Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80
- 99)
TUESDAY 29 OCTOBER 2002
MR SAM
LAMBOURN, MR
BARRIE DEAS
AND MR
HAMISH MORRISON
80. If there is any doubt, reduce, ban,
try and find a way of saying, "It has to be done now because
it is going to be worse in the future." How do you respond
to that logic?
(Mr Lambourn) I think that the science
for many of the stocks is very thin and would not stand much scrutiny
at all. I do not think there is any doubt about that. To send
a survey ship once a year down the English Channel to tell you
the state of the dover sole stock and to apply much credibility
to that I think is crazy. That is one area. Since we have to base
sound management on good science, it is the science that we should
be tackling above all else in my view if we are really going to
get out of this loop. Until we understand a little more or a great
deal more about the state of the stocks, why they vary and what
is the true state, I do not think we are going to get sensible
management and we are constantly going to be in this dilemma where
the fishermen whom I represent tell me that things are OK, "We
are catching more sole in Area E" that is the South West,
"than we have done in years, and cod is the same and monk
is the same. What is the matter with you?" and yet the scientists
are saying these things are in trouble.
Mr Mitchell
81. That is asking for decisions based on
faith, either your faith or the scientists' faith.
(Mr Lambourn) Yes. I am not naive enough
to think that anyone is going to take at face value what I say,
but this is a problem that we have. I do not think that the science
is good enough. I do not think in truth that we really do know
what the state of the stocks are and whether they are going up
or whether they are not and we do not know where all these fish
have suddenly come from and where they all go. We do not know
enough about it. I think that to run a fishery and pretend that
you do does not stack up. There is a fundamental problem with
the credibility of the fisherman who is right at the sharp end
in that he simply does not believe what he is being told.
Chairman
82. If you accept that we do not know enough
about that, is the precautionary principle the more appropriate
way rather than to carry on as we are? You would not deny that
the precautionary principle is probably the best approach, would
you?
(Mr Lambourn) When all else fails, I
would always adopt the precautionary principle, but I think we
can do a great deal better with the science than we are doing
at present. I would like to see the industry involved in the calling
of data because you have an untapped resource in terms of the
time people are spending out there catching fish and we ought
to be applying much more effort into how to put that into practice
and what the practical way in which we can help is because, without
good information, management is impossible.
Diana Organ
83. You have just explained that the last
three years have been rather different from the period before
that and that there are quite considerable fluctuations year on
year, which makes it then very difficult because the Commission
is looking for a long-term plan, a sustainability programme, which
gives them greater influence over the long term, but you are saying,
"How can we marry this up because the regime change seems
to be year on year?" How do you marry the two because you
then lose all sorts of influence with the Commission wanting to
set a longer term approach and you are saying, "Actually,
it is changing year by year"?
(Mr Lambourn) I think there are several
answers to that. Certainly the most fundamental would be the support
of these Regional Advisory Councils that are proposed in the CFP.
We must regionalise the thing more and we must get the industry
in at the sharp end. Just how we are going to do that and how
effective it is going to be I do not know. That explains our support
for that. Certainly we have to manage the thing with much more
of an eye to the long term. I could not deny that. I think the
whole industry has been bedevilled by crisis management: see a
problem, fix that and create another one. It is just that I do
not think we are using the right tools, particularly in the South
West where we are dealing with a very mixed fishery. If you go
across most of the markets in the South West, you may see up to
50 different species. I think that is the strength of the fishery
in the South West as well because not all our eggs are in the
cod basket or the haddock basket or the white basket. Indeed,
cod does not really amount to very much in terms of the gross
take in the South West at all, but there are knock-on effects.
I think we need to adopt much longer term approaches and, because
of the nature of the fishery in the South West, it would seem
to me to be a better way of managing things if we do not fish
all the sea all the time.
Mr Mitchell
84. We have heard the voice of Scotland
and the South West. We have been talking about the North Sea where
Grimsby vessels operate. What is the position there on cod stocks?
