Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T00:04:15.246Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using discards not destined for human consumption

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2013

STEPHEN C MANGI  and
THOMAS L. CATCHPOLE
STEPHEN C MANGI*
Affiliation:
Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, 55 Briseham Road, Brixham TQ5 9NX, UK
THOMAS L. CATCHPOLE
Affiliation:
Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, Pakefield Road, Lowestoft NR33 0HT, UK
*
*Correspondence: Dr Stephen Mangi Tel: +44 1803 858636 e-mail: stephen.mangi@cefas.co.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) reforms agreed by European Union (EU) ministers include a discard ban where fishers will be required to land all fish they catch. The ban is expected to reduce the risk of capturing unwanted and low-value biomass species, and therefore should make fishing more environmentally and economically sustainable. The implications of introducing a discards ban may be gauged by assessing the practical and economic issues surrounding whether discards not destined for human consumption can be used once landed. Interviews with company managers established the attitude of the main commercial outlets towards suitability of, and interest in using discards. Results indicate that opportunities for using discards include reduction to fishmeal and fish oil, ensiling, composting, anaerobic digestion with energy recovery, and freezing (prior to use as bait). In the UK, nine main outlets expressed interest in using discards as raw materials to process into animal, pet and aqua feed; organic fertilizer; frozen bait; and other products, such as renewable energy generation. Estimates of discard quantities from English fleets show that most of the outlets are not located close to the main landing ports where the discards would likely come ashore. However, most outlets have extensive established transport links, which would enable them to cover even the remote ports. Preliminary analysis on cost of discarding shows that a discard ban will lead to increases in annual operating costs for fishers ranging from GB£ 1709–90 959 yr−1 (£1 = US$ 1.52, May 2013). Assuming that discards are processed for fishmeal, fetching c. GB£ 130 t−1, then majority of the fishers will make losses in their fishing operations. Such losses could lead fishers to adopt more selective gears in order to avoid catching unwanted species and thereby help conserve the marine environment. Finding potential uses for discards is important in the context of the proposed land-all catch policy under the reformed CFP, but the primary goal of government should be to prevent the capture of unwanted fish.

Keywords

CFP reformdiscard bandiscard use opportunitiesfisheriesfishmealperceptionsselective fishing
Type
Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 41 , Issue 3 , September 2014 , pp. 290 - 301
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aarts, G. & Poos, J.J. (2009) Comprehensive discard reconstruction and abundance estimation using flexible selectivity functions. ICES Journal of Marine Science 66: 763–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ames, R.T., Leaman, B.M. & Ames, K.L. (2007) Evaluation of video technology for monitoring of multi-species longline catches. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 27: 955–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anseeuw, D., Moreau, K., Vandemaele, S. & Vandendriessche, S. (2008) Discarding in beam trawl fisheries: quantification and reduction (preliminary results). Report. ILVO, Oostende, Belgium.Google Scholar
Arnason, R. (1994) On catch discarding in fisheries. Marine Resource Economics 9: 189–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergmann, M., Wieczorek, S.K., Moore, P.G. & Atkinson, R.J.A. (2002) Discards composition of the Nephrops fishery in the Clyde Sea area. Scotland Fisheries Research 57: 169–183.Google Scholar
Campbell, R., Harcus, T., Weirmana, D., Fryer, R.J., Kynoch, R.J. & O'Neill, F.G. (2010) The reduction of cod discards by inserting 300 mm diamond mesh netting in the forward sections of a trawl gear. Fisheries Research 102: 221–226.Google Scholar
Catchpole, T.L., Enever, R., Maxwell, D.L., Armstrong, M.J., Reese, A. & Revill, A.S. (2011) Constructing indices to detect temporal trends in discarding. Fisheries Research 107: 94–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Catchpole, T.L, Frid, C.L.J. & Gray, T.S. (2005) Discards in North Sea fisheries: causes, consequences and solutions. Marine Policy 29: 421–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Catchpole, T.L., Revill, A.S. & Dunlin, G. (2006) An assessment of the Swedish grid and square-mesh codend in the English (Farn Deeps) Nephrops fishery. Fisheries Research 81: 118–125.Google Scholar
