse
were held, and we stuck to the task at hand, and several follow-up questions could be asked.
Something that always should be considered when doing interviews is if because of the
anonymity, it can become harder to more deeply discuss the views behind the argument that
the person to be interviewed. Do this anonymous persons respond a bit more "courageous"
because their opinions will not be able to be tracked? This, or if our answers have been
contaminated by it, we have no answer for.
By comparing our collected data, with what we knew from earlier studies, several interesting
answers have been conducted. This was a good way to do this research, however more time to
do research on related science and to do more interviews, would make the results wider. For
example, the fisherman was very positive to the regulations, it would be interesting to
interview someone in the same profession who are against the discard ban.
5.0 Results
5.1 The Small Scale Fisherman
We conducted an in-depth interview with a small scale fishermen from southern Sweden. The
first question is about the measurements on the amounts of fish in different waters, whether he
believes these are true. The fisherman is positive to the calculations and with cod, as an
example, he describes that we can see two years into the future, by test fishing. In this way,
we can see how the amount of an actual species will be in the next two years, cod for example
has been seen to increase. However, there is a problem with the two-year delay, when two
years have passed, some fisheries have caught cod as by-catch and therefore thrown it back.
This interferes with the measurements, and fish trawling are often the cause. The interviewee
believes that the researcher’s way of calculating how much cod there is, is good but he does
not believe in the models used, mainly in the relation to trawling as much figures fall away in
terms of how much fish are thrown back.
The interviewee was asked to briefly tell us about the issue of fishermen getting unwanted
fish. He believes that the Baltic Sea is a fairly simple sea on this issue, compared to other
seas, and therefore easier to calculate the discards. However better gear and methods need to
be developed. Big fishing boats do the most harm to the discarding of fish. Cod fishing is
especially vulnerable, other species of fish are not as vulnerable to the fishing methods. One
example in cod fisheries are that many cods are being thrown back because they do not meet
the requirements to get caught up, they are usually too small, another is that flounder often get
stuck in the net. The problem with the flounder is that it clogs the holes in the net so that the
smaller cod were unable to get out. This makes the by-catches to increases. The interviewee
believes that this is hardly an issue with other species, however the best methods to avoid by-
10
catch are passive fishing and fishing with hooks, because of better control of where you are
fishing and therefore are able to target the right waters.
He believes that the new regulations are really good, and that they are important, to keep track
on how much fish there is in the oceans. However, he is negative that the regulation should
apply equally to all fishing boats. There is a big difference. And there are other exceptions,
when fish are alive and unharmed after fishing they should not have to make the long journey
back to the port where they will die, he believes this is unnecessary, but if that's what it takes
to generally improve stocks in the future, so does he think it's worth it. He is also sceptical
about whether the regulations will be followed up in a good way.
Much money are spent to improve fishing gear and methods, the fisherman thinks there are
possibilities to improve fishing techniques further and thereby reduce the amount of unwanted
fish. He thinks there is great opportunities to improve methods and techniques, using Norway
as an example of where this has occurred, with less discards as a result. They had an
ultimatum to make better techniques within three months, due to unsustainable fishing
practices that made large quantities of unwanted fish. The fisherman believes that more
motivation must be given, so the new methods are something positive.
To make fishing more sustainable, he believes that the draft ban is a good idea. That there will
hopefully be more fish and that the ecosystems will be better. In addition, the regulation will
lead to more jobs, for example in the transportation section of the fish on land, manufacturing
of equipment and so on. The bad things with the regulations are that the Control Regulation,
is much harder than before. He believes that it is unsustainable for fishermen, as to how well
they try to comply with the regulation, they will still be lawbreakers. He also thinks that the
regulations are made for the bigger fishing companies, and not for the smaller. There is no
need for the smaller boats to have the same rules as the bigger ones. The smaller the boats are,
the more difficult it is to see what is positive of the regulations because the percentage
outcome is more difficult to calculate with a small percentage amount.
He is critical to the long timeframes and that the high amount of states with, more or less, the
same rules. Calls for more regionalisation regarding rules and decision making. Positive to
general rules but mean that fisheries in different seas cannot be compared. “Trying to
regionalization in some way. I think that's the only chance. Then that one can have
comprehensive rules that are general, but one cannot compare a fishing the Baltic Sea to a
fishery in the Mediterranean.” - Small scale fisherman (2014).
