Memorandum submitted by the World Wildlife
Fund (WWF) (C9)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
WWF has a long history of working globally on
the issue of cetcean bycatch and offer the following comments
in response to the committee's investigation into the issue and
how it should be progressed in the UK and European waters. Key
points are:
— that the management of cetacean bycatch
must be placed within the context of a strategic framework which
will identify conservation and management objectives, establish
timeframes for action and review of processes;
— that this process must be well resourced;
— that the UK small cetacean bycatch
response strategy is a welcome step forward but that there are
some elements which need to be critically improved;
— that acoustic deterrents (pingers)
do not offer a long term solution to bycatch problems and if used
must be deployed correctly with an accompanying observer programme;
and
— there is an urgent need to prioritise
funding and resources to investigate alternative means of addressing
the issue in order to secure a long term solution.
1. To set in context the committee's investigation
it is worth recalling that the UK government has various commitments
to protect cetaceans under a range of international and national
agreements and legislation, including:
1.1 The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981:
In the UK all cetaceans are protected under Schedule 5 of the
WCA. Section 9 of the Act notes that if any person intentionally
kills, injures or takes any wild animal included in Schedule 5,
he shall be guilty of an offence. It goes on to note that if any
person damages, destroys, or obstructs access to any structure
or place which any wild animal included in Schedule 5 uses for
shelter or protection or disturbs any such animal while it is
occupying a structure or place which it uses for that purpose
he shall be guilty of an offence.
1.2 Habitats Directive: The harbour porpoise
and the bottlenose dolphin are listed on Annexes II of the Habitats
Directive while all cetaceans are listed on annex IV. Annex II
identifies animal and plant species of community interest whose
conservation requires the designation of special areas of conservation.
Annex IV identifies animal and plant species of community interest
in need of strict protection.
The aim of the Directive is to contribute towards
ensuring bio-diversity through the conservation of natural habitats
and of wild fauna and flora in the European territory of the Member
States to which the Treaty applies.
Importantly in relation to bycatch Article 12.4
of the Directive requires that Member States shall establish a
system to monitor the incidental capture and killing of the animals
species listed in Annex IV (a). In light of the information gathered
Member States shall take further research or conservation measures
as requires to ensure that incidental capture and killing does
not have a significant negative impact on the species concerned.
1.3 Bonn Convention: Cetaceans are listed
on Appendix II of the Convention of Migratory Species of Wild
Animals (Bonn convention) which lists species whose conservation
status requires or would benefit from the implementation of international
co-operative Agreements. The Agreement on the Conservation of
Small Cetaceans in the Baltic North Seas (ASCOBANS) was brought
into being in 1992.
1.4 ASCOBANS: The conservation objectives
established by ASCOBANS (of which the UK government are a Party)
are "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" with an intermediate
precautionary objective agreed by ASCOBANS "to reduce
bycatches to less than 1% of the best available population estimate.
"
1.5 Common Fisheries Policy: There are commitments
under the framework regulation for the Common Fisheries Policy
(2371/2002) to apply the precautionary approach to fisheries management,
aim at a progressive implementation of an ecosystem based approach
to fisheries management (article 2). Articles 7 and 8 also provide
powers to take emergency action to address serious threats to
the conservation of living aquatic resources or to the marine
eco-system resulting from fishing activities.
2. The incidental capture of animals in
fishing gear (bycatch) is considered to be the major threat facing
small cetacean populations worldwide. In order to assess the extent
of the threat it is important to know certain key issues about
the cetacean population in question such as the population size,
structure and growth. In order to know what fisheries are impacting
on cetacean populations there is a need for comprehensive monitoring
of the fisheries throughout the range of the population.
3. While some efforts have been made to
address these issues in the UK the process has been slow to date
and has suffered from a lack of a strategic approach. There are
currently numerous fisheries which have been identified as having
unsustainable levels of bycatch associated with them but no mitigation
measures are yet in place.
4. WWF are of the view that the management
of bycatch has to be placed within the context of a strategic
framework which will identify conservation and management objectives,
establish timeframes for action and review of processes, and importantly
commit much needed resources towards meeting these targets.
5. WWF believe that the UK small cetacean
bycatch response strategy went some way towards addressing this
but falls short of achieving it. Some of our key comments were:
5.1 WWF support, as an interim measure,
the short term deployment of properly functioning pingers where
they are accompanied by onboard observers. We believe that it
will be important to have mandatory onboard observers accompany
any deployment of pingers in order to address a range of concerns
associated with pinger use. Such concerns include the proper functioning
of pingers, maintenance of pingers, the effectiveness of the devices
and the potential for habituation. The need for effective monitoring
of pinger use was a key issue highlighted by pinger deployment
in the US. We do not believe this can be left to work on a voluntary
basis.
