Examination of Witness (Questions 142-159)
3 DECEMBER 2003
MR BARRIE
DEAS
Q142 Chairman: Good afternoon. We very
much welcome Barrie Deas to our Sub-Committee of the EFRA Select
Committee on cetacean by-catch. Can I, before we start, thank
my colleague, Austin Mitchell, who took the first two sessions
of this Sub-Committee while I was in hospital and I am very grateful
for his help and we will be working together on the Report. We
very much welcome you, Mr Deas. Can I start by asking in terms
of your members' experience how significant you believe the cetacean
by-catch problem is in terms of the overall population levels?
Mr Deas: First of all, thanks
very much for the invitation to put the industry perspective.
The UK Response Strategy document gives the impression that the
size of the by-catch problem and its impact on the total populations
is well defined, well measured and understood and I think that
is far from true in that there is a great deal of uncertainty
here. There is a problem with by-catch in specific fisheries at
specific times of the year and under specific conditions and I
think that is very important because there is a need to target
measures. The Commission's response and to a degree the UK Response
Strategy, I think, misses the point and seeks solutions in blanket
measures so that the question of where the problem lies, I think,
is a fundamental one. I think that there should be no misunderstanding.
The fishing industry wants to work towards the elimination of
the cetacean by-catch. It is recognised as an iconic group of
species. It is what the environmentalists call `charismatic meta-species'
which draws attention to that particular feature. The cetacean
by-catch has a damaging effect on the public perception of the
industry and for that reason alone I think we need to do something
about it. It is self-interest to reduce the by-catch of dolphins
and porpoises to a minimum, but I think partly because of the
public and media interest, the Commission and the UK are blundering
somewhat. I think it is very interesting that in previous evidence
to this Committee, the experts, in particular Dr Tregenza, do
not attribute the perceived decline in cetaceans to the by-catch
problem. My understanding is that the fundamental problem lies
with organo-chlorines which are apparently the main culprit and
by-catch in fisheries is targeted as possibly an obstacle to recovery,
but not the primary cause of the decline. The decline itself seems
to me to be very much based on anecdotal commentary.
Q143 Chairman: With that in mind, what
monitoring do your members do?
Mr Deas: Our members do not do
any specific monitoring other than their perceptions. For what
it is worth, our members say that their perception is that in
recent years there are more porpoises than dolphins around than
for some time in the past. We do not know what weight to put on
that, whether they are seeing the whole population or part of
the population. Cetaceans, like fish, are notoriously difficult
to count. They pop up here, they pop up there, so is that the
same pod, the same school that we saw half an hour ago? I think
it is possible to treat percentage figures for by-catch population
with a reasonable degree of scepticism which is not to say that
there is not a problem, but to say that a sense of proportion
in all of this is essential. We share the view that geographical
location, seasonality, type of fishing, and the observer programmes
suggest that for dolphins, the bass fishery is likely to be the
main source of the carcasses that are washed up. It seems logical
to us that in terms of the scale of the problem and the principal
drive for solutions, that is where the principal focus of attention
should lie. We are prepared to take a fairly firm line by saying
that the technical solutions, the grids and the acoustic deterrent
devices, should be given a period to work, but ultimately we cannot
support a fishery that has a demonstrable adverse impact on cetaceans
and, consequently, our public image as an industry.
Chairman: We will come on to pingers
a little later.
Q144 Mr Breed: In the letter that you
sent the Committee back in August, Mr Deas, you said, "It
has been reasonably well established that a significant cause
of mortality of dolphins in South Western approaches at certain
times of the year is attributable to the bass pair trawl fleet".
Now, there are other views as to what is the principal cause and
everything else, but is there any evidence at all of common dolphins
being caught in pelagic trawl fisheries other than the sea bass
fishery, in other words, to give us some sort of context so as
to see where the weight of evidence is?
Mr Deas: I think all the evidence
is relatively circumstantial and I certainly do not have any definitive
evidence to lay before you. You have to look at what fleets are
working in the area at what times of the year, what kind of gear
they are working and how that relates to dolphin patterns of behaviour,
but we have nothing firmer than that.
Q145 Mr Breed: There is, I think, some
other evidence which suggests that hake, tuna and horse-mackerel,
at least in parts of the 1990s, were also responsible for at least
some of the by-catch problems. Has that been your experience or
that of your members?
Mr Deas: The clear line of demarcation
is between the dolphin by-catch where there is a particular problem
with the mobile trawl fishery, and the indications seem to point
in that direction, and with harbour porpoises which is a rather
different problem, and it is the set nets where there is a recognised,
but small by-catch of porpoises and I have various things I would
like to say about that. The way that the industry is organised,
its primary focus of attention is catching fish and I would like
to say some things later about monitoring programmes and how the
industry could be co-opted into improving the database, but it
is fairly sparse and circumstantial at the moment.
Q146 Mr Breed: You also go on to say
that bass pair trawl fleets are primarily, although not exclusively,
French. How many sort of non-UK vessels are engaged in the bass
pair trawl fishery and how many are engaged in the sort of other
pelagic trawl fisheries? Can you give us some sort of idea of
the numbers?
Mr Deas: I can give you a very
crude idea. I think there are something like 60 French vessels
and a much smaller number of Dutch vessels, under ten, but they
are large vessels.
Q147 Mr Breed: Are these ones working
in pairs, so ten would be five pairs?
Mr Deas: The Dutch would not be,
no. They would be large pelagic vessels. There are a number of
Scottish pair teams, between two and six I think, that visit on
occasions.
Q148 Mr Breed: So relatively small numbers
then in that sense?
Mr Deas: Yes.
