Memorandum submitted by the Whale and
Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS) (C13)
SUMMARY
(i) WDCS welcomes the EFRA Sub-committee's
enquiry into cetacean By-Catches. We also welcome the production
of the UK small cetacean By-Catch response strategy and the European
Commission's proposed Regulation on cetacean By-Catch.
(ii) These initiatives acknowledge the importance
of fisheries By-Catch as a threat to cetaceans and identify some
immediate remedial measures that can be taken. We strongly welcome
some of the measures and give qualified support to others, but
consider that further measures will be needed to address the problem
effectively.
(iii) Fisheries By-Catch is recognised to
be the major threat to small cetacean populations in many regions.
There are numerous examples of unsustainable and unacceptable
levels of By-Catch in fisheries in UK and neighbouring EU waters.
(iv) WDCS acknowledges the potential for
properly deployed acoustic deterrent devices (pingers) to significantly
reduce porpoise By-Catches but supports this proposal only as
a short-term measure, with comprehensive monitoring for efficacy
and impacts, and the active development of alternative mitigation
measures and fishing methods.
(v) WDCS strongly supports the Commission's
proposal for mandatory observer schemes. However, the levels of
observer coverage proposed, represent only the minimum recommended
levels or even lower.
(vi) WDCS welcomes the Commission's proposed
restriction on driftnets in the Baltic Sea to 2.5 killiometres
and their subsequent prohibition as a vital step to assist the
survival of the critically endangered Baltic harbour porpoise
population.
(vii) The proposals fail to provide for the
strategic management framework that WDCS and others have advised
is essential to address the problem of cetacean By-Catch. This
should identify management objectives, ensure that By-Catch reduction
plans are devised and implemented, and enable the continuous monitoring,
evaluation and adjustment that will be required to achieve effective
By-Catch reduction.
(viii) Other omissions include any commitment
to Environmental Impact Assessment; targeted effort reduction
as a By-Catch reduction measure; By-Catch monitoring and mitigation
in EU distant water fisheries; and measures to reduce By-Catch
in the pelagic trawl sector which, in the absence of other effective
measures, should include the option of suspending or closing the
problem fisheries.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 In October 2002 WDCS made a submission
to the EFRA Committee enquiry into the reform of the Common Fisheries
Policy (CFP). In this, we urged the Committee to include in its
considerations the impacts of fisheries on non-target species
and habitats, and whether the proposed reforms are adequate to
deal with these matters.
1.2 In particular, we highlighted the commitment
made by the Commission to bring forward a "new set of
technical conservation measures designed to reduce By-Catch of
cetaceans to levels guaranteeing favourable conservation status
of cetacean populations before 31 December 2002" and
our concern that such provisions may not provide the necessary
framework and legal standing to ensure that this problem is addressed
effectively.
1.3 We are, therefore, gratified that the
Committee has set up a Sub-committee to investigate this issue
and we welcome the opportunity to contribute further to this process.
1.4 Since the Committee's investigation
into the Reform of the CFP, there have been two important developments
that may lead to some progress to address this problem. First,
in March 2003, the UK Government published its consultation document,
the UK Small Cetacean Bycatch Response Strategy. Second,
in July 2003, the European Commission published its Proposal
for a Council Regulation laying down measures concerning incidental
catches of cetaceans in fisheries and amending Regulation (EC)
No 88/98.
1.5 This submission briefly outlines the
problem of cetacean By-Catch in UK and European waters and comments
on the proposals put forward by the UK Government and the European
Commission to address it, and further measures that we consider
are necessary to deal effectively with the By-Catch problem.
2. BY -CATCH
OF CETACEANS
BY THE FISHING
INDUSTRY
2.1 The By-Catch of cetaceans in fisheries
is 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). Several fisheries and
sea areas have already been identified where By-Catch presents
a serious and unsustainable problem. The case of pelagic driftnets
used in tuna and swordfish fisheries 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 other fisheries
that have yet to be addressed. Moreover, many fisheries in the
EU that present a threat to cetaceans are not yet being monitored
for their By-Catch. Therefore, the data that are available represent
only a minimum estimate of the scale of the problem.
