SCIENTIFIC ADVICE
THE STRATEGY OF THE INDUSTRIAL FISHING LOBBY
“An ideology is a closed system of beliefs and values that shapes the understanding and behavior of those who believe in it. Ideologies offer absolute certainty and are immune to contradictory evidence. You cannot change the mind of an ideologue, no matter how sharp your critical thinking and no matter how solid your evidence base.”
Research Methods for Social Work by Allen Rubin & Earl Babbie, 7th Edition, 2007.
Contrary to the assertions of the industrial fishing industry, there is no scientific controversy about deep-sea fishing. There is no battle between contradictory studies, because there are no publications showing industrial deep-sea fisheries to be sustainable.
The only publication that has attempted to make such a claim (Hilborn, 2006) was invalidated, because the fisheries models on which it was based have led to a dramatic decline in New Zealand’s deep-sea fish populations. The country’s scientists therefore no longer use this model for fisheries management.
Without supporting facts, figures or data, it is very difficult for industrial deep-sea fishing corporations to give rational justifications for their activity. They carefully avoid scientific references (but frequently cite Hilborn’s invalid publication), and unashamedly refer to the report by the Deep-sea Fisheries Mission (of the 2009/2010 Grenelle Seas Summit). BLOOM and the other NGOs withdrew from this mission, controversially denouncing the political and scientific process as a sham (see: http://www.bloomassociation.org/download/CPSortieMPP.pdf)
The report had been reviewed by leading scientists, who severely criticized its biased nature, the way it was used for obvious political ends, and the shocking absence of any scientific references, despite the fact that the reporter (Alain Biseau) was a scientist for IFREMER (the French Research Institute for Exploration of the Sea). The reviewers’ criticisms were ignored, as was the whole body of scientific literature which contradicted the document. This outrageous report, which discredits the entire Seas Summit, was nipped in the bud when the French government refused to give it official status. The only place where it can be found is on a fishing blog.
Scientifically unambiguous
By contrast, at least 70 articles published in peer-reviewed journals explicitly mention the destructive nature of deep-sea trawls (click here). No scientific source makes even the slightest attempt to depict deepwater trawling as sustainable or acceptable when it comes to maintaining ecosystems, habitats or deep-sea species.
The 2010 report based on scientific sampling and observations onboard fishing vessels (http://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00054/16490/16058.pdf) shows that deep-sea fisheries damage ecosystems (see pages 22 onwards of the document, in French).
- 11.38% of fishing trips (19 out of 167) were observed. In the Southern Ocean (French Southern and Antarctic Territories), for toothfish fisheries, 100% of trips were observed.
- 144 species were caught (for three main target species).
- Discards accounted for an average of 20.6% of the weight, and up to 52.8%
- With a 100-119mm mesh size, nearly 80 bycatch species caught.
- With a 120-139mm mesh size, nearly 100 bycatch species caught.
- The main discard species in weight terms were Alepocephalus bairdii (Baird’s slickhead) and Greater Argentine.
- The spiny dogfish, a critically endangered shark, featured among those species caught.
What the scientists say
Scientists consider deep-sea trawling to be one of the most destructive fishing methods used today. Numerous scientific publications show that deep-sea trawling has extremely damaging effects on deep-sea habitats (which, due to their particularly low resilience, are vulnerable to human disturbances), as well as on both target and non-target species.
What the 2010 European Commission says
“For all the stock covered by this proposal, there are insufficient data to demonstrate the sustainability of the fisheries.”
“Available information on deep-sea stocks does not allow scientists to fully assess the stock status, neither in terms of population size nor fishing mortality.”
Source: Brussels, 6.10.2010 COM(2010) 545 final. Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION fixing for 2011 and 2012 the fishing opportunities for EU vessels for certain deep-sea fish stocks
WHAT THE 2012 EUROPEAN COMMISSION SAYS
In June 2012, the European Commission published an official Communication to the European Council (COM(2012) 278 final). It reports on the degraded state of fish stocks in European waters, with only 22% of stocks not over-exploited:
“It is worrying that in European waters 65% of the stocks are not fully assessed and only 22% of stocks under TACs known not to be overfished”.
“Futhermore, the tendency over the past years has been that a decreasing proportion of stocks (from 47% in 2003 to 35% in 2012) can be classified according to safe biological limits.”
On deep-sea species (Chapter 7):
“The state of many deep-stocks cause concern. Stocks of orange roughy, certain deep-sea sharks, red sea bream in the Bay of Biscay and roundnose grenadier are depleted. Advice for most stocks is that fisheries should either be reduced or not be allowed to expand unless they are known to be sustainable. In the case of faster-growing species such as tusk, ling, blue ling, red seabream and black scabbard, it may prove possible to identify reference points to allow management of the stocks on a long term sustainable basis, but these are not presently available.”
