New Biofuelwatch Report – Sustainable Biomass: A Modern Myth

Hi again
A week ago, Biofuelwatch released a new report, ‘Sustainable Biomass: A Modern Myth’. 

Several years before I arrived in Argyll, I had the opportunity to see the destructive effects of large landowners scrabbling for land to produce the new commodity of "biofuel" in Colombia. It keeps happening, to the great distress of crofters, very small landowners in Las Pavas, Sur de Bolivar.
Here's a video documenting the peaceful resistance of villagers/smallholding farmers against the illegal destruction of their land and of their property by Aportes San Isidro S.A., one of the world's big palm oil producers:

Agresión contra familias campesinas desplazadas en Colombia

(In Spanish – the farmers' resilience, resistance and faith-based humour is admirable –
they've been fighting this "dirty game" for six years!)

What initially looked like a great idea has contributed to world hunger, mass displacement of people in the third world, and certainly hasn't helped to push us toward reducing our energy consumption, quite the contrary.

The Biofuelwatch report "explores the certification companies certifying biomass as sustainable, the UK government’s proposed sustainability criteria for biomass, and developer’s ‘promises’ to source sustainable biomass."

Download Sustainable biomass: A modern myth –  A review of standards, criteria and schemes certifying industrial biomass as ‘sustainable’, with particular emphasis on UK biomass electricity developments, Biofuelwatch report [Note: File size 4.75 MB]

Download the Report without pictures (831 kb) here.

Download the Executive Summary (4 pages)


And here's a link to a few good, critical articles in The Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/biofuels

Make "green energy" truly sustainable

UK RENEWABLES POLICY alert (for UK residents only)

Having received an alert from www.biofuelwatch.org.uk earlier today, I have sent the following letter to Alan Reid, MP.

Please feel free to visit the Biofuelwatch Website, where you will find the letter that you can adapt to suit your own situation.


'Green energy' subsidies should not be used to stimulate burning of biofuels and biomass

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: 'Green energy' subsidies should not be used to stimulate burning biofuels and biomass

This is not the first time that I am writing to you as the Secretary of Sustainable Oban, but today I am writing from a personal angle as well because some of my family live in one of the countries most seriously affected by EU legislation.

Please therefore allow me to express my deep concern that existing UK policy on Renewable Electricity is flawed and that the proposals due to be introduced in 2011 for Renewable Heat are likely to exacerbate the problem. Currently the Renewable Obligation gives high levels of financial support to electricity generators to burn liquid biofuels, including palm oil and soybean oil, and biomass, including imported wood from destructive logging and plantations.

A major increase in renewable energy is essential, but it must be renewable energy which truly mitigates climate change and protects, rather than harms the environment. Burning large volumes of biofuels and industrial biomass will have the opposite effect. It will also lead to more land being used to grow crops and trees for fuel instead of food and will put more pressures on indigenous peoples, small farmers and other communities in other countries who, in Colombia, Indonesia and Malaysia in particular (one of my sources is pbi – Peace Brigades International, a human rights organisation with "unarmed bodyguards" in Colombia and Indonesia), are already losing their lives, land and livelihoods to oil palm and other plantations.

These problems arise because of financial support arrangements implemented by the UK Government. Such arrangements are permitted under EU legislation, but are not required of member states.

Electricity from burning liquid biofuels and solid biomass is now eligible for twice the subsidy (paid as Renewable Obligation Certificates or ROCs) as generating electricity from onshore wind. Biofuel power stations burning 'virgin vegetable oil' are only financially viable because of this subsidy. A series of sizeable biofuel electricity power stations has been proposed as a result of these market subsidies, two of the developers make it clear that they intend to burn palm oil while the others have failed to legally commit themselves to not doing so. Palm oil is the cheapest vegetable oil on the market, and according to UNEP is the main cause of deforestation in Indonesia and Malaysia. Deforestation in both countries is linked to the destruction of peatlands and the emissions of vast quantities of carbon. Carbon emissions from peat fires in Indonesia, linked to plantation expansion, have on several occasions been higher than the UK's entire annual CO2 emissions. Palm oi
l expansion is also linked to the displacement of large numbers of communities, unlawfull killings, land conflicts and the destruction of indigenous peoples' and other communities' livelihoods.

