In September 2012 a national argument erupted in Australia over the arrival of a 9,500-ton super-trawler in the country’s waters. A company called Seafish Tasmania had brought the vessel to Australia with the intention of allowing it to fish for pelagic species. The arrival of the ship was immediately controversial and led to a huge public outcry over the damage it would have on Australia’s fish stocks. After much protest, debate and legal wrangling, it was eventually decided that the ship (which the operators renamed the Abel Tasman in a failed attempt to win over the public)  would leave Australia’s waters without catching a single fish.

In 2019 a similar situation occurred in Britain when the same vessel, now renamed the  FV Margiris, began operating in the English Channel off the south coast of England. However, due to the way Britain’s fishery regulations are tied to the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy it was not possible for the UK government to send the vessel away in the same manner the Australians had, and the vessel continued to operate in UK waters.

The Abel Tasman / FV Margiris Fishing Vessel

The vessel was built in Norway in 1985 and was originally named the FV Margiris (it has had a number of names over the years). At 142 metres long and displacing 9,500 tons it is the second biggest trawler in the world, with only the equally controversial Atlantic Dawn eclipsing it in size. The ship can catch around 250 tons of fish each day in its nets which are 600 metres long and 200 metres wide (1). Like Atlantic Dawn, it has a complex system of pumps and conveyor belts to sort and process the catch and can freeze all of the fish it catches on board. The vessel can hold around 6,000 tons of catch on board, much of which will be exported to the developing world (1).

Beginning of the Abel Tasman Dispute

The FV Margiris had been fishing in the seas of the west coast of Africa but in late 2012 the news broke that it would be travelling to Australia. It was at this time that it was announced that the ship would have its name changed from the FV Margiris to the Abel Tasman, in honour of the Dutch explorer and sailor from the 1600s who led the first Europeans to discover and map Australian and New Zealand.

Immediately many Australians were concerned about how much damage the Abel Tasman would do to fish stocks and the wider marine environment. The vessel’s name change also caused outrage (2), as Abel Tasman is regarded as a hero by many Tasmanians, and the idea that a ship which was emptying their seas was to be named after such an important figure in their history was seen as an insult. Martin Haley from the Tuna Club of Australia told Hobart-based newspaper The Mercury:

“This is an absolute national disgrace and a total embarrassment to Tasmania’s international reputation and image. Tasmanians are very proud of our heritage and history and at no time do we invite a super-trawler capable of plundering and decimating our fisheries to be renamed after our most famous explorer” (2).

Attempts to Stop the Abel Tasman

Once the vessel arrived in Australia it docked at Port Lincoln in the state of South Australia. The Abel Tasman had a commonwealth quota to catch around 18,000 tons of pelagic species, mostly common jack mackerel and redbait (also known as bonnetmouth) (3). However, under the country’s laws, the vessel had to be re-flagged as an Australian ship – as long as it was foreign-flagged it could not begin fishing. While the ship’s owners and the Australian authorities arranged for the re-flagging to take place the protests over the ship gathered momentum, making both national news and gaining international coverage. This led to the re-flagging being delayed while the debate about the vessel continued. Local small-scale fishermen protested against the ship, saying it would decimate their livelihoods, while plenty of people with no connection to the commercial fishing industry petitioned politicians to stop the ship from becoming Australian-flagged (3).

The owners of the Abel Tasman hit back, talking up the employment and economic benefits the ship would bring. They also pointed out that the vessel would be fitted with ‘excluder devices’ which would stop larger animals such as seals and dolphins from being caught in the nets by funnelling them to an escape hatch, and due to modern technology bycatch of non-target species would be less than 1 per cent of previous operations of a similar scale. Furthermore, they also stated that the 18,000-ton quota of redbait and jack mackerel was only 5 per cent of the total size of the fishery (4).

