Speaker 1: Hello everyone, and thank you for joining us again on
the Seafood Matters podcast. In order to help her podcast series,
please press subscribe and share it with family and friends.
In this episode, I'm delighted to welcome Sarah Coulthard, a
senior lecturer in marine social science at Newcastle University, who
joins us to chat about the effects of the suggested
ban and bottom trawlley proposed by Sir David Artenborough in
his latest film Ocean. Hi Sarah, and welcome to Seafood Matters.
Speaker 2: Hi Jim, Thank YOUIM delighted to pay here.
Speaker 1: Thank you. If we start with the obvious on the film,
what was your gut reaction when you saw the atenb
a piece calling for a full barn on bottom trolling.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So I went to see the film about a
week ago. I took my eleven year old daughter and
nine year old Meat and we went together to theater.
And I think first of all to say that the
documentary as a whole is just a stunning piece of cinematography.
Is absolutely struck and in all by the incredibly beautiful
portrayal of ocean life. And I also have to say
I've never seen the cinema in my hometown, so full
it was absolutely packed, which is quite an experience. But
my good reaction on the trawling piece, I think first
and foremost, I felt real empathy for fishermen, especially taller fishermen,
but indeed all fishermen, as the narrative of the film
was rather indiscriminate at times, frequently conflating trawling damage and
fishing damage more generally. David Attenbury is a national treasure.
We've all grown up with him in the background, and
I think it could have hurt fishermen to see their
livelihoods being portrayed in this way. You know, fishermen are
an important part of ocean life and it was a shame,
I think, to have isolated them from the story, to
only appear as part of the problem rather than part
of this solution. So that was my first gut reaction.
But I must say my other gut reaction was the
amount of waste that drawling produces, and I think this
is very hard to watch. My daughter actually walked out
at this point because you found it really upsetting, and
I think everyone must agree that it is a serious
problem to be tackled. I had a conversation recently with
a former taller fishermen who described how we used to
run around the deck trying to save bycatch growing critically
endangered flapper scapes and other species overboard before they died.
And this description from him is really stuck with me.
We are a nation of people, I think, who generally
do not like to see waste, and of course waste
is a problem throughout all food production, not just trawling,
and that's important to recognize, but that doesn't mean that
we just assume it away as being too hard a
challenge to address. I think you might remember u F
only whitting stools TV programs War on Waste resulted inners
now seeing wonky carrots and imperfect apples available to buy
in some markets, which is progress. So I think reducing
waste to cross all food production systems is hugely important
and more needs to be done with that regard acknowledging,
of course, that there is a lot of work being
done to reduce by catching, trawling and to reduce the
damage to the seabed, it was a shame that the
film couldn't showcase some of those efforts as well, which
are often done in partner with fish men and for it.
For example, in Northumberland where I live, our local inshore
fisheries and conservation authority are IFKA is working really closely
with the skipper of a small scale pawn toiling vessel
to trial modifications to his fishing gears so that it's
reduced contact with the seabed. Similarly, the Scottish quel Fishermen's
Federation is leading initiatives in Scotland to reduce entanglement of
whales in Creole rope. They trained fishermen how to untangle
the whales safely and they're adopting heavier ropes to reduce
its occurrence. And I think these are really positive stories
showing the importance of reducing the environmental impacts of fishing
in partnership with fishermen. I was also a little bit
surprised about the singling out of trawling several times in
the film where the food security was being highlighted, and
it was really important that this was covered in the film.
We saw footage of fishermen in West Africa, I think,
pulling in a beach sine and this is a really
important story to tell where small scale fishermen are hugely
undermined and threatened by industrial nomadic trawlers from other countries
who have often overfished their own waters. However, in many
parts of Africa, and I've done research on this, in Kenya,
the beach sane as a gear is completely banned because
it lands small juvenile fish and has been argued with
a large bat looking from environmental engeos to be unsustainable
and in places environmentally damaging. So with my research of
the years has shown that the sailing band has serious
implications and food security in coastal regions in parts of
eastern Africa, and this detail, this nuance was lacking in
the film. But I think it is the case that
blanket bands, of types of gears, and I've really seen
this in Kenya Fair's time firsthand, Sorry, can really cause
harm to coastal communities, and there needs to be great
a reflection about that.
Speaker 1: That's okay, No, that's good, that's good. I just feel
that times minimum sizes increase to conservative stalks. I think
it's just it's a market. It's almost like its market driven,
it's market laid, and that just increases by catch increases
a problem. You know, I've filleted quite a bit of
fish in recent times when I'm visiting the pier when
boats are landing, and I'll be the skipper. I'll just say, look,
help yourself. And then they'll be helping myself and they'll say, no, no,
don't take that. Here took some better fish, and this
is fine for me. Now just say, for example, a haddock.
