Speaker 1: Hello everyone, and a lot of to see. If it matters,
Speaker 1: Thank you for listening again. Need me today is Hans Pullet,
Speaker 1: scientific director at ILVU, the Belgian Research Institute for Agriculture,
Speaker 1: Fasherism and Food. Welcome Hans, thanks for joining me.
Speaker 2: Yes, thank you very much, Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: Thank you, thank you. We could start by asking you
Speaker 1: about the EU fasheries management, any of the frustrations or burdens.
Speaker 1: What is good about the EU Common Fashionries policy.
Speaker 2: Well, I've always been a fan of the EU and
Speaker 2: of the common Fisheriest policy. I've been doing this job
Speaker 2: for thirty five years and I've seen a lot of benefits.
Speaker 2: I think it's thanks to the common fisheriest policy that
Speaker 2: we still have, you know, fish in the sea. It
Speaker 2: mainly helped bring let's say, the capacity of the fishing
Speaker 2: fleet in balance with the productivity of fish stocks. And
Speaker 2: I think some ten years ago we kind of read
Speaker 2: that and I was very positive and optimistic about the
Speaker 2: future back then. But somewhere along the road I lost
Speaker 2: my faith, being confronted well with, first of all, a
Speaker 2: lot of frustration in the fishing industry, and as I
Speaker 2: have plenty contacts, I've been at sea a lot. I
Speaker 2: really wanted to have a deep look into that issue.
Speaker 2: I'm not a fisherist manager, I'm not a fisheriest biologist.
Speaker 2: I'm a fishing gear technologist, so I from a very
Speaker 2: technical side of the thing. I've been studying fisheries a
Speaker 2: bit ignorant about management and stockers. But then I saw
Speaker 2: things going wrong. I saw a lot of complaints of
Speaker 2: parties involved, and I started having a deeper look into
Speaker 2: stock assessment and fisheries management, and I kind of saw that, well,
Speaker 2: let's say, at all levels of the whole fishery system,
Speaker 2: I see flaws. I see problems, big ones, small ones,
Speaker 2: and each one on its own probably not dramatic, but
Speaker 2: I think if you add it all up, bring it
Speaker 2: all together, I think we have a system that's well
Speaker 2: in desperate need of innovation.
Speaker 1: Let's say, Wow, such dramatic and desperate need desperate.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, go ahead, Sorry, No.
Speaker 1: It's just that when the way you said that, if
Speaker 1: you could see it was pretty important that it did
Speaker 1: get Yeah.
Speaker 2: Well, actually, coincidently, this morning we had our meeting with
Speaker 2: the fishing industry where we pose the advices and scientific
Speaker 2: advices that have been made in ices for the fish
Speaker 2: stocks they fish, and well, it's negativity all around. They
Speaker 2: don't agree with the results. They are afraid of the future.
Speaker 2: They kind of say or predict that they will be
Speaker 2: able to maybe fish for another few years, but it's
Speaker 2: going to an end. They're very pessimistic for different reasons.
Speaker 2: First of all, in the de light of what we
Speaker 2: discussed today, the accuracy of the determination of the THACS,
Speaker 2: so the total allowable catches the quota. In a number
Speaker 2: of cases they agree, but in many cases they completely
Speaker 2: disagree with the advice and they have a lot of
Speaker 2: difficulties coping with they say, the complexity of the common
Speaker 2: fisheriest policy, of what European managers are imposing on the system.
Speaker 2: They have a huge out of administrative tasks too much,
Speaker 2: and many of them they don't see why they have
Speaker 2: to do with what's the added value. And they suffer from,
Speaker 2: let's say, the top down micromanagement and the very strong
Speaker 2: focus on control and enforcement. So within the whole system
Speaker 2: there's pressure on the fishing industry. And then they have
Speaker 2: to cope with nature protection. They have to cope with
Speaker 2: wind farms coming in and taking fishing grounds. They have
Speaker 2: to cope with closed areas or areas with restrictions they
Speaker 2: have to cope with not to underestimate the consequences of
Speaker 2: climate change, and then climate change kind of messes up
Speaker 2: the whole stock assessment. Scientific fisheries advice. They have to
Speaker 2: cope with these things. They have to cope with a
Speaker 2: landing obligation that gives them choke species which makes them
Speaker 2: stop fishing often or wouldn't say often, but in some
Speaker 2: cases with the wrong quota, so the quota are underestimated,
Speaker 2: so they have to stop fishing while there's still that
Speaker 2: kind of fish and thecy so all these things together
Speaker 2: make that already quite a few fishing vessels have left
Speaker 2: the industry and they say, well, many more will follow
Speaker 2: if we don't change the system.
Speaker 1: It sounds the way you talk there, and it sounds
Speaker 1: like very similar to what we've very often find and
Speaker 1: the UK that you get specially scientists and the civil servants,
Speaker 1: and they don't listen to fast Man and they know better.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they see the daily reality and that's what well,
Speaker 2: mainly I think managers and brussels are missing, but also
Speaker 2: quite a few scientists. We don't want to criticize these people.
Speaker 2: I mean they are my colleagues and I'm part of it,
Speaker 2: and they are hard working people and very clever. But
Speaker 2: often we have let's say the modelers who do the
Speaker 2: computer work and simulating the ecosystem and the fish stocks.
Speaker 2: These people are quite detached from reality as well. There's
Speaker 2: a scientists who go at sea they have a good feeling,
Speaker 2: but that's often not the scientists who do the actual
Speaker 2: scientific work the stock SYSM. So there's a difference between
Speaker 2: data collection and stocka SYSM. So the further you are
Speaker 2: up the chain of the say the scientific system, the
Speaker 2: further you are from the reality. And that's something that
Speaker 2: we are lacking in science. We really should get that
Speaker 2: feel again with reality, and for that you need a
Speaker 2: good and intense contact with the fishing industry. That's what's
Speaker 2: often missing. I mean, I think in Belgium we're doing
Speaker 2: it to be not humble for once, but I think
Speaker 2: we're doing a terrific job. We have been working to
Speaker 2: other intensely with a fishing industry for the last fifteen
Speaker 2: years and the nice thing about that is that we
Speaker 2: have access to all their information, all their data, so
Speaker 2: we actually have a direct link to all the instruments
Speaker 2: on board. Also the scale. They also allow cameras on
Speaker 2: board and we have real time accumulation of this data
Speaker 2: in our data bases, so every hour we get this information.
Speaker 2: So just because of the good relationship we have built,
Speaker 2: there is trust risk cooperation and we have access to
Speaker 2: all the data we need. Now. Of course, in order
Speaker 2: to actually get the real value of this data out
Speaker 2: of there, we cannot do it in the present management system.
Speaker 2: We have to change the system. But we can come
Speaker 2: back to that later. But to come back to your question,
Speaker 2: is actually the fissures who see the reality, who are
Speaker 2: confronted or reality and also confronted with the scientific advice
Speaker 2: and often these two don't match, and so what what
Speaker 2: to do then? And that that's the one of the
Speaker 2: puzzles we are facing now, you know.
Speaker 1: It takes me my mind has to two conversations I've
Speaker 1: had in previous podcasts, one more recent and at the fact,
Speaker 1: I'm just wondering if you're maybe would know the guy is.
Speaker 1: He was many years with the Marine Laboratory in albernein
Speaker 1: and he was involved with gear Jack Roberts.
Speaker 2: Oh yes, I remember him very well. I mean he
Speaker 2: was active quite long before I became a scientist. But
Speaker 2: I've been. I have seen a lot of his underwater
Speaker 2: footage because I think he was he was a diver
Speaker 2: now taking filming fishing.
Speaker 1: Yeah yeah, and he is what he classes as his
Speaker 1: baby was the square mesh, cod ends and panel and
Speaker 1: the point I put hands and be interested in just
Speaker 1: to put the same to you, it was some I
Speaker 1: would have I was having a conversation with an a
Speaker 1: fishery scientist in Iceland on Christians and his name and
Speaker 1: he's well retired. I mean he's in his eighties. Now
Speaker 1: what his The point he made with Jack pretty much
Speaker 1: agreed with be interesting to get your view. He says,
Speaker 1: when they were doing the job, all they did was
Speaker 1: they were out in trawlers and do all their work,
Speaker 1: you know, the assessments and surveys, and it would all
Speaker 1: be done out on trawlers with fishermen. And then they
Speaker 1: decided they were going to get their own vessels.
Speaker 3: And the way he put it, which is not in cdios,
Speaker 3: that he says, oh, we don't want to go out
Speaker 3: on dirty, smelly trollers. We'll have our own maze news
Speaker 3: ships and he reckons. That was pretty much one of
Speaker 3: the biggest mistakes they ever made in Iceland because he
Speaker 3: says they twok freshermen on scientists apart.
Speaker 2: I think there's a lot of truth in that. I
Speaker 2: can't even say that we are heading in the other
Speaker 2: direction again. We're moving away from research vessels to do
Speaker 2: this kind of service and we are starting to do
Speaker 2: them again on commercial vessels. First of all, the need,
Speaker 2: as you say, the contact between the fishers and the scientists.
