FISHERMEN AND NATURE CONSERVATIONISTS

Many fishermen tend to consider themselves as being in opposition to nature conservationists in the Wadden Sea of today. Being members of the latter group, we certainly dislike this situation, eating not only fishery products ourselves, but having also, sympathy for the idea that traditional fishing vessels operate in our harbors and coastal waters.

However, from a personal view it is not easy to keep a positive attitude like this after having seen aggressive anti-conservation actions like the demonstration of fishermen in Büsum on 12 October 1996. On that occasion, the fishermen understood themselves as reacting to the "Synthesebericht der Ökosystemforschung Wattenmeer" (Stock et al. 1996) and particularly, the suggestion in this report that two undisturbed (i.e. without fishery) core zones should be established in the National Park of the Schleswig-Holstein part of the Wadden Sea.

However, claiming usually exclusive rights, and thus being largely unaffected as yet by any nature conservation measures, the Wadden Sea fisheries still have to face the well-justified fact that there has been a long growing decision in society to protect this unique ecosystem. Thepundisturbed core zones are not only proposed by the "Synthesebericht". Their introduction is also evident from earlier decisions of the Trilateral Governmental Conferences, from the European and German conservation legislation and from the decision of the Schleswig-Holstein parliament in 1985 that their part of the Wadden Sea should become a National Park.

SEMINAR ON CO-MANAGEMENT

In January 1997, not long after the events in Schleswig-Holstein, the Dutch government organized an international seminar on co management for the North Sea and Wadden Sea fisheries in Groningen. It was supposed to bring forward new and constructive ideas about the relationship between fisheries and the environment. Such an attempt to improve the fishery management had to be expected by The Netherlands first, because nowhere else is the Wadden Sea nature under higher fishery pressure. Recently, it has been shown that even long-term damaging effects of both mussel and cockle fishery on sediments, benthos and birds do exist, at least in the Dutch part of the Wadden Sea (Piersma & Kohlhaas 1997). Thus, having big problems may potentially help in creating good solutions. WWF's hope was to learn something at the seminar which may also help in other Wadden Sea countries to abandon a situation of non-talking, while trying to better protect the Wadden Sea.

DUTCH SYSTEM

However, it remains to be investigated if the present Dutch fishery management in the Wadden Sea, which includes co-management (Dankers 1996, Andriesen 1997, Keus 1997), is really a success story for nature. The scientific evaluation has not yet been done and, particularly, the repPiersma & Kohlhaas (1997) raises serious questions whether mussel and cockle fishery can be sustainable at all on a level as high as today. From the viewpoint of other Wadden Sea countries, it is clear that the overall intensity of fishery in the Dutch part is still far beyond an acceptable level and should be understoodmainly as an improvement of an even worse situation than before.

Therefore, the solution cannot be just the copying of the Dutch system by other countries. However, it may be wise to distinguish between the actual fishery regulations in the Dutch Wadden Sea and co management as a management tool. Only the latter will be discussed here further.

CO-MANAGEMENT AS A TOOL

We understand co-management as combining the delegation of certain management responsibilities to fishermen's organizations with a prior consultation over the policy aims. Based on our information of today, we can agree with Pa. Nothing seems to be bad if much of the necessary regulations would be implemented by the fishery sector itself, if the fishermen then are not only supposed to carry out the regulations, but also take a higher share in responsibility for the management of their own industry and also of the ecosystem. However, we should consider the potential risks with such a system, and also what a prior consultation over the policy aims, really can mean. Thus, it is useful to formulate the conditions which must be met from a conservation viewpoint before co management can be an option:

1.There must be a framework for co-management which fully complies with the conservation standard set by society for the area within which the respective fishery operates. This includes not only limits for fishery intensity, but also the provision for creating zones without any fishery in protected areas like the Wadden Sea. This is why the seminar participants agreed, among other things, on the following recommendation no. 14:"Although the legislation is not the same in European countries, there is, at the moment, no a zero-point situation. There are common principles and directives and, also, a history of talks and meetings, so, generally, there is a basis for starting co-management projects. Particularly in the Wadden Sea, the overall goal which has already

been agreed upon, is the development of the area as a nature area. That means that fisheries have to be integrated in the ecosystem management." The original formulation for the last sentence agreed on by the participants was even slightly different:"... that fishery issues have to be integrated in a framework of ecosystem management rather than vice versa."

2. Both, administrations and NGOs in the field of conservation must be involved within a co-management in setting the detailed regulations.

3. The fishermen's organization which is responsible for the functioning of the co management must have strong instruments to enforce the regulations and it is necessary that all fishermen take part in the system.