I take a haddache and I'll look at it filleted
when I'm home, and this is for my own interests,
and I'll look at the size. Now, we had a
fish shop part of our business going back in the
as far as the seventies and eighties, and the size
and the quality for fishmongers you could almost say was primo,
no prime quality, prime size, and that would be the
price on the market. And the fish I've got with me.
Just say, for example, in old money, it would be
ground about a four ounce filet. Now the four ounce
fulet would give a house waife maybe four filets to
the pound, so she'd be buying her pounder fish for
her family. Should have four filets. That fish I've been
getting is between anything between four and a half to
five and a half ounces, so it's in houradays that
would have gone into the fishmonger, and do you know
where I got it from the Bait by catch bait
for sklfish, carb and lobster, because there's no market for
it any longer.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean it's I think you're right. I think
it's it's really interesting talking to the public about their
perceptions of the film. I was just in the Whitby
Fish and Chips Festival last weekend and it was quite
a lot of comment people who had seen a film
and those who hadn't about are concerned about waste and
just yeah, what to do about it? And I think
trying to work with markets to make them more effective
so that the waste is reduced would be a good thing.
Obviously that's a very complex thing to do. Youn't manage
to do it? Yeah, Yeah, certainly more could be done
abound that, but I think one of the biggest messages
from the movie was to try and resolve that. In
Simay kind of gasps around them the cinema when that
part came on. I think we're telling to that as well.
Speaker 1: I just felt with that, you know, it was marketable
fish perfectly good for us. Of course, it's the market.
The reason for it all is because the market wants
bigger fish now so the bigger so I hear anyway,
I can't accept it because, as I've said a few traders, Oh,
I see, so that you reckon that the house wave
would far rather pay twenty five pound akilo than ten
not pay so much for it, And then we have
obesity problems. So we're words. Is it all in?
Speaker 2: Yeah? I don't have the answers to that one.
Speaker 1: No, I don't know, nobody does, nobody does it just
it's out of hand, I think, and we just needs
to get it. We need to get I grow up.
Do high profile documentaries have a duty to show balanced
science or is good photography and clever storytelling enough to
shape public opinion?
Speaker 2: This is a really interesting question. I think, yeah, clever
storytelling with always shaped public opinion, probably more than anything else.
And it has always been that way, hasn't it? And
also bad news always sells more than good. But I
do think that the book really stops with the scientists.
You know, we have not got our act together. We
offer highly polarized advice. It's all evidence based, but it
addresses different questions, uses different methods and data produces very
different recommendations, so it does boil down I think to
the communication evidence in the persuasi andess of arguments that
are made, and at times the balance is lost. So
I think we as scientists need to get much better
at doing interdisciplinary research and really integrating different evidence from
across environmental, economic, and social sciences. And research finders have
been asked in asking us to do this for decades
and we're still not really delivering it. And I think
the film exposes that lack of jo end up thinking
from scientists. It was very much from an environmental science perspective.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but I often wonder one of the messages that
has been lost with us as well. And I got
this from officially scientist in an earlier podcast, and he
worked with what was in Marine Scotland which has now
the Marine Directorate, and he did a lot of surveys
on prawn's and the results they have which I thought
was interesting. So the authorities have that on file and
he reckons that from a conservation point of view on
nephrop's prawns as we call them, trolling is better for
the stalk than creels, because he says, with the nature
of the way they live, the prawn it's as he
described it's almost like a harem, a male will service
maybe up to fifteen to twenty females. Now, the results
they found when they're trolling, there'll be sixty to eighty
percent of the catch will be males and a far
far smaller percentage is females. But when it's taken from creels,
the percentage of female is far greater. The reason for
the troll is males are out their burrows and foraging,
feeding or most of the day, and the females only
come out once a day to feed. And of course
they go into the creel and that same court. So
he says they have that information there and that was
done a lot. So on a conservation point of view,
trolling for nephrops is better than static.
Speaker 2: Well that's if you're just taking it from the perspective
of the stock. And I can't comment on that specific city,
and I'm certainly not a prone specialist. Social scientist the
only way to talk about society of fishing. But I
think the point really to think about that, I think
that you've clarified there is that there's also divisions within
environmental science and within fishery science about the perspectives of
those who are understanding how stocks work within a single species,
and those who are advocating for broader ecosystems about approach
to fisheries management. It looks at being the interdependencies of
the prawn with everything else that's in the scene and
tries to understand it as part of the broader ecosystem.
So that I suppose that's that's one element to bring
to that. But yeah, I mean, you know, it's all
just very contested and I think, you know, wonder the
public and everybody else is confused about what to do.
