APPENDIX 11
Memorandum submitted by the Whale and
Dolphin Conservation Society (K19)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 WDCS has as its primary objective the
conservation and protection of all cetaceans (whales, dolphins
and porpoises). As such, the Society is concerned with the protection
of the marine environment and the integrity of its ecosystems.
However, our particular areas of work and expertise focus on human
activities and threats that impact most directly on whales, dolphins
and porpoises. Therefore, our submission deals mainly with those
aspects of fisheries that impact on cetaceans, most specifically
within EU waters the incidental capture (or bycatch) of dolphins
and porpoises.
1.2 One of the key objectives that was identified
in the Commission's Green Paper and in the subsequent package
of reform proposals was to incorporate environmental concerns
into fisheries management. We urge the Committee to include, amongst
the matters it will address, the environmental implications of
fisheries, in particular impacts on non-target species and habitats,
and whether the proposed reforms are adequate to deal with these
matters.
1.3 In particular, the Action Plan makes
a commitment to bring forward a "new set of technical conservation
measures designed to reduce bycatch of cetaceans to levels guaranteeing
favourable conservation status of cetacean populations before
31 December 2002". However, we are concerned that the status
and scope of such provisions may not provide the necessary framework
and legal standing to ensure that this problem is addressed effectively.
2. INCIDENTAL
CAPTURE OF
PROTECTED CETACEANS
2.1 The bycatch of cetaceans in fisheries
is well recognised to be one of the greatest threats to populations
of small cetaceans and has been highlighted by various international
fora including the Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans
of the Baltic and North Seas (ASCOBANS). Some specific fisheries
and sea areas have already been identified where bycatch presents
a serious and unsustainable problem. The case of pelagic driftnets
used in the tuna and swordfish fisheries of the north east Atlantic
and Mediterranean is an example of a highly destructive practice
that has now been addressed by the EU in the form of the driftnet
ban that came into effect in January 2002. However, there is ample
evidence of problems in numerous other fisheries that have yet
to be addressed. Moreover, many fisheries in the EU that present
a threat to cetaceans are not yet even being monitored for their
bycatch. Therefore, the few data that are available represent
only a bare minimum estimate of the scale of the problem.
2.2 Harbour porpoises are prone to getting
caught in bottom-set gill nets and high incidences have been recorded
in a number of fisheries throughout their range. The losses of
harbour porpoises in the Celtic Sea bottom-set gill net fishery
were investigated using onboard observers in the early 1990s.
This revealed an estimated mortality of 2,200 animals per annum,
or roughly 6 per cent of the local population[2].
It has been agreed internationally that an annual loss of even
1 per cent of a population should be a cause for concern and merits
investigation as a matter of priority[3].
2.3 Observers on Danish vessels fishing
in the North Sea have provided an estimate of 6,785 porpoises
caught annually in the Danish gill net fishery[4]
and approximately 1000 are also caught in UK gill nets in the
North Sea. The Danish catches alone represent some 4 per cent
of the porpoise population of the area. In addition, losses to
other fisheries in the North Sea are yet to be investigated.
2.4 In the Baltic, harbour porpoise populations
have declined significantly in recent years, with less than 1000
animals thought to remain while animals continue to be caught
in both bottom-set and surface drift gill nets[5].
This population has been identified as a priority for conservation
efforts and an Action Plan has now been agreed[6]
but so far little has been done to reduce bycatch levels.
2.5 There is also a significant European
bycatch of dolphins occurring, as evidenced by the hundreds of
dead dolphins that regularly wash up on French and adjacent English
coasts over the winter months. As early as 1991, these strandings
were being attributed to trawlers[7].
2.6 During the 1990s observer studies of
bycatch in pelagic trawl fisheries recorded dolphin catches in
four of the fisheries studied targeting sea bass, hake, tuna and
horse mackerel[8].