A typical 25 MW biofuel power station would require some 10,000 hectares of oil palm plantations to supply its fuel, adding to pressure on tropical rainforests. If UK-grown vegetable oil were used instead, agricultural land would be taken out of food production, adding to food imports. The 50 MW power station planned for Bristol will burn about 100 million litres (90,000 tonnes) of palm oil a year – the same volume as is currently going into the entire UK transport biodiesel market.

In 2005, total EU-27 imports of palm oil were 4.5 million tonnes, equivalent to 9.7 kg per person (FAO). The Bristol power station's annual consumption of 90,000 tonnes is equivalent to over 200 kg of palm oil per head of population in Bristol each year, far more than they consume in food and healthcare products.

The Renewable Obligations Order also gives high levels of support for electricity generation from burning wood. This is encouraging large-scale imports of biomass, particularly woodchips and wood pellets, for example from South America, South-east Asia, West Africa or the southern US (where displacement of wood now used for pulp and paper will mean more pressure on forests and on communities in the global South). No adequate assessment has been carried out on the impact which this new demand has and will have on forests, communities and, in the case of tree plantations, on grasslands and other ecosystems, nor on the likely impacts on the climate. There are already reports from West Papua of concessions being granted for the destruction of hundreds of thousands of hectares of rainforest to establish tree plantations for wood chips and wood pellets as a result of the growing global market in biomass. Even if the climate impacts of increased logging, forest degradation and la
nd-clearance for tree plantations were ignored, cutting down and burning trees results in immediate up-front emissions of CO2 which it will take new planting several decades at least to reabsorb.

At a 2008 industry conference, it was noted that the heating oil market represented a 3 billion-litre opportunity for the biofuel industry. If the proposed Renewable Heat Incentive incentivises this market to any great extent, it will add significantly to the UK consumption of liquid biofuels.

Whereas the EU's renewable energy target is binding on the UK, it is entirely the UK government's choice whether to support sustainable and climate-friendly truly renewable energy or to favour biofuels and massive biomass imports, yet: under EU law, for example, governments cannot discriminate against biofuels from plantations where people have been evicted or even killed. This means that the all-important indirect impacts will remain largely or completely ignored.

I therefore urge you to call on the government to immediately suspend all subsidies for biofuel and biomass electricity under the Renewable Obligation Order and to reform the Order as a matter of urgency so that all subsidies go towards truly sustainable renewable energy, including wind and solar, not biofuels and biomass (which inevitably means large-scale biomass imports). In addition there must be no new bioenergy subsidies under the Renewable Heat Initiative.

Thank you for your commitment to a truly sustainable Britain.

Yours sincerely,

Margaret Powell-Joss, Secretary
Sustainable Oban
[full address given in original letter]

Mr Salmond, there is no such thing as "sustainable" farmed salmon!

Dear All

I was distracted by a brief trip to the Continent from commenting on what may well become one of the biggest eco-disasters to strike these beautiful waters – quite apart from the fact that the Scottish government looks set to get into bed with a regime whose human rights record has left a lot to be desired for decades. Read for yourselves what someone much better qualified than I has written:

Andrew Flitcroft, in: The Observer, 20^th February 2011 – quoted in the Guardian:

You're so wrong about salmon, Mr Salmond

The new trade deal with China has terrifying implications for our wild fish stocks