But I think that that is that's down to scientists
needs to get much better at talking with each other
across these different fields of research to try and come
out with some kind of consensus around around what's going
on and how things work.
Speaker 1: To be blunt, is this film eco propaganda?
Speaker 2: I don't think it is. No, I think it was.
I think it could have been better informed with more
divergent views about what is working. So yeah, I think
ecopropaganda is quite a strong term. I wouldn't necessarily use that.
Some credit has to be given to the documentary makers.
They're trying the raise awareness of the value of our
ocean and the complexity of it. I think, which is
no bad thing, but I think, yeah, the particular focus
on trawling I think was a bit of a missed
opportunity to offer more balanced you about some of the
things that are working in fisheries management more generally, rather
than just focusing on that.
Speaker 1: Is this a fair fate or environmental bullying?
Speaker 2: No, don't, I don't think. Well, there are several injustices
in this which I probably lay out to you if
you have to ask me about whether I was for
or against a ban on bottom trawling. I think that
the fair fight aspect, I think there are powerful voices
on both sides, both the fishing industry and environmental enginers.
And sadly people fall through the cracks of that in
the middle who who are being impacted? But you know
by that, by that division, which is a shame. So
I would really Yeah, I'm always trying to urge very
com competing opinions and different opposing sides to try and
come together and find some level of common ground. I
think it's really important.
Speaker 1: Are you for or against a ban on all trolley
in all MPAs in the UK or outly in your reasoning?
Speaker 2: Yeah, So I've thought a lot about this so to
hear me, I think, to start with, I think there
is a stronger case for stopping industrial scale trawlling and MPAs,
although that comes with the caveat that how you're defining
industrial scale is indeed a challenge. And I think to
stop tolling where there is evidence that it's causing damage
to protected features and MBAs such as seagrass beds, et cetera.
You know, these are really important habitats that do need
protecting for the societal benefits that they deliver, and I
don't imagine there's much controversy about that. However, the current
campaign from several endos is about an indiscriminate ban on
all trawlling in all MPAs, And this is a different thing.
And this is something that I do not support. And
there are three main reasons why, and I go through
those if I may so. The cause, as far as
I've seen. The first reason, as far as I've seen,
and I may be wrong sometimes I'm is paid. The
campaigns have paid no consideration at all to the impacts
on people's lives. So how would this affect How would
such a band affect regional economies in coastal areas that
are already struggling with multiple forms of deprivation and disadvantage
relative in land areas, and I find that quite quite
a shame really, you know, all the resources that must
be thrown at these campaigns, it is not a big
job to conduct a straightforward assessment of how many boats
and how many families would be affected by a ban
on tooling, so that we can transparently weigh up the
proposed ecological gains against economic and social costs. So I
think promoting the band without the recognition of the impact
act on people's lives is really is an ethical and
in my view, is against the principles that are laid
out in the coming Montreal Global Bidiversity Framework. And this
is an international vision or global biodiversity goals to which
we are signed up to as a country, and it's
explicit in its wording that protecting and restoring natural ecosystems
should be done in a way that takes into account
those people most dependent on biodiversity, Encouraging sustainable use by
indigenous and local communities and taking into account surely means
conducting social impact assessments of some form and working in
partnership with fishermen to try and improve bidiversity goals together,
so I really hope to see some change regarding this.
We've got very rich data on the UK fishing fleet
in this country. Seafish conducts its annual fleet survey, which
is publicly available, so establishing the societal impact of the
band should be a priority so formed choices can be made.
So that's that's reason one. I would never be able
to support something where I can't be where I don't feel
that I can see the full implications of doing so.
