Minister for Natural Environment Fisheries, Richard Benyon, has cautioned that the sustainability of mackerel in the future is at risk.

This calamity is already being called “Cod Wars II”.

The EU and Britain are on the brink of a serious trade battle with Iceland and the Faroe Islands after discussions about changing fishing quotas failed miserably.

Faroes and Iceland have both increased their fishing quotas substantially, and have basically up and walked out of discussions with the EU, which were supposed to find a middle ground agreeable to all concerned.

The other nations of the EU – including Britain, much to everyone’s surprise – are looking to take some extreme actions which might just force Iceland and the Faroes to limit the amount of mackerel they reel in.

There has already been talk of trade sanctions which would effectively ban the import of mackerel.

This is very much like the Cod Wars of the 50’s and 70’s, when Britain and Iceland were fighting over the rights to fish in the North Atlantic.

It got so serious that even the Royal navy was called in to put a stop to boats from Iceland who were getting in the way of the British trawlers.

But something needs to be done.. Both Iceland and the Faroes have given themselves quotas which are way larger than five years ago. So… There may be sanctions, or there may be interference with boats and fishing operations, whatever is going to happen, “Cod War II” promises to be very interesting indeed.

Shark fins

Individuals involved in the European Parliament have commenced an initiative to more heavily enforce the EU ban on shark finning. Shark finning is a barbaric practice which involves capturing a shark, ripping of its fins, and tossing the rest overboard.

The shark finning ban in the EU is one of the least enforced in the world, as it contains loopholes which prevent law enforcement officials from properly enforcing it. You see, the regulation which bans shark finning in the EU also has a derogation which allows different states of the EU to give out licenses to “process” sharks, and remove their fin on ocean faring vessels.

The most effective, and easiest, way to have a ban on shark finning would dictate that sharks need to be reeled in intact, meaning that fishermen can’t just bring in the fins in their hauls.

“For too many European fisheries, the EU ban on finning is the only measure in place that helps curb excessive killing of sharks. The ban must be strengthened to ensure that this incredibly wasteful practice is prevented,” explained Chris Davies MEP. “France has long supported strong bans on shark finning, in European waters as well as in our overseas territories,” said Jean-Paul Besset MEP “French fishermen are already leaving the fins attached to sharks caught in oceans all over the world, demonstrating that this strategy is entirely feasible. We cannot wait any longer to enforce robust protection for these important predators, which are so key to the balance of life in the sea.”

It’s good to see that someone in the parliament is finally making a stand for the poor sharks. Let us hope that something is done soon to protect the poor creatures more effectively.

Norwegian fisheries regulators have banned all fishing of the critically endangered European eel starting in 2010 and cut 2009 catch quotas by 80 percent. The Norwegian Ministry of Fisheries also has announced that all recreational fishing of European eels shall stop on July 1st.

The European eel (Anguilla anguilla) is listed as critically endangered in Norway and on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. As early as 1999, the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) warned fishery authorities about how the European eel stock was outside safe biological limits and that the fishery was unsustainable.

”The Minister of Fisheries is making an important, and the only right choice, and is showing international leadership in fisheries management,” said WWF-Norway CEO Rasmus Hansson in a response to the new regulation. “Norway’s Fisheries Minister, Helga Pedersen, has used every occasion to point out that Norway is the best in the world on fisheries management, and by making bold moves like this they have probably earned the title.”

WWF now hopes that the Norwegian decision will influence the European Union and its member states to do their part in protecting the European eel. As of today, eel fishing is allowed within the EU despite the grave condition of the European stock.

After acknowledging the failure of current fishery policies within the union, EU officials are now considering banning the practice of discarding fish at sea.

“What’s the point of setting a quota if fishermen aren’t accountable for the fish they actually catch?” says Mogens Schou, a Danish fishery official.

The EU’s quotas limit the size of the annual catch that countries and their fleets can sell on their return to harbour, but instead of protecting remaining fishing populations from depletion, the system is making fishermen dump lower-value fish at sea to maximize profit. According to officials in the European Commission’s fisheries office, most of these fishes do not survive.

“To stay under their quotas, and make more money, fishermen discard half of what they catch,” says Schou, “They ‘high-grade’ – in other words, only keep the most profitable fish.”

