The rights and wrongs of decomissioning

This forum is for general discussion related to Angling. Areas covered would include Media Reports, Conservation Issues and the promotion of the sport.

Moderators: kieran, jd, Tanglerat, teacher

The rights and wrongs of decomissioning

Postby Andy Elliott » Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:05 am

For some years now, governments worldwide, including our own, have been using decommisioning suppsedly as a method of reducing catching capacity by removing boats from the fishing fleet. Or at least, that is the stated objective. So why do we still have larger catching capacity than fish stocks can bear? Have we not decommissioned enough? And what exactly is decommisioning anyway?

Decomissioning a fishing vessel is supposed to mean that it is removed from the fishery and no longer will play any part in the fleet's or country's catching capacity. In essence, fishermen are paid to retire their boat. However, in the past what has happened is that boats may have been retired from a country's fleet but were sold on to another country, where they were promptly redeployed to catching again. We saw this happen with decommisioned UK boats which we sold here. So globally, some fishermen got paid to stop fishing, but the boats themselves carried right on. A bit of a waste of money, you'd agree. Another subsidy to the commercial fishing industry, another waste of taxpayer's money.

[img]http://www.fornaes.dk/images/firmaet/vedkaj.jpg[/img]


WHile decommisioning is one tool supposed to reduce a country's fleet as part of a global curb on overcapacity in the catching sector, it's not the only one. We have another excellent home-grown example of this. When the Atlantic Dawn was to be added to the Irish register, the EU pointed out rather quickly that we were already over capacity and refused to allow her to be added to the fleet. After a bit of panicking and running around, a solution was found. One of the owner's other boats, the Veronica, was removed from the Irish register to make way for the Atlantic Dawn. And everybody was then happy. Rules seen to be obeyed and all that. All they had to do was reflag the Veronica as a Panamanian vessel and get back to sea. A neat trick, you'll agree, sailing under a flag of convenience. Before you all rush to register your cars in Panama to avoid tax, the need for a regular NCT, etc., I regret to inform you that it only works for fishing boats. So the net result was not so much a regularisation of the Irish catching capacity as a jump in global catching capacity of 300 tons per day.
[img]http://www.fornaes.dk/images/firmaet/egenkaj.jpg[/img]

Having digressed a bit, let's return to decommissioning. Now, suppose that decomissioning was done a little better and the boat was actually broken up and scrapped. Nothing stops the owner and beneficiary of the government largesse that is decomissioning grants reinvesting their windfall in a newer, more efficient catching machine, which is what happens with depressing regularity. They might as well just call it an upgrade grant. Before you all rush to apply for a grant and pour your cars full of concrete or saw them in half; again, only available to fishing vessels, sorry. You may be beginning to suspect that this decommissioning thing is a bit of a joke. It is. And the joke's on you. Your taxes go to fund it.

[img]http://www.fornaes.dk/images/firmaet/gardop.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.fornaes.dk/images/firmaet/skrogkaj.jpg[/img]


So, is decommissioning not a suitable tool for fisheries management? Well, like any tool, if it's not used correctly, the result will be less than perfect. There are a number of minor changes that would be required to get this system back on track.

The first is, if a boat is to be decommisionned, do it right. Make sure it can never fish again. Anywhere. There are any numbers of ways to do this. Some can even directly enhance fish stocks, angling and diving activities and the marine environment. One option is to fill with stones, concrete etc after a thorough clean out of any hazardous material and then sink it to create an artificial reef. Another might be to cut it up for scrap if steel hulled. Or convert into a houseboat if a suitable size and design. Could some be converted to research or protection vessels? Anyone fancy a coast guard with decent sized boats?

Secondly, it must be ensured that any monies paid over to fishermen participating in any decommissioning scheme is not re-invested in a new boat or any catching related enterprise. One way to do this might be to pay this into a pension fund rather than handing over of a lump sum. I'm sure there are others.

[img]http://www.fornaes.dk/images/firmaet/samsop.jpg[/img]

Thus, with one or two minor tweaks, decomissioning could realise its aim of actually reducing the pressure on the worlds fish stocks, provide a dignified exit to those who wish to leave the industry, leave a viable commercial sector that can live without a constant flow of subsidies and possibly provide an enhanced marine environment and increased recreational opportunities for anglers, divers etc.

Simple, isn't it?


[img]http://www.fornaes.dk/images/firmaet/saks.jpg[/img]


Pat G Boyle
Andy Elliott
Andy Elliott
 

Postby x » Thu Oct 26, 2006 10:06 pm

x
 

Postby corbyeire » Thu Oct 26, 2006 10:35 pm

this is depressing...
User avatar
corbyeire
SAI Megalodon!
 
Posts: 6362
Images: 0
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 5:47 pm
Location: G g g galway
Has thanked: 2044 times
Have thanks: 680 times

Postby Leon Roskilly » Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:23 am

When a vessel is decommissioned, the quota (and the track record that establishes that quota) isn't withdrawn.

Rather, it is sold on to another vessel in need of quota.

So, although the size of the fleet might be reduced, the amount of fish that fleet can legally catch stays the same!

As technology increases; better sat nav, more efficient gear, depth mapping, fish-finding etc, so the catching capacity of each vessel increases and although the fleet may be smaller it is still capable of catching more fish.

And the carry over of quota from vessels no longer in the fleet means that the fleet is still legally able to land the same amount of fish, even though there are now fewer vessels!
Leon Roskilly
SAI Bait Ball
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 8:52 am
Location: Medway Towns, Kent, England
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time

Postby Seancelt » Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:58 am

What a crock :!: :evil: :evil: :evil:
All fishermen are liars except you and me and to tell you the truth, I'm not so sure about you!
User avatar
Seancelt
SAI Sea Dog!
 
Posts: 667
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:03 pm
Location: Cork City
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time


Return to Angling News, Issues, Comments and Opinions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests

cron