LA EXCLUSIÓN SOCIAL EN LAS PANDILLAS

In  total,  34  fishermen  had  registered  to  make  the  switch  to  the  pulse  trawl  technique  in   September  2010.  However,  only  21  experimental  licenses  were  available  and  therefore   the  number  of  registered  fishermen  exceeded  the  number  of  available  experimental   licenses  (Visserijnieuws  f,  2010).  As  a  result  of  that,  fishermen  urged  the  DFF  and   VisNed  to  arrange  additional  licenses.  Meanwhile,  the  pioneer  vessels  kept  promoting   the  pulse  trawl  technique  through  demonstrations  and  by  participating  in  research.   Fisherman  2  (2014)  said,  “Often  politicians  were  invited  onboard  at  Scheveningen  and   then  we  did  a  couple  of  hauls  offshore  to  demonstrate  what  we  are  doing.  We  showed   them  how  lively  the  fish  were  and  that  they  were  completely  undamaged”.  Next  to  these   fishing  trips,  demonstrations  were  given  in  the  ports  by  using  large  tubs.  People  could   hold  their  hands  in  the  tub  to  feel  the  pulses  from  the  pulse  trawl  (Fisherman  1,  2014).   According  to  the  Technological  company  2  (2014),  they  actively  tried  to  influence  the   perception  of  people  concerned  the  pulse  trawl  technique.  Technological  company  2   (2014)  said,  “We  were  so  enthusiastic  that  we  went  to  every  port  day10  _{and  presentation}   opportunity  to  explain  it  to  people  and  to  let  them  feel  the  pulses”.    

During  the  Agriculture  &  Fisheries  Council  (AGRIFISH)  of  December  2010,  it  was   decided  that  the  number  of  experimental  licenses  could  be  expanded  to  42  

(Rijksoverheid,  2010).  The  36  fishermen  that  had  registered  for  an  experimental  license   received  one  in  the  order  of  registration.  This  meant  that  16  fishermen  were  

disappointed,  because  the  maximum  of  42  experimental  licenses  had  already  been   reached  (Pronk,  2011).  Amongst  the  vessels  that  made  the  transition  from  the   conventional  beam  trawl  to  the  pulse  trawl  technique  were  normal  cutters  (max.   2000hp),  euro-­‐cutters  (max.  300hp)  and  shrimp  cutters  (Deerenberg  &  Heinis,  2011).        

Expanding  the  pulse  trawl  technique  to  84  cutters  

IMARES  continued  with  research  on  the  effect  of  the  electric  pulses  on  cod  in  response   to  the  ICES  Advice  of  2009.  In  December  2010  they  performed  laboratory  studies  on   small  cod  (0.12-­‐0.16m)  and  large  cod  (~0.5m).  Results  showed  that  no  spinal  damage   was  found  in  small  cod  and  that  damage  occurred  in  50%  to  70%  of  the  large  cod.                                                                                                                  

However,  above  180Hz  no  spinal  damage  was  found  in  large  cod.  It  was  unclear  what   caused  the  spinal  fractures  in  the  cod  (ICES  a,  2012).    

In  2011,  IMARES  carried  out  some  reference  measurements  at  sea.  Measurements  were   done  on  the  electric  field  of  two  vessels  with  the  gear  hanging  vertically  on  the  boom   and  with  the  gear  lying  flat  on  the  bottom  (ICES  a,  2012).  IMARES  also  performed  a  catch   comparison  between  two  pulse  trawl  vessels  (TX36  and  TX68)  and  a  tickler  chain  beam   trawler  (GO4)  as  shown  in  figure  9.  These  three  vessels  fished  side-­‐by-­‐side  as  much  as   possible  (ICES  a,  2012).    