(Mr Deas) I do not think anybody is arguing
that cod is in a very happy position at the moment. It is outside
safe biological limits. I think the question we have to ask ourselves
is, is the situation substantially worse from last year that would
justify the very extreme way the advice has been put forward by
ICES this year? We were handed these sheets on Thursday by the
scientists. Just talking about the Irish Sea cod and the North
Sea cod, the Irish Sea cod fishing mortality is falling, which
is one of the key indices, spawning stock biomass is increasing.
In relation to the North Sea, again there is a fall in fishing
mortality in the fishing effort and a small increase possibly
in the spawning stock biomass. We could argue about that because
the assessments tend to be less reliable than more recently. I
think the important thing to recognise here is that these assessments
do not suggest that there has been a substantial worsening of
the situation from last year. The critical point is that these
assessments have taken place up to the end of 2001. They have
not taken into account the measures that were adopted from the
start of 2002 including a 20 per cent reduction in the Scottish
white fish fleeting. Something like 70 cod vessels have been taken
out of the Danish fleet. A whole raft of technical measures have
been put in place including the mesh size. The mesh size incidentally,
an increase from 100mm to 120mm with a derogation in some cases
to 110mm. That has meant that we have not been able to catch our
haddock and whiting quotas this year. We have been able to take
around half of our haddock quota—
85. That is directly due to the mesh size?
(Mr Deas) Yes, directly due to the mesh
size and no doubt the fact that vessels have been taken out of
the fleet as well. So, on the one hand there is an increased risk
of collapse with cod because it is outside safe biological limits,
but all the signals that are coming through from the stock assessments
is that this is not the time to be bringing in draconian new measures
especially of the type that is suggested by the scientists and
apparently endorsed by the Commission that the North Sea should
be closed down, but rather we should make an assessment of the
impact of the measures that have been taken to date during the
course of this year.
Chairman
86. Could we just pick that up because you
were comparing from last year to this year and saying that there
is not perhaps a huge difference. What about the difference between
the last CFP review in 1992 and this year? Has there been that
dramatic decline in those ten years?
(Mr Deas) Things have certainly not improved
especially for cod, things have become worse for cod. The picture
with other stocks—and I noticed that your opening remarks
referred to fish stocks in general—looking across the piece,
the pelagic stocks are reasonably healthy; shellfish, particularly
crab and lobster, are doing reasonably well; nephrops fishery,
fishery which is the backbone for many vessels' financial viability,
is doing reasonably well, and also, for example, with regard to
saithe this year, the advice is for a substantial increase in
the quota. So, what we are not arguing is that things are anything
like as good as they could be and there certainly is a problem
with cod. I think it is very important not to over-react and that
is precisely what our fear is about the way that the advice has
been expressed this year, that it is not justified by the change
from last year to this year and I would endorse Hamish Morrison's
view that, if implemented, these closures would have a catastrophic
effect on fishing ports. There is no possibility of surviving
if we are simply told to tie up for a year. The final decision
will be taken by ministers and not by the Commission. Norway of
course in the North Sea has a substantial saving because these
stocks are jointly managed, so there is some way to go before
that scenario unfolds, but we would want to lay down a marker
here that the fear of the collapse of cod is nothing in the fishing
communities compared to the fear of what the Commission's proposals,
if visited upon us, would have.
Mr Mitchell
87. We are talking about a mess here, in
a sense. Given the fact that we have had a common fisheries policy
for 30 years and in full rigour for 20 years, what we are really
talking about is failure of the Common Fisheries Policy without
trying to grapple with the consequences of that failure; is that
correct?
(Mr Deas) I agree with that. I think
there has been a catastrophic failure of the management regime
and that is why we are in the situation that we are in today.
Interestingly enough, we met Mr Fischler in Strasbourg last weekend.