2.2 Harbour porpoises are prone to capture
in bottom-set gillnets 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 gillnet fishery
were investigated using onboard observers in the early 1990s.
This revealed an estimated mortality of 2,200 animals per annum,
or roughly 6% of the local population[15]It
has been agreed internationally that an annual loss of even 1%
of a population should be a cause for concern and merits investigation
as a matter of priority[16]
2.3 Observers on Danish vessels fishing
in the North Sea have provided an estimate of 6,785 porpoises
caught annually in the Danish gillnet fishery[17]and
approximately 1,000 were found to be caught in UK gillnets in
the North Sea[18]The
Danish catches alone represent some 4% 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, the harbour porpoise
population has declined significantly in recent years, and is
thought to number as few as 600 animals. They are still caught
in both bottom-set and surface drift gillnets[19]This
population has been identified as a priority for conservation
efforts and an Action Plan has been agreed for their recovery[20]but
so far little has been done to reduce By-Catch levels.
2.5 There is also a significant European
By-Catch 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 attributed to trawlers[21]
2.6 During the 1990s, observer studies of
By-Catch in pelagic trawl fisheries recorded dolphin catches in
four fisheries targeting sea bass, hake, tuna and horse mackerel[22]The
report notes that, given the size of the European fleet and the
amount of fishing effort, the total number of animals caught may
be significant. It also observes that the By-Catch estimate must
be treated as a minimum because, for instance, some fishing fleets
refused to take observers on board.
2.7 A Dutch observer study of By-Catch in
the pelagic trawl fishery for mackerel and horse mackerel was
conducted in the early 1990s[23]The
main species caught in this fishery was the Atlantic white-sided
dolphin but other species caught included long-finned pilot whales,
common dolphins, bottlenose dolphins and white-beaked dolphins.
In 1994, a total catch of 172 dolphins were recorded by 12 Dutch
and two English vessels in this fishery.
2.8 More recently, an Irish study of a trial
pelagic pair trawl fishery for albacore tuna observed 30 dolphins
being caught in a single haul, with 145 cetaceans caught by just
four pairs of trawlers in a single season[24]During
2001 observers placed on UK pair trawlers targeting the winter
sea bass fishery recorded a catch of 53 dolphins in 116 hauls[25]
3. POLICY DEVELOPMENTS
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[26]However,
it is apparent that few if any Member States are monitoring By-Catch
adequately and no Member States are fulfilling the requirement
to ensure that By-Catch does not have a significant negative impact.
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 By-Catches to less
than 1% of the best available population estimate[27]ASCOBANS
has also agreed the general aim to minimise (ie to ultimately
reduce to zero) anthropogenic removals of small cetaceans.
3.3 WDCS has campaigned consistently for
the implementation of these commitments. Amongst many other initiatives,
in 2001 we put forward proposals for a Bycatch Response Strategy—the
need for a generic response to By-Catch[28]
In light of the escalating dolphin strandings associated with
pelagic trawl fisheries, in 2003 WDCS submitted to the European
Commission a substantiated case for Commission emergency measures
in pelagic trawl fisheries in the Celtic Sea, Biscay, Channel
area[29]
3.4 Some four years after UK Government
Ministers first promised to WDCS that a Government strategy would
be produced, in March 2003 Defra published its consultation document
the UK Small Cetacean Bycatch Response Strategy. In July
2003 the European Commission published its Proposal for a Council
Regulation laying down measures concerning incidental catches
of cetaceans in fisheries and amending Regulation (EC) No 88/98.