Although the report describes the bycatch of dolphins in trawls
as a "rare event", it notes that the size of the European
fleet and the amount of fishing effort mean that the total number
of animals caught may be significant. It also observes that the
bycatch estimate must be treated as a minimum because, for instance,
some fishing fleets refused to take observers on board as there
is no legislation in the UK or the other participating countries
(France, Ireland and the Netherlands) to enforce co-operation
with observers
2.7 More recently, an Irish study of a trial
pelagic pair trawl fishery for albacore tuna observed 30 dolphins
being caught in a single haul, with145 cetaceans caught by just
four pairs of trawlers in a single season[9].
During 2001 observers placed on UK pair trawlers targeting the
winter sea bass fishery recorded a catch of 53 dolphins in 116
hauls[10].
3. CURRENT OBLIGATIONS
ON EU MEMBER
STATES
3.1 Members of the European Union are committed
under Council Directive 92/43/EEC (the Habitats Directive) to
establish a system to monitor the incidental capture and killing
of all cetaceans and, in light of the information gathered, to
take further research or conservation measures as required to
ensure that incidental capture and killing does not have a significant
negative impact on the species concerned[11].
3.2 Seven of the fifteen Member States are
Parties to the UN Agreement on the Conservation of Small cetaceans
in the Baltic and North Seas (ASCOBANS). Parties have agreed an
intermediate precautionary objective to reduce bycatches to less
than 1 per cent of the best available population estimate[12].
ASCOBANS has also agreed the general aim to minimise (ie to ultimately
reduce to zero) anthropogenic removals of small cetaceans.
4. THE COMMISSION'S
PROPOSALS FOR
THE REFORM
OF THE
CFP
4.1 The Commission's proposed Framework
Regulation states that "the Community shall apply the precautionary
principle in taking measures designed to protect and conserve
living aquatic resources, to provide for their sustainable exploitation
and to minimise the impact of fishing activities on marine eco-systems"
(Art.2,1)[13].
A series of very laudable measures are set out that will help
to achieve this end. However, there are also some notable short-comings.
4.2 The Commission's "Roadmap"[14]
acknowledges that over-capacity in the Community fleets has been
the major factor in the depletion of fish stocks and the damage
caused to non-target species and habitats. We support the Commission's
suite of radical proposals relating to fishing capacity and effort
reduction. In particular, we welcome the removal of public aid
for the introduction of new capacity and for the export of fishing
vessels to third countries. The Roadmap identifies the target
for fleet capacity to correspond to sustainable fishing mortality
rates. However, we would like to see environmental impact, such
as damage to non-target species or benthic habitats, explicitly
included as a criterion for targeting effort or fleet capacity
reductions.
4.3 The proposed Framework Regulation also
sets out the aim of "progressive implementation of an eco-system
based approach to fisheries management" (Art.2,1). We are
in total support of the approach of basing fisheries management
decisions on full consideration of the implications for, and of,
the wider ecosystem. However we would raise a note of caution
that some nations (outside the EU) have tended to subvert the
use of this concept to promote the management of the wider ecosystem
(in particular, the killing of top predators such as whales) for
the purposes of fisheries protection. The use and definition of
this term should, therefore, be treated with utmost caution in
order to prevent such abuse.
4.4 We support the proposal in the Framework
Regulation (Art. 4.2) to adopt technical measures, including "to
reduce the impact of fishing activities on marine ecosystems and
non-target species" and to "establish incentives, including
those of an economic nature, to promote more selective fishing".
We also support the adoption of multi-annual management plans
and recognise these as a means of ensuring effort reductions and
other restrictions that are less vulnerable to political intervention
than the current system of annual negotiations. We welcome the
explicit statement that, as well as setting targets for the recovery
of target stocks, the plans shall, where appropriate "include
targets relating to other living aquatic resources and the maintenance
or improvement of the conservation status of ecosystems"
(Art.5.4). However, these plans are proposed only for fish stocks,
and as a priority, those which are outside safe biological limits.
We would advocate that multi-annual management plans should also
be introduced for fisheries where the impact (for instance, on
non-target species) is deemed to be unacceptable (or outside safe
limits).
