Towards the end of last year, Norwegian newspapers reported the retrieval of one set of lost gill nets containing 20 dead porpoises. For those who enjoy the sight and sound of these animals in a quiet fjord, such news is very sad. Claire Armstrong, Huu-Luat Do and Roger Larsen from the Norwegian College of Fishery Science, UiT, The Arctic University of Norway, evaluate fisher perceptions of ghost fishing and their willingness to turn to biodegradable gear.
Some lost fishing gear is never reported to authorities, despite Norwegian regulations requiring this, and some reported losses are never located. Ghost fishing – the continued fishing of lost fishing gear – is gaining increasing attention in research and development. This is due to potential consequences for marine mammals, but also because of continued mortality for commercially-valuable fish and their prey, as well as the contribution to plastic pollution in the ocean.
Additionally, fish mortality from ghost fishing is infrequently accounted for in fisheries management. This can create inaccuracy in the development of population and stock assessment models. Since ghost fishing reduces the potential fish production, it can affect the whole fisheries sector negatively.
To address this problem, the fishers themselves, who are closest to the issue, could actively participate. In the Dsolve project, led by the Norwegian College of Fisheries at UiT, The Arctic University of Norway, we conducted surveys among more than 900 Norwegian fishers.
When asked about the causes of lost fishing gear, accidents topped the list, closely followed by the type of seabed, poor design and strength of the gear, type of fishing gear, human error and bad weather. This raises questions about possible ways to organise fishing activities to reduce the loss of fishing gear.
Furthermore, this should interest fishers, as around half of them believed that lost gear contributes to ghost fishing to a large or very large extent, affecting the long-term yields of fisheries.
Fisher’s perceptions
We examined fishers’ perspectives on possible solutions to problems associated with lost gear. One possible solution is so-called “biodegradable” fishing gear. This is fishing gear made of materials that break down more quickly if lost. Such gear is still under development but could reduce ghost fishing and plastic pollution from lost fishing gear.
In the survey, only 65% of fishermen had heard of biodegradable fishing gear. Of those who had heard of such gear, over 60% expected that biodegradable fishing gear would increase costs, which is correct given the current limited quantity of such materials.
Economic theory recommends taxes that influence our behaviour in a more socio-economically optimal direction. We therefore asked how fishers feel about the introduction of taxes on current plastic and harmful fishing gear, thus encouraging the use of biodegradable gear.
Nearly 80% of the fishers familiar with such gear either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the introduction of such taxes. Over 50% of these fishers were also negative to increased regulation of existing non-biodegradable gear.
Measures to mitigate harmful effects
Since 1983, the Norwegian Fisheries Directorate has conducted annual clean-up expeditions to retrieve lost gear, and significant amounts have been recovered, totalling more than 1,000 tonnes of lost fishing gear, including close to 24,000 gillnets (>700 km). Last year, there was a retrieval record for catches, including 1,339 gillnets (40 km). However, this is a resource-intensive approach to reducing the amount of lost fishing gear in the sea, further complicated when fishers do not report lost gear.
Fishers in the survey were therefore asked why they believed some colleagues choose not to report lost gear. At the top of the list was negligence, or that fishers do not care. This was closely followed by the fear of consequences or punishment for reporting. This is surprising, given that there are no negative consequences for reporting lost gear in Norway, but rather a requirement in Norwegian fisheries regulations for such reporting. The third most common reason given for avoiding reporting was cost, followed by the time and effort required to report.
These answers provide information to authorities regarding possible measures. One aspect is securing more knowledge about the requirement for reporting lost gear and the consequences of failure to report. Furthermore, it is important for fishers to understand that there is no punishment associated with reporting lost gear and that in the Norwegian system they use the same portal where they report entangled gear.
It should be noted that if fishers are correct about their colleagues, a change in attitude among fishers regarding the loss of fishing gear is needed. A change in attitude can result from more knowledge about the damage and cost caused by one’s negligence. However, the free-rider problem is difficult to solve – “as long as my negligence costs me little, I have little incentive to do anything about it”.
Here, it may be wise to learn a lesson from earlier Norwegian and other countries’ policy implementation. If harmful behaviour does not decrease, strict laws often follow. The smoking ban is an example of this. Taxes and campaigns did not have sufficient effect, resulting in strong regulation of smoking in public places worldwide, with subsequent costs for, amongst others, the hospitality industry. Addressing a problem early can often be more effective and cost less than reacting to later regulations.