4. UK SMALL CETACEAN
BY -CATCH
RESPONSE STRATEGY
4.1 WDCS welcomed this document that acknowledges
the importance of fisheries By-Catch as a major threat to the
conservation of small cetaceans in UK waters and beyond, and sets
an important precedent amongst EU Member States and Parties to
ASCOBANS. However, we believe there are fundamental flaws and
omissions in the proposals that need to be addressed.
TARGETS AND
TIMEFRAME
4.2 We do not consider that the targets,
objectives or timeframe identified in the UK's Strategy adequately
reflect the acuteness of the problem or the need for precaution.
For instance, whilst ASCOBANS has adopted the intermediate precautionary
objective to reduce By-Catches to less than 1% of the population
estimate, the Strategy assumes the 1.7% definition of "unacceptable
interaction" for its By-Catch reduction targets. The Strategy
proposes that these targets should be met within three years.
We believe that the measures set out in the Strategy could be
implemented and the proposed targets achieved within one year
and that this should be the initial timeframe adopted.
EMERGENCY MEASURES
4.3 The Strategy acknowledges that the most
effective method of By-Catch reduction is the closure of the offending
fishery. It also outlines the provisions in the CFP Regulation
that allow Member States to take emergency measures to restrict
or close fisheries if "there is evidence of a serious
and unforeseen threat to the conservation of living aquatic resources,
or to the marine ecosystem resulting from fishing activities.
. . ". We consider it essential that provisions are made
within the Strategy for the emergency restriction or closure of
fisheries, for instance, where critical new problems are identified,
other mitigation measures are unavailable, or By-Catch reduction
targets are not met.
PINGER DEPLOYMENT
4.4 We consider that the Strategy over-emphasises
pingers (acoustic deterrent devices) as a means to address harbour
porpoise By-Catch, although it does acknowledge that there are
serious concerns about their use. In summary:
(a) they are unpopular because of cost,
maintenance and operational difficulties. As a result there remains
a major question over whether they can be deployed, and their
use can be enforced, effectively;
(b) their efficacy over the longer term
and in commercial fisheries (as opposed to controlled trials)
is uncertain. Experience elsewhere has found that efficacy drops
over time in commercial use although it is not known whether this
is a result of pingers not functioning or porpoises habituating
to them;
(c) pingers may result in the exclusion
of porpoises from important habitats when used intensively or
over wide areas, which could have a significant negative impact
on their conservation status.
4.5 We acknowledge the potential for effective
pinger deployment to dramatically reduce harbour porpoise By-Catches
in gillnets under certain circumstances. We also accept that with
regard to the fisheries identified, and in the absence of other
effective or acceptable mitigation measures, compulsory use of
pingers probably offers the best means of reducing the current
unacceptable levels of By-Catch in the short term. However, we
do not believe they should be considered or presented as a long
term solution.
4.6 We consider that far greater emphasis
should be placed on research and development of alternative mitigation
measures and more selective fishing methods and that a timeframe
should be identified in which to phase out reliance on pingers.
MONITORING AND
ENFORCEMENT
4.7 Where compulsory pinger use is proposed,
we consider that more attention should be paid to monitoring their
deployment, efficacy and potential negative impacts. Observer
monitoring should be compulsory wherever pingers are in use. Compulsory
carriage of observers has been proposed by the Commission and
we question whether the UK Government would be able to support
this provision if it is only prepared to propose voluntary arrangements
for its own fleet.
4.8 The Strategy proposes a programme of
research to identify any potential problems with habitat exclusion
associated with pinger use, but only in the case of intensive
pinger deployment in coastal areas. We strongly recommend that
these potential problems should be assessed in all areas where
there is widespread use of pingers.
4.9 The Strategy also proposes that in the
Celtic Sea, pinger use should only be mandatory for UK fishing
vessels using bottom-set gillnets beyond the 6 mile limit. This
proposal will result in a considerable (and possibly increased)
amount of gillnet being used in these waters where harbour porpoises
and other species, such as the bottlenose dolphin, will be vulnerable
to capture. In these waters that are known to have high porpoise
By-Catch, we do not find this acceptable. We also suspect that
the proposed exclusion of inshore waters from the pinger requirement
will present difficulties for the enforcement bodies as there
may be tendency for fishermen to set their nets on or very close
to the 6 mile limit.