What the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) says
FOR FRANCE’S MOST-CAUGHT SPECIES
It is hard to believe that scientific articles appearing in peer-reviewed journals, as well as scientific recommendations from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (responsible for evaluating the state of fish stocks in Europe) do not serve as a common point of reference for the deep-sea fishing industry and NGOs. It is even more surprising given that ICES includes, via IFREMER researchers, data from French fishing fleets (at least Euronor and Scapêche, through the PROMA/PMA producers’ organization, acknowledged in IFREMER documents). Using the same documents would prevent any controversy as to the nature, status and origins of data.
=> Deep-sea species catches were evaluated in 2008, then again in 2010, by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, and were judged to be 100% “outside safe biological limits”.
Black Scabbardfish (Aphanopus carbo) – Scientific advice area: ICES areas Vb, VI, VII, XIIb (Northern areas):
- Stock status: unknown
- “It is not known if this catch level [over the last 10 years] is sustainable in the long term.
- The current abundance of the stock is around 20 percent of the initial levels (start of the fishery).” (DSCC, 2012)
- In zones VI, VII and Divisions Vb, XIIb, most black scabbardfish have not yet reached maturity.
- “Black scabbardfish is mainly taken in mixed trawl fisheries along with roundnose grenadier and sharks.
- Due to the mixed nature of the trawl fisheries any measure taken to manage this species in these areas should take into account the advice given for other species taken in the same mixed fishery.
- Deepwater trawls impact the ocean floor; this includes potential damage to deepwater coral communities.
- No reliable assessment can be presented for this assessment unit and fishing possibilities cannot be projected.” (DSCC, 2012)
- Blue ling (Molva dypterygia) – Scientific advice area: ICES areas I, II, IIIa, IV, X, Va, XIV
Scientific advice states that:
- Blue ling stock levels have increased
- But “catches have increased at a higher rate” (ICES, 2010)
- Fishing mortality (the proportion of fish caught per small unit of time) is UNKNOWN
- The spawning stock biomass (the number of fish in the stock that are old enough to lay) is UNKNOWN.
- Blue ling is “particularly vulnerable to exploitation because fisheries can target spawning aggregations.” (ICES, 2010)
- The history of exploitation goes back further than fishing data series (CPUE) and CPUE indices indicate that current stock levels are far lower than initial levels (before fishing began
- “No reliable assessment can be presented for this assessment unit and fishing possibilities CANNOT BE PROJECTED.” (ICES, 2010)
Roundnose grenadier (Coryphaenoides rupestris) – Scientific advice area: ICES areas Vb, VI, VII, XIIb
- “The roundnose grenadier shows low productivity, which can only sustain low rates of exploitation.
- Roundnose grenadier are caught in a mixed fishery, which also catches deepwater sharks, black scabbardfish and blue ling.
- Discards account for about 30 percent of catch in weight and 50 percent of catch in number for the French fleets.
- As this fishery is part of a mixed fishery, any fishing effort on roundnose grenadier also impacts other commercial and non-commercial deepwater species.
- Deepwater trawls have an impact on the ocean floor; this includes potential damage to deepwater coral communities.
- No RELIABLE assessment can be presented for this assessment unit and fishing possibilities CANNOT BE PROJECTED.” (DSCC, 2012)
- => NOTE: the recommendations for these three species take into account data on catches by French fishing fleets.
Blue ling (Molva dypterygia) – Scientific advice area: ICES areas I, II, IIIa, IV, X, Va, XIV
- Stock status: unknown
- “Measures should be implemented to minimise the bycatch.”
- “As this fishery is part of a mixed fishery, any fishing effort on blue ling also impacts other commercial and non-commercial deepwater species.
- Deepwater trawls have an impact on the ocean floor; this includes potential damage to deepwater coral communities.
- Blue ling is particularly vulnerable to exploitation because fisheries can target spawning aggregations.
- No reliable assessment can be presented for this assessment unit and fishing possibilities cannot be projected.” (DSCC, 2012)
“OUT OF THE ABYSS”, A REPORT BY THE DEEP SEA CONSERVATION COALITION (DSCC, 2012)
This report summarizes the catastrophic management of deep-sea fisheries in Europe and brings together all major sources of scientific advice
Political distortion of scientific advice
Scientific recommendations are generally entirely or partially ignored, and distorted at political level. A study by NGO, Oceana, on the implemetation of ICES recommendations from 1986 to 2006 showed that only 22% had been followed.
References
- I. G. Priede et al., “A review of the spatial extent of fishery effects and species vulnerability of the deep-sea demersal fish assemblage of the Porcupine Seabight, Northeast Atlantic Ocean” (ICES Subarea VII). ICES Journal of Marine Science; doi:10.1093, June 2010.
- Hilborn, R., Annala, J., and Holland, D. S. 2006. “The cost of overfishing and management strategies for new fisheries on slow-growing fish: orange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus) in New Zealand.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63: 2149-2153.
- ICES Advice 2008, Book 1. Page 12, section 1.5.1.1, table on page 14.
- ICES Advice 2010, Book 11. Page 2, section 11.2.1.1, table on page 4.
- Advice 9.4.16.1, June 2010
- Communication from the European Commission COM(2012) 278 final: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/tacs/info/com_2012_278_fr.pdf