Visiting trade delegations do not often register on my radar. However, the high-level Chinese visit to Scotland in January was different. Apart from the inevitable "gift" to the hosts, consigning two hapless giant pandas to a life of incarceration in Edinburgh Zoo, a new trade deal on Scottish farmed salmon between the two countries was signed, allowing access for the first time to the vast Chinese market.
First minister Alex Salmond crowed that the Scottish fish-farming industry may need to double salmon production to satisfy Chinese demand. The announcement a few days later that China was halting the import of Norwegian farmed salmon (China's retaliation, according to the Norwegian press, for the awarding of the Nobel peace prize to the imprisoned dissident Liu Xiaobo) lays Scottish government open to the charge that it is in effect supporting repression.
But cynical politics aside, the implications of increasing significantly, let alone doubling, farmed salmon production in Scotland are terrifying. Surely it is recklessly irresponsible to contemplate any increase without first rectifying the dire existing problems, particularly the spread of deadly sea lice, caused to juvenile wild salmon and sea trout in the west Highlands and Islands by current production levels. There is little doubt that the situation is set to deteriorate.
But first, for readers who are not familiar with the war between the salmon farming industry on the one hand and those trying to protect wild salmon and sea trout runs on the other, here is a brief summary of the problem. Marine cages of hundreds of thousands of farmed salmon are breeding grounds for millions of sea lice; these parasites feed on the mucus, tissue and blood of their farmed salmon hosts. The companies employ a range of measures using highly toxic chemicals to combat the lice, in order to reduce the damage and stress caused to their captive hosts.
However, juvenile wild fish, which migrate from the rivers to the sea each spring, are simply not designed to cope with more than the odd louse. As these fragile young fish, known as smolts, run the gauntlet past the fish-farm cages conveniently placed on their migration routes down the sea lochs towards the open sea, they are ambushed by the unnaturally high concentrations of lice. The attachment of more than 10 lice is almost invariably fatal. The fish are literally eaten alive although death is usually hastened by secondary infections, which gain access through open wounds made by the grazing lice.
This is the environmental calamity that the salmon farming industry and Scottish government is so determined to deny. Make no mistake – there is no such thing as "sustainable" farmed salmon, no matter what the evocative packaging on the supermarket shelves tries to convey. Indeed, all such packaging should be approached with scepticism. M&S's Lochmuir salmon comes from an entirely fictitious location.
Now evidence is growing that salmon farms in Scotland are fast losing the battle against sea lice, mirroring the situation in Norway, where the head of the Directorate for Nature Management (the equivalent of Scottish Natural Heritage) has just called for a 50% cut in salmon production because, for the second year running, the average number of lice on each caged fish in several regions of Norway has exceeded the official limit of one mature female louse or five lice in total with increasing resistance to chemical treatment. He said that such a cut might not be enough to save Norway's fragile wild salmon stocks as: "The problem is very big and it is not under control."
It is perhaps no wonder the salmon farming industry in Scotland is so sensitive on the sea lice issue. Witness their gagging of Scottish government last year to prevent publication of Marine Scotland's farm inspection reports. Analysis of these reports, obtained by Salmon and Trout Association's Guy Linley-Adams under FOI, confirms instances where sea lice have been completely out of control, necessitating early slaughter on several farms.
Compared to five years ago, Scotland's salmon farms are using far greater quantities of pesticides to kill sea lice on farmed fish as the chemicals become less and less effective and the lice develop immunity. Some are adopting desperate measures and two managers of a Shetland farm have just been charged with animal cruelty following the death of more than 6,000 farmed salmon last August.
Given these problems, it is galling that Scottish government continues to trot out the same tired mantra that salmon farming is "sustainable" and there is no proven damage to wild fish populations, aided and abetted by the nauseating spin peddled by the Scottish Salmon Producers' Organisation, the front for the Norwegian companies that dominate the industry in Scotland. Most galling of all is the prospect of an even bigger industry.
There is one ray of hope. Solicitor Guy Linley-Adams, acting for the owners of the Ullapool river, has just submitted a formal 80-page complaint to the EU, detailing the failure of the authorities to designate an appropriate number of west coast Scottish rivers as Special Areas for Conservation for salmon under the EU Habitats Directive.
The complaint also details the failure of the Scottish government to rein in the salmon-farming industry to provide proper protection for wild Atlantic salmon and sea trout in the west Highlands and Islands. The gloves are starting to come off.

Andrew Flitcroft is the editor of Trout & Salmon

RENEW TV tip of the week: Explaining climate change

This message has just come in from the lovely RENEW people up in Lochaber:

"There was a great programme on BBC4 a couple of evenings ago about climate change sceptics – really well done, balanced, well argued etc.
[Please see below for] a link for the programme on BBC iplayer (an hour long). Also for those who haven’t the time to watch the whole thing a link to a video that was shown during the programme explaining climate change and actions taken in terms of probability – really clever and good to watch.

The whole programme on iplayer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/search?q=Storyville

The short video on youtube:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

Happy viewing

Justine

Robert & Justine Dunn

RENEW Household Project Officers

Lochaber Environmental Group

An Drochaid

Claggan

Fort William

PH33 6PH

Tel:  01967 402453 (9am - 9pm, 7days)

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.

*****

More food for the debate on scallop harvesting (post no 2)

Dear all

The debate continues and your blogger, for one, is learning so much. Methinks we will need to have a public meeting to share visual material and knowledge, insights and ideas.