The second reason is related to this, but it and
it also comes across in some of the narrative of
the Ocean movie that there's a continuing sense that MPAs
cover such small areas that banning trawling within them is
a tiny ass and this is just not the case
in the UK at least overall, we have thirty eight
percent of UK waters covered by an MPa designation of
one form or another, and this rises to forty seven
percent in shore, so within the six nautical miles of
the coastline. This is according to j and CC figures,
and this is where many of our small scale fisheries,
which make up seventy percent of our fleet, are heavily
dependent on fishing grounds. Shallow inshore seas pointed out in
the Ocean Movie often have a much higher concentration of
biodiversity and protected features, and subsequently higher MPa coverage, So
the burden of a complete ban on trawling is very
likely to be shouldered by the small scale fishing sector,
who are arguably less able to absorb the costs of
lost ground and are often allbeit not always, doing less
damage relative to industrial scale trawling. So in England the
average is fifty one percent of our intore waters are
now designated as an MPa. In some regions this is
as high as ninety percent. For example, on our eastern
coastline in Northumberland it's seventy percent. So we really need
some transparency about the extent to which a ban on
trawling in all MPAs disadvantages small scale fishes, many of
whom are reliant on trawling inshore because their boats are
small and it's unsafe to venture offshore. So it's very
contradictory for an NGO to say it supports small scale fissuies,
which many of the environmental endeers claim, but be silent
on whether this extends to small scale trawlers. So the
third reason, and this is really the biggest one and
why I wanted to do this podcast. You know, we
often here the MPAs are just paper parks designated on
paper only. I think Dave Lattenburg made reference to this
as well, but this is absolutely not the case in
England's in short waters because we have regional Fisheries management
bodies called ifkers. You'll spend the last ten years carefully
implementing jeff as revised approach to the MPa management. Offshore,
it's a different matter, and the MMO are implementing new
management there which I know less about. But I just
spent the last two years writing a report for the
Association of Ikas where I was interviewing over seventy staff
from across all ten of England, and one of their
major achievements is in shore MPa management. So if gers
have already carefully assessed every fishing activity that takes place
in an MPa its impacts on protective which are the
reasons why the MPAs were originally established, and then using
that evidence produced by themselves and other statutory bodies that
natural England, accompanied by extensive stakeholder engagement with coastal communities
in their regions. They've got a really good understanding of
the local social and economic context of the MPAs and
the management that's required, and they've not only assessed what
those fishing impacts are, but then they've implemented, using their
local by law making powers, effective management measures that either
remove or mitigate the impact. And this is really delivering,
on a case by case basis for each MPa a
balance between effective conservation and protection and features with fiable
fishing livelihoods. If BECAUSE evolved they were set up by
the Marine and Coastal Access Act MACCA in two thousand
and nine do this and they've been delivering effective MPa
management ever since. This is done through the IFCA process
in partnerships with fishermen who sit on the decision making
committees alongside a range of other coastal stakeholders all representing
different coastal interests in their regions, which includes environmental groups,
and they as a committee they navigate the hard choices
and trade offs through debate in their committees, which sometimes
does result in fraide relationships with fishermen who over the
years have had to concede a lot to make rooms
for effective conservation. So in England, in share trawling where
it is permitted, in an MPa is carefully monitored, it's
carefully managed and if it enforces the management, it produces
and it coexists alongside effective marine conservation. And there are
many examples of this which are A won't go into
great detail, but a good example is Pool Harbor on
the Dorsetate coast and it is a local small scale
dredge fishery for clams and cockle It's an MSc certified
fishery for its sustainability and it delivers huge benefits for
the local region. And I think if you've ever been
to some of the seafred restaurants in Ple, you'll know
what I mean. The protected features of the Harbor, which
is one of the most heavily designated MPAs in Europe,
I think, are carefully one for impact. The management in
place has been tailored, combining a whole suite of different tools.
They've got no take zones, you've got licenses to limit
fishing pressure. You cannot fish at certain times of the
day to avoid bird disturbance during certain seasons, which is
what many of our MPAs are designated to protect bird
wildlife and it's almost like a work of art enabling
coexistence of trawling and effective MPa protection. So in my view,
a call for a complete banner of trawling and MPAs
is an abandonment of the management that we now have
in place in shore in England at least. And I
would stress here that the IFCA delivery of death is
revised approach is only relevant for England. I cannot speak
for other countries in the UK, but I know that
there's there is a real concern about the lack of
MPa management where the remains high levels of troiling and
seawan and I think this is warranted. But it would
have been a great thing to see David Attenburg discussing
some of the innovations of IFA MPa management, so you
really celibrate the achievements made in the pursuit of coexistence
of fisheries in the natural world. So yeah, I feel
it's a bit of a lost opportunity. Would have been
good to get some of that really positive story there.
Speaker 1: Yes, especially to have the environment at see or Ocean
and not have fishermen and that when they're such a
major part of it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean you're right to start talking about fisheries
management or the ocean without fishing fishermen in it is
just a non starter. You know, they need to be
part of the solution. They are, They have rights to
be part of that story, but they're important part of
that story.
Speaker 1: Yep. It asks the question are they trying to ban
something they don't understand.
Speaker 2: I think this is a lack of acknowledgement of the
progress that has been made in MPa management and good
process that's in place. And yeah, I think this is
not a difficult thing to resolve, and it's a case
of just going back to the same mold arguments without
acknowledging the progress. Yeah, that's about what I think.
Speaker 1: What do you feel about banning bottom trolling? It doesn't
stop demand, It just ships it off to someone else
with lower standards. Where's the logic in that if it's
a country that hasn't got this standards that we have,
that we're going to be imported in it from.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean that's a good point. You know how
there's huge variation in the capacity to enforce what to
implement the management and then enforce it. That's obviously very
unequal capacities of different countries around the world to do that.
