We know the seabed threatens trawlermen with mustard gas shells dumped after the war. Yet fishermen have now presented themselves with a serious problem of their own making. The number of lost and abandoned nets and pots which keep on "fishing" after the boats have gone home. - When the fishing industry started using synthetic materials for gear, some 50 years ago, few thought that one day their indestructibility would become a killing machine and a ''noisy'' environmental problem. Of course, this is exactly what has happened.
Where a fishing vessel deploys driftnets or bottom-set gillnets and then leaves them unattended, some of them get lost, especially where the fishing takes place under difficult bottom and weather conditions. These nets then may become long-term, robotic 'ghost fishermen', catching and of course retaining fish and so causing wasteful mortality. Similarly, although less damaging, are lost crab, fish and lobster pots and trawlnets lost on fasteners.
Some fishermen keep only the lines of badly damaged nets, and dump the netting at sea. There is growing evidence that an enormous amount of netting is routinely dumped or discarded. Further, we don't really know how long such nets continue with their ghastly fishing.
A decade ago, several European institutes joined forces to carry out research into the issue of 'ghost net fishing'. The project was given the name 'Fantared' after Spanish term redes fantasmas (phantom nets).
The latest research, the Fantared 2, has landed on my desk, made up of 17 contributions from seven European institutes from the UK, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Portugal, France and Finland.
Getting the figures right
The overall objective of Fantared 2 was to identify, quantify, and ameliorate the impacts of static gear lost in European waters. Additionally, in view of the often-exaggerated campaigns by various pressure groups and their demands, the report attempts to present a balanced picture, based on real data and objective information. The marine remit of the report covered fisheries in the Northeast Atlantic Ocean, from Norway all the way to the French Mediterranean. Something worth noting in terms of scientific/fishing industry collaboration is that each participating institute was advised by a group of folk from the industry.
Fantared's research highlights the background which leads to 'ghost fishing' incidence. For example, some 20-25 vessels are gillnetting for monkfish and deep water sharks on the NE Atlantic continental slopes to the west of the British Isles at depths between 200 and 1200 metres. Each vessel deploys 3,500-5,000 nets of 50m (175km-250km), in fleets of up to 60km long. They often only having surface markers at one end.
Fantared estimates the total amount of nets simultaneously trying to catch fish at between 5,800km and 8,700km. The gear may also be left in place while the vessels go to land their catches. Operations on this scale and in this fashion mean the potential for large losses of gear are going to be difficult to avoid.
According to Fantared's findings, ghost fishing in inshore fisheries (water depths up to 200m) is not a big problem. The life of lost nets was limited and their catch levels were very low compared to discards by trawlers. On the other hand significant problems were identified in the slope fisheries starting at 400m depths, hence the need for retrieval and mitigation measures.
Hoist by their own petard
Also in some areas conflict with towed gears -- and consequent levels of gear loss -- was high and ghost fishing was a serious economic issue for fishermen that needs to be addressed. What may compound the situation is that there are no limitations on the length of gear, soak time or even rules on the marking of gillnets. We know that the longer the fish are left 'soaking' in the net before being brought on board the more value is lost because quality deteriorates. The large amounts of gear lost, coupled with the suspicion that there is widespread, deliberate dumping of nets in this fishery, may be due to excessive soak times and gear lengths.
At a March 2002 workshop, scientists, gear technologists and fishermen from each participating country discussed the findings and options for future concerted efforts, and recommendations on a range of mitigation strategies were agreed between the research teams and fishermen's associations.
The ghostbuster's guide
After browsing through Fantared's conclusions and recommendations, I have pulled out some which the industry, both philosophically and literally, might 'take on board' to help produce practical solutions to an invisible problem.
1. Research and industry cooperation
2. New code of good practice
3. Reduce dumping, legalise landing of static gear 'picked-up' by trawlers;
4. To lessen net loss, lower the level of gear conflict, through promoting effort management by zoning. This can be achieved by allocating separate fishing grounds to static and towed fishing gear and also by promoting voluntary agreements between the various sectors
5. Continue research on gear conflicts, including simulations of static and towed gear interactions
6. Learn from the Norwegian experience of targeted retrievals of lost nets in deep water which requires that the position of the lost gear should be promptly reported
7. Promote tagging of gear and various technical means, such as use of thinner leadlines, larger bottom staples, higher hanging ratios, the use of degradable materials and special creeping gear for retrieval of lost nets.
The Canadians have introduced a 'code of conduct for responsible fishing operations', which includes: the use of radar reflectors on market poles; buoy lines at least 1.5 times the length of the depth; carrying retrieval gear on board and start searching for lost gear immediately; tending to nets at least every 48 hrs inshore and 72 hrs offshore.
Fantared says precautionary measures are the most effective. The problem remains that few of the available options for mitigating "ghost fishing" are both cost-effective and acceptable to fishermen.