For now, here's the next contribution – items in angular brackets have been inserted by Margaret Powell-Joss, your blogger.

Is Scallop dredging Sustainable?

by David Ainsley

In his recent posting, D[.F.] states that he is fishing the same grounds that he fished 30 years ago and making a profit. He argues that this means that he is fishing sustainably – but he has not considered the damage that dredging causes to seabed communities and the evidence of declining scallop spawning stock biomass and recruitment.

Scottish scallop landings by UK vessels have risen from less than 2000 tonnes in 1974 to around 8-10,000 tonnes from 1994 to 2008. The 2008 figures are about 10% down from the peak.

The spawning stock biomass was just over 5000 tonnes in this area (North West management area) in 1999 but in 2007 – the last year for which figures are available – the SSB was at the lowest historic level of just over 1000 tonnes.

Both West coast of Scotland scallop management areas are shown in red on the chart on the report as spawning stock biomass and recruitment are declining [ref (1)].

But measurements of spawning stock biomass only go back to 1981. We know that seabed communities have been subject to damage by steam trawlers since the 1870’s – dredging started much later. In order to decide how healthy a stock is, we need to know what the historic stocks were before fishing began.

One way to do this is to look at all the old records, and the book The Unnatural History of the Sea by Prof. [Callum] Roberts takes this approach [ref (2)]. One scientific study estimates that only 10% of the fish swim in European waters that were present in the year 1900. But by 1900 stocks had already been industrially fished, so the real figure may be 5%.

Another approach is to close areas to fishing and monitor what happens to stocks. By 2006, the first Isle of Man closed area, protected for 20 years, had scallop biomass levels at more than 60 times those shown prior to protection [ref (3)]. Stocks have since continued to increase. There is strong evidence that this has led to greater returns from adjacent fishing grounds.

So catches remain high, but spawning stock biomass and recruitment are at dangerously low levels.

Why has this happened? There are a number of reasons:-

- In the early days, solid dredges were used in open areas like Luce bay. The solid dredges gave way to Newhaven dredges with spring-loaded tooth bars designed to work rough ground. This, combined with advances in electronics, allowed boats to work previously un-fished grounds.

- In the old days Decca was used for navigation. It relied on a land-based signal and, like mobile phones, there were many areas where it didn’t work well. Now we have stunningly accurate GPS, plotters, side-scan sonar, 3-D echo-sounders, systems such as Roxanne, which reveal very bit of suitable ground, allowing all those little bits nobody knew about before to be fished out. Scientists call it technological creep - in recent years it has been more of a technological gallop.

The scale of the ecosystem damage is obvious to those of us who have dived here [in the Firth of Lorn and further along the West coast of Scotland] over the last thirty years. Until the mid-eighties we never used to see sea-beds damaged by dredgers, but – as technology improved over the years – the dredgers worked right up to (and sometimes over) the reefs. It is now difficult to find a piece of seabed suitable for dredging that has not been dredged. To find such areas, you need to go to Norway, where they do not dredge and have miles of mussel beds and other healthy sea-beds, supporting healthy ecosystems – if anybody is interested, I have film to show this.

Dredged sea-beds are less efficient as settlement areas for small scallops and as nursery areas for fish. Thus dredging affects fish stocks and, by association, the porpoise, dolphins, seals and whales which feed on them.

What scientists call the Alee effect applies: as scallop spawning stock biomass declines, the individuals left become generally spaced further apart. There comes a point at which the individuals are so far apart that the gametes rarely meet, and recruitment declines, as is the case now.

As David [Frazer] correctly pointed out, the recent closed areas in the Isle of Man were closed with the participation and support of the fishermen. This is because they can see that having closed areas works to restore stocks. A survey in the Isle of Man showed that 85% of respondents are in favour – or strongly in favour – of Marine Protected Areas. There has also been huge support for the Marine Conservation Society’s campaigns, Your Seas Your Voice and Marine Reserves Now.

There is a legally established Public Right to Fish, and it follows that the public have a right to require that their fish stocks are fished in a sustainable way. If the damage caused by dredging happened on the side of the road where people could see it, there would be an outcry. People are now becoming aware of the state of the seabed and fish stocks.

We currently have an unfair situation where the very large percentage of the owners of the stocks who wish to have areas closed to allow fish and shellfish stocks to regenerate currently have only 0.006% of UK seas fully protected.

