The Faroese fisheries management regime has been praised for its ability to create transparency and eliminate discards of marketable fish, but old communication problems may make it difficult to work with conservationists.
Since its inception in 1996, the Faroese effort management system has won acclaim for its ability to produce reliable statistics and eliminate the problem of discards — there is no incentive to misreport or discard since fishing is limited by days at sea rather than actual amounts caught.
Known as the Fishing Days System, the effort management regime which governs most groundfish fisheries within the boundaries of the Faroe Islands’ 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone, is by all standards a rigorous and thoroughly regulated system.
It features a comprehensive mix of limited days at sea allowed for a number of vessel and gear categories, extensive areas closed permanently or temporarily to all or certain types of fishing, close monitoring of commercial fishing activities including satellite control of the whereabouts of vessels, and various technical measures designed to protect spawning areas, deep water corals, and juvenile fish.
In the context of a forthcoming reform of the European Union’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), effort management could become part of a more regionalized system, in particular as regards mixed fisheries such as groundfish fisheries featuring cod, haddock, and similar species. Setting specific quotas for each species in such fisheries — as is still common practice in the EU and elsewhere — has proven highly problematic and practically impossible, as fishermen cannot control exactly what their nets catch.
It’s an entirely different story with other fisheries, such as pelagic fisheries, where the hunted species are found in large and distinct schools. Here, setting quotas for each species — for example, mackerel or herring — has historically worked well.
Discontent with the CFP has long been widespread, to the extent that the European Commission itself has openly acknowledged its failure. In the debate concerning CFP reform, the Faroese effort management system has apparently figured more or less prominently as a model framework.
“For mixed groundfish fisheries, effort management is obviously to prefer,” Kjartan Hoydal, secretary to the Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC), told the Faroese newspaper Dimmalætting. Mr. Hoydal has been part of the Inquiry into Future Fisheries Management (IFFM), an independent panel established by the Scottish Government, with the remit “to develop models of how Scotland could best manage its fisheries outwith the CFP.”
The IFFM’s conclusive report was to be submitted to the Scottish Government by mid May, however an Interim Report was submitted in October 2009. With reference to the failed CFP, the Interim Report stated: “The Inquiry views regionalisation as the most promising means of managing European fisheries within a European framework.”
It went on to list “Direct benefits of regional approach” as the following: “Policies tailored to suit characteristics of specific fishery and address regional and local needs; Closer involvement of stakeholders, better buy-in and compliance; Co-ordination of regional compliance and science resources; More responsive management; Greater integration with regional/Member State; Marine plans and environmental strategies.”
Several of the points listed are often associated with the Faroese effort management regime, and Mr. Hoydal is known as one of the architects behind the Fishing Days System.
The arguments for regionalized management, based on specific fisheries rather than being centrally enforced according to the one-size-fits-all approach, have long been advocated by people like the independent Israeli fisheries adviser Dr. Menakhem Ben-Yami. Dr. Ben-Yami, who has advised the Faroese Fishermen’s Union on fishery policy issues and taken part in debates on fisheries in many places around the world, has for decades argued for improved communication between fisheries management, science, and fishing interests.
Missing dialogue? But why would the Faroese begin to question the strength and legitimacy of their own, after all highly successful, management regime?
Again, communication could be seen as a key factor.
For one thing the fishing industry is very fragmented and has utterly failed to speak with a unified voice, leaving it vulnerable to public relations defeats time and again, to the effect that its perceived credibility has suffered, as decades of negative news coverage have made prejudice and antipathy against it almost common.
For another thing, since the 1990s, a well-organized anti-fishing lobby, led by environmental groups funded by the likes of the Pew Charitable Trusts, has developed into a formidable economic and political force.
One example would be how a group like the Marine Conservation Society (MCS) recently advised its members of “Fish to avoid,” telling consumers the following about haddock from the Faroes and West of Scotland fisheries: “Haddock is overfished in this area and ICES [International Council for the Explorations of the Sea] recommends that the fishery be closed in 2009. Avoid eating. Furthermore, haddock is caught in mixed fisheries with cod that are severely depleted in these areas.” 
In response to the news that UK supermarket chains have indeed acted on MCS recommendations and boycotted haddock from the Faroes, the Minister of Fisheries, Jacob Vestergaard called the quote taken from an ICES report misleading — it disregards the fact that the same report, even if it recommends no fishing for haddock in 2009, states that the Faroese haddock stock is now being fished sustainably. Pointing out that haddock in Faroese fisheries is not targeted specifically but rather taken as bycatch in mixed fisheries targeting mainly saithe and cod, Mr. Vestergaard said, according to the newspaper Sosialurin: “The fact that ICES in its conclusion still recommends no fishing at all for haddock and at the same time advises a recovery plan, demonstrates that they do not have the necessary insight into our fisheries.”
Comparing the wording of the ICES report with the vocabulary used by MCS in its reference to ICES, Mr. Vestergaard added: “This shows how carelessly this environmental organization spreads its message, because the MCS states directly that haddock in Faroese waters is being overfished and attributes this to ICES which in its report says that haddock is now being fished sustainably.”
The Faroese may rightfully shake their heads at such activism, yet the ‘reality’ in the minds of consumers far removed from the intricacies of fishing is based on very different premises. What is arguably needed for fishing interests is dialogue — an attempt to present their case in earnest to such groups as the MCS and, while listening to their arguments and appreciating their concerns, demonstrate convincingly the fact that, in this case, cod and haddock are abundant not overfished.
Engaging with science: Obviously, there is a need to improve communication between fishery-dependent communities such as the Faroes, and established fisheries science organizations such as ICES including its network of affiliated national marine research institutes.
The new director of the Faroe Marine Research Institute, Dr. Eilif Gaard is internationally recognized for research in biological oceanography and plankton ecology, not least in demonstrating the connection between growth and recruitment of commercial fish species and plankton production.
This may not sound revolutionary to some but the fact of the matter is that fisheries science until quite recently tended to disregard ecosystem considerations, simply reducing causality in fish stock fluctuation to fishing effort.
But, scientific data have to be based on certain methods and procedures — which can pose a problem in the real world, inasmuch as numerous subjects get disregarded in science-based advice, irrespective of any potential significance in a political or socioeconomic context. Over time though, science catches up, gap by gap, as it were.
“It’s gradually become clear that fishing effort is far from the only factor that influences a fishery ecosystem,” Dr. Gaard told the Faroe Business Report.
“But that doesn’t mean we should underestimate it — just as we should not underestimate any other important factors.”
He added: “As the times change sciences are becoming more holistic and interdisciplinary. Today we live in an age of communication. We need to present our findings clearly and effectively whether it’s for our own staff, government officials, people representing the fishing industry, or the general populace. But communication also means taking time to listen to observations, concerns, and viewpoints of other people, including those at the receiving end of whatever measures we might be recommending in our advisory role, which is only fair.”
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