So in a way that's that's a really good point
because it just puts the onus on countries out of
the UK that are already delivering some really high quality
management to really recognize that and to promote it and
to share knowledge about how it can be done.
Speaker 1: Which you've used alternatives to bands in what MPa seasonal closures,
gear innovations.
Speaker 2: I would just say management and especially regional co management
of MPAs which involve communities is the way forward and
I think that's exactly what the iffkas are delivering in England.
You know, adoption of that model and real investment into
producing the evidence that inderpins decision making process. Decision making
processes that include, rather than exclude, all those who are
involved and impacted by the decisions is really the only
fair and effective way forward and is where you'll get
the real buy in from coastal communities. Not everybody will
agree with the outcome in terms of the management decisions,
but at least they can be part of in respect
the legitimacy of process by which decisions are made. The
best thing about this is that the delivery of IFA
MPa management in England shows that it can be done
in it shows how to do it. It's not perfect,
but what is and I think it's as good as
we probably ever get, to be honest, And yeah, so
I think that's the alternative to the ban is investing
in proper management and I think the value of doing
that at regional level is enormous because that is where
the detailed understanding of of not just the environment, but
also the social and the economic contexts within the region
where the MPa is located, that is all harbored a
regional level.
Speaker 1: Really, I speak to all kinds trolling trollers, scallop bridgers
and study gear creel fishermen as we call them here,
and they are perfectly comfortable with well saying seasonal closures.
There would maybe one of them would maybe fish an
area for a certain period and then they would move
away and another form of fishing would come in and
they do that successfully London. They're just just talking to
each other, so it is working degree maybe not legislation,
but it does work, and fishermen are perfectly happy to
speak about that.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I've had similar conversations with real fishermen in Northumberland
and they often lament the natural seasonal closures that used
to occur over the winter months when they would give
the lobster grounds a rest and they turn to netting
for salmon. So now that is lost, you know, they
can't they're restricted from netting, usually restricted from fishing for
salmon at all now and that diversification has been eroded
over the years. So now they are fishing all year around,
fishing hard for lobster. You know, they have to make
ends meet as well. Yeah, so that there's been a
kind of the traditional seasonality of fishing is something that
we have lost, which is a great shame, and so
anything to find support that to come back again, I think, Yeah,
I imagine it's very welcome by fishermen, certainly fishermen in Northumberland.
I speeches would advocate to that as well, but as
well as limiting the amount of intense fishing that goes on,
you know, I did a study recently on with potters
with potters in Northumberland, and all of them were very
grateful for the inshore hot limitation that we have in Northumberland,
which is eight hundred pots and per boat, and offshore
beyond six nautical miles that doesn't exist, and they are large.
By and large, the people I interviewed were quite concerned
about the overfishing that happens beyond the six but we're
quite happy that within the six at least they've got
that limitation in there, and I know that other iffkas
are trying to implement that as we speak in other
parts of the country. But there's a huge value in
going to fishermen with the problem. You know, how would
you how would you manage this in its entirety, rather
than doing what we currently seem to do as scientists
and as the government, which is going to going to
fishermen with some predesigned, pre cooked solutions and asking them
if they agree or not. That stunts creativity and the
wealth of knowledge that fishermen have about how to manage
their own their own livelihoods.
Speaker 1: There's there a risk of celebrity driven environmentalism and what
qualification wealth, what qualifications does happen? But I have regard
and bottom trolling.
Speaker 2: Yeah again, I think it's down to the scientists to
ensure that the research teams behind documentaries is really informed.
I think celebrities contribute a great deal. With the work
of David Attenburg has been incredibly important over the years
to inspire so many of us to take an interest
in the natural world. I think those stories just need
to be expanded a little to include the people who
depend on those natural resources, their livelihoods. Did they become
part of the story rather than on the margins of it?
And I think, yeah, I don't know how you how
you do that, but it would have been nice. This
could have been an opportunity to do more of that.
I think in this movie some of it is there.
You do it. You see fishermen, and there is the
recognition of food security, and there's some interviews with fishermen,
which which is an important part of the movie. It's
not it was balanced in some respect.
Speaker 1: It's interesting people different views. Some people would a fisherman
would say, well, after this, Lord, he's certainly not a
national treasure in the eyes of fishing goose. He's a No,
he's a campaigner. This foam lands like a torpedo under
the water lane of in the industry already already under
siege and is Italian half truth And when you've got
the voice of God that some people's and a global platform,
half the story can do real damage.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but I think that, But again, the book places
with the scientists, you know, as a social scientist. Yeah,
it's my fault that that maybe went ahead with that
remaking these points. How do we get our how do
we communicate our science more effectively? I don't know. So
that's something I've been going on because it is there
is I think. I do think it's the responsibility to
the scientists, as I said before, get their act together
and work more closely and have debates and ask the
hard questions. But at least having the debate is what matters.