For  the  permanent  admission  or  wider  introduction  of  the  pulse  trawl  technique,  a   control  and  enforcement  system  needed  to  be  setup  according  to  ICES  (Marlen,  van,  et   al.,  2011).  The  project  group  that  worked  on  the  control  and  enforcement  draft  

document  consisted  of  representatives  of  the  fishing  industry,  the  pulse  trawl  

producers,  policymakers,  scientists  and  control  agencies  (ICES  a,  2012).  This  draft  was   presented  to  SGELECTRA  and  based  on  their  input  a  new  draft  was  made,  which  can  be   found  in  Appendix  10.  IMARES  started  a  project  for  the  Dutch  Ministry  to  prepare  a   document  on  the  control  and  enforcement  of  the  pulse  trawl  technique  (ICES  a,  2012).     Next  to  presenting  the  concept-­‐paper  to  the  scientists,  it  was  presented  to  fishermen.   Propositions  in  the  concept-­‐paper  to  limit  the  maximum  energy  that  could  be  sent  down   to  the  gear  and  the  ban  on  additional  tickler  chains  resulted  in  heavy  debates  with   fishermen,  which  disagreed  with  the  proposed  limits  on  the  maximum  energy  and  the   ban  on  additional  tickler  chains  (ICES  a,  2012).        

In  May  2012,  results  of  a  survey  on  the  wider  introduction  of  the  pulse  trawl  for  shrimp   were  published  on  the  DFF  website.  85%  of  the  respondents  opposed  too  the  extension   of  the  number  of  experimental  licenses  for  pulse  fishing  on  shrimp.  The  argument  was   that  essential  research  on  shrimp  was  missing  (Nederlandse  Vissersbond,  2012).  Of  the   respondents  that  were  shrimp  fishermen,  73%  was  concerned  about  the  ecosystem   effects  of  the  pulse  trawl  shrimp  (Nederlandse  Vissersbond,  2012).  78%  stated  that   more  research  on  ecosystem  effects  of  the  pulse  trawl  on  shrimp  should  be  done.  66%  of   the  shrimp  fishermen  were  worried  about  the  ecosystem  effects  of  the  pulse  trawl  on   flatfish  (Nederlandse  Vissersbond,  2012).  Next  to  the  results  of  the  survey,  the  DFF  also   mentioned  that  it  was  not  realistic  that  additional  experimental  licenses  for  pulse  fishing   on  shrimp  would  be  provided  in  2012  (Nederlandse  Vissersbond,  2012).  The  results  of   this  survey  clearly  showed  that  Dutch  shrimp  fishermen  were  divided  about  the  

application  of  the  pulse  trawl  technique.  Shrimp  fishermen  expressed  concerns  and   criticism  on  the  pulse  trawl  technique  for  shrimp,  but  also  on  the  pulse  trawl  technique   on  flatfish.  A  hotline  had  been  established  by  the  Steering  group  pulse  fishing  in  2012.   Criticism  on  the  pulse  trawl  technique  could  be  reported  to  this  hotline  as  long  as  the   criticism  was  underpinned  by  arguments  and  was  not  done  anonymously  

(Visserijnieuws  k,  2012).      

Delmeco  and  HFK  were  also  confronted  with  a  variety  of  claims  on  negative  effects  of   the  pulse  trawl  technique  (Visserijnieuws  i,  2012).  During  a  meeting  in  Denmark,   fishermen  had  stated  to  HFK  that  all  the  fish  had  died  in  certain  areas  where  the  pulse   trawl  technique  was  being  used.  In  order  to  refute  these  claims,  an  appeal  was  made  by   HFK  to  IMARES  and  ILVO  to  publish  scientific  reports  that  would  contradict  these  claims   (Visserijnieuws  i,  2012).  Meanwhile,  Dutch  regime  and  niche  actors  and  institutions  

tried  to  find  support  for  the  pulse  trawl  technique  in  other  EU  member  states.  A  meeting   was  organized  in  Oostende  (Belgium)  to  provide  information  about  the  pulse  trawl   technique.  This  meeting  was  attended  by  interested  Belgian  fishermen,  scientists,  

policymakers  and  delegates  from  the  EP  (Visserijnieuws  i,  2012).  Although  some  Belgian   fishermen  were  interested  in  switching  to  the  pulse  trawl  technique,  they  were  not   willing  to  invest  in  this  fishing  technique  as  long  as  it  was  only  allowed  in  the  North  Sea.   Since  Belgian  fishermen  have  a  small  sole  quota  in  the  North  Sea  and  therefore  only  fish   at  the  North  Sea  for  a  maximum  of  four  months  a  year,  an  investment  in  the  pulse  trawl   technique  could  never  become  profitable  for  them  (Visserijnieuws  i,  2012).  Only  if  the   pulse  trawl  technique  would  be  allowed  on  other  fishing  grounds,  like  the  English   Channel,  the  Bay  of  Biscay  and  the  Liverpool  bay,  an  investment  in  the  pulse  trawl   technique  could  become  profitable  for  Belgian  fishermen  (ILVO  researcher,  2014).      

