The collapse of fishing on Scotland's West Coast: Where was the leadership?

The following is from C.O.A.S.T. Newsletter for February 2011. It is being published here with kind permission from C.O.A.S.T. – Community of Arran Seabed Trust

Where was the leadership?

The UK media’s focus on the urgent need for marine conservation measures has probably never been more intense. Channel 4’s Fish Fight season has set in motion a mushrooming of morbid interest in the drastically unsustainable exploitation of our seas. But it was a smaller news item on BBC Reporting Scotland ('Life after fishing in Mallaig') that has really exposed the sad folly of Scotland’s marine mismanagement.

Mallaig, on the remote Northwest shores of Lochaber, was founded in the 1840s when families were pressured by the local laird to leave their crofts and move to the coast to make a living from fishing. From these difficult, subsistence roots the village became a thriving port, a gateway to the islands and eventually synonymous with a bonanza off herring and prawn fishing. In the 1960s, it was not exaggeration to call Mallaig the busiest herring port in Europe.

But 50 years later, the fishing which breathed life into that crofters' re-settlement has collapsed. BBC Scotland interviewed local skippers from Mallaig, who described with rare West coast emotion, the sadness at seeing their ships taken for decommissioning. Although there was some counter-balancing positivity about diversification, this was the harsh reality of a fishing policy gone wrong.

What seemed so incongruous was the absence of any comment by fishing leaders in the area, usually so quick to expound the views of the industry. It would seem to indicate that the decline of Mallaig's fishing economy is nothing but a shameful chapter for which no-one wants to be accountable. For years the mobile fishing leaders have had a cosy arrangement with government and this has served very well an explosively successful, but highly short-term fishery. The long-term, however, looks bleak. Fishermen have been let down.

It is a bright red herring to say we were dispossessed by Europe. Scotland manages her inshore fisheries up to six miles from land. If even just ten years ago, area control and effort control had been applied at the same time, we might not be in this sad mess, forced to diversify once again - like the crofting forefathers of Mallaig - from what should be a sustainable resource. As fishing communities adapt, perhaps fishermen will look to build new alliances and find fresh leadership to conserve and regenerate the resource that underpins the industry.

Many fishermen are skeptical of area control and are shy of change. But as this organisation’s chairman Howard Wood told a gathering of marine policy-makers at a recent conference in London, "I am the biggest supporter of the Scottish fishing industry." It was an intentionally bold statement and what he meant was this: our leaders in recent decades have sought short-term gain, but C.O.A.S.T.'s vision is for a viable Scottish fishing industry for the future.

*****

Scallop dredging – Mark Carter replies to David Fraser

In reply to David Fraser’s letter [received from Mark Carter on 17 Dec 2010]

The interest in fishing – and in particular scallop dredging – has been lifted out into the public arena and for that I am grateful.

I would also like to thank David Fraser for his view from a fisherman's angle, and for the constructive way in which he has delivered it.

All too often when dealing with some of the fishing associations, we are left with the feeling of achieving nothing, of being bullied. At some of the meetings that I have attended I observed time-wasting tactics, tactics that are renewed when new chairpersons are in place, resulting in old ground being covered again, and again – a little like scallop dredging.

David raises some good points which need to be addressed. But here we have a dilemma: the subject matter is vast, there are numerous differing opinions and – most of all – we still do not fully understand all of the ecosystem interactions. We do, however, know how important they are, not only to the environment but in turn to us as individuals.

David and I have some similar ideas and thoughts. The way forward could be over a beer or even in a public debate? I’m open to these ideas as long as the meeting is constructive.

I have every faith in David’s approach, and respect for his views but, having experienced the actions of some of some in the industry, I’m always cautious.

For now, let me reply to a few points raised by David Fraser:

• “Getting involved and meetings”:
Here we are in complete agreement: the number of meetings, consultations, conferences etc is nothing more than overwhelming, exhausting, more than any normal individuals can cope with.
One thing is very true: these meetings need to be attended and not – as so often seen – limited to a few.
We are all stakeholders, fish are a public resource, management meetings should/must be open and accountable.