And I don't think we do that enough. We have
gone down the route of busily writing papers and not
having enough platforms for this meaningful discussions. It's a real
shame state of academia the days is often in the news.
Could be doing better in all friends, Yeah, this in
particular just transition.
Speaker 1: What do you understand about the term just transition and
what relevance do you think it has in the context
of a troll barn and mp us.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so this is a I think a very useful
term which I would like to hear more of in
the context of this, and so we often hear it,
but I think often when we hear just transition. People
talk about the transition, which is about the change, and
you know, I think we do need to change to
reduce the environmental impact of food production across all sectors,
not just in fisheries. But there has been too much
focus on the transitioning part of this and less focus
on the justice element. I think. But transition to be just,
it needs to include those who stand to be most
affected by the change, which in this case it would
be the you know, their voices need to be heard
in this as part of procedural justice, and at the
moment they're just not being heard I think at all.
Which are the missed opportunity as well as a clear injustice.
You know, I recall speaking with a former scallop dredger.
He had moved into potting upon the Northumberland coast where
where they actually the IFKA here had has removed all
scallop dredging within its within its district years ago. But
the fisherman who is now potting, he reflected that actually
didn't like to dredge the beds and he could see
that that was causing damage, and he had moved into
potting and actually preferred it as a lower impact form
of fishing. That's just one one fisherman. You know, this
really needs to be discussed with fishermen and to understand
the wider context of people's lives, the needs that they are,
the things that they need to make a living, what
they're up against, and what is possible and what is
not possible for them. You know, some of the work
I've done recently is really high. I lighted the decline
in our fishing industry, which we've got over twenty five
percent of decline in many parts of the UK in
just the last fourteen years. You know, it's a struggling
industry in many ways, losing a lot of boats from harbors,
so we need to take that into account. Is an
important context when we're talking about a just transition. So
how do we make sure that the just transition doesn't
just become a complete elimination of the entire fishing industry,
which as a country we value greatly Beyond economic contributions
and food contributions, people also have a very strong affinity
with the cultural and heritage value of fisheries.
Speaker 1: What do you think would be the biggest consequence of
implement and not implement NA ban and controlling and MPs.
Speaker 2: So I read yesterday a very good article in the Spectator,
written obviously in the aftermath of the disappointment of the
EU trade negotiation this week. It was written by Gus
Carter in a Spectator and it was published with the
title why fishing Matters. And the last line of the
article will resonate with many who are working in and
for commercial fisheries, and it reads simply, this says, keeping
our fishermen alive is more than an economic calculation, it's
a cultural duty. And that really resonated with me. And
so I think that implementing a ban across all MPAs
would be a failure of our fisheries and I think
it could risk undermining off security, which has often been
said is our national security. What we need to consider
here is the true extent of NPA coverage, the impacts
on landed fish as well as livelihoods lost. And remember
that fisheries is vunerable to climate change, but in different
ways to the food that we produce on land. A
long dry summer or prolonged periods of flooding does not
affect fishermen in the same way as it will affect farmers,
and this needs to be recognized. I think, yeah, so
these would be the two consequences of implementing it in
its current formats. But I think we still need to
keep these conversations going. I think it's down to the
environmental endos to show a bit of flexibility and acknowledge
this wider context of a fishing fleet that's in decline,
acknowledge some of the impacts, particularly on small scale issuies
that many of the environmental engineers claim to be supporting,
and to do to show us a broader range of
evidence so that we can perhaps try and move forward
in a more collaborative way.
Speaker 1: You brushed on the human cost of a bar what
would a ban on trolling mean for coastal communities and livelihoods?
Speaker 2: Well, currently we don't know, which is precisely the problem.
We need to We need to establish what that is
and then make an informed, informed decisions about well, what
are the the costs and disadvantages of this? And I
think what I would stress here is looking at the
inequalities of it. You so often I find that this
is not from the UK context, but more working more internationally,
that the burdens of marine conservation often fall on the
shoulders of the small scale fishermen and their families. And
I've seen that repeated in many places. So I would
really stress that we need to look at who was
able to absorb such a band and who is not
able to absorb it, and what are the implications for
those people that would be put out of business? And
how how are those costs of the band distributed across
the society. You are some people going to be bearing
more of the costs than others, and I think that's
a really important piece of work to do at some point.
There's just it's a big unknown, which is exactly the
problem we need to find out before we surely advocate
for with such a massive changes to the makeup of ourficiency.
