Now you see it... Cod
caught in the North Sea about to be discarded
Discards are disgusting.
No-one with any sense can support the catching,
killing, and throwing away of fish. Hugh
Fearnley-Whittingstall’s Fish Fight – which
Greenpeace has supported from the outset
- has at long last made the waste of perfectly
good fish a national outrage here in the
UK. It is a pointless waste of life, and
potential resources. It’s abhorrent whether
you eat fish or don’t.
So why the hell is it happening? And how
on earth do you stop it?
Discards are what we
call ‘bycatch’ when it is fish. Even more
specifically it is usually used to describe
fish that could be, or are, marketable and
edible – but not what is being specifically
targeted or demanded.
Obviously there are
different sorts of fishing. Put simply discards
are a problem in the methods that catch
a ‘mixed bag’ of fish rather than selectively
targeting a specific species. So, in the
North Sea for example, if a trawler wants
to catch haddock, then it’s also quite likely
they will pull up a net with other species
in it too – like cod, monkfish, whiting,
small sharks, prawns and pollack.
At present that haul
would be brought onboard, and sorted. The
fish that were either not wanted or not
allowed to be kept are then normally cast
back over the side. Because the focus is
on the fish that the fishermen do want to
keep and get a good market price for, bycatch
is left to be dealt with last, then chucked
back in. So for the most part, we can assume
the trauma of being caught in a net, dragged
up from the depths, and left floundering
out of water means that it is dead.
There are essentially
three main reasons for a fish becoming a
discard statistic:
the fisherman has no
quota for it
there is little or no market or value for
the fish
the fish is too small, or otherwise illegal
to land
There are ways to stop discards, none of
which can work in isolation. How we do that
is a combination of legislation, and the
practical implementation of better ways
of fishing, coupled with building in some
‘insurance’ into the system, and being a
bit more realistic and flexible as consumers.
Change the rules
There is an assumption
that ‘quotas cause discards’. But in reality
quotas are agreed at European level (and
our elected representatives are part of
that) then it is up to individual member
states, like the UK as to how they distribute
and enforce their share of quotas appropriately.
The upshot of that is that fishermen are
told they cannot land over-quota fish, when
actually the point of the quotas is that
they are not supposed to be caught and killed
(over-quota) in the first place. Changing
the rules to be more specific and actually
generate the desired outcome is something
we need from EU fishing regulation reform.
By the way, it’s also
worth noting that any EU agreement to ‘ban
discards’ will similarly be delegated back
to each of us member states to implement.
Fish better
Fishing in a mixed fishery
catches a mix of fish. More selective gear
is needed to be able to avoid catching non-targeted
catch so that discards are not an issue.
There are many projects out there to trial
‘smarter’ fishing gear, and of course one
of the key ways that happens is by using
things like larger net mesh to catch less
undersized, juvenile fish.
But we need more ways
of making our fishing selective, and minimising
its overall impact. If a fishing method
is simply not able to catch its target species
without decimating other species (including
some with very low quotas because they need
chance to recover) then why is it still
happening? We need to incentivise good fishing,
and disincentivise bad fishing, both politically
and as consumers.
Better enforcement
Technology for monitoring
fishing is coming on in leaps and bounds,
but largely it is still difficult to know
just what is happening at sea. The current
interpretation of the quota system means
it is ‘illegal’ to land the discarded fish,
which means in truth we only have estimates
of what is being caught. We need to change
that.
Perhaps that means everything
should be landed, so that we know what is
being caught, and can take the necessary
steps to eliminate discards. Perhaps it
means more at-sea, and on-land enforcement
(which is the model our Norwegian neighbours
use, along with a ban on discarding marketable
fish at sea – in Norway it must be landed).
This is also essential to stop the heinous
practice of ‘high-grading', explained here
in the Economist.
A more diverse market
Of course the one sure
way to make certain that fish are not discarded
is that every fish caught is marketable
and sold. That means fishermen getting a
fair price for fish, and consumers being
more ready to accept different species,
and varying seasonal ability. Our dependence
on just a few species is a huge part of
the problem – but a difficult one to fix.
Celebrity chefs endorsing
a new fashionable species, like, say, seabass,
can cause a surge of demand and problems
all of its own. So when you go to the fish
counter you should be choosing what’s local,
and what’s in season.
So there are ways to
reduce and stop discards, but that is just
one part of the story. And even that small
part involves genuine concerted change from
politicians, industry and consumers.
It’s worth acknowledging
here that stopping discards is not the solution
to all the problems associated with fishing.
Discards are just one symptom of a broken
system, and addressing them doesn’t instantly
stop overfishing, or destructive fishing.
(More on how these issues are inter-related
in future posts.)
Most importantly, we
also need to make sure we are building in
some insurance now for our oceans to allow
them to recover, for fish and other species
to thrive now and in the future. A sustainable
fishing industry can only exist as part
of a healthy ocean, and too often we take
the endless bounty of our seas for granted.
Willie Mackenzie is an oceans campaigner
based in Greenpeace UK's London office.