The Faroe Islands revisited
Last July I had the pleasure of revisiting Foroyar (the Faroese name for the Faroe Islands) and talking to its fishermen, industry representatives, and scientists. I found there a lively discussion as to whether the fishing effort across its EEZ should be reduced.
Foroyar is a beautiful country of rugged, green landscapes, numerous islands and bays, sea channels and natural harbours. Set amongst some of the richest Atlantic fishing grounds, its 50,000 population operate fisheries which land some 500,000 tonnes of fish annually – a world record in catch per capita. The Danish crown bonds Foroyar to Denmark; nonetheless it enjoys considerable autonomy.
During 1994-95, the Faroese fisheries have been managed by the quota system, introduced as a result of Denmark’s pressure and local compliance. The Faroese people, however, soon perceived both the operation and consequences of this system as leading towards economic, social and, with over 90% of the country’s foreign trade coming from fishing, a national debacle. Consequently, the Faroese government decided to get rid of the quota system. The price to pay was leaving the EU system which, as it now appears, was hardly a mistake.
Fishing days approach
Thus, as from 1st of June 1996, the current effort management system was implemented. Accordingly, fishing days (DAS) are allocated to all fleets fishing on less than 380m depth, for the period 1st September–31st August. In addition, the majority of the shallow areas of less than 200m depth are closed for trawling, and allocated to passive gear, mainly longliners and jiggers. During spawning time, most cod spawning areas are closed for nearly all fishing gears. Fishing days are tradeable and exchangeable, but only within groups of vessels licensed for the same fishing method.
The Faroese common-sense management, and in particular the wise decision to part with the EU’s CFP and its quota systems, have made a considerable impression on Atlantic fishermen. Comparison of the continually reduced TACs during the last 10 years, and the increasing landings of the Faroese fisheries during that period, humbles the ICES “scientific” advice. Evidently, the opposite advice of the independent Icelandic scientist, Jon Kristjansson, was much better.
Longlining, pair trawling and jigging (automated handlining) are the principal fishing methods. Normally, longliners catch more or less similar percentages of cod and haddock, or more cod than haddock. During the last two years, however, they have caught more haddock than cod, and plenty of it. The jiggers keep catching mainly cod, because haddock has never shown any tendency to bite their lures.
Trawlers are taking large, unprecedented amounts of saithe, with some cod and haddock bycatch. ICES cod landings and recruitment data show almost regular fluctuations of about 8-11 years. Haddock’s stock also fluctuate, but less regularly. Nowadays, especially according to fishermen, saithe blooms, haddock is plentiful, though seems to grow slow, with only cod catches down. So, what’s the current management recommendation the Faroese Fisheries Minister is getting? Reduce effort in those fisheries, which are taking cod. Sounds familiar doesn’t it?
The so-predictable recommendation is based on several basic assumptions; the main, ICES-supported one, is that maintaining a big mass of spawners provides a lot of recruitment and vice-versa. But the data do not show such association. In fact, as Jon Kristjansson had demonstrated, the numbers of cod spawners and the recruitment of cod on the Faroe plateau during the 1961-2004 period fluctuate in opposite phases, and it’s the small spawning stock that produces large recruitment.
Another assumption is that the figures on which management recommendations are based are sufficiently precise. But, as several scientists associated with ICES privately agree, catch statistics may be poor, especially throughout the quota-managed fisheries, and catch estimates therefore unreliable. Also, most sampled catches are taken with fishing methods which are selective to a greater or lesser degree, and the methods of ageing fish are usually associated with some degree of uncertainty.
In addition, the absolutely unknown factor of natural mortality in a fished stock, usually assumed to be 17-20%, is an arbitrary, not scientifically verified, figure traditionally applied for almost 100 years. On top of all these “shaky pillars” of the stock assessment methodology come all the environmental factors that should be accounted for, but at best are getting scholarly lip service.
All this means that the most important input parameters introduce several uncertainties in the models calculating biomass and production, with other parameters missing. Also, echosounding survey accuracies vacillate by tens of percent either way. Thus in most cases stock and TAC assessments lack any accuracy.
Weaker species management?
Another highly questionable basic assumption is that a non-selective fishery taking more than one species, such as the Faroese cod-and-haddock longlining fishery, should be managed by the weaker species despite the fact that wherever competition between such species is a serious probability, such a strategy may be counter-productive.
Imagine a fishery which takes both cod and haddock, being forced to reduce effort so as to reduce the capture of the lagging cod even if the haddock stock is very well thank you. With such management, it probably would be the dominant species, in this case the large population of haddock, that would benefit from the reduction in effort, making cod’s recovery even more difficult. All the more so, in view of the evidence that, at various stages of their life, cod and haddock indeed feed on similar organisms, and even on each other.
There are also lesser assumptions in “calculating” stock and TAC figures used in management recommendations. I found, in a recent ICES document on Faroese haddock stock, such a phrase: “linearity in the relationship between fishing effort and fishing mortality has been assumed”. Linearity between fishing effort (say, days at sea) and fishing mortality (catch) means that the catch increases and decreases with effort at a constant rate. Such assumption is as close to nonsense as any.
The Faroese fishing industry is rightly questioning the wisdom behind the recent recommendations.