4.5 We support the provisions for the Commission
or Member States to be able to introduce emergency measures in
order to avert a serious threat to fisheries or to the ecosystem
resulting from fishing activities (Arts. 7 and 8).
4.6 We are also in favour of the proposed
Regional Advisory Councils which will allow stakeholders from
all the main industry and other relevant interest sectors to contribute
to policy and management considerations. We feel that this is
an important vehicle to enable environmental and wildlife interests
to be represented and to ensure that these perspectives are properly
considered. We consider that the proposed RACs could provide an
appropriate framework within which issues such as cetacean bycatch
can be effectively addressed (see 5.4 below).
4.7 We welcome the proposal that "measures
for the modernisation of the fleet should be restricted to measures
[inter alia] to increase the selectivity of fishing gear, including
for the purpose of reducing by-catches and habitat impacts"
(para. 6). We also support the measures in the proposed Regulation
for scrapping fishing vessels that provide incentives for early
and increased decommissioning of vessels. The proposed increased
premiums for scrapping those vessels that are "severely affected
by a multi-annual management plan" present an innovative
way of targeting effort reduction. However, we consider that it
would be helpful if such enhanced decommissioning incentives could
also be applied to fisheries that are causing unsustainable ecological
impacts (such as non-target species catches) that we consider
should also be subject to multi-annual management plans (as argued
in 4.4 above).
4.8 The section of the Roadmap addressing
aquaculture (section 3.6) presents only a slightly fuller consideration
of this sector than did the Green Paper—which seriously
under-stated particularly the environmental concerns associated
with intensive aquaculture. The Commission's proposals do at least
acknowledge the need to "develop appropriate environmental
and health standards". The proposed strategy which aims (inter
alia) to promote "an environmentally sound industry"
should also include measures to address: the impact on other wildlife
of noise pollution from predator deterrent devices; the release
of chemo-therapeutants; the escape of domestic strains of native
species as well as alien species (which can also have a major
impact on wild populations); the release of enhanced levels of
parasites and pathogens (which again can impact heavily on wild
populations); and the implications of aquaculture feeds for industrial
fish stocks and their associated ecosystem.
5. THE COMMISSION'S
PROPOSALS ON
ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRATION
5.1 We broadly welcome the Action Plan on
the integration of environmental protection[15]
which reflects as a priority the provisions of the Roadmap and
Framework Regulation regarding reduction of fishing pressure through
multi-annual management plans (and this document refers to targeting
fishing activities that have adverse effects both on the sustainability
of fish stocks and on the favourable conservation status of non-commercial
species and habitats); improvement of fishing methods to reduce
discards, incidental bycatch and impact on habitats; and removal
of aid for fleet renewal and modernisation.
5.2 However, we are extremely concerned
about the weak status of the Action Plan, with very few specific
measures even being proposed for hard legislation (beyond those
that are already provided for in the Framework or other regulations).
This "Commission communication" status seems to reflect
the rather lower priority being assigned to environmental integration
than for example, structural assistance.
5.3 In particular, the Action Plan makes
a commitment to bring forward a "new set of technical conservation
measures designed to reduce bycatch of cetaceans to levels guaranteeing
favourable conservation status of cetacean populations before
31 December 2002". However, we are concerned that adequate
attention must be put into devising and implementing a legally
based process whereby competent authorities are obliged to monitor,
assess and act to reduce bycatch problems, on a case by case basis.
5.4 We contend that formal legislation is
required within the CFP that provides for a mandatory process
to be implemented with respect to each bycatch problem. Such a
response process should require (with input from stakeholders,
perhaps through the RACs) the design and implementation of remedial
management measures in order to meet bycatch reduction targets
within a set timeframe (ie. comparable to the multi-annual management
plans). It is widely acknowledged that each bycatch problem requires
individual consideration and, often, the application of a suite
of management measures[16].
We are concerned that a "one size fits all" set of technical
measures that does not provide for individual problem assessment,
may result in inappropriate or ineffective application of measures
with potentially detrimental effects.