Speaker 2: Scientists have to understand what fishers are facing, the problems
Speaker 2: they are facing at sea. And at the other hand,
Speaker 2: it's very interesting as fishers start to understand the whole
Speaker 2: stock assessment system and how this prediction of the fish stocks,
Speaker 2: how this works, so that they come to some mutual
Speaker 2: understanding and they find some common ground, and that's very
Speaker 2: important for cooperation. And then I have a bit of
Speaker 2: a problem with surveys on research vessels. I mean, I
Speaker 2: won't talk for the other countries, but for Belgium, we
Speaker 2: have a research vessel of seventeen meters long, three eight
Speaker 2: hundred tons, towing a beam troll of four meter and
Speaker 2: a beamtroll of eight meter. I mean that's the kind
Speaker 2: of troll that is towed by a twenty four beam
Speaker 2: troller with a tonage of seventy tons. I mean, so
Speaker 2: I have a fishing gear that is towed by a
Speaker 2: vessel that is fifty times the tottage compared to the
Speaker 2: fishing vessel. I have a problem with that. I mean,
Speaker 2: if the weather is if the sea is flat, there's
Speaker 2: probably does not so much of an issition. But as
Speaker 2: soon as that vessel starts moving, that fishing gear is
Speaker 2: a toy. Just the stone off the ground is not
Speaker 2: the fishing anymore. And that's the advantage of scientists like
Speaker 2: me who have been at sea a lot, who know
Speaker 2: how fishing gears work. That thanks also to Jack Robertson
Speaker 2: who took the video footage of these gear so you
Speaker 2: can actually see how it operates, how it moves on
Speaker 2: the seafloor. If you don't know that, you have no
Speaker 2: idea what's going on. And then you're on your fish
Speaker 2: on your research vessel, and you follow the scientific procedure
Speaker 2: and you think you are doing the right thing. And
Speaker 2: they they are honest people. I don't doubt them, but
Speaker 2: I doubt their practical knowledge. And you you actually need
Speaker 2: fishers to to do something like that properly. If you
Speaker 2: go on board of a fishing vessel to do this
Speaker 2: kind of service. Then you have the right fishing vessel
Speaker 2: with the right fishing gear and the right expertise on
Speaker 2: board to make the gear work. I mean, if you
Speaker 2: go on board of a beam troller you have two trolls.
Speaker 2: The skipper each hole looks in detail at the difference
Speaker 2: of the catch of the two gears, because he knows
Speaker 2: that while you are fishing, things change in the gear,
Speaker 2: a little damage or so, and the catching effisiency can
Speaker 2: suddenly go down. So that every hole they adjust the
Speaker 2: fishing gear if it's needed, and they do that with
Speaker 2: their practical knowledge, which most scientists don't have. So this
Speaker 2: cooperation is essential.
Speaker 1: That's really interesting and it's what fascinates me. Not so
Speaker 1: much fascinates me, but it's a talent point. And listen,
Speaker 1: you say that every person involved in this, who I
Speaker 1: read and I know, is doing good things. They all
Speaker 1: say the same, just exactly the same as your said.
Speaker 1: So what's really interesting, And it's credit to Belgium if
Speaker 1: you're going I don't think that's when you're doing that
Speaker 1: again with the fissures. That's not a backward step. I
Speaker 1: see that, although it's maybe doing what they did before,
Speaker 1: but it's not and it's forward.
Speaker 2: It's a forward step definitely. And the thing is, if
Speaker 2: you start this cooperation with the fishing fleet, you can
Speaker 2: actually change the system. For example, for the survey. I
Speaker 2: think it's a very interesting example. I talked to you
Speaker 2: about the technical side of things. There's also the temporal
Speaker 2: side of things. The survey is they usually go on
Speaker 2: in the month of September, and they do that every year,
Speaker 2: and that's a good thing. I mean, it's it's a
Speaker 2: time series and you can see through time how the
Speaker 2: fish evolves, but you're limited to the month of September. Now,
Speaker 2: we also know that with climate change that seasons move.
Speaker 2: I mean, fish behavior follows the weather and the temperature
Speaker 2: in the sea and so on, and due to climate change,
Speaker 2: there's a shift. So things that were happening in September
Speaker 2: in the past maybe now are happening in October or
Speaker 2: in August. These things change. So what are you actually
Speaker 2: measuring with your survey in September? Are you measuring the
Speaker 2: same thing as ten years ago? Can you use that
Speaker 2: time series with confidence? I have doubts. What I'm advocating
Speaker 2: for if that is that you use the fishing flee
Speaker 2: to do your surveys and allow the fissures or work
Speaker 2: together with the scientists to have kind of this young
Speaker 2: fish survey, because that's what these surveys are, after the
Speaker 2: fish with fishing gear, with small measures to catch the
Speaker 2: young fish. So your young fish survey, you should spread
Speaker 2: it over the whole year. And if you use the
Speaker 2: fishing flee to do that and you give kind of
Speaker 2: assignments to the different vessels to go fish there with
Speaker 2: small messhon there there, spread over the year, you get
Speaker 2: that picture of the young fish over a wide area
Speaker 2: throughout time, so you can actually follow up how fish
Speaker 2: move geographically, how it changes in time, how quickly they grow,
Speaker 2: what is the mortality rate? All this information you get
Speaker 2: thanks to spreading the surveys over a wide area and
Speaker 2: throughout the year. And really I'm really advocating for that.
Speaker 2: I think this would be a big step forward, especially
Speaker 2: because with climate change you have these sudden changes or
Speaker 2: these huge changes that you don't pick up with a
Speaker 2: regular surveys or not quickly enough. So if you do that,
Speaker 2: if you can do that quickly, as a manager, you
Speaker 2: can react quickly. As a fisher, you can react quickly.
Speaker 2: You also have a better idea about the geographical distribution
Speaker 2: of the young fish. I mean, you want to save
Speaker 2: the young fish. If you don't know where they are,
Speaker 2: it's not easy when you plan your fishery as a
Speaker 2: fisher But if you have these maps, let's say, kind
Speaker 2: of a heat maps of distribution maps of small fish,
Speaker 2: then and you know where they are and how they move,
Speaker 2: and you know where the commercial fish is that you
Speaker 2: are targeting, well you can plan your fishery to save
Speaker 2: the young fish and maximize the catch of your marketable fish.
Speaker 2: So there's a lot of value in this cooperation and
Speaker 2: in better data collection.
Speaker 1: Yeah, correctly. What I'm a little bit puzzled with when
Speaker 1: you see what you're doing in Belgium, can you do that?
Speaker 1: And I thought it would have to be eel policy. No,
Speaker 1: we don't have to do that.
Speaker 2: No, we are not doing this yet. This is what
Speaker 2: we are suggesting. We have this, We have this alternative
Speaker 2: approach that we would like to have. We would like
Speaker 2: to for example, we would like to do that in
Speaker 2: the North Sea and we would really love to have
Speaker 2: the British there. I missed my old friend them since
Speaker 2: the Brexit, But I mean it makes a lot of
Speaker 2: sense to manage an area like the North Sea with
Speaker 2: the same rules, with the same scientific approach, with the
Speaker 2: same cooperation together. You know, we are if we are
Speaker 2: politically separated. I mean, fish don't have borders, no, so
Speaker 2: let's co operate there. But the thing is now, we
Speaker 2: are not allowed to do that yet, so this survey
Speaker 2: is on board. Yes, we can do survice on board
Speaker 2: of commercial vessels, but that's a much different approach. You
Speaker 2: have to really plan, and so we are still stuck
Speaker 2: with the surveys in September. We do that on board
Speaker 2: of mostly on board of commercial vessels now, and we
Speaker 2: have to have a special permission to do that. So
Speaker 2: as long as we stay in Belgian waters that's not
Speaker 2: so difficult. But our survey goes beyond that British and
Speaker 2: Dutch waters, and so we need a special permission and
Speaker 2: it often takes us six months to get that permission.
Speaker 2: So I mean there's an administrative burden there as well,
Speaker 2: so we should get rid of.
Speaker 1: Yeah, when you when you said that, when you made
Speaker 1: the point the good borders don't know borders, I think
Speaker 1: I think is that the term you used?
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 1: I think so, yes, I would I would take that
Speaker 1: at stage further hands and say personally said this, and
Speaker 1: and people like yourselves don't have borders, s preasures don't
Speaker 1: have borders. It's just when you take politicians and that's
Speaker 1: when the problems starts.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's but I think we're stuck with that system.
Speaker 1: And what would you say is gone wrong with the
Speaker 1: U c f p E.
Speaker 2: Common Facial Well, I think when you have a system,
Speaker 2: any system to manage something, and you see some flaws
Speaker 2: and you want to improve, well, you add a layer
Speaker 2: of additional rules, and then a few years later there's
Speaker 2: again a people look at the quality of the system
Speaker 2: and they see some flaws again, and so every so
Speaker 2: many years there's a layer of regulations and administrations added
Speaker 2: to the system, which more and more makes it complicated.