• Fishing gear:
As a former blacksmith I’m always interested in comments regarding the construction of fishing gear; spring-loaded tooth bars, wheels etc. It is always difficult when writing in general to cover all designs like the locally used Newhaven Dredge, but one matter remains: dragging heavy metal structures over delicate, vulnerable seabed species can only result in one outcome: destruction.

I’ve never suggested that scallop fishermen would actively search out rocky reefs in order to drag expensive gear over them. However, advancements in gear construction and electronic wizardry enables fishing to take place right next to, or right on top of these rocky reefs, some of which have been protected as in the Firth of Lorn. It is these advancements that allow for “mistakes” to occur without causing major damage to gear – while some of the species on the reefs may face a different fate.

I have dived and I do hold a diving qualification; but I would not consider myself a diver as suggested. I have, however, studied marine science and water flows from several different perspectives. It is not plausible to compare wave and or storm action, and the raising of sediments or re-sedimentation as it is known to scallop dredging. Far more factors come into play – including bathometry, morphology, amphidomes, the Coriolis effect and interference in short tides, underwater mountains, depth and fetch.

• “Misconception” regarding scallop dredgers:
There is much evidence showing the effects of scallop dredging, from side-scan sonars' to divers' photographic records. As for whether this is considered “damaging”, I’m not going to go over old ground, but I too have friends that are scallop divers and they are united in their opinion regarding the damage done by the dredge.

• “[Scallops have been] stripped by other divers”:
The inference here is that divers are responsible for the decline in the Firth of Lorn. We could get into the “chicken and egg” situation regarding dredge versus diver and responsibility, but just one point: divers don’t do the same – if any – level of habitat damage.

• Isle of Man:
I, too, love the Isle of Man. I have family living there, although I cannot afford to go regularly enough to join a golf club! The Manx government does appear to be leaps and bounds ahead of the UK in terms of protecting its waters, even when under bullying pressure from the Scottish Minister regarding the scallop fisheries. With a 100-fold increase in scallop biomass, what more proof do we need that closing areas WORKS???

Those interested can find more information here:
http://www.arrancoast.com/symp_pdf/isle_of_man_mpas.pdf (a presentation recently given by the Isle of Man government Representative at the Arran Conference)
http://www.arrancoast.com/
http://www.isleofman.com/index.aspx (type "scallops" into the internal web search)

• Sustainability:
I have always said that the term “sustainability” needs to be defined, and David's comment, “This whole business cycle is based on a natural resource which rejuvenates every year, and is therefore SUSTAINABLE”, proves this. Such activities only suggest that nature's resilience has enabled nature to cope with pressures to date. In fact, some data would suggest otherwise.

•“Fisheries of last resort”:
The comment, “I firmly believe that areas benefit from being fished and then left to regenerate. Scallop fishing does not wipe out fish stocks, nor crab stocks, nor lobster, nor prawn”, is worrying. It fails to address the bigger picture, that of “keystone” species, or “K”-select and “R”-select species: part of what we do understand about marine ecosystems is that keystone species may be pivotal within their environment; removal may cause major damage to the entire current ecosystem.

“K”-select – I call them the “Constants” – provide for a diverse, stable system. “R”-select species are unwanted ones that go "Rampant" and are capable of rushing into a devastated region and re-colonise it, altering the status quo.

Finally, what about the cod, the herring – need I go on? It has been said that fishing prawns and crabs is “last resort”. If we continue as we have, what’s going to be left? plankton and jellyfish?

• Re-introduction of the “Three Mile Limit":
This concept is not new, it is a “re-"introduction. What did the mobile sector do pre–1984? Fishing continued.

• "Ten-metre boats and gales":
With modern technology, few inshore fishermen need be caught out even if outside a three-mile limit. Mobile fishing vessels tend to be powerful; three miles at ten knots takes just 18 minutes – usually plenty of time to retreat from any gales – and some vessels will be able to go faster. Even those that can only achieve 6 knots would be in sheltered waters within half an hour.