5.5 We are deeply concerned that no-where
in the Action Plan (or the proposed regulations) is there any
mention of Environmental Impact Assessment or Strategic Environmental
Assessment for either new or existing fisheries. Reference is
made in the Roadmap to improvement in data collection, extended
to include environmental impact. However, this does not equate
to the formal process of EIA which surely should be a fundamental
requirement for assessing and reducing the environmental impact
of fisheries. There are numerous examples of fisheries that have
developed with concomitant problems that could have been foreseen
or averted if EIA had been conducted. For instance, following
the EU decision to ban driftnet fishing for large pelagic species
there has been an increasing interest in pursuing the NE Atlantic
albacore fishery using pelagic pair trawls. Environmental impact
assessment of this new fishery would have revealed that it presented
a substantial risk to dolphin populations (as outlined in 2.7
above) which in fact was the main reason for the original ban
on the driftnet fishery.
6. PRECEDENT
FOR A
NEW APPROACH
TO BYCATCH
REDUCTION
6.1 EU Member States are already under an
obligation to properly monitor and where necessary reduce the
incidental capture of cetaceans and other protected species. It
is our view that the only way to fulfil these obligations across
the Community is through specific provisions within the Common
Fisheries Policy. Member States should be obliged to monitor incidental
capture of cetaceans through onboard observers that skippers are
required to carry. Fisheries with acceptable levels of bycatch
should be subject to a bycatch reduction plan, agreed jointly
by all participating Member States, that aims to reduce the bycatch
level to below 1 per cent of the population within a set time
period. The plan should: review information on the population
in question; estimate the number of animals that is being incidentally
taken and assess the threat to the population; and recommend mitigating
measures for the reduction of bycatch to below one percent and
ultimately towards zero (this could take the form of a suite of
management measures including effort reduction, closed areas/seasons
and alternative gear development and deployment). Critically,
the plan must identify who is responsible for implementing and
progressing the actions and set clear deadlines for achieving
its objectives.
6.2 There are various precedents for such
a proactive approach to reducing bycatch of cetaceans and other
protected species. For instance, in the United States the 1994
amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act establish specific
provisions governing the interactions between marine mammals and
commercial fisheries. These require the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) to establish Take Reduction Teams (TRTs) for strategic
stocks of marine mammals that interact with U.S commercial fishing
operations. This system has been implemented in a range of fisheries
in US waters and has made significant steps towards reducing unacceptable
levels of bycatch.
The MMPA established the following goals:
(i) reducing incidental mortality or serious
injury of marine mammals occurring in the course of commercial
fishing operations to below Potential Biological Removal (PBR)
within six months of enactment and;
(ii) further reducing these mortalities and
serious injuries to insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality
and serious injury rate within seven years.
PBR is defined as "the maximum number of
animals, not including natural mortalities that may be removed
from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach
or maintain its optimum sustainable population [the number of
animals which will result in the maximum productivity of the population,
keeping in mind the carrying capacity of the habitat and the health
of the ecosystem of which they form a constituent element].
Take reduction teams consist of representatives
from the commercial fishing industry, conservation groups, scientists,
federal and state officials, and fisheries management councils.
6.3 In New Zealand the government has acknowledged
that the increase in fishing effort has resulted in the incidental
take (bycatch) of significant numbers of non target species of
protected marine wildlife. As a result, the commercial fishing
industry has been required to meet the direct and attributable
costs of its activities that previously had been met by the taxpayer.
The Department of Conservation has initiated and developed projects
through Conservation Services Levies in the following major areas:
(a) observer coverage targeted at protected
species bycatch in selected fisheries,
(b) analysis and estimation of bycatch data
for protected species;
(c) bycatch carcass retrieval and identification;
(d) research and development of mitigation
measures;
(e) monitoring of population of protected
species taken as bycatch; and
(e) development of population management
plans.
Such levies give fishermen a strong financial
incentive to address their interactions with protected species
and thus exempt themselves from payment.
