Proposal before Parliament will ban fi shing in some areas and severely restrict it in others

Inland and coastal small-scale fi sheries fi ght an existential threat

The small-scale fi shery in coastal and inland waters, an activity that has existed for centuries, may become history if a contentious proposal to restrict it is adopted in Parliament. The new proposal amending Lithuanian Fisheries Law aims at completely banning the commercial fi shing in Curonian lagoon, banning commercial fi shing in fi ve areas (bars) of the BS coast and preventing fi shing within 300 m of the shore in the rest fi shing bars of the BS coast.

The coastal fi shing fl eet is a small-scale fl eet mostly comprised of vessels not exceeding 6 m, although 12 m is the offi cial limit. Small-scale vessels are prohibited from fi shing with trawls and driftnets, instead they use traps and set gillnets (a wall of netting which hangs vertically in the water column with weights along the bottom and fl oats along the top) anchored on the seabed. Coastal fi shermen are granted transferable rights to gear for 15 years, and the distribution of quota in the Baltic Sea for small-scale coastal fi shing is regulated by the national Law on Fisheries. Companies in the Lithuanian coastal fl eet are organised into several associations and a single producer organisation. Mindaugas Rimeikis is the president of one such association, the Coastal Small-scale Fisheries Association, which has 12 member companies with another three waiting to join. He thus represents just over a fi fth of all the companies registered in the coastal fi sheries sector, and between 35% and 45% of the total catch in coastal waters. Coastal fi shers target the quota species, herring, sprat, salmon, cod (only bycatch), and non-quota species including smelt, round goby, and recently also garfi sh.

Fishing is carried out in areas called bars, of which there are 29 for the 55 companies that constitute the coastal fi shing sector. Coastal fi shers operate up to the 20 m isobath and in the territorial Baltic Sea. A maximum of 4 km of gillnets can be set up to the 20 m isobath. Within the 20 m isobath, small-scale coastal fi shermen are allowed to set no more than 5 km of gillnets up to the territorial sea boundary. According to Mr Rimeikis, up to three traps can be set per fi shing company in the bar following an informal agreement between the coastal fi shers. Th e number of traps that can be set is conditional upon the required minimum distance between them being observed.

Some small-scale segments have used EMFF support to add value to fresh fi sh

Fish caught by coastal fi shers is usually sold fresh to primary buyers both Lithuanian and foreign. Th e members of the Coastal Smallscale Fisheries Association do not process the fi sh in any way, says Mr Rimeikis, as this calls for investments in equipment which the fi shers cannot manage without support. According to him, in the past fi shers could not avail of support from the EMFF because they did not meet the conditions set out in the rules governing support. As a result, even the roads leading to the landing sites are of poor quality. Th e small quotas that the fi shers get, the ban on cod fi shing, the lack of productivity of some fi shing bars, and the inability to add value to their catch all contribute to making fi shing only a part time occupation for most coastal fi shers, who fi sh between 30 and 80 days a year. In contrast, in the Curonian lagoon, a body of water shared with Russia, fi shers have used the EMFF to add value to their production, says Siga Jakubauskiene. She heads Lampetra, a producer

Siga Jakubauskiene, the leader of Lampetra, a producer organisation and association of fi shers operating in the Curonian lagoon, the Nemunas river delta, and the coastal Baltic Sea.

Mindaugas Rimeikis (second from right), President of the Coastal Small-scale Fisheries Association whose 12 members account for about 40% of the catch in coastal waters.

Jūros Vėjas, a member company of Lampetra, produces a variety of canned, MAP and other value-added products based on different fi sh species from the Curonian lagoon. Pictured, marinated shad in glass jars.

organisation and association of fi shers operating in the Curonian lagoon and the Nemunas river delta. It has 44 members, 38 fi shing in the Curonian lagoon, and 6 in the lower Nemunas. In 2017, the fi shers were granted transferable fi ve-year rights to their fi shing quotas (it used to be a one-year right) which encouraged many companies to seek support from European funds. Th anks to this support, today, 12 companies are engaged in the production of fresh fi sh, semi-fi nished products, smoking, and public catering during the tourist season, while a further two are implementing projects to process their catch. Th e local municipality together with Lampetra is implementing an infrastructure project aimed at organising direct sales of fi sh to consumers and short supply chains to kindergartens, schools, and hospitals. And fi ve companies are currently certifying fi sh products and fi shing methods to encourage fi shing tourism to the Curonian lagoon region. Th ese eff orts to add value to the resource have increased profi tability and have led to the development of high-quality fi sh products. Th ese developments have been positive for the sector but may not be enough to counter other trends.

Unpredictable rules and regulations are a burden on the sector

Th e number of coastal fi shing companies has not declined over the years, but neither has it increased, nor is the activity attracting young people, a common issue both within Lithuania and in other parts of the EU. One way forward might be to off er fi shers some incentive to leave the profession as this would bring fi shing capacity closer into balance with the resource, and make fi shing more profi table for the fi shers who stay. A proposal to this eff ect went to the Lithuanian parliament but funding for the proposal failed to get enough votes. But, says Mr Rimeikis, the main challenge for the sector is the instability of the national framework that governs fi sheries, which changes almost each time a new government comes into power, with some parts of it being amended even more frequently. Right now, it is also in the process of being revised. In addition to aff ecting fi shers this unpredictability, he claims, is delaying the operational programme for the European Maritime, Fisheries, and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF) that Lithuania must submit to the European Commission. Between the EU’s regulations and directives, and constantly changing national rules, the problems facing the Lithuanian coastal fi sheries remain unsolved, he feels.

