anbei die Zusammenfassung von dem Hearing, ich weiss das ist viel Stoff. Aber das war extrem interessant und wir wollen zeitnah einen Versuch starten das Problem einer breiten Öffentlichkeit mit Nachdruck näher zu bringen. Die Präsentation von BirdsLife (also der Vogelschutzfraktion) war im Grunde eine Frechheit und extrem schwach, es waren die gleichen alten Argumente, die wir seit 30 Jahren hören, die haben sich kein Stück weiterentwickelt und hoffentlich könnte ihnen das irgendwann zum Verhängnis werden:
- Kormorane schaden den Fischbeständen nicht
- Ihr habt doch alle mittel das Problem zu lösen
- wir brauchen mehr wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse
- wenn wir die Flüsse renaturieren, dann ist das Problem gelöst
Aber die Zeiten haben sich geändert und vor allem die wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnisse von Dr. Niels Jepsen und einigen anderen lassen sich kaum noch ignorieren. Wir wollen da als DAFV zeitnah öffentlich gas geben. Dänemark und Schweden haben mittlerweile auch massive Probleme und angekündigt das Problem so nicht mehr länger hinzunehmen.
Mal sehen was geht ...
Zusammenfassung auf englisch:
The European Parliament’s Fisheries Committee (PECH) held its hearing on “The cormorant problematic affecting EU fisheries and aquaculture” on Wednesday this week. Please find here below the key elements for each presentation and a brief summary of the MEPs’ reactions and statements (complementary information and especially figures can be found in the slides for each speaker – see links below).
Dr. Niels Jepsen, Senior researcher, Technical University of Denmark (DTU), Section for Freshwater Fisheries Ecology, Denmark - Impact of cormorant predation on wild and stocked fish populations and fisheries
• Cormorants colonies in Denmark are growing and birds are staying longer because of mild winters.
• Study on the impact on fish stocks in the Ringkøbing Fjord:
o Half of the tagged eel were eaten by the same colony during the first year;
o 100% of tagged flounders were eaten in the first 15 days;
o 40 – 50 % of tags from Salmon smolts were recovered from one colony.
• Modelisation of the impact on Western Baltic cod based on several parameters (number of birds present in the area, foraging period, proportion of cod in their diet, etc) concludes that an estimated that 15 million cod specimen are eaten annually by cormorants in the Danish part of Western Baltic ; while the total recruitment per year is estimated to only 4 to 17 million cod per year.
• The presence of cormorants in river bodies is relatively recent phenomenon explained by climate change (very cold winters in 2009-2010 and 2010-2011).
• In conclusion, it is certain and scientifically relevant to say that the impact of cormorants on many fish stocks in Danish Rivers, Lakes and Coast is very high. This leads not only to economic and cultural losses but also to biodiversity losses and hinders the achievement of the Water Framework Directive goals.
Anna Pyc,Carp producer, Polish Trout Breeders Association - How cormorant predation affects fisheries/aquaculture: experiences on the ground and problems faced
• Cormorants eat up to 700gr of carp per day.
• Many local solutions have been tried (protecting fish ponds, reducing the availability of fish, auditory and visual deterrent, shooting), including habitat modification and restoration but they are not effective and very costly, the cost of these solutions adding to the loss that still happen. Cormorants adapt very quickly to new protective / carrying devices.
• Need for long term solutions, a verified management plan:
o Regulation of the cormorants population in Europe.
o No protection (remove protection status) of cormorant in the aquaculture area.
• An temporary measure: better compensation of losses in the fish production.
Oliver Martini, Aquaculture operator, Board Member of the Italian Aquaculture Association, Venice – The economic dimension of cormorant predation on the EU aquaculture sector
• The economic loss due to cormorants predation is estimated between 623 and 690 euros per hectare exploited per year, depending on the fish species. Fish farmers of course expect some losses due to predation and other natural factors, but here the is a reduction by 3 between the expected economic outcome and the actual result.
• In terms of fish caught, the difference between the expected level of catches and the actual number of fish caught varies greatly from one species to the other.
• The cormorants population in the Veneto region has been growing non-stop since 1997 (no stabilisation in the recent years compared to other geographic areas). Some are nesting and staying beyond the winter months.
• Many preventive and protective tools have been tested and used as well but the losses remain dramatic.
• Need for an effective management plan for cormorants, including monitoring and control of the population – urgently.
