Written by Johnny Woodlock M.Sc., M.I.F.M., Cenv. Sea Fishery Advisory Group, Irish Seal Sanctuary

The proposed ban on discards is one of the biggest issues facing fishermen in the proposed reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The EU and the Commissioner believe that it is wrong to throw dead fish away because they cannot be landed due to quota restrictions or size limits. Their belief is backed up by the public and has been highlighted by campaigns such as the “Fish Fight” to which nearly a million people have signed up.
I am a member of the Sea Fishery Advisory Group of the Irish Seal Sanctuary and as such attend the northwestern Waters Regional Advisory Council. This is comprised of two-thirds industry and one third “other sector”(non-catching) representatives. These RACs were established to get stakeholder advice into European fisheries Management. The marine resources of Europe belong to the people of Europe and these people are as much owners of the resource as the fishermen who make a living from our fish are.
The majority of these discarded fish die in the net as it is pulled through the water to catch other species. Bottom trawling for prawns is agreed by all as the largest culprit, with by-catch to be discarded of up to 70% not uncommon, often it’s more. The majority of this by-catch is often juvenile fish, which will not live to mature to either be caught and sold or spawn. In the past it was not uncommon to see fishing harbours covered in slicks of dead juvenile whiting, Cod and Haddock discarded overboard with the prawn heads. The majority of fishermen will have seen this before the dumping of discards in harbours was outlawed. Having seen it myself on many occasions, t is a disgace to kill these young fish in such numbers that the seals and seabirds could not eat them all.

Everyone is agreed that killing and dumping these fish is wrong. The fishermen have known this for years but their hands were tied, as they could not land these fish without breaking the law. The industry is in agreement that discarding these fish cannot go on. The industry has shown that it wants to avoid catching these fish in the first place. Which is the obvious way forward.

Unfortunately this is where disagreement enters the discussions. The industry wishes to rely on so-called Technical Conservation Measures (TCMs). By using TCMs the fleets can continue to fish. Many years ago the prawn fishing industry, in an attempt to allow juvenile fish to escape from the nets introduced one of the first Technical Conservation Measures. This was the “Square mesh Panel” which was a section of the net, which did not close, when pulled through the water, as diamond mesh does. The small fish could swim up and out through this panel of square mesh.
At the time this was hailed as the saviour of the fishing industry, with a lot of media attention including film of the small fish swimming up and out through the panel.
In spite of the fact that these have been in use for over twenty years in many areas, fish stocks continued to decline. Various variants of square mesh Panel have been trailed, placing the panel at different points in the net and using different size square meshes, the best results are around half the amount of bycatch is caught. This result led to the Square mesh Panel being compulsory in prawn nets in E.U waters ever since 2002. However the photo of discards was taken as a catch was emptied from a small prawn net equipped with a square mesh panel. Since the introduction of this Square mesh Panel a number of other Technical Conservation Measures have been tried by the industry to reduce discards, often these are used in conjunction with the square mesh panel.  Of all the TCMs trailed and tried, only the Swedish Grid has been approved under Harvest Control Rules and has been categorised as eligible for exemption from effort control (under articles 11 and 13) because nets using the Swedish Grid consistently catch less than 1.5% Cod in their catch. Unfortunately this figure does not reflect how many fish die as a result of the Swedish Grid. Nor I believe the very young fish, which are at the moment thrown overboard dead.

However Swedish Grids, which are often used in conjunction with a square mesh Panel, have a drawback, which is common to both TCMs. To expel the larger fish from the net the Swedish Grid uses a metal grid to divert the larger fish upward towards an escape hole above the grid. The Square mesh panel allows small fish to swim out of the net through the open square meshes. The very fact that the bars on a Swedish Grid are thirty millimetres apart means that only the larger fish will be excluded from being caught. This grid earned its name as it was designed in Sweden to be used in deep water, which is not a recognised spawning or nursery area, there is no doubt that it does exclude adult fish. This is why it should be used in conjunction with a square mesh panel to protect the smaller fish.
There was a lot of controversy in the 1980s about fish being damaged escaping through Square Mesh Panels, Nowadays boats tend to trawl at a faster speed due to increased engine size so it is very lightly that more fish are damaged. Any fish which has its skin damaged or possibly bruised in the case of the Swedish Grid is very likely to die within a few days, as its ability to osmoregulate will be compromised. They will not die immediately. Fishermen have reported that if they catch a school of undersize Whiting they will die even if the cod-end is opened and they are released as soon as they are brought to the surface. Similar cases of mass mortality have been reported for Mackerel with over ninety percent of released fish dying when mackerel boats attempt to “high-grade” or release fish when they are considered too small to land. Many studies have found that fish even slightly damaged are likely to die. Elasmobranches (Sharks and Rays) have a different skin structure so have high survivability following contact with either T.C.M.

So while everyone agrees that discards are a bad thing, we must also consider by-kill. Those fish not caught but which die because of measures to prevent them from being caught and discarded. What amount of the “unaccounted mortality” of stocks is caused by these measures? The industry wish to rely on T.C.M.s because they have gear technicians to employ and the only other real alternative is to close nursery areas to trawlers, which they will not even consider. Unaccounted for mortality are the numbers of fish, which are not included in the catch statistics, such as fish eaten by other fish, fish eaten by seals, whales and birds. And also illegal landings of fish. It was when recreational angling was due to be included n the CFP that the industry pointed the finger at anglers take but timely lobbying by a number of groups including ourselves meant that the idea was dropped.

We feel that more emphasis should be placed on Marine Protected areas, where types of methier/gear should be controlled. We are not necessarily asking for closed areas. Rather than allowing the industry to try to find the answer that suits them, while allowing them to continue fishing using recognised destructive and unselective gear, such as bottom trawling, which has already been banned in many parts of the world. More research needs to be carried out on fishing mortality resulting from TCMs in use today and if this means that the “Swedish Grid” loses its “special status” then the long term future for the industry benefits.