The Issue
One fisher talking about his lost fishing gear
explained, "It isn't lost, I know where it is!" The
problem was that he could not retrieve it from the
bottom of the sea. Fishing gear can become "lost"
due to marker buoys cut by passing vessels or by
trawl or seine warps breaking during the fishing
process. In some cases, fishing vessels must cut
gear adrift for safety reasons in very bad weather
conditions. Given that the loss of fishing gear
under these circumstances represent a financial
loss to the operator, it is more than likely that
an attempt will be made to recover it. Under
current practices, the amount of time and effort
spent retrieving gear is related to its value, the
probability of recovery and the opportunity cost of
carrying on fishing.
Abandoned fishing gear, on the other hand,
implies that the gear has no financial value to the
fisher and that leaving it in the sea is a
convenient means of disposal for the careless and
irresponsible fisher. However, this practice
breaches the International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL).
The FAO Recommendations for the Marking of Fishing
Gear provides legal and technical measures that can
be taken by national administrations to ensure that
the abandonment of fishing gear is minimized.
The fishing industry has a vested interest in
pledging that lost and abandoned fishing gear in
the sea is kept to a minimum. What is considered an
issue of pollution to the environmentalist becomes
a matter of life or death to the fisher if such
gear becomes entangled in the propeller of his
fishing vessel. For this reason, most responsible
fishers retrieve such lost and abandoned gear where
possible and, if worthless, dispose of it
ashore.
In addition to the pollution aspect, lost or
abandoned gear can continue fishing, long out of
the fisher's control. Such an uncontrolled,
unproductive process is known as "ghost fishing"
and the extent and time it continues depends on the
type of fishing gear. Quantifying the loss of
marine resources due to "ghost fishing" is
difficult to estimate, but several studies on
static gears have shown it to be about 10% of the
target population.
In view of the above, the FAO Code of Conduct
of Responsible Fisheries refers directly to the
harmful effects of lost or abandoned fishing gear.
The Code specifies:
- 7.2.2g: Such measures (i.e. management
measures) should provide inter alia that
... pollution, waste, discards, catch by lost or
abandoned gear, catch of non-target species,
both fish and non- fish species, and impacts on
associated or dependent species are minimized,
through measures including, to the extent
practicable, the development and use of
selective, environmentally safe and
cost-effective fishing gear and techniques.
- 7.6.9: States should take appropriate
measures to minimize waste, discards, catch by
lost or abandoned gear, catch of non-target
species, both fish and non-fish species, and
negative impacts on associated or dependent
species, in particular endangered
species...
- 8.4.6: States should cooperate to develop
and apply technologies, materials and
operational methods that minimize the loss of
fishing gear and the ghost fishing effects of
lost or abandoned fishing gear.
Action to be taken
Quantifying the gear loss
problem
Action to be taken by national administrations
to reduce the effects of gear loss and abandonment
would be to initially quantify the problem. Given
that artisanal fishers in most countries use
passive fishing gear such as driftnets, setnets,
traps and pots, it would be wrong to say that the
problem does not exist. The question is, to what
extent? Therefore, the first point to examine would
be to estimate the amount of gear being purchased
by fishers within a country and the number of
fishers. An administration could then consider
system to implement.
Surveying for lost and abandoned fishing
gear
If a problem is believed to be present, a survey
could be carried out to estimate the extent. For
driftnets this is a relatively easy albeit
time-consuming task if a suitable vessel is
available. By visually searching the sea over a
given area one can estimate the amount of nets
drifting and adjust this figure to the total
area.
Nets along the shore are an aesthetic eyesore
and could point to an environmental hazard.
However, it is a poor measure of the extent of the
problem because the material could have been
accumulated over a long period and could have been
brought to shore by currents from thousand of miles
away. In the absence of a worldwide marking system,
an accurate assessment is improbable. Furthermore,
there is also the possibility that currents take
lost or abandoned gear away from an area where a
problem exists.
For set nets, traps and pots, the best method to
survey a specific area for lost or abandoned gear
is with underwater video cameras, e.g. mounted in a
remote controlled underwater observation vehicle as
used by the offshore gas and oil industry (note
that for scuba divers, swimming near entangling
nets is extremely dangerous). However, long
observation periods might be needed before any
sighting is obtained of one instance of a net or
trap actually ghost fishing. This in itself could
be an indication of the extent of the problem.
A quick analysis on paper of lost gillnets and
traps (there are not many) would give an average of
about 10% of all fishing gear lost in one year.
This average hides extremes such as those found in
the Lesser Antilles or in the Bay of Bengal where
hurricanes or tidal waves can result in a loss of
nearly 100% of static fishing gear.
Port administrations should ensure that
reception facilities are available for the ready
disposal of disused fishing gear and other wastes
from vessels. Small-scale fishing communities
should also be encouraged to recycle nylon and
synthetic nets, using the proceeds for the benefit
of the community.
|
