Examination of Witness (Questions 160-179)
3 DECEMBER 2003
MR BARRIE
DEAS
Q160 Mr Mitchell: Let's move on to observers
because Defra thinks that the effectiveness of pingers is best
monitored by independent observers on board. They want it to be
optional, on a voluntary basis initially. Are there practical
problems in operating such a scheme even on a voluntary basis?
Mr Deas: Well, the first thing
to say is that our constituent organisation, the Cornish Fish
Producers' Organisation, has worked on a voluntary basis with
the Sea Mammal Research Unit and other conservationists to resolve
and reduce the by-catch problem in the hake fishery since the
early 1990s and that has produced useful information and a collaborative
approach in finding ways to reduce the problem. I think that 100%
observer coverage may look good to the zealots, but I think there
are lots of practical problems in finding people that are capable
of doing the job and are willing to stay out there. Observers
might be willing to go out for one or two days, but to go out
for a week at a time, there are serious issues. Then apart from
the question of who would do it, who would pay? As I say, the
length of the trip has been a major problem, so I think again
the regulatory approach 100% may look good on paper, but I do
not think it is a practical solution. We would much prefer to
work and develop the collaborative approach to recognise that
where there is a problem, it is dealt with, but jointly with the
industry and the principal conservation bodies.
Q161 Mr Mitchell: And you would prefer
that on a voluntary basis?
Mr Deas: Absolutely.
Q162 Mr Mitchell: Rather than a legal
requirement?
Mr Deas: I do not think a legal
requirement is justified or practical. Again it gets back to this
issue of something that looks good on a bit of paper, but when
you look at the practical realities of implementing such an approach,
it dissolves and in the meantime you have alienated the industry
and that is not helpful. I think we need to work together jointly
to find solutions.
Q163 Mr Drew: If we look at the idea
of stewards, where did this come from? Did this come from the
industry or did it come from NGOs or did it come from the Government
or the EU?
Mr Deas: I do not think it has
come from the government level. I am not certain where the original
idea comes from, but it does seem to fit the bill. I suppose that
perhaps the most obvious parallel is in agriculture where you
have Sites of Special Scientific Interest and landowners are paid
to play a stewardship role. There does seem to be a great disparity
between the way that agriculture is treated and the marine environment
is treated. It seems to us that fishing vessel owners and operators
can play a very valuable role. Each fishing vessel is potentially
a research platform gathering information and we would like it
very much on fish stocks, but I see no reason why that should
not be extended to cetaceans. Again it is part of this collaborative
approach and we are indeed working at the moment with CEFAS on
a collaborative approach, a partnership approach to issues relating
to commercial fish stocks, but there is no reason why that should
not be extended to cover by-catch, and the kind of question that
was asked by the Chairman earlier about what sort of monitoring
the industry does, we could put a more positive response to that.
Q164 Mr Drew: Can you, therefore, try
and explain to me what sort of incentives or what sort of encouragement
would you expect to be put in place for people who, with the best
will in the world, want to catch fish? There are two issues there.
There is the issue of what you pay them and what you pay them
for and, secondly, what level of training and new aspirations
would people be required to undertake to make this a reality?
Mr Deas: I do not think it makes
sense to see this as a quick fix and I do not think that it can
be seen in isolation from a broader change to the way that data
on the marine environment and on fish stocks is collated, but
we have at the moment a fairly secretive, elitist, closed world
in which the scientific bodies hold the information very close
to themselves. We would want to move to a more open system in
which the industry is involved at every level, collecting the
data, interpreting the data and developing joint solutions and
I would see the cetacean issue as part of that broad approach,
but I do not think it is a quick fix. A start has been made, as
I say, this year and £1 million has been used to develop
a partnership approach and it has, I think, so far proved to be
very successful, but it is something that we would have to develop
and expand in the future.
Q165 Mr Drew: They are nice words and
I know from having interviewed you before that you are very diplomatic,
but to go back to my first question, what are the incentives?
This is money?
Mr Deas: Yes.
Q166 Mr Drew: What sort of money would
a trawler captain require to be undertaking what could be quite
an interesting, but quite a laborious activity actually to look
at the scientific rationale for what is being caught, what should
not be caught and so on? What is the money in this?
Mr Deas: Well, I cannot give you
a fixed amount.
Q167 Mr Drew: I am not asking for a figure,
but just a feel.
Mr Deas: This kind of idea would
have to be related to the size of vessel and the tasks involved.
The way that it has worked at the moment is that it is very difficult
to give you a straight answer because the tasks vary.
Q168 Mr Drew: But have you any idea?
Have they given you any figures where they said, "Barrie,
you tell us what you expect and we will make it worth your while"?
Mr Deas: Well, I can give you
an example of how it works at the moment which is that if the
vessels are undertaking specific research trips, it is based on
average earnings from fishing, so it has to be related to what
they would earn fishing if you are talking about a designated
trip, but if you are talking about a commercial fishing trip on
which data is gathered while they are fishing, then that is a
different story. Obviously we are talking about much lesser sums
because you are not diverting all your time, so I think there
is probably a scale of rates depending on how much you are deflected
from your normal fishing operations.