5.2 WWF do not believe that pingers offer
a long term solution to the porpoise bycatch problems and that
there is an urgent need to prioritise funding and resources to
investigate alternative means of addressing the issue. In the
case of static gear a key initiative will be to work with fishermen
to explore the potential replacement of gill nets with other gear
such as pots or cages for certain species.
5.3 We would be interested to learn the
reason for the exclusion of mandatory pinger use for those vessels
operating within six miles of the coast. There is a real risk
of bycatch not only of porpoises but other small cetaceans in
inshore waters. This cannot be ignored and needs to be assessed.
There is also a risk of a shift in effort from outside the six
mile zone to within in order to avoid pinger use. This may alter
fishing patterns in the inshore and must be addressed. If pinger
use is considered impractical in the first instance on vessels
operating within the six mile zone there may be some merit in
considering a length restriction of gill nets in this area while
at the same time monitoring the fisheries at some level for bycatch.
5.4 We do not believe that the issue of
habituation can be passed over as a significant concern and as
the document notes it is something which will be studied by observers,
this clearly makes the need for observers a critical issue. There
had not been a comprehensive long term study undertaken on the
issue of habituation and is something which must be studied under
any pinger implementation programme.
5.5 We do not believe the potential for
animals to be excluded from key habitats by the use of pingers
should be underestimated and in fact believe there is an obligation
for further work to be undertaken on this matter with respect
to obligations under the Habitats and Species directive, particularly
given the current lack of designated sites for porpoises.
5.6 We were disappointed to see the referral
to the lack of reliable and recent population estimates as the
major constraint to estimating the effect of bycatch. Even when
the estimates were newly published in 1994 and bycatch levels
were established there was a sense of denial as to the extent
of the problem. It is only because we have had to so little effort
made to tackle the problem that the years have slipped by and
now the 1994 estimate appears dated. As is noted there is another
survey planned for 2004-05 but until this happens we should be
working with the best available estimates that we have which are
those generated by the first SCANS survey.
5.7 We welcome the UK support for SCANS
II but believe that governments should work with existing population
estimates as best available until new estimates can be generated.
5.8 We support the UK intention to expand
bycatch monitoring scheme to assess levels of bycatch in all UK
fisheries at a statistically valid level.
5.9 We support the further investigation
into means of addressing bycatch of small cetaceans in towed gear.
6. At a European level WWF welcomed the
publication by the European Commission of proposals to minimise
the unsustainable impact fisheries have on small cetaceans through
incidental catches. We noted that if implemented effectively it
could (i) allow Member States to meet important commitments under
the Habitats and Species Directive, specifically Article 12.4
(ii) bring the Baltic into line with the rest of the EU in relation
to the use of drift nets, possibly one of the most non selective
fishing gears, and (iii) demonstrate the EUs commitment to addressing
the wider impacts of fisheries on the marine environment
7. WWF consider the Commissions proposal
as a welcome first step towards minimising cetacean bycatch in
European fisheries but believe that there are some key issues
which must be addressed if it is to achieve its objectives:
7.1 WWF acknowledge the potential short
term benefits of introducing the use of acoustic pingers as a
bycatch mitigation measure but only if their deployment is accompanied
by an observer programme. The current proposal does not explicitly
identify onboard observers as a condition of use—it should.
There exist a range of concerns associated with pinger use including
(i) possible exclusion of animals from essential habitat, (ii)
possible habituation of animals to the devices, (iii) operational
problems including poor maintenance of devices leading to ineffective
bycatch reduction, or devices not functioning. These problems
are acknowledged by cetacean bycatch experts globally who have
identified the need for observers to be a mandatory requirement
of any pinger programme. This is to ensure that pingers are being
deployed, and importantly, maintained properly, that they are
functioning and also to monitor their impact on small cetacean
populations. Experience has demonstrated that without an accompanying
monitoring programme it is unlikely that pinger use and impact
will be properly deployed or monitored. WWF does not accept the
mythical argument that it is usually impossible for small vessels
to take observers—there are examples of observer schemes
running on small vessels in a number of countries. Member States
cannot afford to get this wrong—onboard observers must be
a condition of any pinger deployment.