Concern is expressed by the fisherman that there can be a problem in that some countries will
go too hard to make the most of the regulations, and that this will affect fishing communities
in a hard and unnecessary way. He points out Sweden as a typical country which can be
expected to do something like that, just to look good. About what he think in general, are
small-scale fishers 'for' the new rules? He thinks they are, but he is critical to decision making
that is meant to be good for fishermen, but becomes the opposite. Gives examples on rules
regarding several species, which has a severely effect on the fishing. How fishermen catch
11
different species in different seasons, like eel and salmon. So when some species are banned
this makes it hard to get the fishing around. This makes some rules counterproductive.
He also believes the rules benefits and effects small scale and large scale fisheries in different
and unfair ways. That small scale fisheries don’t have the same economical possibilities as the
larger, which are able to look further into the future and thereby prepare in another way. He
also believes that larger fisheries see profit in controlling the amount of some species, for
example the cod. “The large scale fisheries may have advantages in that the quantities of
certain species is weak. They see now that cod stocks are low, they think it's good because
then increases herring and sprat. They think this is great, and now they want to lower the
minimum size for cod. Then you know that it will be kept in check, and then it becomes more
herring.” – Small scale fisherman (2014).
Then he starts to talk about individual quotas which can create big problems if they are made
in the wrong way. Large scale fisheries will take over by buying up the smaller ones. The
boundaries for trade is essential between large and small scale fisheries. The fisherman
however is positive to markets of quotas in the fisheries segments themselves. Regarding the
controversy about the alarms that some species is running out and that there is often a debate
whether this is true. He believes that it is sometimes just an organization looking to make
money, and that this happens frequently. Not all times, but often.
5.2 The European Parliament representatives
The two representatives Isabella Lövin and Axel Naver of the Swedish Green Party in the
European Parliament (in spring 2014), gave us answers as one. Because of geographical
distances and lack of time, we made email conversations. In the first two questions we asked
what they think about the regulations, and if they could see any advantages and
disadvantages. The answer they gave us was that this new regulations are a good start towards
a sustainable commercial fishing, and that it gives incentive to the creation of better more
selective fishing methods. They did though see some problems in that political controversies
made some loopholes in the regulations, it will for example be possible to throw back 5 % of
the catches, a number which will be hard to control. Further they say that a 0 % discard ban
had been better and easier to control. They also ask for better controls from the countries
concerned, for example with more cameras.
We are being told that the meaning with the regulations are that it should not be benefiting for
commercial fisheries to catch unwanted fish, therefor no unwanted fish may be sold to the
food market. There is though a possibility in the creation of new markets which wants fish
flour, for example in the cosmetics business. Concerns are made that this will happen in the
Mediterranean, but give their hopes to non-profit organisations and politics to monitor this.
They are hopeful but aware of the risks.
In the next question we ask how they think the fishing communities will be affected. Hope is
expressed in that this in the long run would bring more fish, which would benefit the fishing
communities. This argument is strengthened by several examples, where similar laws have
12
had this outcome. The interviewees mean that the new regulations will force forward new
more selective fishing methods, they give Norway and Russia as examples where this already
has occurred. Further several answers are given whether EU’s regulations can be improved
further, monitoring of fishing quotas in member countries and multi annual management plans
are two, other are political conflicts that affect the seas in other aspects, as laws governing
waste and chemicals.
5.3 Marine Manager at the County Administrative Board in Sweden
One of those selected for an interview are a person who works as a marine manager in charge
of a county in Sweden, this person has chosen to be anonymous. The interview was conducted
at distance. The person were given the questions and responded in spring of 2014. The initial
two questions addresses the new regulation. The idea of our questions were to try to sort out
how the interviewee considers the advantages and disadvantages of the before said regulation
and how this are going to affect different levels of the society. The person interviewed felt
that the idea of the new ban is good and it will hopefully make the commercial fishing
becoming more sustainable. The interviewee are optimistically determined that the industry
will develop a more selective gear because commercially viable share of the catch otherwise
becomes smaller and less profitability. He states that the people that don't have sufficient
profitability to make the shift, regarding to the change of fishing gears, will have a hard time
in their individual case. The interviewee finds it necessary to see a change in the field, a
structural rationalization of the sector. It's a way to get the sector to become more
environmentally friendly and also to help the fishermen to keep continue with their activity in
the longer term, while having a higher profit.