Speaker 2: That's the same with most of the management systems in
Speaker 2: our society. And that's what politics do. Politics identify a
Speaker 2: problem and they add a number of laws and regulations
Speaker 2: to solve it. But if you keep on doing that,
Speaker 2: after a while, your system becomes so complex that it
Speaker 2: is just not workable anymore. And that's this is what
Speaker 2: we have seen in the Common Fisheriest policy. There's very
Speaker 2: few people actually understand the whole system. Ask an inspector
Speaker 2: when it goes. Let's see if you know all the
Speaker 2: technical measures and can actually see any fishing gear, if
Speaker 2: all these things are correctly rigged or not. I think
Speaker 2: they know that. The main things that they don't know everything.
Speaker 2: For a number of regulations. They don't know exactly if
Speaker 2: it goes about selective panels, square meshed panels, for example,
Speaker 2: how exactly it must be fixed in a gear. It's
Speaker 2: not easy, and to control that is not easy. So
Speaker 2: it's all becoming too complex and well, the common fisheriest
Speaker 2: policy has always stimulated innovation in science in fisheries. I'm
Speaker 2: really grateful for that. But the one thing they forgot
Speaker 2: is to innovate themselves. So we have an old fashion system. Yeah,
Speaker 2: the same with fisheries science. I think we still have.
Speaker 2: Of course, it has improved over the years. It has
Speaker 2: become more and more efficient, but the basic system is
Speaker 2: still Beverton and hold Stock assessment idea from behind the
Speaker 2: second just after the Second World War. We're still working
Speaker 2: with the same ideas. We have to fundamentally reform and
Speaker 2: not just ajust. But that's what we're doing. Every adjusting
Speaker 2: a little bit and fixing this a little bit and
Speaker 2: in the end, well it's more or less acceptable for everybody,
Speaker 2: but it doesn't really.
Speaker 1: Work, and are would you say creatures? Our scientists are
Speaker 1: happy with the management system.
Speaker 2: I have the impression that amongst scientists they have just
Speaker 2: learned to live with the system and have kind of
Speaker 2: accepted it and try to cope with it. And especially
Speaker 2: the younger people. I mean, they come into that system
Speaker 2: and this is what it is, and this is what
Speaker 2: they have to work with. I mean, I have seen
Speaker 2: the system evolving over thirty five five years. I have
Speaker 2: seen strengths and weaknesses coming back, and I know where
Speaker 2: the system is flawed. But most scientists just just cope
Speaker 2: with it. And one other thing, yeah, yeah, well, I
Speaker 2: think the most important thing is that most scientists don't
Speaker 2: believe that we can fundamentally reform the system. They just say, well,
Speaker 2: that's a missy mission, impossible. Let's not try even try that.
Speaker 2: Don't put energy in. That won't work. We will try
Speaker 2: to fiddler around and try to copy with it. That's
Speaker 2: the attitude.
Speaker 1: And when you see the flaws and that you feel
Speaker 1: the common vers it's policy could be built around a
Speaker 1: lack of proper information.
Speaker 2: A lack of proper information. No, I think you you
Speaker 2: need decent information to manage this, of course. Yeah, well
Speaker 2: I think no.
Speaker 1: But do you think it's built on although they didn't
Speaker 1: realize that?
Speaker 2: Can you rephrase your question and I don't think I under.
Speaker 1: Sorry, Sorry, I'm just asking what with freshialties, scientific fressurities advised?
Speaker 1: Is it if the common fashionist policy is built around
Speaker 1: a lack of information?
Speaker 2: Ah? Yes, I think so, a lack of a lack
Speaker 2: of knowledge of the reality at sea. I really think
Speaker 2: that that's the thing, because you have a management system
Speaker 2: in the EU that's focused on control and enforced enforcement.
Speaker 2: So by this definition, it's based on distrust between the
Speaker 2: managers and the fishers, and the consequence is that the
Speaker 2: fishers will not release all the information they have. They
Speaker 2: will often even release information that is just not true.
Speaker 2: I mean, if you have regulations that are too complex
Speaker 2: to follow, well, then fishers will find a way around
Speaker 2: it and will withhold information that is real, reliable, and
Speaker 2: will spread information that is just wrong. As a consequence,
Speaker 2: the perception of the fisheries, of managers and often scientists
Speaker 2: as well, is not correct, does not reflect the reality
Speaker 2: at sea. So if you look at all the different
Speaker 2: data sources that we use as scientists, well, each of
Speaker 2: these data sources have an issue. Lockbook data I mean
Speaker 2: logbook DTA. We have one data in twenty four hours
Speaker 2: that's to start with low resolution. It's so called digitized,
Speaker 2: but it's still manually put in, so it's open to errors,
Speaker 2: it's open to fraud, and we know there is fraud.
Speaker 2: So logbook data are I think, not very reliable. It's
Speaker 2: not as I mean, the scientific system will not crash
Speaker 2: or be completely wrong because of the logbook data. But
Speaker 2: if you add the other uncertainties to it, I think
Speaker 2: you really get to have a problem. For example, discards
Speaker 2: for stock assessment, we have to know how much fish die,
Speaker 2: so we also should know how much of the small
Speaker 2: fish is called and thrown back overboard. We send observers
Speaker 2: at sea to do that, and we have a coverage
Speaker 2: of about one percent. Now every fisher who goes at
Speaker 2: sea knows that variability of fish catches is very high.
Speaker 2: I mean, you fish at one side of the sandbank
Speaker 2: and you get this type of catch, and you move
Speaker 2: one hundred meters to the other side of the sand
Speaker 2: bank and you get a completely different catch composition. Fish
Speaker 2: catches are very very variable, so you need a really
Speaker 2: high sampling percentage to get reliable data. If you only
Speaker 2: have one percent, well I have doubts. I'm only a
Speaker 2: simple fishing gear technologists, but I mean, if you know
Speaker 2: how fish catches are and you know your own have
Speaker 2: one percent coverage, I think there's a problem. Then scientists
Speaker 2: challenge me and say, do you have any scientific proof
Speaker 2: that statistically this one percent is not enough?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 2: Sorry, I don't. I don't. It's just my common sense,
Speaker 2: which can be wrong, of course, But I mean that
Speaker 2: there's just quite because there's a question there. But then
Speaker 2: there's other uncertainties, like, for example, natural mortality. In fish
Speaker 2: stock assessment models, natural mortality is very important because you
Speaker 2: have to assess of all the different ages every year
Speaker 2: how much fish will die. So part of them will
Speaker 2: die due to fisheries, and this is something you can
Speaker 2: more or less measure with an error which is I
Speaker 2: guess too large. But you also have to estimate how
Speaker 2: many fish die a natural death, and for small fish
Speaker 2: this can be very high. Usually this number is kept
Speaker 2: constant every year because it's very difficult to to measure
Speaker 2: in the sea. How much fish die a natural death,
Speaker 2: that's a very difficult thing to do, so they try
Speaker 2: to estimate this based on a number of parameters, and
Speaker 2: because we don't have the information, it is kept constant
Speaker 2: over the years. Now, in a stable ecosystem with stable climate,
Speaker 2: stable weather, I think this is not really a problem.
Speaker 2: So I think for many decades this was not a
Speaker 2: problem before climate change started to kick in. Now we
Speaker 2: see with climate change that things are happening. For example,
Speaker 2: we didn't used to have squid in the North Sea
Speaker 2: and we had pelagic fish stocks herring, mackerel. Now the
Speaker 2: last three four five years we see massive amounts of
Speaker 2: squid coming into the North Sea. They eat things. If
Speaker 2: they are massive in numbers, well, fish they eat is
Speaker 2: massive as well, so they eat herrings, they eat all
Speaker 2: this kind of pelagic fish. But this is not taken
Speaker 2: into account in the stock assessment. The natural mortality is
Speaker 2: kept constant. But the natural mortality due to the squid
Speaker 2: is changing dramatically, and we see this with other fish
Speaker 2: stocks as well. We see the octopus coming in the
Speaker 2: western English Channel, we see the cottlefish coming massively in
Speaker 2: the Eastern English Channel. They eat stuff and all this
Speaker 2: is not taken into accounts. So natural mortality is one
Speaker 2: of the main problems in stock assessment, and this is
Speaker 2: getting worse due to climate change. So well, there's quite
Speaker 2: a number of issues with information in the common fisheries policy.
Speaker 2: Well other things just told me when I talk too much.
Speaker 2: But for example, the technical measures messize regulation. Well, in
Speaker 2: every fishery where valuable fish escape, the gear escape the
Speaker 2: net through the measures, fisher will notice and fisher you
Speaker 2: don't like that. They's just just just see the money
Speaker 2: swimming out of the net. If the messize the legal
Speaker 2: messize is too high because the marketable fish escape, well,
Speaker 2: fishes will fiddle around with a mesh, they will do
Speaker 2: stuff so the fish cannot escape anymore. And this is
Speaker 2: something that you see going on throughout our region. I
Speaker 2: wouldn't say not in every fishery, but when small but
Speaker 2: when market valuable fish escape, it happens in it In
Speaker 2: the management system, people believe that the messiized regulation is
Speaker 2: that fishes just follow it, but they don't. So again
Speaker 2: there's a perception that control and enforcement works, but in
Speaker 2: reality it doesn't. So yeah, there's quite a lot of
Speaker 2: problems with information.