These attempts to highlight the positive aspects of the Abel Tasman failed, as the re-flagging was still delayed. An interim ban preventing the Abel Tasman from fishing was announced and eventually Australian Environment Minister Tony Burke states that legislation had been passed which meant that the Abel Tasman was effectively banned from fishing in Australian waters for two years from November 2012 to allow time for research into the impact that super-trawlers would have on the nation’s marine ecosystem to take place (6). Seafish Tasmania was furious and accused Tony Burke of ignoring scientific advice that the vessel would have a low impact on fish stocks and would create employment but attempts to have the ban overturned failed. Seafish Tasmania made a last-ditch attempt to utilise the Abel Tasman’s presence in Australia. In early 2013 they put a proposal to Australian authorities that the ship would go to sea but not to fish. Instead, it would be used as a mother ship, with trawlers vessels loading their catch onboard the Abel Tasman where it would be processed and frozen at sea (7). This compromise deal was also rejected.

Finally accepting that the vessel would not be used in any capacity in Australian waters, Seafish Australian sold their stake in the Abel Tasman. Having spent six months in Australia, without going fishing once, the Abel Tasman returned to Europe and was re-registered as a Lithuanian ship with Klaip?da on the Baltic Sea becoming its new homeport. During this time the vessel reverted back to being named the FV Margiris.

Australia’s Permanent Ban on Super-trawlers

Two years later in November 2014, a scientific study was published that confirmed fears that the vessel would have had a disproportionately high negative impact on Australia’s marine environment and would lead to follow-on effects for other forms of fishing and tourism (8). Following this, the Australian Federal Government passed laws that permanently banned super-trawlers over 130 metres long from operating in Australian waters meaning the vessel would never be able to return (8).

FV Margiris in British Waters

In October 2019 the UK media reported that the FV Margiris was operating off the coast of southern England. Now owned by the Dutch company Parlevliet & Van der Plas and still registered as a Lithuanian vessel, the Margiris spent more than a week fishing in the English Channel for herring and mackerel off the coast of Sussex, and at one point came into Weymouth Bay and was within three miles of the coastline. Fishermen from across the region expressed their concern over the impact that the vessel would have on fish stocks in the area (9), while there were also fears that marine mammals such as dolphins and threatened species such as bluefin tuna – which were only starting to make a return to British waters – could be caught as bycatch (9).

Unlike Australia, the UK government had no power to expel the vessel from British waters. This is because Britain only controls the waters up to twelve nautical miles from the UK coastline – the waters beyond this point were part of the shared European Union Exclusive Economic Zone. Banning super-trawlers, in the way Australia has done, could only be done on a EU-wide basis with all countries agreeing to do so and any country able to veto the decision. This meant that despite the outrage caused by the FV Margiris operating so close to the British coastline and the impact it would have on the entire marine ecosystem there was nothing the UK government could do to stop it. Indeed, ITV News reported that the UK authorities had inspected the vessel but as they found no infringements of fishing regulations they therefore had to allow the FV Margiris to continue operating (10). By the weekend of the 19th of October, FV Margiris had left British waters and sailed to the Dutch port of IJmuiden.

At the end of October 2019 news emerged that the Margiris had spent time fishing in the Offshore Overfalls, a Marine Conservation Zone off the coast of the Isle of Wight where fishing is supposedly heavily restricted due to the rare and endangered species which are present there (11). The environmental group Greenpeace made the discovery after analysing marine traffic data of the movements of FV Margiris during its time in British waters and stated that the vessel spent significant time fishing in the zone (11).

In September 2020 FV Margiris returned to Britain, operating off the coast of North Yorkshire and Northumberland along with several other super-trawlers (12). The presence of the vessel was reported in the media but once again the UK government was powerless to stop the Margiris which was operating legitimately and within the law. In December 2020 the Margiris returned to British waters and was tracked operating off the north coast of Scotland. At the same time the Annelies Ilena (the hugely controversial supertrawler formerly known as Atlantic Dawn) was also fishing in the same area (13).

Increased Super-trawler activity in British Waters

Earlier in 2020, Greenpeace uncovered information that revealed that super-trawlers had significantly increased the amount of time they had spent fishing in UK protected zones in the first half of the year, spending 5,590 hours fishing across nineteen zones. This was almost double the amount of time they had spent fishing in UK waters in the whole of the previous year and happened when much Britains’s small scale fleet could not go to sea due to the coronavirus lockdown.