Catchpole, T.L., Tidd, A.N., Kell, L.T., Revill, A.S. & Dunlin, G. (2007) The potential for new Nephrops trawl designs to positively affect North Sea stocks of cod, haddock and whiting. Fisheries Research 86: 262–267.Google Scholar
Catchpole, T.L., van Keeken, O., Gray, T. & Piet, G. (2008) The discard problem: a comparative analysis of two fisheries: The English Nephrops fishery and the Dutch beam trawl fishery. Ocean and Coastal Management 51: 772–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cefas (2010) Project 50%: Devon beam trawlermen reduce discarded juvenile fish by over 50%. Cefas Project Report: 34 pp. [www document]. URL http://cefas.defra.gov.uk/media/433833/project_50_printed_final_report.pdf Google Scholar
Cappell, R. (2001) Economic aspects of discarding. UK case study: discarding by North Sea whitefish trawlers. Report. Nautilus Consultants Ltd, UK: 104 pp. [www document]. http://www.eurocbc.org/UKdiscards01.pdf Google Scholar
Condie, H.M., Grant, A. & Catchpole, T.L. (2013) Incentivising selective fishing under a policy to ban discards; lessons from Europe and global fisheries. Marine Policy (in press) [www document]. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.09.001i Google Scholar
Christensen, V., Guenette, S., Heymans, J.J., Walters, C.J., Watson, R., Zeller, D. & Pauly, D. (2003) Hundred-year decline of North Atlantic predatory fishes. Fish and Fisheries 4: 1–24.Google Scholar
Curtis, H. & Brodie, C. (2011) 2009 Economic Survey of the UK Fishing Fleet. Seafish Report, Seafish, Edinburgh, UK: 112 pp. [www document]. URL http://www.seafish.org/media/Publications/2009_Fleet_Economic_Short_Report_Final_6May11.pdf Google Scholar
Depestele, J., Polet, H., Van Craeynest, K. & Vandendriessche, S. (2008) A compilation of length and species selectivity improving alterations to beam trawls. Report. ILVO (Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research), Oostende, Belgium.Google Scholar
Diamond, B. & Beukers-Stewart, B.D. (2011) Fisheries discards in the North Sea: waste of resources or a necessary evil? Reviews in Fisheries Science 19: 231–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drewery, J., Bova, D., Kynoch, R.J., Edridge, A., Fryer, R.J. & O'Neill, F.G. (2010) The selectivity of the Swedish grid and 120 mm square mesh panels in the Scottish Nephrops trawl fishery. Fisheries Research 106: 454–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eigaard, O.R., Herrmann, B. & Nielsen, J.R. (2012) Influence of grid orientation and time of day on grid sorting in a small-meshed trawl fishery for Norway pout (Trisopterus esmarkii) . Aquatic Living Resources 25: 15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enever, R., Revill, A. & Grant, A. (2007) Discarding in the English Channel, Western approaches, Celtic and Irish seas (ICES subarea VII). Fisheries Research 86: 143–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enever, R., Revill, A.S., Caslake, R. & Grant, A. (2010) Discard mitigation increases skate survival in the Bristol Channel. Fisheries Research 102: 9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enever, R., Revill, A.S. & Grant, A. (2009) Discarding in the North Sea and on the historical efficacy of gear-based technical measures in reducing discards. Fisheries Research 95: 40–46.Google Scholar
European Commission (2013) Questions and answers on the new, reformed Common Fisheries Policy European Commission. European Commission MEMO/13/482 30/05/2013 [www document]. URL http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-482_en.htm Google Scholar
EU (2009) Regulation (EC) no 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (Animal by-products Regulation) [www document]. URL http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:300:0001:0033:EN:PDF Google Scholar
EU (2011) Commission regulation (EU) No 142/2011 of 25 February 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and implementing Council Directive 97/78/EC as regards certain samples and items exempt from veterinary checks at the border under that Directive [www document]. URL http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:054:0001:0254:EN:PDF Google Scholar
Eustace, B., Kelly, C.J., Jackson, E.H., & Rihan, D. (2007) Technical measures can be shown by experiment to reduce the capture of unwanted fish, but can we see the effect on the stock in a stochastic world? Report. ICES, Palaegade 2–4, DK 1261 Copenhagen, Denmark: 13 pp.Google Scholar