Speaker 1: It's quite fascinating when you talk about the squid and
Speaker 1: licking it to the suation have gotten south west of
Speaker 1: the the octopus. That's really interesting. I'm sure that there's
Speaker 1: something going on. The only thing I was wanting to
Speaker 1: ask you as well, when you're with you're mentioning a
Speaker 1: claimate change is quite a bit times when you see
Speaker 1: about since it kicked? Then? How when what sort of
Speaker 1: tame skilled would you give when that started becoming under shire?
Speaker 2: I think it's already an issue.
Speaker 1: I think what, yeah, yeah, but since how since when
Speaker 1: would you would?
Speaker 2: Well? I think I do this job since the nineteen nineties,
Speaker 2: and I have seen in the Southern North Sea, which
Speaker 2: is probably temperate, change is quicker in shallow areas. In
Speaker 2: the Southern North Sea is a shallow area, so I
Speaker 2: think we have seen the climb change consequences quite early.
Speaker 2: So halfway the nineteen nineties I saw the first signals
Speaker 2: when I went, that's see you because you would be
Speaker 2: doing these experiments every year.
Speaker 1: Well. Yeah. The reason I asked that is because I
Speaker 1: remember there worst boats, especially out of out the Adia
Speaker 1: and what we call the deep water species. You know,
Speaker 1: they were in the well into the Atlantic and the
Speaker 1: deeper water catching things like black alabed blue ling species
Speaker 1: like that, and there were scientists going out with them.
Speaker 1: Now I'm going back into the eighties and just maybe
Speaker 1: into the nineties, and there were a wild swing in
Speaker 1: the temperatures in the deep water as much as six degrees,
Speaker 1: which in percentage terms was massive, and they were recording
Speaker 1: that many years ago.
Speaker 2: I look at that. Yeah, there's probably a lot of
Speaker 2: things we actually don't know or do not take into account.
Speaker 1: And how are you dealing with freshratas in Belgium in
Speaker 1: what way? Just there's things you're talking about with.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well we struggle, you know, we really struggle. Well,
Speaker 2: first of all, we started up this corporation, and I
Speaker 2: think all all levels from the ministry, the administration, scientists,
Speaker 2: the industry and also the NGOs, we are on the
Speaker 2: same line. We all think fisheries should be sustainable, fish
Speaker 2: stocks should be within the safe range, ecosystems should be healthy.
Speaker 2: But on the other hand, we all also believe that
Speaker 2: we should have a fishery that is profitable and that
Speaker 2: can focus on efficient fishing. I often, often, I had
Speaker 2: in the past been criticized by saying that fisheries should
Speaker 2: be efficient. But I think if you fish efficiently, then
Speaker 2: you use fewer resources also less fuel to catch the
Speaker 2: same amount of fish. So fishing should be efficient. We
Speaker 2: all believe that we are behind that idea, so we
Speaker 2: are there's unity in Belgium to deal with fisheries, and
Speaker 2: we all think that we are facing problems that are
Speaker 2: caused by the system. So we all also think that
Speaker 2: we should change the system, and we are working on that.
Speaker 2: We are continuously trying trying to think about alternatives. That
Speaker 2: this is why fishers are giving us all their confidential data,
Speaker 2: because they say, here we are the good data, do something,
Speaker 2: do something with it so we can get rid of
Speaker 2: this system today that doesn't work and move to something
Speaker 2: that actually does work and do that in co So
Speaker 2: I think this is how we are dealing with fisheries
Speaker 2: in Belgium. We we have problems, but we are actually
Speaker 2: trying to think outside the box to find a solution.
Speaker 2: The thing is we have to convince other parties because
Speaker 2: we are tiny. Belgium is a tiny country. We have
Speaker 2: sixty five kilometers of coast. Compare that to the thousands
Speaker 2: of kilometers. I guess in the UK we are insignificant.
Speaker 2: But I do think that the small Belgians have some
Speaker 2: good ideas worth spreading, so we are looking for support.
Speaker 2: We are looking for other parties to actually help us
Speaker 2: question the presence system and also work on an alternative.
Speaker 2: We have some ideas, but it's not worked out in detail.
Speaker 2: We cannot do it by ourselves as well, so we
Speaker 2: are trying to copy with our own problems, but also
Speaker 2: trying to set up cooperation from the countries around us.
Speaker 1: And can you see a better system could arise from it?
Speaker 2: Well, we started this idea, I think a number of
Speaker 2: years ago, thinking but acknowledging there's an issue and trying
Speaker 2: to find solutions. And I think we have a pretty
Speaker 2: good idea of what could work. And well, the first
Speaker 2: thing is the data collection that I think it all
Speaker 2: starts with observing what are the consequences of fishing on
Speaker 2: the fish stocks and on the ecosystems. In order to
Speaker 2: do that, you need good information, you need good data.
Speaker 2: So and the fishers agree with that, we want to
Speaker 2: put cameras on board for a full catch analysis. So
Speaker 2: many fishermen are opposed to the idea to have cameras
Speaker 2: on board. I don't need cameras to see what fishers
Speaker 2: are doing. I just want to know the catch. That's
Speaker 2: so in Belgium we put the camera above the conveyor
Speaker 2: belt and all the fish that passes are recorded. It's
Speaker 2: a technology in development and so it doesn't work full yet.
Speaker 2: But the idea is that if we do that, we
Speaker 2: can calculate the mortality caused by each individual fishing vessel.
Speaker 2: What is the impact of that vessel during that year
Speaker 2: on the fish stocks. Now, if you know that and
Speaker 2: you can still of course, you still need quota and
Speaker 2: you can, if necessary, limit fishing vessels with simple management
Speaker 2: measures like for example, days at sea. This is the
Speaker 2: whole management system. You have the observation, you have the
Speaker 2: quota to limit, and you have the days at sea
Speaker 2: to get involved or to steer the fisheries in the
Speaker 2: right direction. If you have that, you don't need anything else.
Speaker 2: And the nice thing about that is you don't need
Speaker 2: technical measures, don't need mes size, You don't need to
Speaker 2: impose square mesh panels because fishers will use them themselves
Speaker 2: and will design them according to their own needs and
Speaker 2: their own situation. You don't need administration, you don't need
Speaker 2: all these aspections that see. So imagine the simplicity and
Speaker 2: the reduction in costs. If you move towards that system,
Speaker 2: then all the complaints about administrative burden, complexity of regulations,
Speaker 2: controls and so on, all these things just disappear and
Speaker 2: you get a situation where you can actually have trust
Speaker 2: between all these parties and real cooperation. So the data
Speaker 2: are given without control and enforcement. Fishers say, okay, here
Speaker 2: are by data. You can know everything I can, but
Speaker 2: for the rest, let me do my thing. I want
Speaker 2: to focus on fishing. I want to follow the fish
Speaker 2: through the seasons and go fish them where they are
Speaker 2: with the fishing gear I think is most suitable to
Speaker 2: do that. And if I want to fish during the
Speaker 2: daytime with this fishing gear and during the nighttime with
Speaker 2: another fishing gear which is not allowed today, just let
Speaker 2: them do that. Give them all the freedom to conductor fishery,
Speaker 2: but be fully open in your catches. So this is
Speaker 2: let's say, in a nutshell, what we want to do.
Speaker 1: That sounds very impressive, and do you think it's realistic.
Speaker 2: I think it's very realistic because we are actually already
Speaker 2: doing it. I mean, the foundation collecting the data. We
Speaker 2: are more or less ready except for the camera and
Speaker 2: the analysis of the video footage. There's still work there,
Speaker 2: but already most of the species be recognized. We can
Speaker 2: measure their length, We even can extra can get extra
Speaker 2: affirmation on the condition of the fishing. So the technology
Speaker 2: is there we can do. The main thing now is
Speaker 2: that the management system has to change to give the
Speaker 2: fisher the freedom, because what is the incentive of the
Speaker 2: fisher to give all his data? Because this is a
Speaker 2: first criticism we get fishers will never give all their data. No,
Speaker 2: but why don't they give their data because you have
Speaker 2: a very restrictive control and enforcement regime. But if you
Speaker 2: change that system where you say we don't need that,
Speaker 2: we don't need all these regulations, we only need the data,
Speaker 2: then the incentive of the fissure is the freedom of fisher,
Speaker 2: free choice of gear, free choice of operation, within of course,
Speaker 2: the bigger boundaries of sustainability. There are habitats you have
Speaker 2: to protect from fishing. There are areas that are vulnerable,
Speaker 2: there are species that are vulnerable, so you need this
Speaker 2: kind of frame of basic protection. But within that frame,
Speaker 2: for me, it's full freedom.
Speaker 1: It's impressive what you say there hands because it remains
Speaker 1: me of something that Jack Robertson said when they were
Speaker 1: talking and discussions without size of mesh on the square
Speaker 1: panels and things, and one of his colleagues sent them
Speaker 1: will or from above. It was thrown upon because it
Speaker 1: was what are the pressures cheat and do something in deathland?