He talked about tailored solutions; he talked about a toolbox
approach meaning that you select the appropriate instruments for
particular fisheries; he talked about the involvement of fishermen
through the Regional Advisory Councils; and all of that adds up
to a kind of CFP that we think would deliver sustainable fisheries
if it were put in place. Of course, that is contrary to the way
things have been done to date, the sort of blanket approach that
has been applied from above, very much a top-down approach. If
I can say so, I think this also extends to science. It is perhaps
a bit of a caricature but you can see old science and the new
science. The old science is elitist, it is exclusive, it is secretive;
the new science is open, transparent and inclusive; it involves
the industry. It seems to me that if these two models are held
up, then the United States and Australian fisheries, where they
have had some reasonable success in fisheries management, have
been much more based on the open model, the new model, rather
than the closed model. So, our hope and aspiration is that fishery
science moves much further towards the new model and involves
the industry in the fish stock assessments, in the design of the
assessments, in the execution of the assessments, in the interpretation
of the data and in the promulgation of the advice. It is fine
involving the industry in assessments that you will come to a
consensus view on what it actually is in the sea, but of course
fishermen have perhaps a different source of information that
is equally as relevant and is as important as direct knowledge
of the fisheries and that is why I think the survey that Hamish
spoke of earlier is such an important departure, that start of
a movement in that direction.
88. What you say in your evidence is that
the Commission's proposals for a reduction of effort will lead
to or could lead to a draconian tied system of controls. Do you
concede the point that some reduction of effort is necessary?
(Mr Deas) I think part of the reason
why we have problems with some stocks at the moment is due to
excess fishing effort. I think it is very important to see that
in its context, which is one of regime shift, but fishing kills
fish, so it is facile to deny that there is no effect. I do not
think that is the real question. The question is, what are the
appropriate measures to put in place? What effect have the measures
that have already been taken had? Where do we go from here on
that basis?
89. Do you think that a reduction in effort
is necessary?
(Mr Deas) A better way of putting it
is a reduction in fishing mortalities as part of the picture,
yes. A reduction of fishing effort through the Commission's proposals,
by which they mean a rigid days at sea regime, is—
90. That is just a way of achieving it.
We are talking about the principle of reduction of effort.
(Mr Deas) Fishing effort is used in a
variety of ways and, in the Commission's proposal, it quite clearly
meant fishing capacity times days at sea and what they were talking
about was reducing the number of days at sea. The term `fishing
effort' can be used in a different way, which really is a synonym
for fishing mortality. So, if we are talking about the reduction
of fishing mortality, that is a little more precise.
91. Your remark about fishing kills fish
reminds me of Edwina Currie who was asked to join in saving Britain's
fish and a letter came back saying, "You don't want to save
them, you just want to eat them"! Does the Scottish Federation
concede that a reduction in effort is necessary?
(Mr Morrison) Here we are getting into
words again. Barrie likes "mortality", I like "fishing
input" because effort can be made up of fishing time, it
can be made up of the kind of gear you use, it can be a function
of the power of the vessel. It really is so imprecise, and I agree
completely with Barrie that some kind of formulae of days at sea
would just create more trouble than it would solve, but the more
important thing—and Barrie has done a lot of work on this
and we continue to co-operate together on it—is that there
really is no point in introducing effort limitation. If you have
an industry like we have that is really living on the edge in
terms of profitability and you say, "Oh, well, we will cut
the effort by x amount", what you are really saying is that
you will cut the revenue by x amount. You are therefore saying
bankruptcy using a nice fancy phrase, days at sea, effort, control
of whatever. That may be OK but, if that is what you want to do,
say it up front and then we can say, "We will organise the
fleet to cover that eventuality" or, as we would prefer and
as happens in other countries, where there are transitional costs
associated with effort reduction, these are covered during the
time it takes, for example, to bring in a bigger mesh size until
the fish grow into the size of the mesh. In every other country,
a fishing plan is worked out and money is made available to manage
that transition. We say that we will just do it by fear and somehow
the fishermen will manage. You bet they will manage!
Chairman
92. It is difficult with the terms in those
sorts of answers because you are dealing with politicians here.
At the end of the day, we will call it as it is. Do you concede
that, by whatever means, we have to take less fish out of the
sea? Can you concede that principle?