7.2. Pingers are not a long term solution
and while they will be deployed in the short term it is essential
that in parallel research and development of alternative gear
is undertaken by Member States. The regulation currently fails
to recommend the development of technical alternatives (other
than other acoustic devices) and WWF believe that the regulation
should place a duty placed upon Member States to finance the development
and implementation of alternatives in order to secure long term
solutions to the incidental capture of small cetacean in fishing
gear.
7.3. There must be close monitoring of those
fisheries subject to mandatory pinger use to ensure that fishing
effort is not redeployed to areas outside that identified in the
regulation. Any redeployment of effort could mean that the intended
benefits of mandatory pinger use—decreased bycatch—will
be undermined as fishing effort moves to areas where pinger use
is not mandatory.
7.4. WWF believe that it is vital that a
long term strategic framework is set in place that will allow
ongoing evaluation and monitoring of bycatch mitigation efforts
and developments. We do not agree with the Commission's assertion
that only when we have more information will a long term comprehensive
and reliable strategy for the conservation of these species be
possible.
7.5 A strategic framework will require that
unequivocal, quantifiable management objectives are defined, which
subsequently form the reference point for risk assessments. Objectives
should reflect the general aims identified by ASCOBANS—to
restore and/or maintain populations to 80% or more of the carrying
capacity (in a period of 50 years with a 95% certainty) and to
minimise (ie to ultimately reduce to zero) anthropogenic removals
and the intermediate precautionary objective agreed by ASCOBANS—to
reduce bycatches to less than 1% of the best available population
estimate.
7.6 Such a framework should be agreed and
endorsed as a matter of priority as this would provide a structure
within which to identify gaps in knowledge, where priorities for
monitoring or mitigation measures exist and also to evaluate the
practical implementation (and associated problems) of current
efforts. It would also be within such a framework that the reduction
of fishing effort could be reviewed with respect to its real impact
on bycatch reduction. The assumption that current effort reduction
will automatically reduce levels of bycatch needs to be investigated.
7.7 Enforcement of the proposed measures
will be critical. Experience in the Mediterranean has demonstrated
that many vessels do not adhere to the current driftnet ban (Regulation
1239/98). The result of this is that many cetaceans and other
non target species continue to be caught indiscriminately in driftnets
throughout the Mediterranean, potentially threatening certain
species. Member States and the Commission must address this critical
issue if the proposed measures are to stand a chance of achieving
the much needed reduction in cetacean bycatch.
7.8 The Commission needs to ensure that
the measures advocated apply not only to EU waters but also to
EU vessels in distant water fisheries as these remain largely
unmonitored and unregulated in relation to their impact on cetaceans
and other non target species.
8. Current bycatch mitigation is moving
very much in the direction of acoustic deterrents. While WWF recognises
that these devices can provide effective reduction in bycatch
of certain species in certain fisheries they do not provide a
long term option (see paras 5.1 and 5.3). In addition to existing
points the potential impact of the deployment of large numbers
of pingers into an already noisy marine environment must be assessed.
Where they are used in the short term they must be used properly
(see para 8.1) .
9. Key to developing alternatives to an
over reliance on pingers is the provision of adequate funding
to research alternative technology for the fisheries where problems
are identified. Real efforts must be made to explore the potential
for gear modifications, developing alternative gear and the use
of time or area closures needs to be explored further as part
of a long term mitigation strategy.
10. There is also the need to fund further
research into identifying the necessary information on the biology
and population structure of populations as these are also key
factors when assessing the impact of any human induced mortality
on populations.
11. Within the overall framework to address
bycatch the recommendations must be clear and achievable, and
have realistic timeframes within which to meet their targets.
Enforcement will be key to the success of any recommended measures,
and likely enforcement problems need to be considered by government.
There must be appropriate political will and financing made available
to implement and drive forward whatever measures are recommended.
12. While there are now moves via the proposed
EU regulation and the UK strategy to monitor fisheries to assess
levels of associated bycatch there should also be the requirement
for any new fishing ventures to undergo an environmental impact
assessment to identify the potential for unsustainable incidental
capture of not only cetaceans, but other non target marine wildlife.
13. It is clear that the socio-economic
aspects of fishery regulations will be important, such that financial
compensation and incentives for the affected fisheries can assist
effective implementation.
14. Importantly it is essential that effective
measures are introduced in order to reduce the current levels
of bycatch of small cetaceans in UK and other European fisheries.
12 September 2003
| 