Speaker 1: So there was no trust.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and that's the problem when you work in a
Speaker 2: system based on control and enforcement. Well, you can enforce,
Speaker 2: you try to, you can regulate and say, well, in
Speaker 2: this kind of Scottish cold fishery, you have to use
Speaker 2: this square mesh panel to allow haddock and whiting to escape,
Speaker 2: and that panel has to be fifty messions on twenty
Speaker 2: measures of that mesh size in that material and that
Speaker 2: twine thickness, and you have to put it so many
Speaker 2: from the content. I mean, this is how these things
Speaker 2: get regulated. It's a very proscriptive, prescriptive. Now, the problem
Speaker 2: is that for the fishing vessel where the experiments went on,
Speaker 2: this will probably work. But if you go on another
Speaker 2: vessel in another season with a slightly different gear design,
Speaker 2: you will probably have to put your square mesh paddle
Speaker 2: a little more in front or with the board in
Speaker 2: the back, or make it bigger or smaller. I mean,
Speaker 2: fishers have to adapt these things to their own situation.
Speaker 2: But if your regulation says this is how it has
Speaker 2: to be, where in many cases it just won't work.
Speaker 2: So you have to give the fisher the freedom and
Speaker 2: judge the fisher on the outcome on his catch. If
Speaker 2: you have a fisher using a square mesh panel and
Speaker 2: you have a huge amount of haddock and writing bike
Speaker 2: or bycatch that you have to discard, well, it's probably
Speaker 2: because the square mesh panel is not in the right position.
Speaker 2: So you look at the catch and you let the
Speaker 2: fisher adjust his fishing gear so that the whiting and
Speaker 2: they had to kind of escape, not the other way around.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, And is there in the EU? Just is
Speaker 1: there a desert see?
Speaker 2: Well?
Speaker 1: Another, I'm sure there's a quota system. Is there desert?
Speaker 2: See? Yes? In the EU, we have every single possible
Speaker 2: way of regulating. Yeah, we have days at sea, we
Speaker 2: have area restrictions, we have real time closures, we have
Speaker 2: technical measures of all kinds, we have quota, we have
Speaker 2: a landing obligation, we have all these things all together. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Crazy, Now you may relate to this from what you're saying.
Speaker 1: There hands a conversation had we have a friend of
Speaker 1: mine who was landing nor one of our rural ports
Speaker 1: scrubs that scapper is kept an owner of the board.
Speaker 1: And he was on the pier with me the letter
Speaker 1: in his hand and this is missus, this is this
Speaker 1: is a letter of all my variations what I have
Speaker 1: to do and adhered and policymakers from civil servants. And
Speaker 1: this comment to me Hans was missus. I can see
Speaker 1: the person that wrote this letter that has never been
Speaker 1: on a fashion bod in his life.
Speaker 2: And that's a problem. I mean, I have a lot
Speaker 2: of respect for the people in the European Commission. I
Speaker 2: mean I've been working together with the people for thirty
Speaker 2: five years. They are hard working people. They want to
Speaker 2: do the right thing though discussion about it, but they
Speaker 2: miss that that feeling of the reality. And this is
Speaker 2: so necessary. This is why stakeholder involvement and this is
Speaker 2: one of the big buzzwords of the last ten fifteen years,
Speaker 2: stakeholder involvement, and the European Commission has really tried to
Speaker 2: organize that stakeholder involvement. But what do you see that
Speaker 2: is both often meetings between managers, scientists and the representatives
Speaker 2: of the fishing industry, which are also people who are
Speaker 2: doing a good job, but most of them don't go
Speaker 2: at sea anymore or just know their own special situation
Speaker 2: when they were fishers themselves, and the stakeholder involvement is
Speaker 2: quite superficial. I think we need much more cooperation with
Speaker 2: the actual fishers, people who go at sea, and I
Speaker 2: think you cannot do that at the level we are
Speaker 2: doing that now, I mean the level meetings in Brussels.
Speaker 2: Now you have to go local. You have to have
Speaker 2: this let's say, more dispersed stakeholder informment spread over the
Speaker 2: area where the local people can actually talk about their
Speaker 2: own specific situation. And you need a management system that's
Speaker 2: very flexible to be adjustable to local situations. And then
Speaker 2: because this is all very difficult to control and enforce,
Speaker 2: you get rid of control and enforcement and you change
Speaker 2: a system that is too so it is based on
Speaker 2: cooperation and openness and trust. So it's it's a real
Speaker 2: complete shift in how we address fisheries.
Speaker 1: Another comment that they have been widely used here with
Speaker 1: what the word you used. You mentioned just a last
Speaker 1: said about stakeholders, and it's a term used here. There's
Speaker 1: a vast difference between stakeholders and openion holders.
Speaker 2: And what's the last work here where you use.
Speaker 1: There's a massive difference between stakeholders and opinion holders.
Speaker 2: Yeah, opinion holders yet I didn't understand the word yet,
Speaker 2: but okay, I get it now. Yeah yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 2: it doesn't There is indeed a big, big difference. And
Speaker 2: of course it's not easy to organize this, but I
Speaker 2: think it's it's necessary.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and hope. There's a big question. Now, how can
Speaker 1: we get or obviously you how can you get rid
Speaker 1: of the administration burden under the complex regulations?
Speaker 2: Yeah, well by changing the system towards what they call
Speaker 2: an output control. So you look at the output of
Speaker 2: the system, and the output is the catch. So you
Speaker 2: look at the catch of all the fishing vessels. You
Speaker 2: have to be able to record what's in the catch.
Speaker 2: You can do do that for example with the camera
Speaker 2: on board. And once you have this, as I explained before,
Speaker 2: you have the system of catch analysis, you have the
Speaker 2: quota simply regulations days at see, and all the rest
Speaker 2: of the administration can go. And the thing is that
Speaker 2: the data collection that we are uh that we have developed,
Speaker 2: which is this automated automatic link with the fishing vest
Speaker 2: So all the instruments on board that are interesting produced
Speaker 2: data and this data goes straight through the cloud to
Speaker 2: our database. So once you have that system, it's fully automated.
Speaker 2: So one advantage is that there's no humans involved, so
Speaker 2: no errors, no fraud or less fraud because there's always
Speaker 2: possibility for fraud, but especially there no administration necessary, so
Speaker 2: the skipper doesn't even have to fill out a look book.
Speaker 2: It's all automatic, so the fisher can actually concentrate on
Speaker 2: this fishing. So if you go to that system, all
Speaker 2: administration and all complexity of regulations are how you called it,
Speaker 2: redundant or not needed, just not needed.
Speaker 1: It's forward back in and we get would you say
Speaker 1: where you would be in a which the stige will
Speaker 1: observe everything and regulate less.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's the thing, and regulate yeah yeah, less is
Speaker 2: an understatement.
Speaker 1: How could an alternative management or government that then look
Speaker 1: like mm hmm.
Speaker 2: Well, I think first of all, you have the central
Speaker 2: managers in the EU. I'm talking about EU, so of
Speaker 2: course they have to have some handle over what's going
Speaker 2: on AT's see. So I think in the European Parliament
Speaker 2: they have to set the boundaries. What do we mean
Speaker 2: with sustainability, what do we mean with the healthy ecosystem
Speaker 2: and intact habitats and they have to define how that
Speaker 2: should look like. This is something that society has to
Speaker 2: decide upon how much damage do we accept for fisheries
Speaker 2: to do so that's done at the higher political level.
Speaker 2: That's there. Then your European Commission should not deal with micromanagement.
Speaker 2: I mean they should follow up how the whole ecosystem
Speaker 2: and fish stocks are evolving through time, and they have
Speaker 2: to check with what the politicians in the European Parliament
Speaker 2: have to have decided. They have to see based on
Speaker 2: reliable information, how the fishtocks are evolving and is this
Speaker 2: actually what we have decided as a society how it
Speaker 2: should be. If that's correct, well just let them do so.
Speaker 2: You as Europein Commission has to measure the outcome, has
Speaker 2: to measure the status of the fish stocks and the
Speaker 2: status of the ecosystem. If that's fine, just let them go.
Speaker 2: If the Commission sees that something's going wrong, that there's
Speaker 2: in some area over fishing or some fish stocks in problem,
Speaker 2: or to match damage to the ecosystem, well they have
Speaker 2: to be able to, let's say, bring some changes and
Speaker 2: bring back the fishery within the boundaries of sustainability. But
Speaker 2: they have to do that with means that are easy
Speaker 2: to implement. For example, today we have a lot of
Speaker 2: regulations which are almost impossible to control. For example, the
Speaker 2: landing obligation. Forget it, there's no compliance for the moment,
Speaker 2: not possible to control. So if you can't control all it,
Speaker 2: don't do it. Don't make yourself ridiculous, I'm sorry. Do
Speaker 2: it with days at sea for example, So if the
Speaker 2: Commision see is that fishing fleets are not behaving well,
Speaker 2: reduce their days at sea. Very simple. Every vessel that
Speaker 2: goes out and in a fishing harbor is recorded. So
Speaker 2: it's the most easy way to control the fishery and
Speaker 2: very efficient. So of course the European Commission has to
Speaker 2: have some means to control that, and that's the way
Speaker 2: they can do that. Once you have that, you don't
Speaker 2: need technical measures, you don't need expections at sea, you
Speaker 2: don't need minimum landing sizes, you don't need a landing
Speaker 2: obligation and so on. Then finally fishers can concentrate on
Speaker 2: what they are good at, and that's fishing. Finding the
Speaker 2: higher fish concentrations and much more than in the past.