Discussing how the market of unwanted fish will look like in the future brings out answers
that deals with whether you want the discarding of fish to be anything else than forage fish
etc., it’s probably required both great efforts and long-time considering of people's
conservative view on which fish products are considered suitable for human
consumption. Fishing communities may be affected by the ban and new markets will possibly
develop and this is a positive thing according to the interviewee. He believes that new markets
can be created, but one must also dare to seek out new markets that has new products in other
parts of the world. The outcome of the fishing industries will largely depend on the
compliance with the rules and this in turn depends how monitoring and enforcement can be
implemented effectively.
It is important to make the fishing more selective because of the discards. The interviewee
discusses that he doesn't have so much experience in this field, but he means that the
development of the more selective fishing is the way the fishing industry need to go. The
problem is what you are trying to select out and to what extent this is based on ecological
sustainability and not just short-term economic considerations. The Establishment takes on a
big expense that basically should be funded by the industry itself.
It is expected that the marine ecosystem will be affected by the new ban and we discussed
with the interviewee if EU’s regulations can be improved further. The interviewee says that,
13
yes, as long as the use of trawls and other non-selective trapping arises this problem. Thus,
there must be a change either in terms of accessories or creating a market for it today non-
priority part of the catch. But one must also consider that there is unintentional capture of
species that are protected and this suggests that the development of selective gears. The
interviewee discusses that you could create better conditions for sustainable fisheries by
regulating fishing activities in order to create smaller administrative areas, where the right to
fish is also linked to a limited number of operators who also will be responsible for managing
the resource. You should restrict large-scale fishing with fishing rights over global areas as
the "anonymity" means that you do not need to take responsibility for any possible
overfishing.
In addition to our questions, the interviewee wanted to discuss the current situation in
Australia, to illustrate the advantageous fishing situation there. The interviewee says that in
Australia the biologists/controllers accompany the larger boats to follow both the capture in
the form of rare species and also that you don't have conduct a fishing off what the rules
allow. This would have several benefits both to create a sustainable fishery and reliable
monitoring of the operations and the amount of fish if something similar introduced in EU and
Sweden.
“Expensive, yes, and the controllers may be end up in an awkward situation both by living
close to the fishermen, but also the risk that they neither dare act or will be put in cahoots with
the controls?” - Marine Manager at the County Administrative Board in Sweden (2014). This
requires a well thought out strategy that is necessary and one way is to create an effective
control structure for today so are many shortcomings in supervision.
The interview was to sum up very rewarding and the person seemed relatively positive set to
the new regulations but he seemed to still see the difficulties to fulfil it in a good way. There
will be various difficulties depending on the fishing industry levels, not everyone will find the
regulation as something good because it means new charges imposed on many. The
interviewee calls for changes in the fishing industry and hopes that the new regulation also
will ensure that people's attitude changes, not just the technical part that includes rearmament
of the gears. The interviewee believes that it is important that the problem of overfishing gets
attention quickly, as we in present time cannot count on a stable fishing permits for very long,
mainly because of the larger fishing companies' extreme fishing methods.
6.0 Discussion
The small scale fisherman believes that the methods of measuring the amounts of fish in the
oceans are good, but that they not are reliable due to heavy discards, which disturbs the
producing high quality information. This becomes a smaller problem with the new
regulations, because of the lesser discards. So a conclusion we can draw is that less discards
will give more reliable information, of the actual amounts of fish. We earlier mentioned
Tidwell and Geoff (2001) concern about reduction of numbers of fish, the new regulations
will make this easier to oversee and hopefully keep control. The fisherman describes several
14
method and gear problems related to catches of unwanted fish. This is something that
Weissenberger (2013) also talks about. Isabella Lövin and Axel Naver however mean that the
regulations are made to force forward new and more selective methods, examples in Norway
and Russia where this has already occurred, are given both by the fisherman and by the
European parliamentarians.
The fisherman, European parliamentarians and the marine manager believes the discard ban to
be good. That it will not only make the ecosystems feel but also do the fishing more
sustainable and thereby create more jobs. This of course is something that the Council of The
European Union pursues (Coveny, 2013). However, the fisherman expresses concern that the
rules are still very similar for large and small fisheries, there are major differences, often
economic, that makes them different adaptable. As it stands now, he means that the rules are
designed for the larger fisheries. There are hopes that policymakers and researchers will
follow out on the boats more often, too see how it really works. Should this be done on a
larger scale, it is possible to better align the rules for specific fisheries. The fisherman also
asks for the regulations to be more regionalised than they already are, and that the timeframes
should be shorter, this would make the rules further effective. There is also a danger in
allowing countries to go too hard to make the changes, this can affect fishing communities
who do not have time to adapt. For example, when fishing on a certain species is prohibited,
caught a certain time of year, fishermen have no income during that period. This makes some
rules counterproductive.