Dredgers are decent people. But if there had never been dredging, there would almost certainly be opportunities for other fisheries, and the seabed would be much healthier, as in Norway.

The Firth of Lorne is closed to dredging, but divers – who harvest scallops without damaging the seabed – can still operate. If an area were closed to all fishing, scallop stocks could rebuild and seed other areas, as happens in the Isle of Man.


Ref (1) Steven Keltz, Nick Bailey (Sarah Heath, ed), Fish and Shellfish Stocks, Crown copyright, 2010. marinescotland science. pp63-66. [link takes you to pdf version for download]

Ref (2) Callum Roberts, The Unnatural History of the Sea: The Past and Future of Humanity and Fishing (Gaia Thinking), Washington/Covelo/London: Shearwater Books/Island Press, 2007.

Ref (3) BD & JS Beuchars-Steward, Principles for the Management of Inshore Scallop Fisheries Around the UK, 2007. [link takes you to quickview of pdf document]

LORN Xmas Market in Benderloch, Dec 2010

Hello again

Check out this video presenting the fantastic local market organised by LORN – Local Origins Rural Network. It's about twenty minutes' drive north of Oban on the west coast of Scotland. High praise is due to chief string puller, Jill Bowis, and her great team of co-pullers, including Mairi Stones, felt craftswoman and talented artist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1r5DXG_Mo8&feature=player_embedded#!

Next market, if you're in the area:
Thursday, 16 December, 2010, 10am-3pm and 5pm-8pm
Victory (village) Hall, Benderloch by Oban, PA37 ... – car park just past the hall, off the A828: turn right into Keil Gardens (after the bus stop), then right again into the car park.
Well worth a visit!

PS: If you're interested in receiving updates on all things LORN, please click here and sign up: http://lorncommunity.ning.com – see you there :)

A debate on scallop harvesting (post no 1): Charles Clover, David Fraser

Charles Clover, The Scalping of Scotland in the Scallop War (Sunday Times, 7 Nov 2010)

News in on 12 November 2010:
Good news for porpoise!!!
It has just been decided that the tangle-net fishery off the West Coast of Scotland (ICES area) is to remain closed for the foreseeable future - the position will be reviewed in Jan 2013.

And a footnote from the other side:
"[… Are you] aware that many of the Isle of Man fishing boats move into our waters while the Irish Sea is closed? Obviously they must be mad fishing in our marine desert for the summer!
I should also point out that the closed areas are not necessarily permanent and may be re-opened when required. They were in fact agreed upon and suggested by the fishing fleet, unlike the ill-advised closure of our own Firth of Lorne.
I have had a successful year fishing in exactly the same places as 30 years ago, returning small scallops alive to catch next year and if that's not sustainable, I don't know what is! […]"
David Fraser, "proven sustainable scallop fisherman and dealer in facts"

An open email on Scallop and Tangle Net fishery management

David Ainsley sent this open letter on 10 Nov 2010 to Richard Lochhead, MSP, Jim Mather, MSP, and Kenneth Gibson, MSP:

Dear Cabinet Secretary,

I refer to the article in the Sunday Times 07.11.10 by Charles Clover [The Scalping of Scotland in the Scallop War]. In this article he expresses concern at "how unhealthily close the Scottish Nationalist administration is to the most over-capitalised, destructive and irresponsible parts of the fishing industry".

The Isle of Man is a model for how fisheries should be managed. It has a network of closed areas to allow scallop stocks to rebuild themselves after years of overfishing. The first closed area has been in place for 20 years and is produces 100 times the number of young scallops per unit area as compared with adjacent fished areas. The closed areas have been seen to be so successful that there are now six of them, designated with the support and involvement of the local fishing industry.

By contrast Scotland's fisheries are poorly managed, with nomadic fleets of dredgers moving into an area, causing a great deal of damage and then repeating the process elsewhere.

It is no surprise that the Isle of Man Administration seeks to protect its waters from some of these boats, as no doubt we would if the positions were reversed.

Voters are becoming aware of the problems caused by overfishing and media attention on the subject will continue to increase.

The loss of fish and shellfish is now so obvious, it is no longer credible to deny that a major problem exists.

Scottish Government represents the interests of all the people of Scotland, who have a public right to fish, and hence a right to call for their fish stocks to be managed sustainably. These interests are not the same as the vested interests of the fishing associations which disproportionately represent the damaging towed gear sector.

