AquaBlog

Common Fisheries Policy     —     August, 2010

1.      The Commission has passed a regulation setting rules for the certification of exempted products under the EU’s ban on the import of seal products from third countries, as contained in Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009. The regulation establishes an attestation system for certification of seal products from hunts traditionally conducted by Inuit and other indigenous communities, and which contribute to their subsistence.

2.      The Commission has passed a regulation setting out the procedures to be followed for the implementation of real-time closures of the trawl and line fisheries for cod, haddock, saithe and whiting fisheries in the North Sea and Skagerrak. It requires Member States to prohibit fishing when juvenile fish comprise more than 15 % by weight of the catch (10% if more than 75% by weight is cod). It defines juveniles (by size) and indicates how closure areas are to be defined.

3.      The EU has amended the 2010 TACs and quota regulation to account for additional cod quotas available in Norway, additional whiting and plaice resources in the North Sea, and the reopening of cod and redfish fisheries in NAFO zone. Bluefin tuna quotas were reduced, amongst other amendments.

4.      The Commission passed a regulation increasing 2010 quotas for a number of fish stocks, following requests from Member States to transfer up to 10% of the quotas allocated to 2009.

5.      The European Commission issued a press release expressing “grave concern” at the unilateral mackerel quota of 85,000 tonnes set by Faeroe Islands for 2010. This is three times the level of Faeroese quota allocated under the multilateral management arrangements between the EU, Norway and Faeroe Islands in force from 1999 to 2009.

6.      The Commission published a stop fishing notice for Spanish vessels establishing a prohibition of fishing for blue ling in EU waters and international waters of VI, VII effective 22 August 2010.

7.      The Commission transferred EUR 64 million to the Government of Mauritania, as compensation for fisheries access to the Mauritanian zone by EU vessels, under he terms of the EC’s Fisheries Partnership Agreement (FPA) with Mauritania. The amount includes EUR 55 million for the cost of access and budgetary support of EUR 9 million in support of Mauritania’s fisheries sector.

8.      The Czech Republic notified the Commission of its provision of state aid for of aquaculture activities, including financial support for measures for protection and improvement of the environment, natural resources and genetic diversity, and upkeep of the landscape and the traditional characteristics of aquaculture zones. It will also provide compensation for the losses incurred by fishery businesses in connection with their obligation to maintain the functions of lakes as water-management tools.

9.      The Commission published the results of four studies involving joint industry-scientific research projects. Studies were conducted on brown crab (Cancer pagurus), fishery information systems for demersal fisheries in the Celtic Sea and western Channel, electronic logbook trial in the Basque trawling fishery and the Portuguese artisanal deep-water longline fishery. The studies provide data additional to the EU Data Collection Framework, and support the work of the RACs.

10.     The Commission has posted new videos online, describing elements of its integrated maritime strategy. They include the titles: “Integrated Maritime Surveillance”, “Maritime Spatial Planning” and “An Integrated Maritime Policy”.

Fish Hygiene

11.     In August 2010, the Commission issued rapid alert notices for failure to comply with health conditions in respect of 7 consignments of bivalve molluscs, 7 consignments of cephalopods, 4 consignments of crustacean, and 31 consignments of other fishery products. They included live clams, mussels from Italy, squid, cuttlefish and octopus from Ghana, peeled frozen raw black tiger prawns from India, and chilled swordfish from Malta.

12.     The Food and Veterinary Office of DG SANCO reported on a mission to Romania in March 2010, with the objective of evaluating the control systems in place governing the production and placing on the market of fishery products. The mission found that there were severe deficiencies in the official controls covering mainly: the lack of registration and inspection of fishing vessels; unsatisfactory sanitary conditions in fresh fish collection centres; lack of an approval system; unsatisfactory sanitary conditions of some approved processing establishments (mainly due to hygiene conditions and HACCP programme); unsatisfactory monitoring of  histamine; lack of monitoring arrangements for the chemical contaminants in fishery products; and lack of powers of the official veterinarians performing the inspections. The Competent authority (the Bureau of Veterinary Hygiene and Epidemiology) was found to be incapable of enforcing the legal provisions and could not impose sanctions. It was concluded that the system of official controls of fishery products shows major deficiencies which need to be addressed urgently.