The fisherman also sees a danger in allowing quotas to be sold between large and small
fisheries. This opens up opportunities for the large buying up the little ones. The big fisheries
sees profit in keeping down the number of fish for certain species as this may benefit others
more profitable species. We therefore request that the firewall for trading between large and
small fisheries are held, this too keep the fishing communities and to preserve the
biodiversity.
Sardà et.al (2013) have made concerns that unwanted fish which is catch and then thrown
back, are most often dead, or dying. The fisherman on the other hand, mean that when
unwanted fish is alive and unharmed, there is no reason to let them die for no reason on the
boat. So here is a controversy, and also Jennings, Greenstreet and Reynolds (1999) have
concluded that fish which is caught, brought on board and then discarded, are likely to die.
The awareness of an increased fishing pressure because of new potential fish markets of
unwanted fish, does not seem to be entirely unfounded. We did earlier write that Sardà et.al
(2013) and Weissenberger (2013) talks about this. However according to the European
Parliament interviewees and the new regulations: “11. For the species subject to the landing
obligation as specified in paragraph 1, the use of catches of species below the minimum
conservation reference size shall be restricted to purposes other than direct human
consumption, including fish meal, fish oil, pet food, food additives, pharmaceuticals and
cosmetics.” - (EU, 2013).
15
We therefore hope that the emergence of new markets, which probably would put more
biological pressure on the seas, will be limited. As discussed earlier, it is important to improve
the status of fish in the oceans by a more selective fishing, this is something that is requested
by many (Weissenberger, 2013; Hornborg et.al. 2012; Greenpeace, 2011). Now that
representatives from the European Parliament talks about this, it reinforces the fact. However,
there is a concern for new markets in the Mediterranean, hopefully monitoring from policy
makers and voluntary organizations will reduce this risk as Sardà et.al (2013) previously
talked about.
According to the European Parliament interviewees, some changes should be done to better
improve the regulations. A ban with 0 % discard possibility instead of the now 5 %, this
because of the severe difficulties to follow up if they are followed. Also better control with for
example cameras to ensure that the ban is followed. The European Parliament interviewees
gave us a broader picture of the advantages and disadvantages, and when highlighting
benefits, they are well aware of some obstacles that must be overcome. Gaining insight into
the world where the rules are made which this study investigate, are clearly rewarding.
An awareness of the new ban also seems to exist at the County Administrative Board in
Sweden. Positivity lies in the admission of the ban and the expectation is to see a positive
difference in the fishing industry in terms of sustainability. But one difficulty can be seen in
that the fish are being exploited hard today and it is almost only the larger fishing boats
accounting for the greatest damage in fish stocks. Just as Tidwell & Geoff (2001) related to in
their article, the industrialization of fishing has led to much discussion and concern about the
future. But also environmentalists are concerned that too large changes in marine ecology will
lead to a state, when the oceans are not going to be capable of recovering from man´s
rampage. But at the same time, people are dependent on the ocean and its resources. In an
attempt to analyse more deeply, some uncertainty seems to exist, as to whether these
regulations actually will keep what they promise, or whether the ban will be followed up and
actually realized in practice. Just as Gray (2002) discusses that it is important in evolving
plans to achieve a reduction in discarding and to measure fish stocks, it´s vital to control and
define the real level of discarding and how it varies in space and time, and amongst diverse
fishing operations. An understanding of the behaviour and selectivity of fishing gears, and the
species captured can help determine ways to lessen discarding.
Benefits can be seen in the new regulations but also disadvantages who will hit some people
in the fishing industry, almost exclusively the small-scale fishermen who do not make the
same profit on fishing as their larger competitors. Economic change that comes with the new
ban will likely lead to difficulties for the smaller fishing boats to adapt their equipment and
fishing ways as fast as the larger boats. A positive effect of the regulation will hopefully be
seen in the future of the fishing industry. The industry will have to develop a greater resource
of selective fishing gear to meet the new regulations. The development of the fishing gear
would bring a commercial interesting part of the catch, otherwise it will decrease as fish
stocks dwindle, this adds the time to lower profitability and it affects many levels of society,
not just fishermen. For a change to be made, many factors needs to be seen over and
16
revaluated and just as Pálsson (2003) discusses, in a global valuation of fisheries by-catch and
discards, discards are very adjustable with respect to factors such as species, fishing area and
gear type.