Speaker 1: Does any common ground exist between the fishing industry and
energy or campaigns to ban troll in and a sure
how may this be built on to progress away forward?
Speaker 2: Yeah, so I think this is a really important area
to establish. I think there is common ground where common
ground is sought out can almost always be found in
any context. I think there's a common respect for evidence
based arguments and management. I think there's a lot of
common respect for the management that the ifcaulse have put
in place. I think the frustration from NGOs is where
the management continues to lack progress, and I think this
is understandable. But how much of this is about actual
lack of progress or is it about lack of awareness
of what we have in places things that are working.
I think they will be common ground around trying to
reduce waste, reduce environmental impact, common ground about the importance
of working with fishermen in partnership as much as possible.
I do. The work I've done in the last few
years has been working very closely with the Blue Marine Foundation.
There's brilliant colleagues there, and we've been running workshops to
hear from the insurance more scale fishing sector about some
of the challenges that they are facing in terms of
ensuring that their livelihoods are sustainable and they're able to
achieve a good quality of life. So there is common
ground there. I think it's often behind the scenes and
it is often not seen in the sort of very
polarized debates that gets plashed all of the newspapers. But
I think many people working from all sides are very
committed to improving collaboration ensuring that the debates are fair
and that everyone has a heard voice, and that we're
committed to try and progress simple kind of joined up
thinking as we move forward.
Speaker 1: And as we do, who gets to decide policy is
increasingly shaped by public pressure. How do we ensure that
science stays at the heart of its conversation.
Speaker 2: Well, I think that's a lot of that is down
to scientists. You know, they need to make sure the
evidence is heard by the right people, and they need
to make sure that they communicate their science clearly that
is understandable by wide range of different actors involved in this,
and they need to work harder to collaborate with people
from different disciplines to be able to speak with a
single voice. So that is something that I think science
need to get better at doing generally. But policy is
always going to be shaped by public pressure as well.
So it's just recognizing that science should stay at the heart,
but it probably barely. It really is at the heart
of all of this. Policy is always very strong, So
that's a good question. But all we can do is
try to speak with the single voice, and I think
that again is where it's so important for collaboration between
environmental adios and the fishing industry and scientists so that
they can find out what that single voice might be.
Because when everyone comes together and says the same thing,
that is when I think the science really starts to
be heard when it's advocated in that way.
Speaker 1: And who really drives a narrative scientist enery or the
media or public figures like Uptenborough.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that there's a role for everyone. Communication
of science across broad audiences is really important and people
like David Attenborough helped to do that. So you know,
we're not all good communicators, terrible communicator rather be sitting
in the library writing by myself and speaking to no one,
but we've all got to, I think, just try and
find that common ground again. Yeah, so that the narrative
is clear and agreed as much as possible. And you
won't always get agreement on every point. But in that case,
which are the points that are that can be agreed?
Can those things be communicated better? Because I think that
the public must be pretty confused to be honest. You know,
some research I've done just this summer was well and
last year as well, we looked at we did a
public survey on how the public and coastal communities feel
about the fitting industry, and it was overwhelmingly positive. And
I wonder how that same public will feel going to
watch the movie and maybe feeling quite conflicted and confused
by some of the messages that come from that movie.
So we've got sort some of this out, I think,
and just try and join things up a bit better
as scientists working more closely with mgos and the media.
Speaker 1: I agree with that, and I would say one of them.
But I feel this one of the big problems in
it all is you get enforcement, you get scientists, and
you get fishermen, and neither of them trust each other.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I agree with you, but I don't trust. It
is a difficult concept. I mean, just myself half the time.
Are we expecting too much to think that we need
to trust one another in that way? I think if
we can respect one another, that's the foundation of a
good relationship. And the relationship is what matters, I think,
and the communication is what matters. And I said earlier,
I was at the Whitby Fish and Chips Festival and
it was a brilliant example of the importance of festivals
like that. It was two days of so many different
people coming together without the public. You had the local fishermen,
you had the local IFKA, you had my olth academics
and environmental and DEO staff all there together for two
days talking about and celebrating fisheries and spending that quality
time together is just so incredibly important and we don't
do enough of it. So I would say that the
most important thing is trying to create more platforms where
people can come together and then they realize quite often
that they're on the same page. After all.
Speaker 1: I did a previous podcast with Paul Gildroy from the
Mudpie Caffee and he talks about the festival visionships and
what I thought was tremendous and I felt about it
was how enthusiastic and important and important he put in
it to get that message out to the public. So
we need positive drive like that.
