Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40
- 59)
TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 1998
MR STEPHEN
WENTWORTH, MR
ANDREW KUYK,
MR IAN
GORDON AND
DR JOSEPH
HORWOOD
40. Are you saying that because the two ships
that we have at the moment are not being used the whole time they
are equivalent to one plus a bit?
(Dr Horwood) Yes.
41. I am a little concerned about the robustness
of research procedures. I take on board that it is difficult to
count the number of fish in the sea, but what are the most significant
distortions? Would it be more accurate if scientists measured
overall stocks rather than individual species so that the approach
was more holistic?
(Dr Horwood) In various of the submissions that have
been submitted to the committee references have been made to the
use of fairly simple models as the basis of advice. The typical
annual advice on quotas for next year is based on fairly simple
models, but to a degree its real strength lies in its simplicity.
To understand what the numbers mean one requires greater knowledge
of the fish in the ecosystem. In MAFF, and in Scotland and ICES,
we have been involved in considerable research to understand the
interactions of fish eating fish. This is almost 100 per cent
of their food. Fish eat other fish. Therefore, that has an effect
on the numbers of other fish. That understanding is quantitatively
built into the present estimates that we give. The work that we
have done already has had an effect on fisheries managers. A few
years ago just as the first results came out the Commission wanted
to go to 130 mm mesh nets in the North Sea. We were able to say
that if that happened so many whiting would be let through that
their numbers would increase to such a degree that large numbers
of haddock and cod would be eaten and the situation would not
be improved. We are beginning to talk about biological interactions
on quite a grand scale which are of relevance to managers. This
year ICES has recognised that this is a particularly important
area and has asked the science working groups to push that work
forward. MAFF is to support this programme over the next five
years. We are considering that element of the ecosystem in a holistic
manner. In parallel, we are being asked to consider the effects
of fisheries on the ecosystem itself. What do you do to the sea
bed? Do you change the flora and fauna? We have research programmes
in this area. At present, all these matters have not been put
into one single model or understanding but very substantial parts
of the ecosystem are being addressed through science and are being
fed into policy at a fairly rapid rate.
42. How do you account for the quite large discrepancies
between the fishermen's assessment of the fish population and
that of scientists and researchers?
(Dr Horwood) I believe that the difference observed
reflects the argument as to what is happening this year and how
that affects quotas for next year. There is a degree of consensus
on the overall state of fish stocks. The argument as to what is
happening this year or how it affects next year's quotas arises
in various ways. One is that our fishermen can catch a reasonable
amount of fish locally inshore along the coast but it can be pretty
much absent elsewhere. For example, there was a big decline off
the Canadian coast. The behaviour of the fish changed to such
a degree that some components of the fleet could still maintain
very high catch rates but over a much wider area the fish disappeared.
They can be seen locally in significant abundance but that is
not reflected elsewhere. They ask how that can be because the
fish are out there. This year the cod which has moved from its
terribly low state of a few years ago has improved. In 1996 fish
were extremely numerous and it appeared that it would help the
stock considerably. We have found that 1997 was almost the lowest
number on record as fate would have it. These fish are too small
for the fishermen to have seen yet. They will be experiencing
better catches of cod than they have seen for some while. The
advice for next year is not as favourable as they might have wished,
but the reason for it is that their fishing nets are too big to
catch the little fish that we have been sampling. There are some
very real and proper reasons why they may see things differently.
43. Can you make an assessment of the quality
and health of the fish landed? Can you also say something about
the reasons for the variability in fish quality?
(Dr Horwood) I am not sure that I can express a particularly
expert view. We have a laboratory in Weymouth that is devoted
specifically to fish and shellfish health issues. That is monitored
and reported on each year. In general, the quality and health
of our fish is excellent. Scotland has similar facilities. I would
rather provide further information on that in writing.
Mr Todd
44. An earlier report on the fishing industry
by the Agriculture Committee criticised the lack of contact between
scientists and fishermen. One aspect of contact is money. What
contribution do fishermen make to the research that is undertaken?
If the answer is nil you can answer very briefly.
(Mr Wentworth) It is not nil. The Sea Fish Industry
Authority is funded by a levy on the industry and it does a certain
amount of scientific work.
45. I am concerned with the specific programme
that we have been discussing for the past half-hour or so.
(Mr Wentworth) The answer is that the contribution
of fishermen is either zero or next to nothing.