13.     The Food and Veterinary Office of DG SANCO reported on a mission to Senegal in April 2010, with the objective of evaluating the control systems in place governing the production and placing on the market of fishery products. The mission found that there were some improvements since a previous mission in 2007, but many shortcomings were still evident. In particular, there was no inspection and control of small scale fishing vessels providing fish for the EU supply chain, conditions at landing and first sale were found to be unsanitary, and not subject to regular inspection. Several non-compliances were detected in freezer vessels and processing establishments, particularly in terms traceability and HACCP plans. The official control system in place could not be considered to be equivalent with European legislation, although the impact of the shortcomings is lessened by the fact that most products exported to Europe are whole, refrigerated or frozen fish, cephalopods and prawns. The Competent Authority (the Ministère de l’Economie Maritime, Direction des Industries de Transformation de la Pêche) was requested to submit a plan of corrective actions to be approved by the Commission.

14.     The DG SANCO programme “Better Training for Safer Food” published its Annual Report for 2009. The initiative provided training on around 20 different subjects related to food and feed law, animal health and welfare rules and plant health rules. In 2009 financial and administrative competence for the BTSF programme was transferred to the Executive Agency for Health and Consumers (EAHC), with the Commission Directorate-General for Health and Consumers (DG SANCO) retaining its guiding policy role. BTSF also launched a specific programme targeted at Africa, and mapped out a long-term strategy for meeting demand for EU and third country-level training in the relevant areas.

15.     The Commission passed a ruling allowing the use of dimethyl ether as an extraction solvent to remove fat from animal protein supplements used in human foods. It established the maximum residue limit for dimethyl ether of 9 μg/kg of extracted animal proteins, in line with the recommendations of the European Food safety Authority.

Link to these key developments in EU fisheries and fish trade policy and legislation at MEGAPESCA.

Nuclear energy has been used in several fields like agriculture in the form of radioactive tracers, medicine for radiotherapy and various industries for different beneficial purposes. One of the most recent and important uses to which nuclear energy has been successfully applied is the preservation of food materials like vegetables, fruits, tubers, food grains, meat, fish, etc. Food irradiation is a process for the treatment of food products to enhance shelf life and to improve microbial safety.

This article may be read at:  http://aquafind.com/articles/Use-of-Radiation-Technology.php

Common Fisheries Policy     —     July, 2010

1.      Commission counters EU Parliament claim that CFP reform does not address unfair competition from third countries
2.      New EC and Solomon Islands Fisheries Partnership Agreement ratified
3.      EU joins South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation
4.      Commission report on news species potentially to be subject to fisheries management
5.      EU adopts revised bluefin tuna catch documentation system, in line with ICCAT
6.      Commission doubles 2010 allowable catch for sandeel to 400,000 tonnes.
7.      Commission increases 2010/2011 allowable catch for anchovy in the Bay of Biscay to 15,600 tonnes
8.      Commission allocates additional days at sea to Portuguese vessels
9.      Commission modifies technical measures applied to trawl gear in the Baltic Sea
10.     Commission passes regulation amending data structure for electronic logbooks.
11.     Commission sets requirement for weighing of catches of southern mackerel and horse mackerel.
12.     CFCA hosts seminar to strengthen Joint Deployment Plans
13.     Commission contributes EUR29 million to fisheries data collection
14.     Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, visits Poland
15.     New chairman of the EU’s Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture

Fish hygiene

16.     Thirty three rapid alerts notified in July 2010 for fishery products.
17.     FVO reports on a mission to Denmark; some fundamental deficiencies detected
18.     FVO reports on a mission to Chile; appropriate guarantees but some defects
19.     FVO reports on a mission to Malaysia; significant improvements, but still with shortcomings
20.     Commission extends testing safeguards on aquaculture products from India
21.     Commission amends safeguard measures on shrimp from Bangladesh
22.     DG SANCO updated its website on veterinary medicine controls
23.     Commission launches new webpage OSHV-1 virus in oysters
24.     EFSA publishes study on non dioxin-like PCBs; fish implicated and limits are being considered
25.     EFSA publishes opinion marine brevetoxin; emerging risks but need analytical methods
26.     EFSA considers red food colour Amaranth (E123); reduction in ADI recommended
27.     EFSA gives green light for “Sardine Peptide Product”
28.     Commission commences publication of animal welfare newsletter