Last month, an EU report was released highlighting the failure of current EU fishing regulations by showing that 88% of fish species in EU waters are being fished out faster than they can reproduce. In response to the report, fishery ministers from the 27 EU nations are currently discussing how to protect the remaining fish stocks from complete eradication.

As a part of these talks, Denmark has proposed an amended quota system where fishermen and their countries are held accountable for the amount of fish caught rather than the amount returned to port. To make it harder for fishing fleets to cheat, Denmark is also proposing that fishermen voluntarily equip their boats with on-board cameras. In exchange, the fishermen would get bigger quotas.

Denmark has already designed a surveillance kit consisting of four cameras, a GPS (Global Positioning System) device, and sensors that notice when fish is being hauled or dumped. The Danish kits are currently being used on six fishing boats with Danish officials monitoring the footage.

Danish fisherman Per Nielsen installed the kit on his trawler Kingfisher in September and believes it to be a good investment. The kit cost roughly 10,000 USD, but Nielsen was compensated by being allowed to catch several extra tens of thousands of dollars worth of cod.

As of now, EU fishermen throw overboard an estimated 50% of the fish they catch and did for instance dump 38% of the 24,000 tons of cod they caught last year, according to the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea.

As reported earlier , the European Union has decided to ban the import of seal skin and other seal products hailing from commercial seal hunting.

This has upset Canadian seal hunters since Italy and Denmark, both members of the European Union, are two major importers of seal products. Italy imports most of their seal skins from Russia, but Denmark has always been an important trade partner for North American seal hunters, partly due to Denmark’s traditional connection to Greenland.

According to a statement from Canadian Trade Minister Stockwell Day, the federal government is now getting ready to move in with an appeal against the ban, which they see as a clear breach of WTO regulation.

“We’ll go to the WTO because it’s clear in WTO regulations that if one country wants to ban the products of another, it has to have clear scientific, medically acceptable reasons for doing so, and this EU ban is not based on hard science,” Day said.

The Canadin government believes that Canada deserves an exemption from the import ban since it follows internationally accepted guidelines regarding seal hunting, e.g. by prohibiting the clubbing of baby seals while they still have their white coats.

Day claims that the European ban is based on “people’s feelings” rather than hard facts, and says that the trade action will proceed unless the European Union Parliament exempts Canada and other countries that he said practise humane and sustainable seal hunting. According to Day, seal hunt proponents erroneously portray seal hunting as it was 40 years ago.

The suggested seal import ban must still be approved by individual European governments before becoming law but can, if passed, come into effect as early as next year. If the is approved, it will cause an annual 2 million USD loss for the Canadian industry.

Canadian Fisheries Minister Gail Shea agrees supports the government’s planned trade action.

“When you live in small coastal communities, sometimes there’s not many opportunities to make some additional money,” she said. “We have a number of families who make up to 35% of their annual income from the seal hunt. So yes, I do think it’s very important.”

As reported earlier, the proposed European seal import ban will contain some exemptions and seal products resulting from hunts traditionally conducted by Inuit and other indigenous communities can still be imported to and marketed in European Union countries even if the ban is approved. Products that result from hunting conducted for the purpose of sustainable management of marine resources on a non-profit basis will also be allowed, and individual travellers will be permitted to bring seal products to the European Union as long as the import is of an occasional nature and consists exclusively of goods for the personal use of the traveller.

Scientists are unaware of the state of nearly two-thirds of Europe’s fish stocks and do not have enough information to assess the exact scale of the crisis the European fishing industry is facing, says the European Commission.

This is naturally alarming, since the commission last month admitted that nothing short of a completely new fisheries management system based on scientific evidence could stop the downward spiral of years of dangerously depleted fish stocks and get the struggling European fishing industry back on its feet.

Europe

The European Commission is now proposing smaller annual EU fish catch quotas and have given governments and industry representatives until the end of July to submit their views.

“The contribution of EU fisheries to the European economy and food supply is far smaller today than it was in the past. Even more worryingly, the status of some 59 per cent of stocks is unknown to scientists, largely due to inaccurate catch reporting,” the European Commission says in an official statement.