6.4 In Australia, under the Endangered Species
Protection Act 1992, endangered or vulnerable species are listed
along with key threatening processes that impinge upon them. The
Act requires a Threat Abatement Plan to be prepared for each key
threatening process listed, including fisheries bycatch.
In the case of bycatch, Threat Abatement Plans
outline the measures available for reducing bycatch, provide for
the development of new measures or improvements to existing measures,
educate fishermen about threat mitigation and provide for the
collection of information to support future management decisions.
The plans are developed in consultation with the fishing industry,
conservation groups, scientists and government authorities responsible
for conservation and fisheries management.
7. CONCLUSION
It is globally recognised that incidental capture
poses a serious threat to cetaceans and other non target species.
In the EU, fisheries bycatch adversely affects species that are
listed as strictly protected under the Community's main piece
of conservation legislation, the Habitats Directive.
The reform of the Common Fisheries Policy provides
a major opportunity to introduce the necessary legal and structural
framework to address this problem effectively across all Community
fisheries, as well as providing for the development, deployment
and enforcement of specific mitigation measures. Other countries
have embraced national bycatch reduction policies. European fisheries
authorities should follow their example and adopt clear and practical
provisions to address the incidental take of cetaceans and other
protected species in European fisheries.
October 2002
2 Tregenza, N J C, Berrow S D, Hammond P S and Leaper
R 19097. Harbour porpoise (Phoeoena phocoena) by-catch
in set fillnets in the Celtic Sea. ICES Journal of Marine Sciences.
54:986-904. Back
3
IWC 1995, Report of the Scientific Committee. International Whaling
Commission. Back
4
Vinther M. 1999. Bycatches of harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)
in Danish set-net fisheries. J Cetacean Res Manage. 1(2): 123-135. Back
5
Berggen P, P R Wade, J Carlstrom and A J Read. 1998. Potential
limits to anthropogenic mortality for harbour porpoises in the
Baltic Region. International Whaling Commission SC/50/SM7. Back
6
Recovery plan for Baltic harbour porpoises (Jastarnia Plan) ASCOBANS.
Bonn, July 2002. Back
7
Simmonds M and J D Hutchinson 1994. Mass mortality events in
marine mammals and their implications for conservation. Scientific
Symposium on the 1993 North Sea Quality Status Report 18-21 April.
Ebeltoft, Denmark. 227-234. Back
8
Morizur Y, Berrow S D, Tregenza N J C, Couperus A S and Pouvreau
S. 1999 Incidental catches of marine-mammals in pelagic trawl
fisheries in the north-east Atlantic. Fisheries Research 41: 297-307. Back
9
Diversification trials with alternative tuna fishing techniques
including the use of remote sensing technology. Final Report to
the Commission of the European Communities Directorate General
for Fisheries. EU contract No. 98/010. Bord Iascaigh Mhara. Irish
Sea Fisheries Board. Back
10
DEFRA Cetaccean Bycatch: action in hand. Unpublished briefing.
Fisheries Division III (Sea Fisheries Conservation. DEFRA 21 February
2002. Back
11
Article 12.4 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (Habitats and Species
Directive). Back
12
ASCOBANS 2000. Resolution on incidental take of small cetaceans.
Annex 9c of Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the Parties, Bristol
UK. Back
13
Proposal for a Council Regulation on the conservation and sustainable
exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries
Policy. COM(2002) 185 final. Brussels 28 May 2002. Back
14
Communication from the Commission on the reform of the Common
Fisheries Policy ("Roadmap") COM(2002) 181 final. Brussels
28 May 2002. Back
15
Communication from the Commission setting out a Community Action
Plan to integrate environmental protection requirements into the
Common Fisheries Policy. COM (2002) 186 final. Brussels 28 May
2002. Back
16
Read A J. 2000. Potential mitigation measures for reducing the
by-catches of small cetaceans in ASCOBANS waters. Report to ASCOBANS
27 December 2000. Unpublished. 32 pages. Back
| 