Common Fisheries Policy

1.      In a speech to the European Parliament, Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Mrs. Maria Damanaki defended the Commission’s proposals for the reform of the Common Fisheries policy against Parliament’s allegation that they did not take sufficient account of concerns expressed about unfair competition from third countries and the absence of a level playing field in terms of social conditions, environmental and sustainability requirements, and health protection laws in the fishery sector.  Mrs Damanaki indicated the EU had changed the rules of international trade to help eliminate IUU fishing, and was working to actively promote the adoption of international principles and instruments of good maritime and fishery governance. She also indicated that the new market policy of the CFP should aim at strengthening producer organisations in their ability to better link supply to demand in terms of quality and volumes. She also indicated that requirements for marketing standards and information to consumers (for example in labelling) should be reviewed.

2.      The European Council passed a decision ratifying a new Fisheries Partnership Agreement and Protocol between the EC and Solomon Islands, which was initialled on 26 September 2009. Fishing opportunities are provided for up to 4 EU purse seine vessels. In return the EC provides an annual amount of EUR 260,000, equivalent to a reference tonnage of 4,000 tonnes per year, and a specific amount of EUR 140,000 per year for the support and implementation of Solomon Islands’ sectoral fisheries policy. Fishing opportunities are allocated between Spain (with 75 % of fishing opportunities available) and France (with 25 %).

3.      On behalf of the European Union, the Commission signed the Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fishery Resources of the South Pacific Ocean in Wellington, New Zealand. The Convention establishes the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (SPRFMO) with a mandate to manage non-highly migratory fish species in the region, including deep sea fish stocks such as orange roughy.  The Convention fills one of the remaining governance gaps for high-seas fisheries. The EU is the seventh party to sign the SPRFMO Convention (after Chile, Columbia, Cook Islands, Kingdom of Denmark in respect of Faroe Island, New Zealand and Peru).

4.      The Commission has published the “NESPMAN” report “Improving the knowledge of the biology and the fisheries of the new species for management”. The report presents the status of biological studies on species of increasing commercial importance in the ICES area. This includes sea bass, striped red mullet, red gurnard, tub gurnard, grey gurnard, John Dory, dab flounder, witch flounder, lemon sole, turbot and brill. The study considers the gaps in scientific knowledge that will need to be addressed if these species are to be brought within the scope of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed between the European Community (EC) and the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) in 2004, regarding the species in the ICES fishing area for which recurring advice is requested by the Commission.

5.      The EU passed a regulation implementing an ICCAT Recommendation from November 2009, which entered into force on 1 June 2010, and requires Member States to introduce a strengthened bluefin tuna catch documentation programme. Each consignment of this species placed on the market must now be accompanied by a completed bluefin tuna catch document validated by the relevant authority. Catch documents must be communicated electronically to the Commission and ICCAT within 5 days of issue.

6.      The Commission adopted a Regulation to modify the 2010 fishing possibilities for sandeel in the North Sea and Skagerrak, following scientific advice that the North Sea TAC can be raised from 200,000 to 400,000 tonnes. The EU receives a 90% share of the North Sea TAC with the balance fished by Norway and Faroe Islands. A further 16,920 tonnes of sandeel can be fished from the EU waters of the Skagerrak.

7.      Following the publication of new scientific advice which confirms that the stock is in a good state and above safe biological limits, the European Commission has increased the total allowable catch (TAC) of anchovy in the Bay of Biscay to 15,600 tonnes for the fishing season 1 July 2010 - 30 June 2011. The proposed TAC represents 30% of the estimated biomass, and will be available to fishermen from France (10%) and Spain (90%). The amendment has been made in close cooperation with stakeholders in the South Western Waters Regional Advisory Council (SWWRAC). The anchovy fishery in the Bay of Biscay was re-opened in December 2009, after a five-year closure.

8.      The Commission has allocated additional fishing possibilities for Portuguese vessels over 10m in length operating in ICES Divisions VIIIc and IXa, in the form of an increase in days at sea (to 177 days/year). The increase is as a result of a reduction in fleet capacity since 2004 (by a total of 28 fishing vessels).

9.      The Commission passed a regulation modifying the technical measures applied for the conservation of fishery resources in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound. New specifications are established for certain types of trawl gear.