The policy has not been reformed since 2002 and the European Commission admits there has been “slow progress” in stock recovery, since quotas consistently have been set at unsustainably high levels.

Yesterday, the European Parliament voted to ban most seal products from the European market. The legislative resolution was adopted with 550 votes in favour, 49 against and 41 abstentions.

Suggestions from the European Parliament’s will only become law if adopted by the European Council of Ministers, which represents the member states. The legislative report on the seal products ban was agreed with the European Council of Ministers in first-reading.

An exemption is allowed for indigenous communities so seal products resulting from hunts traditionally conducted by Inuit and other indigenous communities can still be imported to and marketed in European Union countries.

“This deal will protect seals from cruelty and protect the Inuit people’s traditional way of life,” said Christel Schaldemose, a Danish Socialist MEP.

Import of seal products will also be permitted where it is of an occasional nature and consists exclusively of goods for the personal use of the traveller or products that result from by-products of hunting conducted for the purpose of sustainable management of marine resources on a non-profit basis.

The legislative report was drafted by UK MEP Diana Wallis of the Alliance for Liberals and Democrats in Europe (ALDE). ALDE is the third largest political group in the European Parliament.

No ban on hunting

“Seals are very beautiful marine animals, in fact, I have realized during this process that they have great PR, but to some they are the rats of the sea”, Wallis said in the debate yesterday.

“That is how they are perceived by many fishermen – an adult seal gets through an enormous amount of fish on a daily basis. Therefore, there will remain the need for seals to be hunted to ensure the sustainability of fisheries in some area.“

“But what we have not done here is to regulate hunting,” said Wallis. “If people in any of our

member states wish to hunt, they can still continue to hunt. What they cannot do is take commercial gain from the results of that hunt. But it should be the case that the results of the hunt can be used, and I hope particularly that those parts of seals that can be used by the medical community will be able to be used.”

Today, human heart valves can be replaced with bioprosthetic valves from seals and other marine mammals.

“Great progress has been made in the survival and quality of life of cardiac patients by using the aortic, pulmonary and pericardial tissue of harp seals, the assumption being that they are sustainably hunted or killed and not in a cruel way,” said Irish MEP Avril Doyle of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, EPP-ED. “I would like assurances on ongoing medical research and bioprosthetic use of products from seals in the context of the compromise,” she added.

The patent holder for the valve replacement process, Efstathios Andreas Agathos of Massachusetts, says the needed seal valves can be supplied by “the annual seal harvesting supported by Canadian government for population control.”

Canada will challenge ban at WTO

Canada‘s Trade Minister Stockwell Day said that Canada will challenge the trade ban at the World Trade Organization, unless an exemption is added for any country that has strict guidelines in place for humane and sustainable sealing practices.

“The decision by the European Parliament lacks any basis in facts,” said Canadian Fisheries and Oceans Minister Gail Shea. “The Canadian seal hunt is guided by rigorous animal welfare principles which are internationally recognized by independent observers. I once again caution my European counterparts about the dangers of pursuing politically motivated bans on other countries’ traditional industries. Our government will stand up for the jobs and communities that depend on the seal hunt.”

The world’s largest seal hunt is conducted every spring off Canada’s Atlantic coast and Denmark, one of the main importers of raw fur sealskins to the European Union, imports seal skins directly from Canada and Greenland. Denmark and Italy are by far the two largest importers of raw fur sealskins for the EU market. Unlike Denmark, Italy imports most skins from Russia, and from the two EU members Finland and Scotland (UK). Greece will also be affected by the trade ban, but not to the same extent as Denmark and Italy since the Greece trade in raw seal skins – predominately from Finland and Scotland – is much smaller.

According to WWF Canada, excessive bycatch* of cod is undermining the cod moratorium imposed in 1994. On the southern Grand Banks near Canada, cod bycatch is now at least 70 percent higher than target levels and this is hampering the recovery of one the world’s best known fisheries.

WWF Canada also states that ships from the European Union are responsible for the largest proportion of the overrun bycatch.

In 2003, bycatch amounts were estimated to be over 80 per cent of the remaining cod stock which caused WWF to push for a 2008 cod recovery strategy that included setting a bycatch reduction target of 40 per cent for the southern Grand Banks at the September 2007 annual meeting of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO).