SPECIES RECOVERY
4.10 We are concerned that the Strategy
does not address the recovery of populations in areas where they
have been depleted. For example, the English Channel is identified
as an area where the large amount of set net fishing may act as
a barrier to recovery of harbour porpoises. However, no measures
are proposed. We consider that management options should be presented
for the Channel area including pinger deployment, restrictions
on gillnet effort and alternative fishing techniques.
MORTALITY LIMITS
AND FISHERY
ACCREDITATION
4.11 The Strategy highlights several options
for further consideration, such as cetacean mortality limit schemes.
We consider that credible implementation of such schemes would
depend upon comprehensive observer coverage, rigorous enforcement
and would have to be subject to a stringent programme of limit
reduction if it was not to become effectively an authorised cetacean
catch quota. The document notes that in the case of the Agreement
on the International Dolphin Conservation Programme, which operates
in the tuna fisheries of the Eastern Pacific Ocean, mortality
caps are set on the ultra-precautionary basis of 0.1% of the minimum
estimated abundance. This Agreement also requires 100% observer
coverage and a system for the tracking and verification of tuna.
4.12 The Strategy also proposes consideration
of an accreditation scheme for "cetacean-friendly" fisheries.
Again, such a scheme would require comprehensive observer coverage
and also total traceability of fish and fish products. Qualification
for such a label would have to be based on meticulously clear
definitions and criteria, ideally established in legislation.
EFFORT REDUCTION
4.13 The Strategy mentions the potential
utility of reduction of fishing effort for the protection of fish
stocks as a means of achieving By-Catch reduction. However, the
document then states that the UK Government believes that no unilateral
action on effort reduction should be undertaken by the UK as part
of a strategy to reduce By-Catch. We note that the Community Action
Plan to integrate environmental protection requirements into the
CFP (COM (2002) 186 final) states that highest priority be given
to "a reduction in fishing pressure on fishing grounds
to sustainable levels" and "this reduction should
target fishing activities having adverse effects both on the sustainability
of fish stocks and on the favourable conservation status of non-commercial
species and habitats". We consider that targeted effort
reduction should be used as an active By-Catch reduction measure
both at Community and UK levels.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ASSESSMENT (EIA)
4.14 While the document acknowledges the
need to address existing cetacean By-Catch problems, it makes
no provisions for the prior assessment of new fisheries or changes
in fisheries policy in order to prevent new problems arising.
We consider that EIA should be a mandatory precursor to significant
changes or developments in fisheries policy or practice. This
would be consistent with the Government's official reply to the
Eighth Report from the House of Commons Agriculture Committee
on Sea Fishing where it stated that "The Government agrees
that the development of new fisheries can raise environmental
issues which need to be properly assessed by scientists"[30]
EVALUATION AND
ADJUSTMENT
4.15 We were disappointed that, despite
our many representations, the Strategy presents only a one-off
suite of recommendations and fails to make provisions for a strategic
management framework that would enable the continuous monitoring,
evaluation and subsequent adjustment that is likely to be required
to achieve effective By-Catch reduction. The document states that
a formal review should be undertaken within three years of publication
and that this does not preclude adjustments in the intervening
period. However, we maintain that a formal but transparent process,
involving relevant experts and stakeholders with full access to
monitoring and implementation data, must be established if proper
evaluation and timely adjustment of By-Catch response and mitigation
is to occur.
5. Proposal for a Council Regulation laying
down measures concerning incidental catches of cetaceans in fisheries
5.1 The development of the UK's Small Cetacean
Bycatch Response Strategy and the Commission's proposal for a
Council Regulation on cetacean By-Catch have followed a parallel
process and both are based largely on the advice provided to the
Commission by ICES (ACE[31])
and STECF (SGFEN[32][33]).