A possible market for the unwanted fish can be hard to reach with today’s outlook on the
industry. The society demands species that are well known and it would be hard to introduce
other kinds of fish and make a profit on it. A long-term thinking is required due to the
reduction of the popular food fishes. Schmidt (2013) argues that there already is a market for
the unwanted fish, and that regulatory obstacles that need to be changed before the ban can
have optimum effect.
The use of trawls and other non-selective trapping ascends a problem with by-catches,
because many fish species are swimming together and it is hard to separate them. A change
must be done, either in terms of fixtures or creating a market for it today non-priority part of
the catch. But one must also consider that there is unintentional capture of species that are
protected and this suggests that the development of selective gear.
Discussing the environment, the EU's laws may further have to change to improve the
environment in the EU's waters. This could create better starting points for sustainable
fisheries by regulating fishing activities in order to create smaller administrative areas, where
the right to fish is also linked to a limited number of operators who also will be responsible
for managing the resource. A restrict against large-scale fishing with fishing rights that means
that the fishing is "anonymous" could improve the calculation of the fish stocks, it will be
harder to overfish because everybody is responsible for the damage. As Hornborg et.al.
(2013), we see the importance with of introducing regulations with respect to the fishing gear.
But it is not so simple to just introduce a change at one level of a problem, there are many
aspects that must be included, and there is, as previously mentioned, among other social and
economic perspectives importance to examine.
Certain countries outside the EU has improved successful techniques to deal with the draft of
fish, this by monitoring how the fish stocks looks like and then how they could be able to
make an improvement. Australia is one example. Biologists/controllers are there allowed to
be part of the fishing trips of the larger fishing boats to calculate the form of rare species and
also to make sure that the fishermen follow the established rules. This would have several
benefits both to create a sustainable fishery and a reliable monitoring of the operations and the
amount of fish, if something similar would be introduced in the EU and Sweden. This could
be expensive and it would probably lead to uncomfortable social situations that maybe will
affect the assessment of the fishing boats. This requires a well thought out strategy that is
necessary, and one way is to create an effective control structure for today so a change can be
made in the many shortcomings in the supervision in the fishing industry.
17
7.0 Conclusions
The regulations seems to have many good effects. Lesser discards will provide better data
regarding amounts of fish, which can be used to keep better control on the fish stocks. The
asked stakeholders hope that the regulations will keep the marine biodiversity and in the long
run create more jobs. However, some stakeholders mean that the new rules are made to
benefit the larger fisheries and that the smaller ones will suffer because they are not as
adaptable. There is a controversy whether the fish die when they are taken on board or not.
Some believe that they can be thrown back without dying, others that they are likely to do,
hopefully new selective methods and fishing gear will be forced forward. The oceanic
ecosystems are expected to experience a positive effect of the new regulations.
We request that the boundaries for trading quotas between large and small fisheries are held,
this to preserve small fishing communities and the marine biodiversity. There is a fear of new
fish consuming markets, especially in the Mediterranean, hopefully policy makers and NGOs
will prevent this.
8.0 References
Alverson, D.L. Freeberg, M.H. Pope, J.G.
Murawski, S.A. 1994. A global assessment of
fisheries bycatch and discards. FAO Fisheries
Technical Paper. No. 339. Rome, FAO. 1994. 233p.
Boeije, H. (2010). Analysis in qualitative research.
Los Angeles: SAGE
Coveny, S, 2013. Press Release, 3225th Council
meeting. Council of the European Union.
Agriculture and Fisheries. Brussels, 25-26 February
2013. [Electronic] Available:
http://consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pr
essdata/en/agricult/135696.pdf
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee,
2012. EU proposals for reform of the common
fisheries policy. House of commons Environment,
food and rural affairs committee. House of
Commons to be printed 21 February 2012. 24p.
European Commission, 2012. Proposal for a
Regulation of the European Parliament and of the
Council on the Common Fisheries Policy, European
Commission. Brussels, 15 July 2011.