10.     The Commission has passed a regulation amending the requirements for the data structure and variables used in reporting of fishing activities by electronic logbooks.

11.     Following discussions with Norway and Faroe Islands, the Commission has amended the requirements for the weighing of catches of mackerel and horse mackerel taken from the southern stock components.  A requirement to keep a logbook of weighing events is also introduced.

12.     The Community Fisheries Control Agency (CFCA) held a seminar on Joint Deployment Plans (JDPs) in which staff from different Member State fisheries control bodies participate in joint enforcement missions, with a view to finding ways to further improve their effectiveness. The Seminar concluded that regional control areas should be established, JDPs should be based on pre-agreed objectives, priorities and benchmarks, and that there should be a timely sharing and collection of data and intelligence.

13.     The Commission set out the financial support to be provided by the community to EC Member States for the implementation of the fisheries data collection regulation. Out of a total eligible expenditure of EUR57.2 million by 18 Member States for 2009 and 2010, the EC will contribute EUR28.6 million.

14.     On a visit to Poland, Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Mrs. Maria Damanaki set out proposed reforms in the Common Fisheries Policy and recognised the importance of the European Fisheries Fund in the modernisation of the Polish fisheries sector. She indicated that Poland will receive 40% of the overall EFF budget for Axis 4 (i.e. sustainable development of fisheries dependent regions). She also set out the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region and the implementation of the Integrated Maritime Policy in that region.

15.     Mr Gerard van Balsfoort was appointed as the new chairman of the EU’s Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture (ACFA) until 2013. ACFA provides a forum for ongoing policy dialogue between the Commission and the industry.

Fish hygiene

16.     Rapid alerts were notified for failure to comply with health conditions for three consignments of bivalve molluscs, including from France (oysters) and USA (scallops), four consignments of crustaceans including from Croatia (rose shrimps ), Bangladesh (frozen prawns, freshwater shrimps, frozen raw shrimps), and twenty five consignment of other fishery products including Morocco (alice shad fillets in sunflower seed oil), France(fresh red gurnard ), USA(anglerfish), Ivory Coast(tuna in olive oil), China (frozen Alaska pollock fillets). A non-compliant consignment of whelks from Netherlands was also notified.

17.     The Food and Veterinary Office of DG SANCO reported on a mission to Denmark in March 2010, with the objective of evaluating the control systems in place governing the production and placing on the market of fishery products. The mission found that the official controls undertaken by the Central Competent Authority (the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration) are in general performed in line with EC requirements and as described in the Danish Multi Annual National Control Plan. However there were some deficiencies detected. Sampling schemes for fishery products did not cover all parameters required under Community Regulations. There was no official testing of water in establishments, and there was only limited testing of ice used to chill fish. The food business operators own control programmes were not fully compliant with Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point principles, and did not cover all production. HACCP plans were not always fully implemented. The report makes a number of recommendations, aimed at rectifying the shortcomings identified and enhancing the control measures in place.

18.     The Food and Veterinary Office of DG SANCO reported on a mission to Chile in April/ May 2010, with the objective of evaluating the public health conditions for the production of fishery products and live bivalve molluscs intended for export to the European Union. The mission found that the control system implemented by the Competent Authority offers appropriate guarantees concerning the sanitary conditions of bivalve molluscs and fishery products for European Union export. However, there were some areas in which the system was not fully compliant, in particular concerning the classification and frequency of monitoring of productions areas, and in the laboratory analysis methods used for assessing microbiological status. Organoleptic checks were not in line with EU requirements and one establishment (out of 11 visited) was identified with serious deficiencies. The Commission sought guarantees that the deficiencies would be addressed in a plan of corrective actions.

19.     The Food and Veterinary Office of DG SANCO reported on a mission to Malaysia in April/ May 2010, with the objective of evaluating the public health conditions for the production of fishery products intended for export to the European Union. The mission followed previous missions in April 2008 (after which Malaysia voluntarily suspended exports of fishery products to the EU) and in March 2009 (after which a number of aquaculture product establishments were re-listed for supply to the EU market). The mission found significant improvements in the system of official controls. However, some shortcomings were still evident, especially in relation to vessel inspections, weak follow up on non-compliances detected during inspections, lack of adequate sampling for histamine testing and lack of adequately trained inspectors. The report makes a number of recommendations aimed at rectifying the shortcomings and requires the Competent Authority to submit a plan of corrective actions.