5.2 We consider the Commission's proposal
to be a good first step, but one that will not solve the EU's
By-Catch problems in itself. We believe that this Regulation must
be built on with further and more far-reaching legislation and
this must be done quickly if the momentum of this initiative and
the work that has led to it is not to be lost. Therefore, our
comments relate both to the specific measures put forward in the
proposal and to measures that we consider are still required.
MANDATORY USE
OF ACOUSTIC
DETERRENT DEVICES
5.3 Our acceptance of the utility of pingers
as a short-term mitigation measure under certain circumstances,
and our concerns about the efficacy and possible adverse effects
of their widespread and longer-term use are set out in paragraphs
4.4 to 4.9 above. Our support for the mandatory use of pingers
is subject to the following conditions:
(a) that there is comprehensive observer
monitoring of vessels using pingers to assess both efficacy of
deployment and By-Catch rates;
(b) that there is monitoring of cetacean
populations in the affected areas to investigate any potential
exclusion effects; and
(c) that there is a parallel programme of
development of other forms of mitigation or alternative fishing
methods with an explicit view to phasing out pingers within a
set timeframe.
BY -CATCH
MONITORING
5.4 We strongly support the Commission's
proposal for mandatory observer schemes in specified fisheries
that pose a risk of cetacean By-Catch and where pinger use is
required. We regard this measure as fundamental to any efforts
to quantify and address this problem across the broad range of
fisheries in which By-Catch occurs.
5.5 However, we are concerned that the levels
of observer coverage set out in the proposal represent only the
minimum levels recommended by scientific advisors (SGFEN) and
in some cases fall below this. For instance, SGFEN recommended
that observer coverage should be a minimum of 5-10% in the pelagic
trawl fisheries in the Biscay, Celtic Sea and Channel areas, and
"as high as feasible" during the December to March period
when mass dolphin strandings occur. The Commission proposes only
5% coverage in these fisheries and 10% during these critical months.
RESTRICTIONS ON
THE USE
OF DRIFTNETS
IN THE
BALTIC SEA
5.6 The Baltic population of harbour porpoises
is severely threatened and is estimated to number as few as 600
animals. Fisheries By-Catch, in both bottom-set and drift gillnets,
is considered to be the major threat to this population. Therefore,
we warmly welcome the proposed length restriction on driftnets
in the Baltic to 2.5 km and their subsequent prohibition by 2007.
The sooner these measures are introduced the better will be the
prospects of this critically endangered porpoise population.
BY -CATCH
MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
AND STRATEGY
5.7 In the Impact Assessment Form accompanying
the Proposed Regulation, the Commission acknowledges the need
for a management framework within which a comprehensive strategy
can be set up. However, the Commission contends that this cannot
be put together at this stage "given the absence of precise
information on By-Catch patterns [etc]". We do not accept
this contention but regard a management framework as precisely
the tool required to identify information needs, assess data that
is collected, to devise appropriate management responses for each
specific fishery or type of fishery, to oversee their implementation
and to evaluate their efficacy and impacts.
5.8 The first and key recommendation of
the SGFEN final report on incidental catches of small cetaceans[34]is
that "a management framework . . . needs to be implemented
at an EU and other appropriate levels if cetacean By-Catch is
to be addressed adequately". Key features of such a framework
identified by SGFEN are that it should include:
(a) a management objective. We suggest
that such an objective should reflect the general aims identified
by ASCOBANS [to restore and/or maintain populations to 80% or
more of the carrying capacity and to minimise (ie to ultimately
reduce to zero) anthropogenic removals] and the intermediate precautionary
objective agreed by ASCOBANS [to reduce By-Catches to less than
1% of the best available population estimate][35]
(b) monitoring and surveillance schemes.