(Dr Horwood) The main source of information internationally
is the catch of fish from the international fishing fleets. For
instance, the UK fleet fills in logbooks and the information is
recorded on computers. We make great use of that catch rate information.
46. We make use of industry data but otherwise
its contribution is negligible?
(Dr Horwood) In terms of cash there is no direct contribution.
We participate with them. They welcome us on their boats.
47. That answers another question that I intended
to ask. What role do they have in directing your research programme?
(Dr Horwood) They are not involved explicitly in directing
the research programme. That is commissioned by fisheries managers
in London.
48. They do not make any direct financial contribution
and do not really have a say in what you do?
(Dr Horwood) They have no formal structure which enables
them to have an input, but they make frequent written representations
about what they want to see done. For example, this week we are
out sampling young fish in the mackerel box in response to a request.
49. Bearing in mind what I have said, it is
not exactly surprising that they do not own the results with which
you have come up or necessarily concede their validity?
(Dr Horwood) They certainly do not see as much of
the work as I would like them to be exposed to.
50. Since you would like to expose them to it
why do you not do so?
(Dr Horwood) We do to a degree. We have been holding
regional meetings for several years. From that we see some positive
gains but not as many as we would wish. I am particularly sensitised
to the meeting that we had with the industry last week in which
we explained the results. Our basic method of analysis had not
really been taken on board. It was obvious that there was a continuing
need to talk to the industry about the basics of what we were
doing.
51. Is not one way of resolving the issue of
methodology and achieving a consensus to involve the industry
directly in your research programme which obviously obliges it
to contribute something towards it?
(Dr Horwood) We would certainly welcome any assistance
that it might wish to give.
52. It would square the circle. It appears that
there are research programmes being conducted by government that
are dictated by our own scientific leadership which are at variance
with the priorities and methodologies of the industry. It does
not sound a particularly intelligent way to organise the process.
How is it done in other Member States? Presumably, other major
fishing industries in the CFP have a similar structure of research
organisations?
(Dr Horwood) There is a great variety of approaches.
For instance, the SFIA has strong fishing representation on its
board. Other institutions work very closely with their fishing
industries.
53. Can we have a note that outlines how other
Member States within the CFP approach the issue of research in
relationship to their industries? Mr Wentworth appears to be rather
perplexed.
(Mr Wentworth) I am not sure that the situation in
other Member States is on the whole markedly different, but that
can be checked.
54. The fact that you express uncertainty about
it suggests that it is not a matter that you regarded as being
of any great relevance or concern to MAFF?
(Mr Wentworth) The way I put it is that if they had
markedly different arrangements we would certainly be aware of
it. I am not aware that they have markedly different arrangements.
55. What I am keen should be addressed is, first,
the financial relationship between the industry and the research
carried on and, secondly, the way in which that research is managed
and whether there is a greater degree of consensus on the research
outcomes themselves and the methodology that enables those outcomes
to be achieved.
(Mr Wentworth) We will do our best to let you have
a note on that. It may take a little time. Perhaps I may comment
on the present state of relations between the scientists and fishermen.
Over recent years we have put a lot of effort into increasing
these contacts. That is reflected in the note that the Committee
has received from the NFFO. During the summer I invited the NFFO
to suggest ways in which that should be developed further. The
impression that I have gained from its response, which has not
yet been put in writing, is that it is not looking for any major
changes in that area. It is certainly an interesting question
to ask. Its views may be shifting.
(Mr Gordon) The position in Scotland is broadly the
same. The points that you make apply there too. I would be very
interested to read the industry's answers when the same kinds
of questions are put to it in terms of what role it would like
to play and how it might play that role. I have two small riders
to add. First, the Mallaig Fishermen's Association has hired a
scientist to play a greater part in the assessment of stocks that
are of particular interest to that association on the west coast.
That scientist works closely with our own Marine Laboratory in
Aberdeen. There is a co-operative relationship which is to everyone's
mutual advantage. Secondly, in the pelagic sector which is a small
industry with simpler stocks it is our practice to take those
fishermen on our research vessel in Aberdeen so that they can
contribute to the scientists' work at sea.
Mr Curry
56. Of course, there is no such thing as a fishing
industry, just lots of different fishing activities. I am anxious
to get to the heart of what is out there. If one took a photograph
of it 10 years ago and compared it with the situation today what
would be different? I turn in particular to Mr Gordon. I understand
that in the pelagic sector quotas are now widely transferable,
even internationally. When certain people suggested individual
transferable quotas there was horror in the industry. That is
not just a creeping process; it is taking place in the industry
quite significantly. What is happening that is changing the structure
of the industry? What role do market forces play in that respect?