(Mr Morrison) Yes.
(Mr Lambourn) Yes.
(Mr Deas) Yes.
93. At least you concede that.
(Mr Morrison) It is just that you do
expect the validity of the ability of the Common Fisheries Policy
to do it in a manner which serves the interests of this country
or the fishing industry generally.
(Mr Deas) Again, it is very important
to get this right. The ideal that we aim for and that we work
for is a situation in which the fishing mortality rate is lower
than it currently is. That, in a situation where stocks are at
optimum levels, can actually mean landing more fish because the
global amount of fish is larger and the proportion we are taking
is smaller but, in absolute terms, that can be larger. That is
the situation that we would want to get to. So, we can understand
that, in order to get to where we want to go, there needs to be
a reduction in fishing mortality and indeed, on a permanent basis,
we would want it permanently reduced. That does not mean a reduction
overall in landings, in fact the contrary is true.
(Mr Lambourn) I would underline that
point. We agree that we need to kill less fish but that is not
necessarily the same as landing less fish. We need to catch bigger
fish. We should not be catching as small as we are, there is no
question about that.
Mr Mitchell
94. That is true but there is a problem
of technological creep, is there not? Whatever way you seem to
limit effort either by decommissioning vessels, by days at sea
or whatever, the improving technology is going to make whatever
fleet remains capable of catching more fish.
(Mr Lambourn) Except that we can use
that technology to be more selective.
95. Even in a mixed fishery regime like
the one—?
(Mr Lambourn) It is much more difficult
in a mixed fishery and maybe we would have to adopt other measures
there but, just taking it at its simplest, technology does not
mean that you necessarily kill more fish. Indeed, I think we really
have to turn it around and make sure that we kill less fish—that
is the critical part of it—by whatever means is necessary.
96. Yes, but does it not also point, if
we are going to limit effort, to an end to investment in new fishing
vessels particularly in Spain?
(Mr Lambourn) Yes, except that you do
have to renew fishing vessels. They eventually rot underneath
you and that is not safe. One has to have a viable fishing industry
and that will require boats that are modern, but that does not
necessarily mean that they are going to be more damaging to the
stock.
97. It does point to resolving the dilemma
which is that, in this country, the Government have been loath,
largely because of the Luxembourg formula and the rebates, to
provide financing for reduction of effort or to see the industry
through to a period of sustainable catches whereas European investment
in particular has been lavish on Spain. If you are going to have
new investment, it has to be on an equal handed basis across the
country. Would you accept that?
(Mr Lambourn) Absolutely, yes.
98. So would you want to see an end to European
subsidy of new building and those decisions taken nationally?
(Mr Lambourn) In the recovery period,
I would agree with that.
Mr Drew
99. If we can look at this mechanism for
effort and control. You have the alternatives here and I know
you are saying that you would prefer not to be asked this question
in a sense because you would manage it in other ways, but if you
were given the blunt alternative of tying up vessels for longer
or decommissioning more of those vessels, ie it is either the
hemlock or shoot yourself in the head, which of these alternatives
would you prefer to have?
(Mr Deas) I suppose the first remark
to make is that effort control appears to be off the European
agenda anyway for the time being. The most recent Council of Ministers
meeting in Luxembourg was quite clear that there is insufficient
political support to secure a qualified majority. So, from that
point of view, Member States are not minded to go down the road
that would spell insolvency for so many vessels. The point that
we would make is that there are alternatives, there is a range
of alternatives, some of which have already been put in place,
the increase in mesh size for example. There are other options
that might be available, for example reducing discards and perhaps
realtime closures. The separator trawl has attractions because
it effectively has different mesh size within the same fishery
particularly adapted for use in mixed fisheries. So, I think the
point we would make is that effort control, meaning days at sea
restrictions, is absolutely rejected simply because it would mean
an end to the white fish industry and because there are viable
alternatives available to rebuild those stocks that are currently
outside safe biological needs.
| 