OPTION FOR SH?

With this in mind, the options should be discussed in more detail for the example of Schleswig-Holstein (SH). At present, the administration which is responsible for the National Park there ("Nationalparkamt") has little to do with the actual fishery management carried out by the "Landesfischereiamt". Both administrations belong to different ministries. In addition, there are other fishery related activities in the National Park carried out by a federal research agency and by a federal ministry. The latter decides independently from the "Nationalparkamt" where and when one is allowed to use vessels in the National Park. And, last but not least, the EU fishery regulations, at least indirectly, affect the fishery management also in the National Park. Considering this administrative situation with all kinds of governmental non-cooperation involved, one should not wonder that fishermen, up to now, did not necessarily feel like they were working in a National Park, i.e. an area with the highest protection status an ecosystem can have in Germany. In Schleswig-Holstein, the mussel fishery sector even more than doubled its activities during the first 10 years of the National Park, being supported in this by parts of the government.

Only as late as 1996, a further increase of mussel fishery was stopped and a new legislation in Schleswig Holstein now, for the first time, requires an agreement with the "Nationalparkamt" for new regulations (Borchardt 1997). Though some may call the new system a "co-management", both the conditions (1) and (2), as mentioned above, were not met and the overall intensity of the mussel fishery in Schleswig-Holstein may still be too high. The shrimp fishery did not even face any regulation up to today with respect to the National Park. Overall, it turns out that the present system of fishery administration for the area of the National Park in Schleswig Holstein is unacceptable, rather than just unsatisfactory, for a protected area.

CONCLUSIONS

As things can get only better, a co-management system could well be introduced with the cooperation of nature conservation NGOs, if the above mentioned conditions can be agreed upon. In the end, this may help both the protection of the Wadden Sea and the fishermen to cope better with the tougher regulations for their business which undoubtedly have to come. Even reference areas or undisturbed core zones might be more easily acceptable for the fishermen if their establishment is embedded in a larger framework of a new management system.

Returning to the Schleswig-Holstein example: It should be kept in mind that the overall size of the area which, according to the Synthesebericht, should be closed to all fishery is (depending on the season) 8-15 % of the shrimp fishery area within the National Park and only about 2-4 % of that area within the 12 sm zone. In particular, the economic situation of the shrimp fishery in 1997, with just too many shrimps being caught to allow acceptable market prices has shown that closing some of the areas could even help in market regulations. Closed areas might also help in reducing the effects of potential overfishing. Additionally, a Wadden Sea fishery of the future, which is reduced in intensity but publicly accepted as working sustainably, may, in the long term, considerably improve its market value. All this may be better achievable within a system of better arranged governmental responsibilities and with a co-management, as discussed above. Such a system may allow a much better dialogue-oriented communication between fishermen and conservationists which is strongly desired by WWF, with a vision for both National Parks and the other protected areas, achieving their goals and for a stable economic perspective for a regional and sustainable fishery.

REFERENCES

Andriesen, A., 1997: Fischerei zwischen Naturschutz und Profit - Praxis und Probleme der Küstenfischerei. Wattenmeer Intern. 15 (2):15.

Borchardt, T., 1997: Mussel fishery in Schleswig-Holstein - final decisions for the next 10 years. Wadden Sea Newsletter 1997-1: 43-44.

Dankers, N., 1996: Shellfish fisheries - self management in The Netherlands. Wadden Sea Newsletter 1996-3: 13-15.

Keus, B., 1997: Meinungsforum Fischerei und Naturschutz aus Sicht der niederländischen Fischerei. Wattenmeer International 15 (2): 16.

Piersma,T. & A. Koolhaas, 1997: Shorebirds, Shellfish(eries) and Sediments around Griend, Western Wadden Sea, 1988-96. NIOZ-Rapport 1997-7. 118 pp.

Stock, M., E. Schrey, A. Kellermann, C. Gätje, K. Eskildsen, M. Feige, G. Fischer, F. Hartmann, V. Knoke, A. Möller, M. Ruth, A. Thiessen & R. Vorberg, 1996: Ökosystemforschung Wattenmeer - Synthese bericht: Grundlagen für einen Nationalparkplan. Schriftenr. des Nps SH Wattenmeer 9.

Authors address:

Hans-Ulrich Rösner
& Christian von Dorrien

Umweltstiftung WWF-Deutschland
Projektbüro Wattenmeer
Norderstr. 3
D - 25813 Husum

E-Mail: roesner@wwf.de; dorrien@wwf.de