Dear Sir,

Throughout the process of the Bermuda Ocean Prosperity Programme, access to the science committee by fishermen has been limited and sometimes outrightly denied. From a conservation standpoint, marine-protected areas look ideal, but ignoring the human side of the issue will have dire consequences. Fishermen have continuously asked for more fisheries science to be included in the conversation. There are two sides to fisheries science — the environmental side and the human side. BOPP and the science committee continuously ignore the latter.

Concentrating fishing effort on a smaller area is much more detrimental to fish populations and the physical environment. How much you harvest out of a population is less important than the rate (how fast) at which you harvest fish.

MPAs will concentrate the effort when the fish are available outside of them. Harvesting a little bit often is better than harvesting a lot all at once … even if the total harvest is equal. Spreading effort out over the bottom and over the year is the ideal. This is what we have and can be proactively/actively made better through licensing and user management.

We have a closed, limited market in Bermuda and demand is met as demand arises. The market is also fickle. When supply is high with a certain product the market shrinks and having the ground/areas to diversify your catch becomes paramount and inherently protective of fish populations. The product quality is high and the catches are mostly self-limiting.

MPAs will change how fishermen fish, those changes will have effects on the industry and the environment. More ice, more fuel, more anchoring, more time, more expense, lower quality product/frozen/stored fish, more environmental impact, increased competition … tighter financial margins will lead to less maintenance and more fishing in foul weather which in turn increases the risk of injury and death in an already risky profession. The costs are real!

BOPP's use of heat maps to choose MPAs is a seriously flawed method. By choosing areas that fishermen use the least means that they are choosing areas that are affected the least by fishing. This is sold as fair and ideal but in reality these areas are mostly our winter fishing grounds. With small vessels such as we have in Bermuda, the winter grounds are very important. Blocking areas that provide income in the winter, arguably when income is the most important and the most variable for fishermen, is an extremely difficult obstacle for fishermen to overcome.

Using heat maps will create a situation where the reward (conservation/protection) is limited but the cost to fishermen is maximised during our most vulnerable season. Besides increased effort and competition between both commercial and recreational fishermen, MPAs will unfairly increase competition between other users... wind farms, wave farms, shore line development, moorings.

MPAs also ignore the influential effects of other environmental threats. These threats are usually not localised and will cause damage in the MPAs and everywhere else.

Cruise ships, commercial shipping, tourism, moorings, airport dump, run-off, air conditioning, mismanaged turtle population, lack of recreational fishing licences etc: once the MPAs are in place government's will to address these will diminish, their complacency will increase and, most importantly, the path to develop non MPAs will be bulldozed.

Fishermen will support seasonal MPAs if they are justified with specific and locally produced evidence of vulnerability to fisheries and fishing practices. MPAs that still provide reasonable access to the resource, especially in winter, while maximising protections for the fisheries, such as the current and successful hind, rockfish and grunt spawning areas.

We will also support MPAs that protect from other harmful uses such as moorings, offshore mining and development … we support expanding these. We support effort reduction through licensing agreements, catch limits and support the enforcement of current and new regulations.

We support gear control and modification. We need to manage the people and their behaviours and not the areas. Spread the cost to all Bermudians (and tourists), not just one segment. Recognise and acknowledge the real threats and address them.

Marginalising and criminalising a small demographic is not the path forward. Government has seriously dropped the ball with this endeavour. Their adversarial approach has only widened the gap between the industry and co-operative solutions. Their continued efforts to patch up this failed idea, involving foreign non-governmental agencies, and slandering local commercial fishermen has robbed all Bermudians of real, fair, effective, co-operative and workable solutions.

KEVIN WALSH

St George’s