Interinstitutional File: 2011/0195 (COD) 12514/11
PECHE 187 CODEC 1166. [Electronic] Available:
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&t
=PDF&gc=true&sc=false&f=ST%2012514%20201
1%20INIT
EU, 2013. REGULATION (EU) No 1380/2013 OF
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE
COUNCIL of 11 December 2013 on the Common
Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations
(EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and
repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002
and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision
2004/585/EC. p. 35-37.
Gray, C.A., 2002. Management implications of
discarding in an estuarine multi-species gill net
fishery. Fisheries Research, 56(2), pp. 177-192.
Greenpeace, 2011. New proposed scheme to end
discards discussed at European stakeholder
meeting. Greenpeace. [Electronic] Available:
http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-
unit/en/News/2011/New-proposed-scheme-to-end-
discards-discussed-at-European-stakeholder-
meeting/ Retrived: 2014-03-17
18
Hjälmered, L and Fjellner, C. 2011. Vi vill få fisk på
kroken även i framtiden. Göteborgs-Posten.
[Electronic] Available:
http://www.gp.se/nyheter/debatt/1.1449343-vi-vill-
fa-fisk-pa-kroken-aven-i-framtiden Retrived: 2014-
03-17
Hornborg. S, Nilsson. P, Valentinsson. D,
Ziegler.F, 2012, Integrated environmental
assessment of fisheries management: Swedish
Nephrops trawl fisheries evaluated using a life
cycle approach. Marine Policy, Volume 36, Issue 6,
Pages 1193–1201
Jennings, S., Greenstreet, S.P.R. and Reynolds,
J.D., 1999. Structural change in an exploited fish
community: a consequence of differential fishing
effects on species with contrasting life histories.
Journal of Animal Ecology, 68(3), pp. 617-627.
Kvale, S. Brinkman, S. (2009). Den kvalitativa
forskningsintervjun. 2. uppl. Lund: Studentlitteratur
Larsson, J-O, Ehn, T and Johansson W-A. 2006. S,
V och MP: Förbjud utkast av fiske. [Electronic]
available:
http://www.socialdemokraterna.se/Pressrum/Pressar
kivet/Nyhetsarkivet-2001--/S-V-och-MP-Forbjud-
utkast-av-fiske/ Retrived: 2014-03-17
Pálsson, Ó.K., 2003. A length-based analysis of
haddock discards in Icelandic fisheries. Fisheries
Research, 59(3), pp. 437-446.
Pontecorvo, G. and Schrank, W.E., 2014. The
continued decline in the world catch of marine fish.
Marine Policy, 44(0), pp. 117-119.
Sardà, F., Coll, M., Heymans, J.J. and Stergiou,
K.I., 2013. Overlooked impacts and challenges of
the new European discard ban. Fish and Fisheries, ,
pp. n/a-n/a.
Schmidt, C., 2013. The EU fish discard ban:
Where's the catch? OECD Observer, (294), pp. 25-
25.
Svensson, Per-Gunnar & Starrin, Bengt (red.)
(1996). Kvalitativa studier i teori och praktik. Lund:
Studentlitteratur
Thurén, T (2007). Vetenskapsteori för nybörjare. 2.,
[omarb.] uppl. Stockholm: Liber
Tidwell, J.H.(.1.). and Allan, G.L.(.2.)., 2001. Fish
as food: Aquaculture's contribution. Ecological and
economic impacts and contributions of fish farming
and capture fisheries. EMBO reports, 2(11), pp.
958-963.
Weissenberger, J. 2013. Discarding fish under the
Common Fisheries Policy Towards an end to
mandated waste. Library Briefing Library of the
European Parliament 13/05/2013.
Wirtén, H. Björkman, Y. Buhl, S. Larsson, I-C.
Baumann, P. 2011. Dumpad fisk vansinne för
ekonomi och miljö. World Wide Fund for Nature.
[Electronic] Available:
http://www.wwf.se/press/pressrum/debattartiklar/14
48489-dumpad-fisk-vansinne-fr-ekonomi-och-milj
Retrived: 2014-03-17
8.1 Interviews:
Isabella Lövin, Axel Naver; Office of MEP,
Miljöpartiet de gröna – Greens/EFA. European
Parliament. (2014). Email Conversations March
18th-25th
Marine Manager at the County Administrative
Board in Sweden. (2014). Email Conversations
March 28th-30th
Small Scale Fisherman, Southern Sweden. (2014).
Interview April 12th