Last year at the CFP [EU Common Fisheries Policy] meetings in Brussels, there was a move by Scottish Government to call for the reopening of the tangle net fishery off the West Coast of Scotland. The fishery had been closed as one of the measures under the Cod Recovery Plan. The decision was for the fishery to remain closed and to be reviewed in 12 to 18 months. The inshore fishery targets Crawfish, a heavily overfished species. It also produces high levels of by-catch of porpoise and seals. It is probable that the majority of Scottish voters would not be in support of the reopening of a fishery which earns nobody a living and kills porpoise and seals.
I attach fuller information on the subject [David Ainsley's report: Scottish Porpoise under threat – see below].

Please keep me informed of when the subject will be considered again, and what the Scottish Government position will be.

It is not just fisheries, but the entire ecosystem including iconic wildlife and hence tourism, which flourish when areas are protected.

Yours faithfully,

David Ainsley

[MPJ comments: diver, underwater nature explorer, author of Scottish Porpoise under threat (2010?) – for your own copy of the report, please leave a comment with your co-ordinates on this post and we'll get back to you. Needless to say, we will not publish your details!]

 

*****

PS by MPJ, your blogger:

See also 

• David Jolly, A Dirge for the Bluefin Tuna, 29 Nov 2010

• Frank Pope, Fishermen cheer as stocks of North Sea cod increase by 5 per cent, 27 Jun 2009

• Charles Clover, Whose sea is it anyway?

• Charles Clover, Tuna commission takes limited action to save sharks but fails again to ensure recovery of bluefin tuna, 28 Nov 2010

• Charles Clover, The End of the Line. How overfishing is changing the world and what we eat

Using Sheep's Wool to Insulate Buildings

Sheep's wool is becoming a sought-after insulating material in the sustainable building trade. Here is an example from Guggisberg, a small village at an elevation of 1,115m/3,660ft in the hills about 45 minutes' drive south-west of Bern, the capital of Switzerland. Crofting life is tough in the Guggisberg area, which was a place of emigration until quite recently.

The article was written by Erwin Munter and originally appeared on 2 Nov. 2009 in the Berner Zeitung, one of the Swiss capital's two daily papers. It is available online in German, including a photo of father-and-son team, Gottfried and Ueli Mischler at work:
http://www.ee-news.ch/de/erneuerbare/article/19001/bauernhaus-mit-840-kilo-schafwolle-isoliert, accessed on 24 Oct 2010 (translation by Margret Powell-Joss | www.powelltrans.ch)

****

Berner Zeitung, 2 November 2009
GUGGISBERG

Croft Insulated Using 840 Kilos (1,848 lb) of Sheep's Wool

Gottfried and Ueli Mischler from Guggisberg have insulated their completely refurbished croft using processed sheep's wool. They are in line with the trend.

In the beginning, the Mischlers were a bit wary about using sheep's wool to insulate the completely refurbished living quarters of their 300-year-old farmstead. But not for long: "Sheep's wool insulation initially looked to be more expensive than the more traditional fibreglass or rockwool," says 21-year-old Ueli Mischler. But when using sheep's wool there is no need for a vapour barrier, a thin layer to prevent air and moisture exchange. And costs are offset by the ease of installing the sheets of wool, which moreover pose no risk to the skin. What's more, the insulating wool has been sourced locally. "Many a sheep farmer will be glad not to have to throw away the wool they harvest twice a year," says Ueli Mischler. Hintermholz, his 20 hectare (50 acre) croft lies at the foot of Guggershörnli, 1,291 metres above sea level.*)

A Local Product

The supplier of the insulating material called Woolin is Guggisberg's own Otto Brechbühl. For years he has been campaigning energetically for a meaningful use of new wool. "If you compare sheep's wool to other insulating materials, it will win hands down every time," the 73-year-old states, saying that the natural product can absorb and release large quantities of water vapour, and that it does not become infested with parasites. Mice cannot build nests in it, nor will they eat it. It does have to be treated against moths. New sheep's wool is a living, breathing material. Provided it is installed properly. Young farmer Ueli Mischler has done his homework, researching the material and inspecting several buildings insulated with sheep's wool. Otto Brechbühl hopes that more architects and builders will use sheep's wool. The Guggisberg manufacturer is adamantly opposed to this valuable natural product ending up in refuse bins.