Although  the  pulse  trawl  technique  found  little  support  in  other  EU  member  states  for  a   variety  of  reasons,  the  pulse  trawl  technique  started  to  be  taken-­‐up  and  tested  by  other   EU  member  states  as  is  shown  in  figure  19.    

Figure  19.  Developments  in  other  EU  member  states:  The  pulse  trawl  technique  is  being  tested  and  implemented  onboard  fishing   vessels  in  other  EU  member  states.  In  total  51  vessels  make  use  of  the  pulse  trawl  technique  in  four  different  countries  at  01-­‐01-­‐2013   (Marlen,  van,  2013).  In  Germany,  the  pulse  vessels  fishing  on  flatfish  have  Dutch  owners.  The  pulse  vessel  on  shrimp  has  a  German  owner.  

All  pulse  vessels  in  the  United  Kingdom  (UKI)  have  Dutch  owners,  sailing  under  the  UKI  flag.  The  pulse  vessel  in  Belgium  has  a  Belgian   owner.      

Next  to  the  implementation  of  the  pulse  trawl  technique  in  other  EU  member  states,  the   share  and  importance  of  the  pulse  trawl  technique  in  the  Dutch  cutter  fleet  continued  to   grow.  This  is  in  contrast  to  the  conventional  beam  trawl,  which  continued  to  show  a   declining  trend  in  hp-­‐days  due  to  the  switch  to  other  fishing  techniques  as  is  shown  in   figure  20.    

Figure  20.  Hp-­‐days  for  various  fishing  techniques:  This  figure  shows  a  decline  of  hp-­‐days  of  the  conventional  beam  trawl  and  a   growing  trend  for  alternative  fishing  techniques  like  the  pulse  trawl  technique  (Dirkx  &  Knegt,  de,  2014).  

Although  the  wider  introduction  of  the  pulse  trawl  technique  had  come  to  a  hold  due  to   reaching  the  maximum  number  of  experimental  licenses,  the  pulse  trawl  technique   continued  to  develop  itself.  A  group  of  15  fishing  companies  received  a  subsidy  of  a  total   of  420.000  euros  for  the  further  development  of  the  pulse  cables  from  the  Ministry  of   Economic  Affairs  (Visserijnieuws  l,  2013).  They  hoped  to  develop  a  stronger  cable,   which  is  better  protected  against  short-­‐circuiting  and  fibrates  less.  For  the  fishermen  it   should  result  in  a  cheaper,  more  reliable  cable  that  requires  less  maintenance  costs   (Visserijnieuws  l,  2013).      

Research  on  effect  studies  of  the  pulse  trawl  technique  also  continued  to  be  performed.   Remarkable  results  were  presented  by  ILVO  about  their  effect  study  on  cod,  which  they   had  performed  at  the  start  of  2013  in  Norway.  In  contrast  to  the  study  performed  by   IMARES,  ILVO  found  hardly  any  spinal  injuries  on  cods  exposed  to  electric  pulses   although  a  similar  set-­‐up  was  used  (Visserijnieuws  n,  2013).  In  a  reaction  to  these   results,  IMARES  and  ILVO  repeated  this  research  again  in  October  2013.  Again  different   results  were  found  (ILVO  researcher,  2014).  According  to  ILVO  researcher  (2014),  “It  is   not  that  we  lack  knowledge  on  the  pulse,  but  we  actually  lack  knowledge  on  the  cod”.   This  quote  and  these  results  suggest  that  explaining  these  differences  in  research  results   is  difficult  and  it  confirms  the  complexity  of  the  effect  studies  on  the  pulse  trawl  

technique.      