The 40 percent target level was based on estimations of how much the cod population could endure and still have at least some chance of recovery. 40 percent is equivalent of 420 tonnes of cod, but unofficial fishing statistics for the year 2008 show that almost twice as much, 713 tonnes, was caught as bycatch last year. Of these 713 tonnes, ships from the European Union member states accounted for 444 tonnes.

It should be noted that these figures does not account for misreported bycatch and illegal fishing.

WWF Canada is now urging NAFO to adopt an effective recovery plan for southern Grand Banks cod; one hat will include immediate bycatch reduction targets as well as long-term recovery goals. Gear-based solutions need to be combined with protection of spawning and nursery areas for the plan to be effective and the arrangements must naturally be backed by efficient monitoring and enforcement to have any effect. Such a recovery plan would be consistent with the Ecosystem management approach adopted in the newly revised NAFO Convention.

“Cod and other fish stocks can never recover as long as NAFO refuses to see the urgency of the bycatch problem and acknowledge that voluntary measures are not working,” says Dr. Robert Rangeley, Vice President Atlantic, WWF-Canada. “If NAFO’s Scientific Council starts working on solutions at their June meeting then it will be the responsibility of the Fisheries Commission, in September, to impose strict management measures that will give cod recovery a chance.”

* Bycatch is here defined as unused and unmanaged catch. You can find more information about bycatch in “Defining and Estimating Global Marine Fisheries Bycatch”; a paper co-authored by WWF for the journal Marine Policy. According to this paper, the global bycatch now constitutes over 40 percent of the global reported catch.

Scientists from three different European countries – Norway, Belgium and the UK – are now launching a new research project where the aim is to find out if cods can feel pain or not.

“Most people agree that mammals and birds can feel pain, but people are less sure about fish,” says project leader Øyvind Aas-Hansen of NOFIMA, an aquaculture research institute whose headquarters are in Tromsø, Norway.

Fish show many signs of being able to experience pain, but we still know very little about how their brains react to stimuli that would cause mammals and birds to feel pain. According to some scientists, the brain of a fish is not equipped with certain structures needed to process pain, but others believe that fish nevertheless do sense some type of pain.

What we do know is that fish show a long row of behavioural responses that could be interpreted as signs of pain, such as avoidance reactions. Fish are also capable of producing pain-relieving opiates and the fish brain is equipped with receptors for both pain and opiates.

The European researchers hope that modern medical technology, especially functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and electroencephalograms (EEGs) will make it possible for them to learn more about how the cod brain actually works. The aim of the study is to indentify which parts of the cod brain that becomes activated when a cod is exposed to potentially painful stimuli, and the researchers will also study how these signals are processed.

In order to test the brain of a fish, there is no need to expose it to any type of severe or prolonged pain; a mild stimulus that simply provokes an unpleasant sensation is enough to see how the brain reacts. “We will use the same procedures as those used on healthy human volunteers,” Dr Aas-Hansen explains.

If cods are indeed able to feel pain, Dr Aas-Hansen hopes that the results of the study will be used as yet another argument in favour of keeping aquarium fish in benevolent conditions. The study is however unlikely to affect European legislation since most regulations already assume that fish can feel pain.

Dr Aas-Hansen also points out how comparative research on how the brain works in different animals can give an insight into our own human brain. “This is ground-breaking work,” he says. “No other scientists have previously studied the cod’aquarius brain this way.”

The project will run for three years and is funded by the Norwegian Research Council.

European Union

In December 2007, the EU commission presented their suggestion for a new law that would force car manufacturers to decrease the average carbon dioxide emissions from new cars down to 130 grams per kilometre by 2012. This draft does however come with one gigantic loop hole – the new law would only target cars weighing less than 2,610 kg (5,754 lbs). This could actually prompt car manufacturers to start building even heavier cars than today, just to avoid the new law. Another possible escape route is to make slight alterations to the cars in order to make it possible for them to be registered as light trucks. When a similar law was put into action in the United States during the 1970s, car manufacturers immediately responded by producing large quantities of SUVs that could evade the law by registering as work vehicles. The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (SSNC) is now urging the EU parliament and the national governments to take action and remove these loop wholes from the final draft of the law.