Who owns the industry? What are we looking at in this industry?
(Mr Gordon) That is a very interesting question for
which I have not prepared exactly in those terms. The management
of the pelagic fisheries has many similarities to whitefish, in
the sense that we try to manage quotas in co-operation with the
industry and those quotas are distributed among producer organisations
who help us monitor the uptake and thereby ensure that the UK
observes the limits set for its share of European total allowable
catches. It is true that in the pelagic sector because of the
very small number of boats involved—and the large catches
of some individual vessels—that fact is recognised by allowing
in certain cases quotas to be distributed to individual boats
and companies of boats as well as producer organisations. The
basis on which they manage those quotas in year allows them to
swap quotas among themselves within the UK. The quota is essentially
distributed to those vessels who have licences and sail under
the British flag. The ownership of these boats is a separate matter.
That takes us into questions of quota-hopping and foreign-owned
ships that sail under the British flag. But the pattern of ownership
has not changed substantially over the past 10 years; if anything,
there has perhaps been a concentration of ownership (using that
term loosely, not in a legal sense) of quota based on fewer boats.
For example, in the early 1990s the pelagic fleet comprised 70
boats; now the number is just under 50. The ability of these boats
to trade quota is however limited by the fact that our quota management
system involves rules for the basis on which quotas are distributed
to boats. In effect that is linked to the licensing system. Their
ability to transfer ownership of quota is linked to the rules
on the transfer of licences. That has not really changed in the
sense that licences are issued essentially by Ministers at their
discretion.
57. You can trade and lease dairy quotas. Can
you lease fishing quotas?
(Mr Gordon) In practice, something of that kind is
happening. Within the year individual fishermen can arrange to
borrow quota from somebody else and pay it back next year. I do
not know whether they are borrowing or buying quota in year for
cash. Essentially, that is a financial arrangement between them.
58. We have allocated quota and a significant
amount has been sold out of the United Kingdom. I recall a few
months ago in the Daily Mail a story about the tragic loss
of a vessel. However, the quota was retained and then sold to
Spain. It seems to me that we are trying to run a system which
on the one hand resembles the bureaucracy that used to flourish
in the old Soviet Union where there is intervention down to the
last minute detail with increasing resentment from the industry
which devotes an immense amount of effort to getting round it.
On the other hand, we have the operation of at least an embryonic
free market. Why not just say "stuff it" and let them
fish? Why do we spend as taxpayers about 8 or 9 per cent of the
value of the legal landings on an industry which is basically
hell bent on its own destruction?
(Mr Gordon) No doubt you will put the same question
to the industry. I do not expect it to acknowledge that it is
in any sense hell bent on its own destruction. The tensions in
managing fisheries arise because of the different perceptions
of costs and benefits of individual fishing boats as compared
with the fleet as a whole. The fish belong to no one while they
are in the sea.
59. To rephrase my question, is not one essential
problem that here is a resource which the fishermen have not provided?
The resource has been provided by the Almighty, if one wants to
think in those terms. The fishermen fish at relatively low entry
cost. Does it not make sense for fishermen to take financial responsibility
much more effectively for that stock and quotas and for conservation?
Is that not at the heart of the problem of the fishing industry?
There is no ownership of all this resource which fishermen need
to keep their livelihoods in being?
(Mr Gordon) I believe that the pelagic industry provides
an interesting model against which to test that. Over the past
two years the Commission has picked up the idea of trying to look
at regional management by bringing together representatives of
the national Member States including the scientific experts and
from the industry. One particular example is the northern pelagic
fisheries. There was representation from the Northern European
countries and their scientists with an interest in pelagic fisheries.
That industry is such that there are about 150 or 160 boats involved.
In certain cases they are owned by companies, so there is some
concentration of ownership already there. It is possible to visualise
that industry gathering in a room to discuss the management of
the fishery. It is much more difficult to transfer that and apply
it to the whitefish fisheries. But in the pelagic sector the scale
of the industry now is such that in some sense it is possible
for the commercial interests—the fishermen themselves—to
come together at European level and discuss issues to do with
the management of the fishery. The regional organisation structure
gives them the ability to do that. As they perceive themselves
as having a common interest in the management of the stocks, and
as the scale of the operation comes down to that level of ownership,
it is possible to see some of the points you make becoming manifest.
| 