20.     The Commission passed a Regulation setting out extended safeguard measures to be applied on the import by the Community of aquaculture products for human consumption from India. Following the results of a Commission inspection to India in September 2009 which revealed shortcomings as regards the residue control system in aquaculture products and a lack of appropriate laboratory capacity for detecting residues of veterinary drugs, as required by Directive 96/23/EC, a requirement to test all shrimp consignments from this source was introduced. Pending evaluation of a new residue monitoring plan, the Commission has now extended the requirement for mandatory testing for the presence of nitrofurans or their metabolites to all consignments of aquaculture products.

21.     The Commission also passed a Decision amending the safeguard measures applied on shrimp products imported from Bangladesh. A Commission inspection to Bangladesh in January 2010 revealed that the previously identified lack of appropriate laboratory capacity for the testing of certain residues of veterinary medicinal products in live animals and animal products still persists. The import of consignments of this product, will be permitted providing they are accompanied by a test certificate which indicate that they have been tested for chloramphenicol, tetracycline, oxytetracycline, chlortetracycline, metabolites of nitrofurans, and malachite green and crystal violet and their respective metabolites. Member States are also required to ensure that 20% of the imported consignments are sampled and tested in Community laboratories (and are detained pending test results).

22.     DG SANCO of the European Commission updated its website with regards to information about the controls for residues of veterinary medicines in consignments of foods of animal origin imported from third countries.

23.     The Commission also launched a new webpage regarding the OSHV-1 virus, being a cause of increased mortalities of oysters in the EU in 2008 and 2009. The site includes links to EU Member State web pages in Ireland, France Netherlands and UK (the most affected states) where more information is provided regarding containment areas, areas where the absence of OsHV-1 μvar has been demonstrated, areas which previously have been subject to containment measures, and areas covered by programmes for the early detection of OsHV-1.

24.     The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published a detailed study on non dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls (NDL-PCBs) in foods. The study reviews data from tests on a total of 11,214 food and 1,349 feed samples collected from 18 EU Member States, Iceland and Norway between 1999 and 2008. The study shows that, as with dioxin- like PCBs, fishery products, fish meal and fish oils are the foods most implicated, and that NDL-PCBs can be present in levels up to 6 times higher than dioxin like PCBs. Furthermore, following recent studies, some non dioxin-like PCBs (which do not share the toxocological characteristics of dioxins) have been shown to elicit neurological, endocrine, immunological and carcinogenic effects. Several international agencies classify PCBs as probably carcinogenic to humans. Following scientific advice from EFSA, the Commission has announced that it is currently discussing setting maximum levels for the sum of the six indicator NDL-PCBs in food and feed.

25.     The EFSA also published an opinion on the food safety risks associated with brevetoxin-(BTX) group toxins (marine biotoxins which can accumulate in shellfish and fish, primarily produced by a dinoflagellate Karenia brevis. The study found that to date BTX-group toxins have not been reported in shellfish or fish from Europe. However, BTX-group toxin producing algae have been discovered and the expansion of algal blooms suggests that BTX-group toxins could also emerge in Europe. Currently there are no regulatory limits and more work is required to assess what they should be. EFSA recommends that there is a need to validate a test method based on liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) methods.

26.     The European Food Safety Authority’s Scientific Panel on additives, the ANS Panel, has assessed the safety of the red food colour Amaranth (E123) which is sometimes used to colour fish roe preparations in the EU. The panel concluded that the colour is neither genotoxic nor carcinogenic, but recommended lowering the acceptable daily intake to a level of 0.15 mg per kg body weight per day.

27.     Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA) reported on its assessment of the safety of a  “Sardine Peptide Product” (a food supplement derived from sardine muscle), as a food ingredient. The Panel considers that there is no evidence for safety concerns for adults, children or pregnant and lactating women.

28.     The European Commission commenced publication of a new newsletter on animal welfare, following the introduction of animal’s rights as “sentient beings” under Article 13 of the Treaty of Lisbon, which came into force last December. The EU is now obliged to take animal welfare fully into account in policies relating to agriculture, fisheries, transport, internal market, research and technological development.

Link to these key developments in EU fisheries and fish trade policy and legislation at MEGAPESCA.

