Eve Galimany (Barcelona, 1975) is a biologist and researcher at the Institut de Ciències del Mar (part of the CSIC). It specializes in marine pollution, although for years it has also been working on monitoring Catalonia’s fishing resources. The latter is done with the Catalan Research Institute for the Governance of the Sea (ICATMAR), the scientific advisory body for the General Directorate of Maritime Policy and Sustainable Fisheries of the Generalitat.
These days Galimany is closely following the negotiation in Brussels to cut trawl fishing activity in the Mediterranean, a measure that has put the Spanish brotherhoods on a war footing. The European Commission’s proposal would entail a reduction from 130 to 27 days per year to go fishing, which the sector assures would be a death sentence given that this technique, carried out by 556 vessels in Spain, represents a decisive percentage of the annual volume of catches.
Galimany, who with his team has often advised both fishermen and the European Commission itself, considers that the Brussels proposal is too disconnected from the local fishing reality. He agrees that the sector will not be able to assume it. And he proposes alternatives to reduce the harm of the drag method, which he knows well. Furthermore, it warns that the data collected by ICATMar from Catalan waters on the status of some species, such as hake or mullet, do not coincide with those managed by the EU.
What are the harms of trawling and why are we seeking to reduce its use on the Mediterranean coast?
This type of fishing is the one that damages marine ecosystems the most, because it drags above the seabed. It is not so much the net itself, but when you open it there are two platforms, the doors, that are stuck in the bottom and leave grooves. This deconstructs the seabed. In the 90s there was something similar to ‘come on, fish as much as you want’, and it was very destructive. But since then this has been changing. There is a regulation that is not exactly easy to skip, and that has to do with engine power, size of the boat, nets, doors or depth. Now it is a fishery that is more controlled.
Is it also the method that contributes the most to overfishing of certain species, or to the so-called maximum sustainable yield?
After so many decades without good fisheries management, Europe wanted to impose this plan that sought to go from an exploited ecosystem to one with this maximum sustainable yield in five years. But this is biologically difficult. Species need more time to achieve this. You come from ecosystems that are too unstructured. Five years is not a realistic time frame.
After decades without good fisheries management, Europe aims to go from an exploited ecosystem to one with maximum sustainable yield in five years, but it is not realistic
Is Brussels’ proposal to cut trawling too drastic?
It’s drastic. These fisheries evaluations are made with mathematical models, based on biological data, that tell us if a species is doing well or not and, therefore, if there is enough to fish. But we see inconsistencies at various levels with these models. There are others who give us other information, and this is a big problem. That’s why I think it would be important to stop and take a good look at it first.
By this you mean that your calculations, unlike those of Brussels, lead you to conclude that the situation is not so serious for certain species?
What we see is that according to some models, the situation is very serious. And depending on whether you apply others, it is not so much.
Give me an example to understand it.
The hake, without going any further. There are models that say it is very bad, but others tell us that it is beginning to recover. This contrast, added to the fact that hake is one of the species that is still one of the most caught in ports, tells us that there is some problem with the modeling and information [de la Comisión Europea]. And something similar happens to us with the mullet. Before adopting such a drastic measure, which implies destructuring the socioeconomic system of Mediterranean fishing, we would have to stop and adopt other measures that we know work without reducing fishing days.
Before adopting a measure that implies destructuring the socioeconomic system of Mediterranean fishing, we ask that fishing days not be reduced and that other measures that work be adopted
Now I will ask you about the alternatives, but first I will ask you about the cut. The fishing sector denounces that for them it is a death sentence. Do you agree?
Yes, it is unsustainable. And not only the sector, but everything it involves: brotherhoods, fishmongers, restaurants… Because trawling is the fishing that brings the most economic benefits.
And doesn’t that mean that fishing is too dependent on trawling?
I don’t know if I would say it like that. As it is a non-selective fishing technique, you catch many more species that you can sell in a fish market. Other gears are more sustainable, but they are more directed at some specific fish. Blue crab fishing is about blue crab and nothing else. Or the octopus one. Trawling is multispecific. It is the most profitable and the one that generates the most economy for the fishing system, although it is not that they make money.
You, in fact, recently published a study that detected that 25% of what is trawled is discarded and thrown away.
It is 25% thrown away, yes. There are other countries in which this percentage is double. One way to reduce it is to increase the size of the holes in the fishing nets to be more selective and allow smaller fish to pass through. We have proposed this to Brussels as compensation to not reduce so many fishing days. But we don’t agree on that either. The calculation we make in terms of compensation days is more than double what they do.
What other alternatives exist to make trawling more sustainable with the marine ecosystem?
May the so-called doors be flying and not touch the bottom of the sea. And create more protected areas where you can’t fish. The seas can be recovered without banning trawling.
Do fishing boats today already have those meshes and doors that you mention?
There are some boats that have incorporated it, but since the measure is voluntary they do not have to do so. Implementation is generally low. You know them, but they have not adopted them.
Regarding protected areas with fishing bans, are they widespread in Spain?
In Catalonia, which is the case that I know well, several fishing grounds have been closed to protect the most regulated species in Europe. 3% of the fishing ground is protected in Catalonia and trawling is strictly prohibited there. They are the areas where the hake goes to lay eggs and where the small ones grow, the same with the shrimp… They are the areas in which we know that there is so-called recruitment.
However, the environmental organization Seas at Risk recently pointed out that In 90% of marine Natura 2000 areas trawling is still doneincluded in Spain.
But the Natura 2000 areas do not prohibit fishing. Each of these areas has a specific objective, which may be the protection of turtles, cetaceans, posidonia… But it has nothing to do with fishing. People confuse this.
You also mention that fishing policies do not take into account the effects of the climate emergency.
Since 2015, since the sea temperature has become warmer and has not dropped again, the white shrimp has increased in density and abundance. It is a species that likes hot water. With others it happens the other way around. To what extent can we separate what is an effect of fishing and what is an effect of the environment? It is very complicated and that is not taken into account either.
Are there species that have declined due to warming?
It is a possibility with crayfish. But we are studying it, so we cannot say for sure.
People will not stop consuming this fish and seafood. They will buy it from other areas where perhaps there is no type of regulation and with a huge carbon footprint
If the regulation proposed by Brussels is carried out, will there no longer be local fish in fish markets and markets?
Of course, this affects us all. Without trawling, with which the majority of fish is caught in Spain, if it is already difficult to find species from here in the fishmonger, it will already be very difficult.
Maybe the market is simply supplied by other producers, right?
This is another risk, of course, that the EU may not have considered. People will not stop consuming this fish and seafood. They will buy it from other areas where there may not be any type of regulation, or where it is more permissive. Possibly, it will come from international and more distant waters, with a giant carbon footprint. Or huge aquaculture farms. The consequences can be worse.
Be that as it may, and regardless of regulation, the fishing fleet has been significantly reduced in the last 20 years. In Catalonia there are half as many boats.
This is because it is very hard work and there is no generational change. Fishermen want their children to go to university or do something else. And also it gives less and less money and there is more regulation and paperwork. Fishermen complain about excessive regulation, but I believe that the problem is mainly a lack of generational change.
#Eve #Galimany #marine #biologist #seas #recovered #banning #trawling