Speaker 2: Avoid what you don't want, to avoid a small fish
Speaker 2: and avoid the protected species, and of course record their catches.
Speaker 2: That's the foundation of the whole thing. And then the
Speaker 2: scientists will finally get good data and they will develop
Speaker 2: apps based on that good information to help the fishers
Speaker 2: with all. If you have all these catches of all
Speaker 2: these vessels in real time, you can automatic You can
Speaker 2: build algorithms and models who give you distribution maps which
Speaker 2: are updated every day with the real time catch information
Speaker 2: you get from the whole fleet. So with these distribution
Speaker 2: maps maps, the fishes can actually plan their fishery in
Speaker 2: a much better way than they used to. They have
Speaker 2: this information on where's the fish I want and where's
Speaker 2: the fish I don't want, and where are the habitats
Speaker 2: that are vulnerable. If you have this information, you have
Speaker 2: what you need for sustainable fishing. So the scientists will
Speaker 2: then also based on this good data, produce meta data,
Speaker 2: let's say, more general information on the state of the
Speaker 2: fish stocks and the state of the ecosystem that they
Speaker 2: can report to European Commission. So the European Commission we
Speaker 2: get a true estimation of the status of the ecosystem
Speaker 2: and the fish stocks, and with that much more correct
Speaker 2: information they will be able to manage much better. And
Speaker 2: then there finally will be a good relationship with the
Speaker 2: scientists and the fishers, and this will become a cooperation
Speaker 2: that is very valuable. So that I think that that's
Speaker 2: in a nutshell, the system, how we think it can work.
Speaker 2: Of course, should you believe me, well not, you should
Speaker 2: not believe me. And do I believe myself, well, I
Speaker 2: do have doubts. I'm not sure if all this will work.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure actually how all this should work. I
Speaker 2: mean in terms of models and and algorithms and so
Speaker 2: these are complex things. But we are quite confident that
Speaker 2: we have reached in Belgium now a level that is
Speaker 2: much better than we see in our neighboring countries, a
Speaker 2: level of data collection and cooperation. So we do believe
Speaker 2: that this is this way forward has a lot of potential.
Speaker 2: Now the thing is, before I can convince you, I
Speaker 2: will have to show you. Now, before I have to
Speaker 2: I can show you, I will be able. I should
Speaker 2: be able to do an experiment. So that experiment could be,
Speaker 2: for example, take the North Sea and let's say, okay,
Speaker 2: for that North Sea. We will put the common Fisheries
Speaker 2: policy completely aside and replace it with something completely new,
Speaker 2: and let that for the next decade be an experiment
Speaker 2: in the North Sea. So I can demonstrate you that
Speaker 2: it works or it fails, and you can say, well,
Speaker 2: and that's the this ison my get. Well, if it fails,
Speaker 2: it's a drama. No, it's a real drama. Well, I
Speaker 2: would say the system today as it is working, is failing.
Speaker 2: It is failing if you look at all the problems
Speaker 2: we have in fisheries, and if you look at how
Speaker 2: desperate many fishers are. I mean a fishing industry, fishers
Speaker 2: who during the last centuries have overcome so many crises.
Speaker 2: These are very dynamic people and very resilient people who
Speaker 2: are today saying, well, if I get the opportunity, I
Speaker 2: get out of the business. It's all too much for me.
Speaker 2: I just can't fish anymore. So let me do the experiment,
Speaker 2: because what we see today is not pretty.
Speaker 1: You knows, when you keep to the point where he says, okay,
Speaker 1: well it work. No, you know you were saying that, yeah,
Speaker 1: that you don't know. But what came to my main
Speaker 1: when you said there's an old saying that you hear
Speaker 1: a lot. Where there's a will, there's a way.
Speaker 2: M hm. True, And I think.
Speaker 1: It's a world to drive it. What would be.
Speaker 2: If you have a group of people who really see
Speaker 2: what's going on today and say we need to go
Speaker 2: to a better system, and you see the potential of
Speaker 2: the data we have, and you see the potential of
Speaker 2: the cooperation. Well, I think if you have people who
Speaker 2: believe in it, I think we can reach it. I mean,
Speaker 2: let me give an example. It's a very different world,
Speaker 2: but the war in Ukraine. I mean four years ago,
Speaker 2: everybody thought that's the end of Ukraine. And this has
Speaker 2: been so for a few years now. The last six
Speaker 2: months you see that this drone technology has developed so
Speaker 2: much that Ukraine is actually on the winning hand. Nobody
Speaker 2: would have believed it, Nobody would have given the Ukrainians
Speaker 2: a chance a few years ago. But the Ukrainians were
Speaker 2: forced and pushed just for the sheer survival to come
Speaker 2: up with alternative ways of waging war, and they developed
Speaker 2: the technology so far that this underdog is now on top.
Speaker 2: I mean, as you say, where there's a will, there's
Speaker 2: a way, and I think it's the same here. I
Speaker 2: think if you look at the basics in our new
Speaker 2: approach and you look at the value in that I
Speaker 2: mean good data, cooperation, trust, and so whether they have
Speaker 2: these things which are lacking today. If you have these things,
Speaker 2: I think there's a very good chance that we can
Speaker 2: come to a much better system than we have today.
Speaker 1: And could use almost the pressure's rule change and every
Speaker 1: vessel becomes a scient thick observation platform.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so that's the thing. It's an automatic system. That's
Speaker 2: the good thing. You can collect the information from the
Speaker 2: fisheries catch, which is valuable for the fisheries, but which
Speaker 2: is also valuable for other parties who are dealing with
Speaker 2: the marine ecosystem, who are dealing with climate change, who
Speaker 2: are dealing with weather. There's a lot of information that
Speaker 2: you can collect on a fishing vessel that is valuable
Speaker 2: for many parties. For example, you can put a temperate
Speaker 2: sensor temperature sensor on a troll, which means that every
Speaker 2: hole the temperature sensor goes from the top to the bottom,
Speaker 2: so you get this temperature profile, which seems to be
Speaker 2: very interesting for climate scientists and weather scientists. If you
Speaker 2: do that on board of if you do that in
Speaker 2: a fishing fleet. You have all these different tune it's
Speaker 2: fishing in all these different places, and you get all
Speaker 2: these temperate temperature profiles, which today you almost don't have
Speaker 2: just on a few fixed points you have then, so
Speaker 2: this is very valuable. We are also, for example, developing
Speaker 2: a DNA sampler, so EDNA, I don't know if you
Speaker 2: know it, environmental DNA. Every fish that swims in the
Speaker 2: sea is behind a little bit of DNA. If you
Speaker 2: take a liter or a gallon of seawater, there's a
Speaker 2: lot of DNA in there. If you extract the DNA,
Speaker 2: you can determine the species that have been swimming around.
Speaker 2: So you based on that DNA in the water, you
Speaker 2: get an impression of the numbers of fish pieces around
Speaker 2: and also some indication on the quantity of fish. So
Speaker 2: this EDNA sample is already operational on board of one
Speaker 2: of our fishing vessels, gives us new information that is
Speaker 2: today not available, but that we can just fit into
Speaker 2: that data collection system on board of the fishing vessel,
Speaker 2: again in an automated way. So you can actually make
Speaker 2: of a fishing vessel a data collection platform that is
Speaker 2: valuable for many parties.
Speaker 1: And what role would that play investries management.
Speaker 2: I think the main thing is that fisheries managers can
Speaker 2: get a much better perception of the reality with that.
Speaker 2: I think these are reliable data, high resolution data, high
Speaker 2: quality and real time compared to what we have today
Speaker 2: is low resolution, low quality, a very slow I mean
Speaker 2: it takes months before lockbook data get in our database
Speaker 2: with the changes feel So for managers, I think it's
Speaker 2: mainly about reliable information on the state of the fish
Speaker 2: stocks and of the ecosystem.
Speaker 1: Why specially is mortality the only metric that really matters.
Speaker 2: Because what you need to know to manage fish stocks
Speaker 2: is how quickly they grow and how quickly they die
Speaker 2: or how many die. Once you know, once you have
Speaker 2: the catches, and you know what the fishing mortality is,
Speaker 2: that it's induced by the fishing fleet, you know what
Speaker 2: effect it will have on the fish stock. And by
Speaker 2: collecting this catch information of all these fishing vessels over
Speaker 2: a wide area, you also get a pretty good idea
Speaker 2: on natural mortality. So you get a very good information
Speaker 2: on fishing mortality by each individual fishing vessel, and by
Speaker 2: combining all these data you get a pretty good idea
Speaker 2: on natural mortality. So critical factor in stock assessment, natural
Speaker 2: mortality or mortality in general. You will now finally have
Speaker 2: much more accurate information. And if you have that, you
Speaker 2: have enough to follow up the fish stocks and you
Speaker 2: have enough to manage because if you will see how
Speaker 2: this changes through time, and if it goes in the
Speaker 2: wrong direction, well, as a manager you can say, well,
Speaker 2: let's use this simple means days at sea to limit
Speaker 2: where it's necessary.