After  many  discussions  at  the  European  level  (see  chapter  5.3),  the  EC  had  granted  the   Netherlands  42  additional  experimental  licenses.  Now  a  total  of  84  vessels  were  allowed   to  use  the  pulse  trawl  technique.  Meanwhile,  the  pulse  trawl  technique  continued  to   develop.  The  pulse  technique  is  being  tested  in  combination  with  a  twin  rigging  fishing   gear  and  in  combination  with  a  seewing  (Visserijnieuws  q,  2013)(Visserijnieuws  r,   2014).  The  government  of  the  United  Kingdom  granted  an  experimental  license  for  the   duration  of  six  months  for  the  pilot  with  the  seewing  in  combination  with  the  pulse   trawl  technique  (Visserijnieuws  r,  2014).  Delmeco  also  sees  opportunities  for  improving   their  pulse  system.  Delmeco  wants  to  switch  to  a  floating  rig  in  order  to  get  rid  of  the   shoes  of  their  system  (Technological  company  1,  2014).  They  are  also  thinking  of  an   energy  supply  system  underwater,  which  could  replace  the  power  cable  (Technological   company  1,  2014).  HFK  considers  their  system  to  be  almost  fully  developed  at  this   moment.  Technological  company  2  (2014)  stated  that,  “You  never  know  what  is  possible   in  the  future,  but  we  have  already  achieved  so  much  that  the  investments  and  returns   become  less  interesting”.    

All  these  developments  around  the  pulse  trawl  technique  are  good  from  an  innovative   perspective;  however,  these  developments  also  impede  the  control  and  enforcement.   Both  niche  and  regime  actors  and  institutions  are  divided  about  the  extent  to  which   freedom  for  innovation  is  permitted.  Some  want  to  sharpen  the  current  limits  further  as   is  stated  by  IMARES  researcher  (2014),  while  others  want  maximum  room  for  

innovation  as  stated  by  Fisherman  2  (2014).  According  to  Employee  of  the  Ministry  of   Economic  Affairs  3  (2014)  the  purpose  of  the  innovation  is  important  in  this  regard,   because  the  pilot  project  aims  to  test  the  pulse  trawl  technique  as  a  more  selective   fishing  technique  in  order  to  facilitate  the  landing  obligation.  Already  before  the  latest   expansion  to  84  experimental  licenses,  this  dichotomy  about  either  limiting  or  

“It  is  necessary  to  expand  the  current  understanding  of  electric  trawling  in  general  with   the  aim  to  determine  further  and  appropriate  threshold  levels.  However,  it  may  be   necessary  to  maintain  broad  regulatory  limits  so  as  to  allow  engineers  to  develop  and   optimize  their  pulse  trawl  designs.  Due  to  the  potential  benefits  of  reduced  fuel  

consumption,  swept  are  and  reduced  catch  rates  while  maintaining  profit  levels,  there  is  a   need  to  facilitate  technical  advancement  in  the  field  of  pulse  trawl  technology  while   avoiding  unnecessarily  complex  and  potentially  stifling  technical  legislation,  while   simultaneously  servicing  conservation,  environmental  and  fisheries  management   requirements.  This  need  becomes  more  acute  as  industry  demand  for  such  technology   exceeds  the  current  EU  5%  limitations  (as  has  become  the  case  now).  Future  developments   should  continue  to  undertake  extensive  ecological  impact  assessments.  As  requests  to   expand  the  user  base  of  the  pulse  trawl  technology  beyond  the  current  5%  derogation  limit   are  considered,  new  legislation  will  need  to  be  drafted”.  

So  now  that  the  pulse  trawl  technique  expanded  beyond  the  5%  derogation  limit  up  to   84  experimental  licenses,  new  legislation  needs  to  be  drafted  to  keep  the  pulse  trawl   technique  manageable  according  to  the  ICES  report  of  2012.  This  process  however  is   impeded  by  the  complexity  of  the  technology  and  the  conflicting  interests  between  HFK   and  Delmeco  (Employee  of  the  Ministry  of  Economic  Affairs  3,  2014)(Technological   company  1,  2014)(Fisheries  representative  organization  1,  2014).  Setting-­‐up  an   adequate  control  and  enforcement  procedure  is  essential  for  the  continuity  of  this   fishing  technique,  since  it  will  take  away  one  of  the  concerns  expressed  by  other   European  member  states  and  scientists.      

5.3  TRANSITION  PROCESS  AT  THE  REGIME  LEVEL