As provided for by the current proposals although we consider
that levels of coverage should be higher than the minimum recommended
levels.
(c) By-Catch reduction plans. We
would strongly support the requirement of a By-Catch reduction
plan for each individual By-Catch problem, drawn up and implemented
with the inclusion of stakeholders. Such plans should define objectives,
targets, timeframes and responsible parties and also address enforcement
and ongoing surveillance of the mitigation measures. We would
also support timetabled default management options in the absence
of effective By-Catch mitigation[36]We
consider that such management options must explicitly include
the suspension or closure of fisheries that pose a serious threat
to cetacean populations.
ASSESSMENT AND
REVIEW
5.9 We do not consider that the Commission's
proposals for overall assessment and review of the operation of
this Regulation are adequate. Member States are required to report
to the Commission on implementation of the Regulation only annually,
and the Commission proposes to report only after three years.
5.10 There are a large number of factors
that need to be assessed and reviewed in relation to this Regulation,
including inter alia:
(i) By-Catch data from the fisheries listed
in Annexes I and III and also from other fisheries that may need
to be subject to monitoring or mitigation measures;
(ii) the adequacy and efficacy of implementation
of the measures;
(iii) any negative impacts resulting from
the measures, such as habitat exclusion;
(iv) changes in the fisheries concerned,
including those resulting from the measures such as redeployment
of effort, that may influence By-Catch levels;
(v) developments in By-Catch mitigation techniques
and alternative fishing methods, and areas requiring further research.
5.11 These factors are likely to be highly
dynamic and also inter-related. Therefore, we consider that reporting
of relevant information must be more frequent than proposed. The
establishment of a Strategic Management Framework would enable
the continuous monitoring and evaluation of this information and
adjustment of measures that is likely to be required to achieve
effective By-Catch reduction.
BY -CATCH
MITIGATION IN
THE PELAGIC TRAWL
SECTOR
5.12 The Explanatory Memorandum acknowledges
that gillnets and pelagic trawls appear to contribute most cetacean
By-Catch in European fisheries. While mandatory use of pingers
is proposed to address the By-Catch in gillnet fisheries, no provisions
are made regarding the pelagic trawl sector beyond observer monitoring.
While research into By-Catch mitigation in gillnets is more advanced
than that in pelagic trawls, the Community must make clear its
intention to introduce without delay measures to reduce By-Catch
in those pelagic trawl fisheries found to be problematic.
5.13 We acknowledge the UK's research to
develop a separator grid for pelagic trawl fisheries and cautiously
welcome the promising early results of this work. However, there
is still considerable uncertainty as to why the device appears
to be working and whether this effect is likely to continue in
the longer term and without detriment to the dolphins. Therefore,
we consider that there should be a parallel programme of research
to investigate possible alternative mitigation measures or fishing
methods for these fisheries.
5.14 In the absence of any other effective
measures for the mitigation of By-Catch problems in pelagic trawls,
the Community must be prepared to introduce urgent management
measures including the suspension or closure of fisheries where
necessary. In particular, where there is evidence of a serious
threat to the conservation of cetacean populations, the Commission
should introduce such measures as emergency measures[37]
(as provided for by Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002
on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries
resources under the Common Fisheries Policy).
EFFORT REDUCTION
5.15 The Explanatory Memorandum states that
"scientists consider that mitigation of cetacean By-Catch
can be primarily addressed through an overall reduction in fishing
pressure" [together with some additional technical measures]
and that [odq]an overall reduction of fishing pressure is expected
as a result of other community measures aimed at ensuring the
sustainability of fisheries[cdq]. While we acknowledge and welcome
the measures being planned and introduced to reduce fishing effort
within the CFP, we consider that targeted effort reduction should
be more actively used as a By-Catch reduction measure in its own
right (see 4.13 above).