Speaker 1: I have to say, hands that I admire and appreciate
Speaker 1: the passion you have for it. But that's what you
Speaker 1: mentioned and the system you're talking about, and I believe
Speaker 1: that it can work. It comes out a cross load
Speaker 1: and clear respect.
Speaker 2: You for that. Thank you very much, Thank you very
Speaker 2: much for the appreciation. I have to say, I'm very
Speaker 2: happy I can bring my story here. I really hope
Speaker 2: that we can do something together. I mean you and
Speaker 2: me this podcast, but I mean the British and Europeans.
Speaker 2: I think, well, the sea separates us, but I think
Speaker 2: we belong together. And I think when it comes to
Speaker 2: managing fisheries and anything that happens in the sea, it
Speaker 2: makes much more sense to do it together than to
Speaker 2: draw this imaginary line halfway in the North Sea that.
Speaker 1: Separates us at hunt when you say that I couldn't.
Speaker 1: You don't get me wrong. I'm not pulling yep on that.
Speaker 1: I'm going to give you the measure that I agree
Speaker 1: with you because we've already had a chat about how
Speaker 1: you remember Jack Roberts and obviously you've worked together, you know,
Speaker 1: So there's nobodriers there. I was talking to one of
Speaker 1: our really successful farst young fisherman and there's not too
Speaker 1: many unfortunately around now, but he was fishing down in
Speaker 1: the Southern north Sea and he was talking about how
Speaker 1: well he got on with some of the dutch Men
Speaker 1: and probably Belgiums. He was in the Southern north Sea
Speaker 1: and he says he was getting on really well with
Speaker 1: them and they were honest with their patch theaters and
Speaker 1: things like that. So can we not see what Goodoni
Speaker 1: or Siatists talk together, pressures talk together. That's when it finished,
Speaker 1: that's when it starts and ends.
Speaker 2: That's true. Actually I call it in my when I
Speaker 2: gave a presentation, I call it social innovation. But this
Speaker 2: is just expensive words of people just talking to each other.
Speaker 2: There's so much value in talking to each other. Let
Speaker 2: me give you an Examplengos the green people that say,
Speaker 2: twenty years ago it was impossible to have one of
Speaker 2: the fisher's representatives and people of the NGOs together at
Speaker 2: one table. But then fifteen years ago we started with
Speaker 2: this cooperation and we involved the NGOs, and in the
Speaker 2: beginning it was a bit awkward when these people started talking,
Speaker 2: but very quickly they started exchanging information and talking about
Speaker 2: their problems from both sides, and after very short time,
Speaker 2: the people of the NGOs and the fishers, they just
Speaker 2: get along very well. So Pier old.
Speaker 1: People, Yeah, yeah, and it can stock assessment become real Dame.
Speaker 2: I definitely think it can, and not only it can,
Speaker 2: but I think it should. I mean as soon as
Speaker 2: you have cameras on board, and this technology is underdevelopment,
Speaker 2: but it's already quite far. When you have cameras on
Speaker 2: board and you have a data collection system that we
Speaker 2: for the moment have fully operational on most of our vessels,
Speaker 2: you have the foundation for a real time stock assessment
Speaker 2: because you will have every fishing hole. As soon as
Speaker 2: the catch is processed, the information goes to the database,
Speaker 2: goes into a model together with all the information of
Speaker 2: all the other fishing vessels, and you get a constant
Speaker 2: update of the fish distribution and fish densities and so.
Speaker 2: And that is the basis for real time stock assessment
Speaker 2: and real time management because this is the goal. You
Speaker 2: need real time management when huge amounts of octopus enter
Speaker 2: the Western English channel in certain places. But it's interesting
Speaker 2: to know today that this is happening. I mean the
Speaker 2: system today between the first data collection and the actual
Speaker 2: quota and the advice is something like almost two years.
Speaker 2: Well that's not quick enough now to see all these
Speaker 2: sudden changes. We have to go to real time stock assessment, yeah,
Speaker 2: or a combination of the two. I mean, I'm not
Speaker 2: excluding the one. I think we probably need to to.
Speaker 2: I mean, we have to feed the old system with
Speaker 2: better data so it performs better. But we need quick
Speaker 2: ways to assess the system in order to have quick
Speaker 2: management measures.
Speaker 1: And would you say we will get Do we still
Speaker 1: need research vessels under see inspections becoming obsolete or would
Speaker 1: they big?
Speaker 2: I think research vessels we will probably still need for
Speaker 2: the more fundamental research, but I would not use them
Speaker 2: for the let's say, the operational research like surveys and
Speaker 2: so on. I think it's it's much more efficient to
Speaker 2: use the fishing flee to do that, it will have
Speaker 2: its own challenges. I won't say it will just be
Speaker 2: very easy, because there's differences between vessels, so a catch
Speaker 2: of one vessel means something different than a catch of
Speaker 2: another vessel. And then then you have other fishing methods.
Speaker 2: A catch of anglers means something different than a catch
Speaker 2: of a palgic troll. So I mean there's challenges there
Speaker 2: as well, but I think there's much more value there
Speaker 2: and I think we can overcome the challenges. So research
Speaker 2: vessels for that probably obsolete inspections. I think the inspections
Speaker 2: can be much less. I mean all the inspections on
Speaker 2: technical measures are not needed anymore. So meash sizes selective
Speaker 2: panels and so you don't have to check it anymore
Speaker 2: because it's free choice for the fissure. What we'll probably
Speaker 2: need inspection is the functioning of the camera, but a
Speaker 2: lot of that can be done the remote. And then
Speaker 2: what catch is actually in the hull of the vessel,
Speaker 2: and that is probably I think that we'll need some
Speaker 2: kind of control how that should look like. I think
Speaker 2: inspection should also undergo a paradigm change, because now the
Speaker 2: fishers and inspectors are against standing against each other. No,
Speaker 2: I think we know we need social scientists or people
Speaker 2: with social experience from other sectors to have a look
Speaker 2: at that. But I think inspectors should probably be involved
Speaker 2: more in a cooperative way and in a way to
Speaker 2: collect information. I mean, the way we do it. We
Speaker 2: know where the bad guys are in our fisher we
Speaker 2: know what's going on, we know what kind of road
Speaker 2: is going on, we know how people fiddle around with
Speaker 2: fishing gear. Why, because we have this social interaction, We
Speaker 2: talk to each other and there is social control within
Speaker 2: the fishing industry. Fishers know from each other who is
Speaker 2: doing the bad thing, and this information is shared. So
Speaker 2: I think an inspector should also be more involved in
Speaker 2: the fishery like that, and where social control becomes more important,
Speaker 2: and where the good guys who meanwhile for sustainable fishing
Speaker 2: work together amongst them cells and with the scientists and
Speaker 2: with the inspectors to actually push the bad guys to
Speaker 2: behave better, because it is in the interest of everybody
Speaker 2: for fishers who actually behave in a sustainable way, and
Speaker 2: the bad guys just ruined it for everybody. So I mean,
Speaker 2: it's a very different way of dealing with each other.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but it's put more trust than each other.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so much more fun. I mean, if you get along. Now,
Speaker 2: if an inspector goes on board of a fishing vessel
Speaker 2: and he has to be guided with policemen with machine guns,
Speaker 2: I don't know if this inspector has a fun job now,
Speaker 2: But if an inspector can go on board in a
Speaker 2: very different atmosphere, well maybe this job can become fun
Speaker 2: as well.
Speaker 1: Can push in fleets become the world world's largest ecosystem monitoring.
Speaker 2: Network, definitely, definitely, I'm sure it can. Yeah, because they
Speaker 2: are indeed active over the whole world, and you can
Speaker 2: fill them up with sensors, any sensor you want, and
Speaker 2: you can put it at the surface, and you can
Speaker 2: put it on the fishing gear so it reaches the seafloor. Yeah.
Speaker 2: And if fishers cooperate in that and also give a
Speaker 2: hand in maintaining the system. I mean, a fisher who
Speaker 2: has has his main commercial activity fishing, but has to
Speaker 2: work in the system of data collection and does not
Speaker 2: have to spend time anymore on all the administration and
Speaker 2: the complexity and so on, well, he can spare some
Speaker 2: of his time in making all these sensors work, so
Speaker 2: you don't need expensive maintenance. I mean the fisher himself
Speaker 2: can play an important role in maintenance of cameras and
Speaker 2: maintenance of sensors that but are put on fishing gear.
Speaker 2: So you get a cheap system with very cheap maintenance
Speaker 2: to actually observe the marine ecosystem as a whole.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and who we want specialize data.
Speaker 2: Well in our system today is the fisher who owns
Speaker 2: the data. So we have no rights regarding the data.
Speaker 2: Of course, if you want to enter the system that
Speaker 2: we are suggesting, the basis of the system is good data.
Speaker 2: So if you voluntarily join the system, you will voluntarily
Speaker 2: provide me with your data. If you don't want to
Speaker 2: do that, find for me, but then you will be
Speaker 2: part of the common Fisheries policy as it is today,
Speaker 2: with all the control and enforcements that comes with it.