The news is constant in that there will always be a bycatch problem with the major fish species.  There is a solution besides cage aquaculture and that is, Land Based Aquaculture.  Complete control can be maintained from birth to harvest of the chosen species and, better yet, right through processing and distribution.

A single operation can yield 80-100 mt of fish that can be processed on site and freighted right to the distributors or you can even be the distributor.

How, simple.  Diobas Ltd has developed a system of producing both saltwater and freshwater fish inland anywhere you choose to situate your tank.  Theses can be as large as 52m x 20m and yields of cod for example can be 80mt.  No boats, no landing docks required.

They are building these installations worldwide with the most recent completion in Singapore.  For more information follow the Diobas link that will explain in depth what this is all about.

Diobas Ltd.

OFFER REJECTED

Whilst we would never usually make public the terms and conditions of any negotiations without permission we feel that in this instance it is important to highlight one of the reasons that large fish suppliers need to move on and pull themselves out of the dark ages. Burying their heads in the seaweed will not make this new technology go away. Having been threatened with legal action if we reveal the company concerned, who for their own reasons would rather not repeat in public the terms they offered us, we will have to refer to them as ‘X’. 

Mafia would be a more apt title but we do not wish to be offensive.  

Following a one month consultation period we have rejected an offer from ‘X’ to run a joint research project with a view to granting ‘X’ European rights to our sea fish production units, primarily because of the derisory support they offered and the fact that this industry in general seems to have been high-jacked by the relatively small number of companies who have far too much control over the market to the point where they can seriously damage both the industry and the fish themselves. Basically the deal was as follows: In return for further research into alternate species, namely Sea Bass and Halibut to be conducted over the next year ‘X’ have offered just £5k per month support, a derisory figure that would not even cover basic analysis. They also insisted on a 4 month review with an option of withdrawing their funds, ridiculous in itself as anyone with any knowledge of research and fish in particular will realise that no meaningful assessment of both viability and welfare could possibly be reached over such a short time scale.  

‘X’ argued that the units may not be commercially viable which can only be a negotiating stance or delaying tactic rather than fact. An optimised unit can produce in excess of 90 tonnes per year with an approximate cost per tonne, to include feed and fingerling stock, of £1400. Agreed one has to add Capital expenditure, power, labour etc but even when these are factored in, the cost per tonne over the lifespan of the system is well under £3k, a figure also put forward by ‘x’ themselves. When higher end species are equated such as Sea Bass and possibly Halibut, (with a little more research maybe other species as well), the argument that the units may not be commercially viable is a ridiculous one. Factor in the obvious sustainability issues, fish welfare and the need to reduce our dependency on the fast dwindling ocean stocks and we can only conclude that ‘X’ has other objectives, we are after all a serious threat to their current business format.  

Astonishingly we would also have been expected to invest £90k ourselves in a new research facility dedicated to the species that ‘X’ specify and give them access to the technology we have developed, much of which is not protected as yet by patents etc. It is not difficult to see why we rejected their kind offer of support despite their obvious influence and market share. We do not of course wish to condemn ‘X’ as we can only assume that other large companies involved in the industry would take a similar stance given that the ‘X’ website like many others is full of claims about their commitment to sustainability etc and we have to assume that they are sincere. 

Perhaps the term sustainability relates to profit rather than fish stocks? Who knows, the fact remains that we have wasted a month and must now move on.  

Since the news of our success spread across the world a few weeks ago we have a myriad of offers coming in on a daily basis from Australia and the Far East to the USA and Canada but basically they give us five options.  

1)      We move Diobas Ltd away from the UK and base our company where we have been offered more than ample support. Not our preferred option as we have worked hard to keep this new technology here.

2)      We sell the company in its entirety. Very lucrative but fraught with potential problems in that we fear the technology will never see the light of day, there are too many companies out there that have money invested in other areas who would be severely damaged if our units became common place. As we feel a very strong moral obligation to make sure this technology is made available the option of selling out would be a very difficult pill to swallow, whatever the price offered.

3)      Sell off the individual technologies most of which have far reaching implications, from our revolutionary particle fractionators to pump drives and the Ciren Neural Trigger programs. All were developed to cope with the demands of putting sea fish into a freshwater environment rather than as separate entities, but each have a whole range of potential applications. This is not ideal by any means but perhaps an option we should consider as licensing rights to use the technology as a whole within the production units could perhaps be retained.

