Wetenschap - 13 februari 2019

‘The fishing method of the future’. Five questions on the ban on pulse fishing

tekst:
Tessa Louwerens

In the next months, a final decision will be made about a complete ban on pulse fishing. Such a ban would have serious consequences for the Dutch fishing sector, Wim Zaalmink and his colleagues at Wageningen Economic Research conclude. Five questions on this ban.

© Shutterstock

In early 2018, the European Parliament voted for a total ban on pulse trawl fishing: fishing using electrical impulses. In the next few months, the exemption permits for Dutch fishermen will expire. The total ban may then become definitive.

You carried out research commissioned by the Bestuurlijk Platform Visserij (Dutch Administrative Platform for Fisheries). Is this a final attempt by the sector? How do you expect it to develop?
‘I do not know what will happen, but it certainly is a dilemma. If the fishermen have to go back to their old methods, it will be a loss for them. On the other hand, one could also say that the Dutch cutters have enjoyed a temporary exemption and were allowed to fish using pulses [small electric shocks; ed.], thus giving the sector the opportunity to make a profit for several years, which was absolutely necessary, but which they now have to hand in again. However, it is very painful to see that innovative developments are being undone in this way.’

Have the fishermen perhaps taken too much of a risk by switching to this method?
‘The fishermen did not switch from one day to the next. This method was already well‑developed at that time. In that period, around 2012, many fishermen had heavy involved financial issues, partly due to the high fuel prices and low fish prices. By switching to pulse, they were able to at least play even. In addition, environmental aspects were considered as well, because this method disturbs the seabed to a much lower degree, and the CO2 emissions from the pulse trawlers are lower too. We really thought that pulse fishing would become the fishing method of the future. And the fishermen did not see a ban coming at all, because there were no signals of one whatsoever.’

How severe would the consequences be for the fishery if that ban comes about?
The income of the fishermen and crew is closely related to fuel and fish prices, both of which are currently not unfavourable, but a switch would mean that the Dutch fleet would annually earn 8.7 million euros less, and if we use the unfavourable price levels of 2013 for this calculation, it would even amount to 21.5 million euros. That would mean that at least half of the cutters will face financial problems and will eventually go bankrupt. Furthermore, the fishing industry has invested a great deal in pulse innovation in recent years and consequently a lot less in other methods. In addition, fishermen are likely to lose the crew. Most crew work through entrepreneur constructions, which currently earns them reasonable money, but if that were to change, the interest in the Netherlands to work in the fishing industry would most probably take a dive. There would be a good chance that the traditional Dutch fishing sector will shrink.’

Do any Dutch fishermen support a total ban?
‘There is always division to some degree, and the same goes for the Dutch fishing industry. For example, small-scale fishery is unconvinced of the advantages of pulse fishing. And they cannot use it, as they fish using different types of gear and close to the coast. If one considers the quality of fish, I’m unsure whether pulse fishing is better or worse. But small-scale fishery has the general public’s sympathy. I understand that, but we also need other sustainable methods if we want to sustainably feed the world’s population.’

Is there a lesson to be learnt here?
‘As researchers, we are used to look at details, but it is also important to take a wider view and be aware of what is going on in the world and consider such aspects as political climate, environmental organisations and public opinion. As a knowledge institution, we are engaged in innovation, and we do that from the assumption that it should help everyone. In this case, the hard part is that scientific arguments prove to be insufficient and that we have to reverse innovative developments.’

Weekly news updates about studying and working at WUR? Subscribe to the newsletter now!

Additional reading (partly in Dutch):

Reacties 3

  • Hans Boer

    84 pulsvisschepen voor wetenschappelijk onderzoek ? Doet me denken aan de Japanse walvisvangst. Het is natuurlijk niet vreemd dat buitenlandse vissers protesteren als de pulsvissers alles wegvangen. Krokodillentranen lijkt me.

  • J.H. van Loenhout

    Geachte heer/mevrouw, naar aanleiding van de commotie omtrent het pulsvissen moet ik als consument constateren op dit gebied maar slecht wordt geïnformeerd. Opeens is daar dan het pulsvissen. In mijn beleving leidt deze manier van vissen tot overbevissing. De kans dat vissen de dans ontspringen om in het net te geraken is met deze methodiek een stuk kleiner dan met de verbeterde kornetten. De benadering van het vissers-dilemma is een puur economisch verhaal geworden. Brandstofprijs versus vangst. Zaken als overbevissing, behoud van het ecosysteem worden onderbelicht. En in visserskringen is de visserijbioloog altijd verdacht. Dat is wat wij horen. En dan nog pulsvissen is getrakteerd als proef. Inmiddels wordt het algemeen toegepast. Dat de Fransen daar geen heil in zien vind ik heel begrijpelijk.

  • Alcathous

    Als wetenschappelijke argumenten het EU visbeleid zouden vormen dan zou er veel minder gevist mogen worden. En dat willen de Nederlandse vissers ook niet. Nu de overheid zo een rol heeft gespeeld in dit pulsvissen is het een goed moment om die vissers uit te kopen zodat ze wat anders kunnen gaan doen. Dan heeft de Nederlandse regering ook haar handen vrij om zich hard te maken voor veel strengere visquota.


Re:ageer