Chris Thorne from Greenpeace said “Our government cannot continue to allow supertrawlers to fish with ever-increasing intensity in parts of our waters that are supposed to be protected … at least 30 per cent of the UK’s waters should be off-limits to all industrial fishing activity” (14). Dale Rodmell, assistant chief executive of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, took a different view. He was quoted in the Guardian as saying that criticism of super-trawlers was a “red herring” and an “easy target” and argued that as these types of vessels caught fish from mid-water they did not affect the seabed which the zones were established to protect (14).

Margiris Loses 100,000 Fish and Return to UK

In February 2022 FV Margiris once again made international headlines. The vessel was in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of France when it shed more than 100,000 blue whiting into the sea. The Guardian described the fish as forming a “floating carpet of carcasses” which covered 3,000 square metres (32,300 sq ft). France’s maritime minister Annick Girardin ordered an investigation into the loss and the European commissioner for the environment, oceans and fisheries, Virginijus Sinkevicius, requested further information about the incident. The Pelagic Freezer-Trawler Association which represents the owners of the Margiris said that the fish were lost when a net ruptured and losing this quantity of fish was a “very rare occurrence” (16). In December 2022 the Margiris returned to British waters and fished off the northern coast of Scotland (17).

Summary

The difference between the way the Australian and British governments could deal with the FV Margiris starkly illustrated the differences between the fisheries policy of the two nations. Australia’s full control of its territorial waters means that the Australian government make the decisions over which vessels can fish in the country’s waters and have the power to expel and ban any vessels which it believes will damage its fish stocks and marine ecosystem. The British government is only able to do this to vessels which operate within twelve nautical miles of the shore, as this is the only zone the British government has control over. Beyond this waters are part of the EU’s Exclusive Economic Zone and decisions can only be made on an EU-wide basis with the agreement of all member states.

At the time of writing (September 2020) the UK has left the EU but is in a transition phase and still abides by all EU rules and regulations until the end of the year. What follows after that depends on the results of UK-EU negotiations which have been disrupted by the coronavirus crisis.

What is clear is that there is a growing consensus for the British government to act to ban super-trawlers from UK waters (assuming it is able to after the Brexit transition period has ended). In summer 2020 a range of public figures, celebrities, scientists and politicians from across the political spectrum added their names to an open letter calling for super-trawlers to be banned. Signatories included actors Sir Michael Palin, Gillian Anderson and Joanna Lumley, the End of the Line author Charles Clover, former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and current Home Secretary Dominic Raab as well as many other MPs from all of the major political parties (15). The letter was delivered to Environment Secretary George Eustice and can be read by clicking here.

References: 

1. Super Trawler Margiris Will Change Name to Abel Tasman and Nominate Brisbane as Official Home – News.com.au
2. Fury Over Super Trawler Rename – The Mercury
3. Australia Rallies Support for Super Trawler Vote – BBC News
4. Will Super Trawler Abel Tasman (Margiris) Destroy Our Fisheries? – ABC.net.au
5. Seafish Tasmania Sues Australian Government – Undercurrent News
6. Environment Minister Tony Burke acused of Trashing Marine Science After Slapping a Two-Year Ban on Super Trawler Abel Tasman – News.com.au
7. Trawler Could Become Fishing Mothership – Port Lincoln Times
8. Super trawlers set to be banned from Australian waters permanently under Federal Government regulations – ABCNews.net.au
9. A Sad Day for Fishing Around the Isle of Wight – County Press
10. The Supertrawler Just 14 Miles Off Brighton Capable of Landing 6,000 Tonnes of Fish – ITV News
11. European Super Trawler Sparks Fury After Entering UK Conservation Zone – The Express
12. VesselFinder.com, Fishing Vessel, IMO: 8301187, MMSI: 277330000 on 2/9/20.
13. VesselFinder.com, Fishing Vessel, IMO :8301187, MMSI: 277330000 on 23/12/20.
14. Supertrawlers Ramp up Activity in UK Protected Waters During Lockdown – The Guardian
15. Ban Supertrawlers from UK Marine Protected Areas – Greenpeace.org.uk
16. Shock in France after Giant Trawler Sheds 100,000 Dead Fish off Coast– The Guardian
17. Vesselfinder.com, Fishing Vessel, IMO: 8301187, MMSI 277330000 on 30/12/22.