4)      We travel that well trampled path cunningly designed by politicians and civil servants to frustrate, confuse and ultimately induce a visit from the men in white coats . . . i.e. an application for Grant Funding. This seems to be a route doomed to failure unless you are a member of the right golf club, are a large company that doesn’t need the money anyway or stand on one leg whilst engaging in a secret handshake. This may only apply to English funding applications however as it would appear that both Wales and Scotland are much more amenable, or so we are told.

5)      This is an interesting one that has been suggested several times. We could issue sole rights to a company or individual for a particular country on a license basis. It would raise the capital we need to finance our research into other species but there is a danger that the purchaser would simply hang on to the license rights without actually building any units for the simple reason that those rights would obviously rocket in value as the technology became common place and the desire for units increased. This would be completely unacceptable as our research was never about profit alone; if it were we would never have embarked on such a revolutionary approach to aquaculture and instead would have taken a much safer path if our only objective was to retire to the Bahamas on completion of the program. It is vitally important for everyone that this technology is readily available and exploited to its maximum potential not just used for profit alone.  

Either way the experience with ‘X’ has shown us that we need to move very cautiously and pick our partners with great care. To progress the project we need funds, it’s as simple as that. Diobas has never taken any grants or third party funding, we have never had any help from any corporation, banks or governments, we do not even have an overdraft facility let alone any borrowing. Neither do we have any debts and enjoy being transparent in our negotiations, perhaps this is where the ‘X’ deal went wrong. We were just too honest about the support we need to go forward. In summary there appears to be more sharks on land than there are in the sea and perhaps, as we are essentially a research based company not commercially skilled negotiators, we rather naively believed the profit from our technology should be evenly shared between our partners, ourselves and of course the dwindling fish stocks themselves. Watch this space, we will keep you all informed and a very big thanks for all the emails of support and congratulations we have received. This remarkable new technology will not go away. Sooner or later it will become the norm and until then we are happy to talk to anyone who has a serious proposal, the only conditions being that all discussions are transparent, each party is honest about its objectives and that we all earn very well from the deal with the proviso that the fish themselves benefit as well. Fish welfare and profit can go hand in hand. The consumer wants it, we all have a duty of care to ensure that the fish get it, and the oceans desperately need it.  

Surely that shouldn’t be difficult, Diobas has the technology and we all have the power of speech. 

More details on http://www.diobas.com/UPDATE.htm 

Should you require any further details, please do not hesitate to contact me, 

Steve Marriot Head of ResearchDIOBAS LTD

DIOBAS USA

DIOBAS INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS

www.diobas.com 

+44 (0) 1409-253123

+44 (0) 1409-211641

Personal email: steve@diobas.com

Imagine a sustainable supply of Fresh Cod around the world and being able to afford to eat it, whatever your income. Well, DIOBAS has found a completely new way to rear Cod in Freshwater at any location in the world in a controlled environment, even on the most unproductive terrain any distance from the sea without quotas and approximately one third below current market price.

See the full story

I watch every day while our government figures out more ways of spending money.  A billion here a billion there and then a trillion all in the cause of creating jobs and a better infrastructure.  That is all fine and good and maybe well intentioned but are our legislators really doing enough or are they working for more earmarks?  Getting out of this sinkhole of debt that is being created won’t be as easy as getting into it.  Creating jobs is wonderful, but who will all these workers be working for?  If we keep going at the current pace, they will be working to pay off interest on all our loans to foreign shores and working for foreign owned companies because we are giving away our heritage due to our own mismanagement and greed.

In order to get out of this mess we will have to produce, yes produce, products to sell abroad and also products that we can use to slow the flow of imports.  It is obvious what imports we want to slow or stop but there are many overlooked opportunities we discard because they don’t seem so important in the total scheme of things.