Speaker 2: But you have the choice. We will never force any
Speaker 2: fisher to join our system, but we have seen that
Speaker 2: the majority has done it voluntarily.
Speaker 1: Okay, Yeah, And what are the risks of an observation
Speaker 1: based management system?
Speaker 2: M hm? The risks? I think we will probably find
Speaker 2: out the risks when we are trying it out, But
Speaker 2: I think the risks is well, the questions I have
Speaker 2: is will we find ways and models who are actually
Speaker 2: clever enough and quick enough to process all the information
Speaker 2: we will be getting. That's one thing. Another risk is
Speaker 2: well compliance, will fishures maybe find ways around our camera
Speaker 2: system to avoid the quota they are for facing. I
Speaker 2: think these are the two main, main, main things for me,
Speaker 2: main risks.
Speaker 1: When I say this, it's just my own thoughts myself,
Speaker 1: and I don't want to put you in a position hands.
Speaker 1: But one of the problems the round about what we've
Speaker 1: been discussing, and it comes from, you know, a point
Speaker 1: a friend of mine, an Irish man, made to me
Speaker 1: just recently where he felt that the there have a real, real,
Speaker 1: real issue on the macro code in Ireland. And he
Speaker 1: says that the problem where they feel the difficult position,
Speaker 1: the fuel they're in. He says, it's not Brussels. Brussels
Speaker 1: is not the problem. It's not coming from Brussels. He said,
Speaker 1: the problem is Dutch millionaires.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well now you're talking about it magic freed of course, and.
Speaker 1: But the system is just shocking I feel anyway, and
Speaker 1: I'm not hard left in anyway, I'm not at all
Speaker 1: the conservative all my life. But you don't feel the
Speaker 1: country should own the quota and it's allocuted accordingly.
Speaker 2: So you're saying that it's the country who should own
Speaker 2: the quota. Is that what you're saying?
Speaker 1: Yeah, rather than because another thing that a diientist, especially
Speaker 1: scientist from Aberdeen Marine Lab, he once quoted he is
Speaker 1: the biggest mistake they ever made here was putting a
Speaker 1: value on quota and license, because he says, now the
Speaker 1: chances of a young guy leaving school his ambition is
Speaker 1: to be a fresherman, going own, to be a skipper
Speaker 1: and eventually with his own board. He says, that's impossible
Speaker 1: to do now.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I see, I see what you mean. Yes, I
Speaker 2: think I agree, But I think I have been pro
Speaker 2: something in between, because we now have that system where
Speaker 2: the Belgium state owns the quota still and is also
Speaker 2: strongly involved in dividing the quota amongst the different companies.
Speaker 2: I think the advantage of that is that indeed you
Speaker 2: can give the opportunity to young fishers to start. You
Speaker 2: you can actually steer your fishery a little bit so
Speaker 2: that it's done in a social way. The disadvantage is
Speaker 2: that with the complexity of mixed fisheries and all these
Speaker 2: different quota and the chokes pieces issue, and so you
Speaker 2: need a system where you can easily and weekly distribute
Speaker 2: quota to where they are needed. So you need some
Speaker 2: kind of exchange or rental system. But you can perfectly
Speaker 2: do that while the quota are still in the hands
Speaker 2: of the state. Every year, Belgium could distribute the quota
Speaker 2: but still have some hand on how it is done.
Speaker 1: Well, my reponts to that hands is well done Belgium,
Speaker 1: to thank you. That seriously mean that how much uncertainty
Speaker 1: is an acceptable in a real tame management system.
Speaker 2: Well, I think we can allow ourselves quite some uncertainty
Speaker 2: because well we know that the cameras will increase the
Speaker 2: information hugely, so we will make a big step forward
Speaker 2: if we start using this cameras to analyze the full catch,
Speaker 2: so it will be much better than today. But to
Speaker 2: have a perfect catch re registration of all holes is
Speaker 2: just not possible, so we will have to accept some
Speaker 2: sort of error and uncertainty. But then I think the
Speaker 2: information that we will have will be probably more than
Speaker 2: enough than needed to actually know where the fishes and
Speaker 2: how they evolved through time.
Speaker 1: But I just in my own head, which I don't
Speaker 1: think I'm missing anything. But from what you said about
Speaker 1: the other romo you're proposing the cameras. For sure don't
Speaker 1: like cameras. But the big bat for me han't listening
Speaker 1: to you. It is there's so many other changes that
Speaker 1: it'll it will just be part of a whole package
Speaker 1: and will be acceptable.
Speaker 2: I think the reason fishers don't like cameras is because
Speaker 2: you have a complex set of rules that are difficult
Speaker 2: to comply with. Now, if it's difficult to comply with, well,
Speaker 2: quite often you will have a situation that you don't comply.
Speaker 2: And if then each time a camera will register or
Speaker 2: what's the word camera will actually show to the manager
Speaker 2: that you did not comply with the rules, well, a
Speaker 2: fine is the next thing that will come, or you
Speaker 2: will vessel will be put on the chain on the
Speaker 2: key side, it will stop fishing. So there's the fishes
Speaker 2: are scared to just provide the managers with their true
Speaker 2: information on their catches. But when you change the system
Speaker 2: and it's not so much based anymore on control and enforcement,
Speaker 2: that changes the whole attitude of fishes because they don't
Speaker 2: have to be afraid to be put out of business
Speaker 2: if they just don't follow the rules for a few times. No,
Speaker 2: it's a much more flexible system.
Speaker 1: Yeah yeah, and can atually signed as realistically processed millions
Speaker 1: of observations per day.
Speaker 2: Well, I think they can, but the amount of information
Speaker 2: will not be so huge because we are not transferring
Speaker 2: to the cloud the images. So what we will do
Speaker 2: for each all we will analyze the catch and for
Speaker 2: each of the species we will have a linked distribution.
Speaker 2: So for each fish this means maybe I don't know,
Speaker 2: thirty numbers times I don't know, twenty species is six
Speaker 2: hundred numbers for a whole. I mean that's tiny, tiny,
Speaker 2: So for each all we get a tiny amount of information. Okay,
Speaker 2: if I have to do that for a few thousand vessels,
Speaker 2: still compared to the huge amount of data we are
Speaker 2: able to process these days, well, this information coming from
Speaker 2: the fish fishing fleet will still be tiny. I mean
Speaker 2: what I think the information the amount of data you
Speaker 2: use if you use Facebook for an hour is probably
Speaker 2: much more than the amount of data that you would
Speaker 2: produce with the fishing fleet in the North Sea. So no,
Speaker 2: it's just link distributions, it's just numbers.
Speaker 1: Okay, yeah, yeah, no, that's excellent. And where can our
Speaker 1: listeners follow you online? Active on social media?
Speaker 2: I'm trying to be a I'm sixty one years old.
Speaker 2: Now I'm not so active on social media, but the
Speaker 2: last six months I have been more active on LinkedIn,
Speaker 2: mainly to spread my message. So I force myself to
Speaker 2: be present, and I have to say I kind of
Speaker 2: like it. It's nice you get somebody, get to know
Speaker 2: people with different ideas or the same ideas, and it
Speaker 2: gives discussions and discussions bring wisdom because I don't claim
Speaker 2: to hold the wisdom and the truth in myself. I
Speaker 2: know I make errors and if people discuss with me
Speaker 2: and they will point me at weaknesses in my story,
Speaker 2: and that's for me very interesting because then I can
Speaker 2: will improve my ideas. So no, I'm very happy to
Speaker 2: be there for the moment there, Thank.
Speaker 1: You, Thank you. I would just bebe point that you
Speaker 1: you to the wrong person that you refer you refer
Speaker 1: to being sixty one to somebody who's going to say
Speaker 1: to you, oh, is that all You're that young?
Speaker 2: When I have a few black hairs in my mustache,
Speaker 2: you're probably all white very much.
Speaker 1: So it's a long time. I would like to thank you.
Speaker 1: The only another point I was going to make because
Speaker 1: we include Hans was as I mentioned earlier, and I
Speaker 1: do mean it, well done Belgium, and but I have
Speaker 1: to be upfront. That only goes to the point we fishers,
Speaker 1: I won't be most of still want Scotland to beat
Speaker 1: Belgium when we're playing football.
Speaker 2: Well, we had better times. I mean we had to
Speaker 2: ross during the three last matches and only the last
Speaker 2: one we won, and so yeah we're going through, but
Speaker 2: we were a bit nervous, you know, we had better times.
Speaker 1: Well, well you're still there, so you're doing better than us.
Speaker 2: That's true, that's true. Well next time better. I wish
Speaker 2: the Scotch the Scott's sold the luck.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we emptied Boston as far as alcohol is okay,
Speaker 1: Well no, thank you, thank you so much. I really
Speaker 1: appreciate your time and credit to it, your looking at
Speaker 1: doing and I all the very best was that. I
Speaker 1: really do hope you have success. That's fantastic, forward thinking
Speaker 1: and definitely the way to go.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. My pleasure and my greetings to
Speaker 2: the Scotch fishers and and all scottsmen and women.
Speaker 1: Thank you all very much, thank you, same to to
Speaker 1: Belgiums
Speaker 2: MHM