Speaker 2: Absolutely. Yeah. I mean festivals are really important and there's
a particularly good one. I'd say that all sorts of
inspirational stuff happened over the weekend. Amazing young ladies eleven
years old doing demonstrations of seafood, cookery and all that stuff,
and it was just it was a really important platform
to just come together and not be at loggerheads around
management from our different perspectives to just be together as
human beings, you know, and have a bit of a laugh.
It's really really good.
Speaker 1: Definitely, Definitely trolling and food security. Can we feed a
growing population without bottom trolling? Are we not feeding bullions
of people worldwide? Not just saving sea grass.
Speaker 2: I think we can save seagrass and retain food security
if we have the right management in place, and I
think both are important.
Speaker 1: Okay, yeah, they can callig. I totally agree with you.
I asked Ei a question for everybody on this series,
and the responses a challenge to Attenburg. If you had
five minutes with Sir David, what would you say?
Speaker 2: Yeah, this is a nice question. I think I would
ask him to go and spend a day with his
local IFGA and just learn about what they do. And
the reason I would ask him to do that is
that I think it'd feel inspired and hopeful for our future,
because I know that is how I feel whenever I
spend time with an if I work a lot with
the Northern Bladika, and I always come out with their
offices thinking I'm really glad I just spent that time
chatting with them. I learned so much, so I think
that's what I would suggest, he would you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, good answer. Which book or article do you think
everyone in fisheries should read?
Speaker 2: Yeah, So, I think one of the frustrations that I've
had over the last couple of years is the lack
of recognition of MPa management. You may you've picked up
on stead of that frustration in this interview. So I
would suggest basically a chapter book chapter by Sarah Berkineff
in the and it is that the seven IFA Manage
where she discusses the management of the pool, harbor, dredge
fishery resolving environmental and social socio economic objectives. And that
was published in a book in twenty twenty edited by
John Humphreys and Rob Clark called Marine Protected Areas, And
there's lots of brilliant examples there of how effective management
has been put in place in some of the challenges
and successes around doing that in great detail, with loads
of both national and international case studies. So I think
that would be a really good place to start. But
if I made there's also a very good that was
written by Rob Clark who's the chief officer of the
Association of KAS and John Humphes and others called the
Dialectics of Nature that was published in twenty seventeen in
Marine Policy, and that talks about the emergence of the
policy of the management of commercial fisheries in English European
marine sites. And it really explains in great detail the
history and the context of the revised approach that I've
mentioned in this interview, the evolution of ikas who were
created to deliver it. And I think that's such important
context to understand what we have achieved and realized that
we're perhaps further forward with NPA management then we might
have anticipated watching the Attamborough movie, and I suppose really
with a view to building on that which is working well,
rather than just throwing it into a bus. Sometimes the
case there's too I think would be really good.
Speaker 1: Sounds good, So say one word to describe the future
of British fisheries.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this is a great question, Thank you for asking it.
I think the first word that popped into my head
is fragile. However, I then decided to just look that
up in the dictionary and obviously I know what it means,
but I wanted to see precisely how it was defined.
In the first words of that description, said breaks easily,
and I thought, hang on a minute, that's not right,
because lishamen don't break easily. You know, they're a resilient
They're a resilient bunch and they demonstrate that resilience every day.
So I thought, that's not the right word. So I thought,
what is a similar word to fragile? So I looked
at precious and the definition of precious, according to the
Oxford English Dictionary, is of great value, not to be
wasted or treated carelessly. And I thought, that's about right.
Speaker 1: That's absolutely wonderful. What a wonderful answer. I'm certainly certainly well,
we're getting it on. Not absolutely brilliant, Thank you so much,
anything else you would when we're on.
Speaker 2: I just hope that these podcasts can be used to
share knowledge, to critically reflect on different views, maybe make
people think about wins that they haven't thought about from
a different perspective, and to try and yeah, be a
bit open arms really about trying to move forward in
a more collaborative way where we can bridge some of
these divisions between environmental views and fishing industry, because they
are artificial divisions. Ultimately, we all want health the oceans
and sustainable fisheries and flourishing coastal communities. That is our
common ground and I think we need to start making
more of an effort to really recognize that and build
on it.
Speaker 1: Excellent. Where can our listeners follow you on lane?
Speaker 2: I'm RUPI online Newcastle website probably yeah, I don't really
have much step on them online. So this is the
university web page, University of Newcastle, and we have a
coastal Fisheries cluster if you google that, it's on the
NICER website which is the National Innovation Center for Rural
Rural Enterprise. Sorry at Newcastle University.
Speaker 1: Wonderful. I think with that, well, maybe pulled up and
I'd just like to thank you very much. I felt
that it was a very balanced and fear view you
hard and things. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Enjoyed it well, thank you very much for your time
this afternoon for inviting me. I've enjoyed it too, thanks
to Thank you,