• “Chase us out of our own backyard”:
Personally, I have never had any intention to chase anyone out of their own “backyard”. Yet it is this concept of “ours” that could be at the root of the problem as it is not “your" backyard: we all own the fish stocks; we all have rights to fish; and we all are the guardians of our future, of the kind of legacy we leave to coming generations.

*****

See also:
• C.O.A.S.T. – December 2010 Newsletter, Damage limitation
The recent ‘scallop war’ between the Manx and Scottish governments is fundamentally a battle of credibility. And a quick look at recent political events demonstrates there is one clear loser.

For the full article, go to  http://www.arrancoast.com/

• http://www.facebook.com/seasfree?ref=profile,

• http://www.facebook.com/pages/Marine-Concern/135504149846548?v=wall

Scallop Harvesting, post no. 3

Hi there
The following came in on 9 Dec 2010 from COAST - Community of Arran Seabed Trust

It is part of C.O.A.S.T. Newsletter #9 - Scallops and damage limitation

This [was] sent to Scotland's coastal communities, policy-makers and decision-makers. Please leave a comment at the end of this post to get in touch or to recommend other readers.

Damage limitation

The recent 'scallop war' between the Manx and Scottish governments is fundamentally a battle of credibility. And a quick look at recent political events demonstrates there is one clear loser.

A genuine window of hope opened when the old Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department was dismantled in 2007. A new approach to managing Scotland’s sea-based resources was firmly on the cards, as restructuring by the SNP paved the way for Marine Scotland - a dedicated branch of the Environment Directorate.

There was already momentum behind that 'wind of change'. Just a few months before, in 2006, C.O.A.S.T.'s long-standing proposals for a marine protected area were being discussed alongside plans for Clyde-wide scallop management as proposed by the Clyde Fishermans’ Association in the forum of the Environment and Rural Affairs committee. It seemed that things were moving in the right direction and fishermen’s representatives were on the way to taking some hard decisions that would protect the industry’s future and the health of the Clyde.

Indeed the Clyde Fisherman’s Association seemed proud of the idea of a marine protected area and actively supported reduced scallop effort. But scallop fisheries management was never going to be simple and, within four years, that momentum had regrettably stalled.

It is now 2010. Next month will be the second anniversary of the Clyde IFG. Wider area control is not even on the IFG table. Gear restriction is being 'considered,' but nothing is happening. Something as simple as increasing the minimum landing size of Scallops in the Clyde has been delayed by protracted discussions, with progress dependent on the outcome of an Economic Impact Assessment commissioned by the Scallop Working Group. Any measures to actually change fishing effort and practices to conserve one of the few remaining stocks in the Clyde are still at the drawing-board stage, held up in meetings where words fly without action.

So when Scottish scallop boats complained last month that they were being 'discriminated against' by virtue of a conservation-minded by-law that excluded large dredging vessels from Isle of Man inshore waters, the Scottish government should surely have bravely respected their Manx counterpart's painful, but progressive stance. After all, scallop management was something Scottish fishermen had wanted to achieve for their own waters for years.

Instead, the Scottish response was one of bullying indignation. The fishing restriction was portrayed as crude protectionism based on piecemeal science, the damaging impact of dredging on the seabed left unmentioned.

It is not just enough to point out what the Scottish Government would have said if the shoe had been on the other foot. To attack another jurisdiction's enviably forward-thinking conservation measure is both tragic and a public-relations disaster. The 'scallop war' indicates the Isle of Man is 20 years ahead in the sustainable management of its marine resource. And meanwhile, the reputation of Scottish political and industry representatives took an inter-agency, indeed international, nose-dive that will take a great deal of work to restore. Clyde scallop management is about damage limitation in more ways than one.

Both our immediate and European neighbours are often told how the Scottish fishing fleet leads the way in conservation measures, but the kneejerk attack on the Isle of Man puts this in context. It exposes a status quo where little has changed since the days of SEERAD, as sustainability measures are still ignored in favour of the short-term extraction of a resource.

It is an unsustainable approach and until there is more urgent action, C.O.A.S.T. will explore all legal channels to ensure there is a Clyde fishing industry for future generations.

C.O.A.S.T. wishes its members and newsletter readers a very merry Christmas and a sustainable (marine) New Year.

*****