Mr Rimeikis proposes that in addition to establishing a mechanism to compensate fi shers who voluntarily decide to leave the sector, innovative projects that combine educational activities with other priorities such as green energy or diversifi cation of income streams that could benefi t fi shers should be implemented along the coast. He suggests that a commission that brings together representatives from the ministry of agriculture, members of parliament,

A small-scale coastal fi shing vessel with a fyke net. This activity could become history if a proposal to prohibit it is passed by the Lithuanian Parliament.

representatives of the coastal fi shing association, scientists, economists, and others should study the issues and report their fi ndings before amendments are made to the fi sheries law—but he is doubtful that this will ever happen.

Fishers rely on own shops as markets shut down during pandemic

Th e structural issues faced by the sector were compounded in 2020 by the pandemic, which caused volumes to drop by over 20%. At Lampetra losses were worth about 30% of turnover. Compensation off ered by the EMFF was minimal, says Ms Jakubauskiene, just 10% of the last three years’ average income, so only three companies applied. Fishers in the Curonian lagoon are responsible for four fi fths of the wild catch placed on the Lithuanian market. Th is production is sold on the local market, but with logistics improving it is also delivered to the rest of the country as fi shers, with EU support, have invested in refrigerators in their cars and can now supply Kaunas, Vilnius, and other areas. But last year sales of fresh fi sh were aff ected by the lack of orders from the retail and food service sectors, so the fi sh was frozen and stored. Fishermen’s own outlets did better because the smoked or otherwise processed fi sh could be sold to locals and tourists visiting the shops.

Controversial proposal bitterly opposed by sector

A new challenge has emerged in the form of a proposal in Parliament to amend the Fisheries Law that, if adopted, will essentially wipe out the fishery in the Curonian lagoon and the small-scale coastal fishery in the Baltic Sea. The proposal seeks to completely ban commercial fishing in the Curonian lagoon and in five bars (fishing areas) on the Baltic Sea coast. It will also prohibit fishing within 300 m of the shore in the remaining bars on the coast. Like his counterpart Mr Rimeikis, Alfonsas Bargaila, the chairman of Lithuanian Fishery Producers Association representing both the open Baltic Sea fishery and coastal small-scale fishing vessels, is adamantly against the proposal which he says has less to do with science than with politics. Mr Bargaila points out that, according to scientific advice, the state of fish stocks is not poor enough to justify a complete ban on fishing. Certain restrictions are necessary during the spawning season, but prohibiting fishing altogether completely disregards the experience and suggestions of fishermen and scientists. According to Ms Jakubauskiene, the proposal was brought by the roughly 200,000-strong angling community and is backed by politicians eyeing their votes. There

The Curonian lagoon is a source of some valuable species including pike (pictured) and pike perch.

is no scientific basis for banning commercial fishing in the Curonian lagoon as Lithuanian and Russian scientists assess the stocks annually and decide the catch limits for smelt, pikeperch and bream, she says. Mr Rimeikis points to the physical impossibility of fishing beyond 300 m from the shore along the Baltic Sea coast. At 300 m the depth of the water could be 4-8 m and we cannot set our traps at such a depth let alone pull them up from the water, he says. Such a ban, without adequate compensation, is unequivocally opposed by the entire coastal fishing community, he says. Lithuania has about 100 km of coastline and this needs to be shared by all the users. He suggests a holistic solution that addresses all the different interests, economic, environmental, and social.

Taking the interests of the smallscale coastal fi sheries into account would be consistent with EU and international priorities such as the Green Deal, Europe’s sustainable growth strategy, one of the features of which is its inclusiveness—no people or places may be left behind, and the FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI) which called for the promotion of policies that support and recognize the contribution of small-scale fi sheries and aquaculture in food security, employment and income, in a declaration following its meeting in February 2021. In addition, the UN has declared 2022 the International Year of Artisanal Fisheries and Aquaculture to recognise the contribution of small-scale fi shers and their contribution to food security. A ban on the sector in Lithuania would fl y in the face of these international eff orts.

Uncertainty as to whether the proposal will be adopted or rejected is taking its toll on the fishers. They are confused and anxious not knowing whether they will have jobs or an income in the future. If the proposal is adopted, all the time, money, and effort that fishers have invested in adding value to their catch would be wasted, says Ms Jakubauskiene. Consumers would suffer too as the only source of fresh, domestically caught wild fish will dry up and Lithuanians will only be able to consume frozen imported fish. Even if the same wild fish species are imported fresh, they will cost twice as much, she foresees. And the repercussions from such a decision would not stop there. Over 150 fishermen will be out of work, isolation of the region will increase, and the whole supply chain will suffer. The cultural loss would also be huge as fishing skills that have been handed down from generation to generation atrophy and disappear, fishing villages lose their identity, and culinary traditions vanish. Whether fishermen will survive this change and learn to live with it, only time will tell.