840 Kilos of Wool

To ensure adequate insulation and sound-proofing of the completely refurbished farm house required sheep's wool mats weighing some 840 kilos, plus a few kilos of loose wool to insulate inaccessible nooks and crannies. The father-and-son team began refurbishment work in May and did a significant portion themselves, including masonry and joinery work. The project has progressed well, meaning that the Mischlers can move into their new home by the end of this month.
_________
Sheep's Wool – Active Despite the Crisis
Switzerland is home to some 450,000 sheep that each year produce 900 metric tons of wool, for which there has been no demand, meaning very low prices. About a third of the new wool is collected by refuse lorries. Marketing a product that is obtained twice yearly is barely worth the effort. One man who has been campaigning for years to make good use of new wool is 73-year-old Otto Brechbühl from Guggisberg. In 2008 he bought over 40 metric tons of shearings, which an Austrian company washed and carded for him. eml
_________

See also
Low Energy House - Sheeps Wool Insulation - Sustainable Insulation at http://www.lowenergyhouse.com/sheeps-wool.html
and
Centre for Alternative Technology at
http://info.cat.org.uk/questions/energy-conservation/can-i-use-my-own-sheeps-wool-insulation
and
The British Wool Marketing Board at
http://www.britishwool.org.uk/index_main.asp
all accessed on 24 Oct 2010.


*) Translator's note: The Guggershörnli is a steep-sided crag rising to 1,283 metres (4,210 ft). Walkers enjoy its easy accessibility – a 30-minute walk and short climb of sturdy wooden steps – to take in the unique views of the Alps, the Jura mountains and, on a clear day, the lakes of the Swiss Mittelland (see also http://www.myswitzerland.com/en/destinations/nature-travel-experiencing-nature/switzerland-parks/naturepark-activities/guggershoernli-360-panorama.html, accessed on 24 Oct 2010).

OLI Conference in Oban

Oban Lorn and The Isles Conference, 'Forward Together' – 15th May 2010

Hi there

I've just come back from a Community Consultation event at Oban High School fthat brought together 60 individuals attending out of their own personal interest but also representing various community groups, the Council and public institutions. The purpose was to find out what local services are needed in the Oban, Lorn and the Isles area, and how the ever scarcer funding is to be allocated.
You may have seen the article announcing it in the Oban Times (6 May, p. 2).

Participants were given the opportunity to explore ideas in four different workshops:
i) Health & Wellbeing
ii) Transport
iii) Economic & Community Development
iv) Local Development (rural/island 'hubs'; Oban town centre)

In the final part, there was voting on two top priorities in each of the four thematic areas.

Young people receive hands-on education about solar energy

Hi folks

Here's something that Scotland and its government(s) could emulate -- just in from Greenpeace Switzerland (original in German, translation by yours truly):

Welcome to YouthSolarProject


In 1998 the JugendSolarProjekt (JSP – YouthSolarProject) of Greenpeace Switzerland began to embark on new approaches to environmental education. Guided by the catchphrase "Actions are better than words", we have involved young people in the installation of solar plants on top of public buildings and/or social institutions. So far, over 10,000 young people have helped to install over 175 solar plants.

Today, Greenpeace Switzerland's YouthSolarProject (JSP) proudly presents its biggest solar energy project so far. For the past two weeks, apprentices from all over Switzerland installed a photovoltaic plant in Melchnau BE. With a surface area of 1,885 sqm, it is currently the country's biggest rooftop installation.

The project clearly looks to the future of energy supplies. A roof no longer simply provides weather protection – it is a power plant that produces a great deal more energy than is required for the actual building itself. The photovoltaic installation in Melchnau will produce enough electricity for 65 households.

A Swissolar study has shown that simply by making consistent use of appropriate rooftops, one third of the electricity needs of Switzerland can be met by solar energy. The transition to renewable energy is not a technological issue – it is a political decision to stand firm against producers of energy that has a negative impact on our climate.

This is the mission of Greenpeace and its YouthSolarProject. The time is ripe. Technologies are available. Switzerland can afford to invest into sustainable energy supplies. Join us in the fight for a sunny future – please support our work and the energy revolution.

Doors open to the YouthSolarProject and the photovoltaic plant in Melchnau BE
on 29th and 30th May, 2010 – come and see us!