Q149 Mr Breed: Can you tell us in what
ways some of these non-UK, these foreign vessels that are within
UK waters, are monitored? Is there any evidence that there is
monitoring being undertaken of their activities at all?
Mr Deas: There is monitoring in
the sense that if they are operating within UK waters, they are
being monitored in the same way as any other vessel would be.
Q150 Mr Breed: So where they are, not
what they are catching?
Mr Deas: That is correct.
Q151 Mr Mitchell: I see that you say
in the evidence that you are not opposed to a more restrictive
approach up to and including a prohibition of this fishing method
for bass, so you are prepared effectively to stop?
Mr Deas: Yes, I think where there
is a demonstrable cetacean by-catch that is of a level that potentially
affects the species as a whole, it is very difficult to defend
and we would not try to defend it. What we would say is that every
attempt should be made to find mitigation methods, but if they
do not work we would not defend that particular fishery as an
impetus to speed up the location of solutions.
Q152 Mr Breed: When you say that you
are prepared to look at approaches up to and including prohibition,
are you saying that as someone, like me, because it is a useful
way of getting at foreigners or are you saying it out of a more
altruistic concern for the environment and for the preservation
of cetacean stocks?
Mr Deas: No, I do not think you
have to dig as deep as altruism. It is self-interest because the
fishing industry has not just to operate on a sustainable basis,
but it has to be perceived as doing so. We are very sensitive
to the industry's image and if there is a problem, we either have
to deal with it or face the prospect of an end to that particular
fishery. Now, we would very much prefer for it to be dealt with
through mitigation measures, but our Executive Committee some
time ago took the view that this was a problem on an apparent
scale that really could not be defended and we were not prepared
to defend it. The story is entirely different with harbour porpoises
where I think there are solutions and the scale of the problem
is not at the same level and we think there are ways forward there.
It helps of course that we do not really have much of a direct
interest in that fishery, so it is always easier to take the moral
high ground, but there we are.
Q153 Mr Mitchell: That is a good answer,
but it means you are saying that a more prevalent attitude among
fishermen, which is, "This is just another bloody nuisance
imposed on us by the increasing importance of conservation",
is not the universal position and that your organisation takes
a more responsible position.
Mr Deas: I think it is self-interest.
It might be self-interest, you might say, in that this is not
an issue that really we can ignore because it will come back and
bite the industry in one way or another whether it is consumer
resistance to fish or a more restrictive regime altogether, so
we do take that responsibility seriously.
Q154 Mr Mitchell: Would we have power
to stop, say, the pair trawling for bass?
Mr Deas: "We" being
the UK?
Q155 Mr Mitchell: Yes.
Mr Deas: I think it would only
make sense at the European level.
Q156 Mr Mitchell: Only Europe can do
it?
Mr Deas: Well, I dare say that—
Q157 Mr Mitchell: We cannot enforce a
unilateral conservation order?
Mr Deas: I think realistically
it has to be at the European level.
Q158 Mr Mitchell: What would the economic
impact on fishermen be if, for instance, you had to adopt the
universal use of pingers?
Mr Deas: I think I would like
to say something just by way of preface which is that it is very
important to appreciate that the figures that have been quoted
in relation to by-catch in the porpoise fishery in the set nets,
in particular the hake fishery of 6%, that is a 1994 figure and
since then there has been a very dramatic reduction in the size
of the hake fleet from around 50 vessels down to about 12 so that
in 2003, if you accept the original figure of 6%, we are probably
down at about 2%. There has been a very significant reduction
in the overall size of the fishery and, by implication, the size
of any cetacean by-catch will have been reduced proportionately,
so it is important to understand the reduction in the size of
the fishery, but also to understand that dolphins are not caught
in this fishery, but it is porpoises we are talking about. I think
this is a general issue that goes beyond the south-west, that
looking at 2002 and 2003 particularly there has been an enormous
reduction in the size of the fleet through decommissioning programmes
and through the sale of vessels. It is particularly true of the
hake fishery, but it is also true in the North Sea and the wreck
net fishery has been radically reduced partly through direct
decommissioning, but also because under the impact of cod-recovery
measures, it simply is not viable under the very restrictive regime
that applies. On the economic impact, well, it all depends under
what circumstances of course. Four thousand pounds per vessel
has been quoted as an average, but of course the hake vessels
are larger, carrying more nets than the average, so I would say
we are talking about £7,000 there, plus the additional labour
costs, so it is a very significant amount, especially against
the background of very difficult economic conditions that the
industry faces at the moment, so there is absolutely no question
of being able to afford this without government support through
FIFG presumably at the 100% level. I think that has to be an absolute
pre-condition. However, I think before we get to that stage, we
need to ensure that any measures that are taken are targeted at
the fisheries where there is a demonstrable problem. We must move
away from this kind of blanket approach. The measures must be
proportionate which I suppose is a different way of saying the
same thing. As I have mentioned, there must be transitional financial
support to allow the purchase of the equipment and I think, above
anything else, it must make sense at vessel level. There are a
number of outstanding practical problems associated with pingers
that have not been resolved and it is very important before we
rush ahead under the glare of the media spotlight just to be seen
to be doing something, and we have all been there before. You
could say that a large part of the Common Fisheries Policy and
certainly the recovery programmes for cod and hake are there to
be seen to be doing something, but that is very different from
having a positive impact, so it is extremely important that the
measures make sense at vessel level not just in terms of a regulation
or a bit of paper or a strategy document. It must make sense at
vessel level and that means overcoming the practical problems
in specific fisheries, such as whether this equipment works at
this depth under these conditions with this machinery. I think
that has to be the starting point.
Q159 Mr Mitchell: And always with that
proviso that if it is going to be imposed on vessels by government,
it should be paid for by government?
Mr Deas: That is right.
|