BY -CATCH
MONITORING AND
MITIGATION IN
EU DISTANT WATER
FISHERIES
5.16 Finally, but by no means least importantly,
it is essential that the provisions made for By-Catch monitoring
and mitigation (as well as the requisite provisions for surveillance
and enforcement) are reflected in the Community's regulation of
its distant water fisheries. There is ample evidence of cetacean
and other protected species By-Catch occurring in distant water
fisheries such as those off Mauritania.
18 September 2003
15 Tregenza, N.J.C., Berrow, S.D., Hammond, P.S. and
Leaper, R. 1997. Harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) by-catch
in set gillnets in the Celtic Sea. ICES Journal of Marine Sciences.
54:896-904. Back
16
IWC 1995. Report of the Scientific Committee. International Whalig
Commission. Back
17
Vinther, M. 1999. Bycatches of harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)
in Danish set-net fisheries. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 1 (2):123-135. Back
18
Northridge, S.P. and Hammond, P.S. 1999. Estimation of porpoise
mortality in UK gill and tangle net fisheries in the North Sea
and west of Scotland. Paper SC/51/SM42 submitted to International
Whaling Commission Scientific Committee. Back
19
Berggren, 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
20
Recovery plan for Baltic harbour porpoises (Jastarnia Plan) ASCOBANS.
Bonn, July 2002. Back
21
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
22
Morizur, Y, Berrow SD, Tregenza NJC, Couperus AS & Pouvreau
S. 1999 Incidental catches of marine-mammals in pelagic trawl
fisheries in the northeast Atlantic. Fisheries Research 41: 297-307. Back
23
Couperus A.S. 1998 Interactions between Dutch midwater trawl and
Atlantic white-sided dolphins (Lagenorhynchus acutus) southwest
of Ireland. J.Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci., Vol. 22: 209-218. Back
24
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
25
DEFRA Cetacean Bycatch: action in hand. Unpublished briefing.
Fisheries Division III (Sea Fisheries Conservation. DEFRA 21 February
2002. Back
26
Article 12.4 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (Habitats & Species
Directive). Back
27
ASCOBANS 2000. Resolution on incidental take of small cetaceans.
Annex 9c of Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the Parties, Bristol
UK. Back
28
A Bycatch Response Strategy-the need for a generic response to
By-Catch. A Wildlife and Countryside Link Statement. March 2001. Back
29
Cetacean By-Catch in pelagic trawl fisheries in the Celtic Sea,
Biscay, Channel area-a substantiated case for Commission emergency
measures. WDCS February 2003. Back
30
UK Government's official reply (Oct 1999) to the Eighth Report
from the House of Commons Agriculture Committee Session 1998-99,
"Sea Fishing" (HC1410I), see $12 (`Research into new
fisheries'). Back
31
CES 2002. Report of the Working Group on Marine Mammal Population
Dynamics and Habitat (CM 2002/ACE:02). ICES 27pp. Back
32
Incidental catches of small cetaceans. Report of the meeting of
the subgroup on fishery and the environment (SGFEN) of the Scientific,
Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). SEC(2002)
376. 83pp. Back
33
Incidental catches of small cetaceans. Report of the second meeting
of the subgroup on fishery and the environment (SGFEN) of the
Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF).
SEC(2002) 1134. 63pp. Back
34
Incidental catches of small cetaceans. Report of the second meeting
of the subgroup on fishery and the environment (SGFEN) of the
Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF).
SEC(2002) 1134. 63pp. Back
35
ASCOBANS 2000. Resolution on incidental take of small cetaceans.
Annex 9c of Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the Parties, Bristol
UK. Back
36
UK Government's official reply (Oct 1999) to the Eighth Report
from the House of Commons Agriculture Committee Session 1998-99,
"Sea Fishing" (HC1410I), see $12 (`Research into new
fisheries'). Back
37
Cetacean By-Catch in pelagic trawl fisheries in the Celtic Sea,
Biscay, Channel area-a substantiated case for Commission emergency
measures. WDCS February 2003. Back
| 