Stefan Jäger, Chair of the Cormorant Commission in the German Fisheries Association and Managing Director of The Association of Fisheries cooperatives of North Rhine-Westphalia - Absence of pan-European cormorant management puts fishery and environmental policy goals at risk
• Recalled the Common Fisheries Policy, the Water Framework Directive and the Bird /Habitats Directive’s objectives. The unmanaged population of cormorants leads to:
o Loss of valuable aquatic food production
o Loss of ecosystem services due to unmanaged predation (impacts on water bodies)
o Loss of biodiversity
• There is a ‘Bermuda triangle’ between the EU directive, the Member States derogation and the regional (16 landers) responsibility which leads to a vacuum and an unmanaged population.
• There is a decoupling between breeding areas and affected areas.
• Call to action:
o Establishment of an European Cormorant Management plan based on:
Pan-European population model to ensure
• stable cormorant population
• stable fish populations
Plan needs to cover migration, nesting and resting areas.
Anouk Puymartin, Marine Policy Officer, BirdLife Europe and Central Asia - Solutions for the coexistence of cormorants and fisheries and aquaculture
• About the Cormorant population:
o Estimated population size pan-Europe (incl. Russia, Turkey, Caucasus): ~ 926 000 ind. (min 828 000-max 1 030 000)
o EU: ~ 489 000 ind. (~53% of the pan-Europe)
o Stabilisation trend in Denmark, Germany and Sweden over the last years.
• Very difficult to assess the direct impact on wild fish stocks because there are other mortality factors and ecosystem complexities. Cormorant is one factor amongst others.
• The issue is mainly economic and local. Having a global population management plan will be infective to tackle local impacts. Reducing the global population will not necessarily lead to a reduced pressure on stocks and especially not on fish farms as Cormorants are opportunistic. There is no scientific basis to support an EU management Plan.
• The purpose of the derogation is not to decrease the overall population but only to prevent significant damage – killing should be limited to direct risk and used as a last resort.
• Member States’ reporting on the use of the derogation is very limited and fragmented. The Commission has been very lenient.
• Calls for:
o More funding to develop new preventive solutions and for research;
o Local solutions to a local problem;
o Restoring Cormorants and fish habitats as a best way to protect both.
Béla Halasi-Kovács, Chairman of the Environment Committee, FEAP and ViceChair of the Hungarian Aquaculture & Fisheries Interbranch Association – The legal framework and the limits of derogations: what it means in practice
• About the Cormorants population:
o The European Great cormorant population is estimated at 803,000-1,020,000 mature individuals. (BirdLife International 2015)
o The total number of European population is estimated at 1,600,000 individuals. (European Anglers Alliance 2015)
o 406,000-421,000 pairs of breeding population (Keller, V., Herrando, S., Voříšek, P. (2020)
o Breeders x 3,75 (YOY + immature) = total number of population. (Intercafe 2012a)
• Uncoordinated population management in Europe, varying use of the derogations, is very problematic.
• Main asks:
o Maintaining the derogation is essential to sustain the EU aquaculture, even to protect the populations of threatened fish species, but the current practices are not a sufficient solution.
o Need for an operative European Great Cormorant Management Plan, to determine the carrying capacity of the different habitat types and regions. To determine the eligible measures on spatial and time scale.
o Stable, long term financial support for the scientific basis of the activity and the monitoring of the results, as well as for the protection activities and their equipments.
Several MEPs took the floor to ask questions to the experts of make comments.
• Annie Schreijer-Pierik (EPP, Netherlands), François-Xavier Bellamy (EPP, France), Clara Aguilera (S&D, Spain), Fred Matic (S&D, Croatia), Emma Wiesner (Renew Europe, EPP) all said that the current tools are not adapted and not enough.
• Aguilera and Matic called for an EU-wide or regional management plan(s).
• Soren Gade (Renew Europe, Denmark), Schreijer-Pierik and Bellamy called for a removal of Cormorant from the protected species list and to make it huntable.
• Wiesner and Aguilera called for innovative solutions which can guarantee ecosystem balances and protect fish stocks and aquaculture production.
• On the other hand, the Greens MEPs, Caroline Roose (France) and Ska Keller (Germany) questioned the relevance of the discussion and debate, considering that humans and industrial fishing are greater pressure on fish stocks than cormorants. They asked more details on the scientific evidence of a direct top down impact of cormorants on wild fish stocks.
• Gade concluded the hearing by saying that he will, including as PECH Vice-Chair, remain personally ceased on the matter and fight for solutions to be found. He regretted the absence of the European Commission in this hearing.
Anbei der Link zu der Präsentation von Jepsen und Stefan Jäger:
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/ ... Jepsen.pdf
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/ ... 0Jager.pdf