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