Evans, R., Molony, B., Australia, W. & Fisheries, W.A. (2011) Pilot evaluation of the efficacy of electronic monitoring on a demersal gillnet vessel as an alternative to human observers. Report. Fisheries Research Division, Western Australian Fisheries and Marine Research Laboratories, Australia.Google Scholar
Fernandes, P.G, Coull, K., Davis, C., Clark, P., Catarino, R., Bailey, N., Fryer, R. & Pout, A., (2011) Observations of discards in the Scottish mixed demersal trawl fishery. ICES Journal of Marine Science 68: 1734–1742.Google Scholar
Graham, N., O'Neill, F.G., Fryer, R.J., Galbraith, R.D. & Myklebust, A. (2004) Selectivity of a 120 mm diamond cod-end and the effect of inserting a rigid grid or a square mesh panel. Fisheries Research 67: 151–161.Google Scholar
Greenstreet, S.P.R., Spence, F.E. & McMillan, J.A. (1999) Fishing effects in northeast Atlantic shelf seas: patterns in fishing effort, diversity and community structure. V. Changes in structure of the North Sea groundfish species assemblage between 1925 and 1996. Fisheries Research 40: 153–183.Google Scholar
Hall, S.J. & Mainprize, B.M. (2005) Managing by-catch and discards: how much progress are we making and how can we do better? Fish and Fisheries 6: 134–155.Google Scholar
Harris, R. R. & Ulmestrand, M. (2004) Discarding Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) through low salinity layers: mortality and damage seen in simulation experiments. ICES Journal of Marine Science 61: 127–139.Google Scholar
Holst, R., Ferro, R.S.T., Krag, L.A., Kynoch, R.J. & Madsen, N. (2009) Quantification of species selectivity by using separating devices at different locations in two whitefish demersal trawls. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 66: 2052–2061.Google Scholar
ICES (2003) Report of the Advisory Committee on Fishery Management. Report ICES CM 2003/MCAP: 01. ICES, Palægade 2–4, DK-1261 Copenhagen, Denmark: 18 pp.Google Scholar
Jennings, S., Greenstreet, S. & Reynolds, J. (1999) Structural changes in an exploited fish community: a consequence of differential fishing effects on species with contrasting life histories. Journal of Animal Ecology 68: 617–627.Google Scholar
Kelleher, K. (2005) Discards in the world's marine fisheries: an update. Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 470. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy: 131 pp.Google Scholar
Kindt-Larsen, L, Kirkegaard, E. & Dalskov, J. (2011) Fully documented fishery: a tool to support a catch quota management system. ICES Journal of Marine Science 68: 1606–1610.Google Scholar
Loaec, H., Morandeau, F., Meillat, M. & Davies, P. (2006) Engineering development of flexible selectivity grids for Nephrops. Fisheries Research 79: 210–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madsen, N., Skeide, R., Breen, M., Krag, L.A., Huse, I. & Soldal, A.V. (2008) Selectivity in a trawl codend during haul-back operation: an overlooked phenomenon. Fisheries Research 9: 168–174.Google Scholar
MMO (2012) Catch quota trials 2011. Final report April 2012. Report. Marine Management Organization: 33 pp. [www document]. URL http://www.marinemanagement.org.uk/fisheries/management/documents/quotas/cqt_final.pdf Google Scholar
Nelson, S. (2009) Project 50 percent. A Cefas project to reduce discards amongst Devon beam trawlers by 50%. Social Marketing Research Report 2009, Corporate Culture, London, UK: 20 pp.Google Scholar
Poos, J.J., Bogaards, J.A., Quirijns, F.J., Gillis, D.M. & Rijnsdorp, A.D. (2010) Individual quotas, fishing effort allocation and over-quota discarding in mixed fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science 67: 323–333.Google Scholar
Revill, A., Dunlin, G. & Holst, R. (2006) Selective properties of the cutaway trawl and several other commercial trawls used in the Farne Deeps North Sea Nephrops fishery. Fisheries Research 81: 268–275.Google Scholar
Revill, A.S. & Jennings, S. (2005) The capacity of benthos release panels to reduce the impacts of beam trawls on benthic communities. Fisheries Research 75: 73–85.Google Scholar
Rihan, D.J. & McDonnell, J. (2003) Protecting spawning cod in the Irish Sea through the use of an inclined separator panel in Nephrops trawls. Report. ICES, Palaegade 2–4, DK 1261 Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
Valentinsson, D. & Ulmestrand, M. (2008) Species-selective Nephrops trawling: Swedish grid experiments. Fisheries Research 90: 109–117.Google Scholar