We have an agriculture machine that is focused on growing corn and soybeans because they are, we think, the most profitable and best products for the economy.  We forget or outlaw crops that can help the environment and be  more productive because apparently the corn and soybean consortium has all the pull in Washington.  We don’t grow hemp because the DEA is unable to tell the difference between industrial hemp and medical hemp, the only country in the world restricting it’s growth by the way.  So a short biology course is to expensive?  The uses are vast and profitable and green.  We use corn for ethanol production even though we know there are better crops, including algae, for that same job.  Barley is another overlooked opportunity.  Why not earmark a couple billion for processing facilities for these crops and many others that make sense instead of spending money on trying to figure out how to get rid of pig smell and grow more corn and soybeans.  The eight thousand plus earmarks the government passed could have waited until our economy was in a better position to handle those expenses and the interest we will be paying for them.

There are opportunities in every sector of our economy for America to produce products economically and profitably that we are ignoring because of ignorance and greed.  We used to be the innovators and creators of new products and ideas and now we are subjugating ourselves to being nothing more than arrogant users.  Maybe we are a great nation but if we continue just spending and helping fools, then we will find out what a third world society is really like firsthand.

I would like to think that the man I voted for has the courage to stand alone and sacrifice his good fortune to rebuild this nation without listening to the influence of those that seek only to satisfy their greedy needs.  Put our leaders on the spot and start some useful projects without the advice of the self proclaimed authorities and rebuild America.  This is the country we love so why would we allow greedy people to tare it down.  They could be voted out you know if we are given a reason to.  We know what is wrong with our system and it could be fixed by someone with the courage to do so.

The U.S. Customs *and Border Protection (CBP)* has had COOL on the books for sometime now but the law has not been enforced. This law was designed  to protect and inform the American consumer.  While we have waited, foreign countries have been undercutting our products and have used vague labeling that was not very clear about where the products came from.  The result has been the failure of many American suppliers because they just couldn’t compete.  They still can’t compete but they can sell you a product that outshines the quality of our foreign competitors.  If it taste better and is cleaner, we will buy it and that is why our products do sell.  Most of the time this is just because they are raised in a better environment.  The U.S. Department of Agriculture is now helping to  enforce the rule.

As the United States is finally becoming aware of the benefits of organic versus chemically induced products the consuming public is much more aware of what’s going on then they were ten years ago.  So finding homegrown products, like crawfish, shrimp, chicken and the myriad selection of other aquaculture products  we have to choose from will in the long run improve our overall national health.  That means less cancer maybe and maybe a lot of other ailments might wane.

As countries get more and more particular about their food products, the producers around the world will have to fall in line or have no market.  Everyone will benefit from the system and, it creates more jobs.

By the way, COOL stands for Country Of Origin Labeling.

Don’t forget, daily news may be found at Aquafind.com

Looks like the commercial fishery industry won because the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council voted 11-5 in favor of the plan for pens. Now the Gulf of Mexico will hold the first American deep-water pens. It took these guys six years to come up with the plan and of course there will be legal challenges now. No wonder America is falling behind in yet another industry.

The plan now goes to the Department of Commerce for review and implementation. Wonder what the delay is going to be there? If they do not change it, up to as many as 20 operations will be allowed to raise fish that may only be caught from the wild. 64 million pounds is the annual limit and that would surely help our food chain.

I note that this issue was discussed and voted on in the Hollywood Casino in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi, an apt location for such an uncertain gamble. As I have said before, if the correct oversight of these companies is undertaken, then this should ultimately be very successful and not hurt fisherman as feared.

If you are interested in reading the whole bill, it may be found here (long-557 pages): http://www.gulfcouncil.org/Beta/GMFMCWeb/downloads/Aquaculture%20FMP%20PEIS%20Final%201-13-09.pdf

Daily news may be found on the main page of Aquafind.com

This is definitely a postive for the groundfish fishing industry in that the court is forcing the Department of Commerce to take another look at their regulations.  They have 60 days to comply, which is enough time to see if some adjustments can’t be made.  This kind of action with a short but reasonable time limit could solve a great many of our fishing problems.  Regulations cut in stone are inflexible and hurt the fish and the fishermen.  There is no rule or regulation that can’t be improved with a little tweak every so ofton.

This regulation known as Framework 42, concerns mixed-stock fishing.  The major issue here, as I see it, is that in certain areas, one day of fishing is counted as two while an adjacent area further south is fished on a count of one day to one day thus allowing it to be overfished.  If the Department of Commerce would take some time to talk to more fishermen they just might be able find a solution for both the fishermen and the fish and maybe generate some more income for the area as a bonus.

These news stories can be found at Aquafind.com