Opening adress
Fast tracking the Development of Environmentally-Friendly Fishing Methods
Árni M. Mathiesen, Minister of Fisheries in Iceland, March 11th, 2004.
Dundalk Institute of Technology, Ireland
In Iceland, fisheries is the leading industry, providing around 40% of the country?s foreign currency earnings. Which means there is no other way of ensuring the nation?s long-term prosperity except by pursuing responsible fishing, utilising our commercial fish stocks in a sustainable manner. We have long since realised this fact, together with the necessity of constantly monitoring the interplay between man and nature. We cannot afford to cut corners as far as fisheries management is concerned.
The system of fisheries management must encourage long-term thinking among those people utilising the natural resources. In Iceland, fisheries are managed through a system of Individual Transferable Quotas, or ITQs, which means that individuals or vessel operators receive a permanent share of the total catch decided upon in each instance. The Minister of Fisheries takes the decisions on the total allowable catch annually for each species, based on proposals from the scientists of the Marine Research Institute. The quota share system encourages long-term thinking, because successful fisheries management results in the growth of the fish stocks and increased catches in the future.
One of the aspects which has been widely discussed in connection with responsible and sustainable utilisation of marine resources is discard of catch. Icelanders have also been involved in and contributed to this discussion. Different regulations apply to discard in different countries. In Iceland it is very clear: discarding of catch is prohibited; all catch must be kept and landed. This is a simple and absolutely clear rule. This rule is in complete contradiction, however, to rules adopted by some other parties such as the EU, where rules can force fisherman to discard some of the catch. In my opinion such a rule is highly counter-productive, because approving a certain type of discard is sending fishermen the wrong message, and encouraging misuse of the system. Such a provision must always result in encouraging people to throw away value. I am aware that the Commision intends to look at this problem and I welcome that.
It is not enough, however, to prohibit all discard and then expect everyone to abide by this. The quota system obviously creates a certain discard pressure, since the limit on catches means that it is tempting for fishermen to keep only the most valuable fish they catch. So we must acknowledge this fact and build a response to it in the system itself. Fishermen should never have to discard fish, they should always have another option. In Iceland it is illegal to discard any fish, but we do have several measures intended to reduce discards or eliminate the presure to discard. This has to be in addition an effective inspection system, technical requirements like grids, limiting mesh sizes, panels, closing area both permanents and temporary.
1. Transferable quotas are a key factor here, because they open up the possibility for vessel operators to acquire the quotas they require to cover the fishing by their vessels. If a vessel?s catch exceeds its quota rights, it can obtain on the market additional quota rights to cover this.
2. It is possible to transfer as much as 5% of the total value of a demersal species quota between species. Thus fishermen who catch more than their quota of a certain species can dip into their own quota for another species.
3. It is possible to exceed catch quotas by as much as 5% in a single year, with this excess being subtracted from the quota the following year.
4. Only 50% of the weight of undersize fish is included in a vessel?s catch, provided it does not exceed 10% of the catch of each fishing trip.
5. As much as 5% of the catch each year can be exempted from being included in the calculation of used quota; 80% of the value of this catch goes toward a special project fund mainly supporting fisheries research.
Discards are not a new phenomenon, and through the years many people have testified that discard is widely practiced, long before restrictions were set on fishing. On the other hand, as a result of the increased discussion of and respect for the marine biosphere, everyone is better aware of the damage we suffer if fish catch is discarded. Discard causes both financial and environmental damage.
In Iceland, and probably elsewhere the discussion on discard has been characterised by big words and figures, based only on guessing and often politically biased. A few years ago it was said that 200.000 tons of cod were discarded each year in Icelandic waters. The real figures are just a fraction of this. This is not the way forward. The discussion on discard, and other matters must be based on reliable information.
Research on discards has been carried out in Iceland since 1989, although these studies were not done regularly and systematically until the year 2000. Because of this information we have been able to react and use new methods in our struggle agains discard as I mentioned and described earlier and fortunately we see a whole new and better picture now.
The investigations have been carried out in two ways. On the one hand, the Icelandic Marine Research Institute and the Directorate of Fisheries have together carried out research comparing length measurements of fish at sea with the length measurements of landed catch. On the other hand, surveys or Gallup polls have been carried out, where fishermen are asked whether discard is practiced on their vessels, and asked to estimate its extent. The first survey was carried out in 1989 but the first comparative measurements in 1991 estimating up to 10% discard of cod and 15-20% discard of haddock.
In the latest research from the Icelandic Marine Research Institute and the Directorate of Fisheries it is estimated that 1% of cod is thrown overboard and 3% of the haddock in the year of 2002. In the year of 2001 these figures where around 1,5% for cod but 0.6% for haddock.
According to the most recent survey slightly over 80% of the fisherman said that there was no discard in their last fishing trip. Those who said that there was discard on their boat where asked which species where thrown over board. Most of the discard is in cod and haddock, 38.5% mentioned that the discard was cod and 28,1% haddock. In comparison to a survey made three years before it is clear that discards of cod have decreased substantially, although unfortunately the figures indicate that haddock discards have increased again 14,8%. It should be borne in mind, however, that the haddock quota has doubled in the space of three years, while at the same time haddock prices have fallen greatly.
The fisherman where also asked to estimate the value of the discard as a proportion of the total value of the catch. Slightly over 82% estimated that this was under 1% of the total value, which is to much but not as much as stated in general discussions. It strengthens our confidence in the reliability of these studies that they generally give the same results, and indicate a tendency in the same direction, from one year to the next.
After these results were published the discussions has changed and is now focusing on the existing information and is there fore more fruitful. The Ministry of Fisheries will continue these research programs to build up a better database.
An effective fisheries management system is based on good, dependable information on catches and effort. Such information can never be reliable as long as discard is practiced. It is one of the main pre-requisites for environmentally friendly fishing that we respect nature and here putting an end to discards is one of the key factors.
We are seeing the debate increasingly setting fisheries up against the environment, as if fisheries were the natures greatest enemy. This is of course not true. Fishing can harm nature, but that can be avoided by clear and fair set of rules and regulations. Recently many questions on the possible negative effects of fishing gear have been raised, especially bottom trawl. The origin of this debate is often the same as I described before regarding discard. A lot of statements based on guessing and no scientific basis. I am not saying we should not take this issue seriously, we should, and do what we can to produce and gather research results we can base the discussions on to be able to react in a sensible manner. As I mentioned the discussion became more productive after we in Iceland presentet the results from the research on discard I described before. This is needed in the debate on fishing gear too.
Much work has been done in gear development, more work is needed. These are expensive projects, but important and all managers will be able to make use of the results.
And this is a challange to us all and requires co-operation between scientists, stackholders and fisheries managers on an international level.
Thank the Irish EU Presidency for its initiative.