Q169 Mr Drew: And that would be per vessel?
Mr Deas: Per vessel.
Q170 Mr Drew: You would have to do it
like that?
Mr Deas: On a vessel basis, yes.
Q171 Mr Drew: You could not sort of sign
up to an area or whatever as that would be meaningless?
Mr Deas: Well, you could. The
way to do it would be to co-opt the local organisations and work
out a schedule of which vessels are going to be doing the work
and under what circumstances.
Q172 Mr Drew: Now, if we can go on to
aspects of mitigation, there is this notion that we have now got,
and I find it difficult to describe it, the supra-net, which I
thought was something to do with IT, but we are on to the supra-net
here where we have got fish that will stay within the net, but
the dolphins and porpoises will be able to work their way out.
Where are we on this? Can you try and give us a feel for the technical
side of it and then I might be able to see whether I can get my
mind around how the logic of the economics and the marine science
locks into place?
Mr Deas: I am not with you at
all on the idea of a supra-net. It usually refers to a very large
towed net and jumbo jets always come into it somehow. There are
in the bass fishery, if we are talking about that, large nets.
If we are talking about fixed nets—
Q173 Mr Drew: This is what is technically
called a "cetacean-friendly gill net".
Mr Deas: Well, we are talking
about nets where, as I understand it, the mesh, the twine size
would be of a size that would hold commercial fish species, but
would break with larger mammals such as cetaceans and I have really
got no information particularly on that.
Q174 Mr Drew: You are maybe feeling the
same as me, that if a dolphin breaks out, I think the fish might
be tempted to follow it unless he has had a word with them in
advance to help them.
Mr Deas: I would have to be convinced
that under practical conditions that would be a runner. I am happy
to be convinced, but I have not seen anything so far.
Q175 Mr Drew: So you do not know of any
particular trials or anything that has been going on out at sea?
Mr Deas: No. The most likely candidate
for a practical, cost-effective mitigation device is the acoustic
pinger.
Q176 Mr Drew: And this is an alternative
because people do not like it.
Mr Deas: Well, there are a range
of practical problems associated with the pingers and whether
it is a long-term solution because of the habituation of the porpoise
to the noise or whatever, there are real issues that have to be
addressed, but it does seem to offer a reasonable way forward
better than anything else I have seen and again against a background
of a declining problem, particularly with reference to the hake
fishery.
Q177 Mr Drew: Just as a final point,
when we started this inquiry we were shown graphic pictures, I
have to say historical pictures, of dolphins and porpoises being
brought on shore. What is your feel for the individual vessels
now? There clearly is an attempt to reduce this and, as you say,
it seems to be a reducing problem, so I am interested in how you
know that. Also what sort of measures are individual trawler skippers
actually trying to take to make this a reducing problem?
Mr Deas: Your choice of language,
I think, indicates that you are conflating the two fisheries and
the two problems. There is the mobile trawl fishery which is a
problem for dolphins and I think remains a problem. Then there
is the set net, the gill net issue in relation to harbour porpoise
and there it is a reducing problem and my evidence for saying
that is two-fold. Firstly, the UK fleet that prosecutes that fishery
is reduced from 50 vessels to 12, so you can, therefore, assume
that the by-catch is reduced proportionately. Secondly, there
does seem to be a prospect of addressing the problems in that
particular fishery through mitigation measures, particularly the
pingers, and there does seem to be a way forward there.
Q178 Mr Drew: So are you saying that
really we ought to be concentrating on the dolphins?
Mr Deas: Absolutely. That is the
fundamental point we would want to make, yes.
Q179 Alan Simpson: I was just intrigued
by David's question about, "Give us a price. What would it
take?" It sounds like the Whips' Office! Would you just accept
that there is another side of the questioning line that David
Drew has been pursuing with you about the maintenance of fish
stocks, namely that in addition to asking you, "What would
it take for you to do the things we would like you to do?",
we can also pursue a line that says, "What would we need
to put in place to stop you doing the things we do not want you
to do?" In that context, would you just tell us what your
position is in relation to the suggestions that we should impose
quotas, particularly on the pelagic sea bass fishery?
Mr Deas: It is relatively easy
for me to answer that question because we do not have a huge interest
in that fishery ourselves. If quotas were introduced, I suppose
the largest share would go to the French because they have got
the largest historical participation in that fishery, but I think
the fundamental point is that I do not think it would do a single
thing for dolphins caught in that fishery. TACs, (total allowable
catches), and quotas have not been notably successful since they
were introduced. They are quite a convenient way of sharing a
scarce resource between different Member States and different
groups of fishermen, but they are not notably unsuccessful in
terms of conservation and they would be even more blunt, I think,
in terms of doing anything about the cetacean by-catch, so although
we would not have a problem about it because we would not necessarily
be affected, I do not think it is a solution to the problem.
| 
