Memorandum submitted by the International
Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) (C14)
INTRODUCTION
1. The International Fund for Animal Welfare
(IFAW) is grateful for the opportunity to submit evidence to the
recently established EFRA sub-committee on cetacean bycatch. We
welcome the establishment of this sub-committee to fully assess
the devastating effects that the accidental entanglement of cetaceans
in fishing nets is having on both the populations of small cetaceans
in UK and EU waters and the welfare threats facing small cetaceans
as a consequence of this.
2. We would note that Article 12 of Council
Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and
of wild fauna and flora (Habitats and Species Directive) outlines
specific requirements for Member States to ". . . establish
a system to monitor the incidental capture and killing of the
animal species listed in Annex IV (a). In light of the information
gathered Member States shall 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."
Annex IV includes all cetacean species, however, there are
currently no mechanisms in place to monitor the incidental capture
of cetaceans in nets effectively.
3. Furthermore, we would stress that The
World Conservation Union (IUCN) classifies the harbour porpoise
as "vulnerable species" (VU A1cd), hence facing "a
high risk of extinction" in the medium-term future.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
4. Each year thousands of small cetaceans
are accidentally caught and killed in EU fisheries. Scientific
studies, often supported by European Commission funding, have
identified this incidental capture, or bycatch, as probably the
most acute threat facing cetaceans in European waters.
5. IFAW will primarily highlight here the
serious animal welfare and conservation concerns related to cetacean
bycatch and in particular on populations of harbour porpoises
in the Celtic Shelf, the North Sea and the Baltic Sea. However,
we also raise to your attention that there are very significant
concerns about the levels of bycatch of common dolphins (and other
species) in pelagic trawls in the Celtic Sea, Biscay and Channel
area; the evidence indicates that immediate action is required
for the compulsory deployment of observers within the fishery.
6. The research referred to in this document
highlights the unacceptably high level of bycatch, which are occurring
in EU waters, including around the UK. The impact that this is
having on populations of harbour porpoises (and other small cetaceans)
is a major concern, and, as yet, the Government has done little
to combat the problem of cetacean bycatch within the UK.
7. In terms of the likely effectiveness
of the UK Bycatch Response Strategy, IFAW welcomes it as an important
preliminary step. However, this IFAW document outlines some of
the concerns that we have in relation to the implementation of
the Strategy. It furthermore suggests future steps that should
be taken by the UK Government and European Commission to better
address the problem of bycatch.
8. Of particular concern is what we believe
to be an over-reliance on the use of acoustic deterrent devices
(or pingers) as an effective mechanism to reduce cetacean bycatch.
We would stress that whilst we understand the potential short-term
benefits of pinger deployment in certain circumstances, they should
not be relied upon as a long-term strategy to mitigate cetacean
bycatch. Ultimately, adequate research into effective, long-term
mitigation measures and alternative fishing practices needs to
be funded at both UK Government and Community level. There is
also a need for monitoring schemes, where observers not only monitor
the level of bycatch but also evaluate the deployment, efficacy
and potential negative impacts of pinger use.
RESEARCH ON
BYCATCH
9. Harbour porpoises are generally believed
to feed mainly near the seabed and so are particularly prone to
being caught in bottom-set nets including various types of gill
nets and tangle nets that are anchored on the bottom. These nets
are used to catch fish such as hake, cod, sole and turbot. High
bycatch rates have been recorded throughout the harbour porpoises'
European range in these types of fishing gears.
10. To date, one of the worst fisheries
identified is the bottom-set gill net fishery for hake on the
Celtic Shelf. Observations from UK and Irish vessels between August
1992 and March 1994 estimated bycatch of some 2,200 harbour porpoises
per year (the true figure is likely higher as some animals may
drop out of the nets undetected and several sections of the fishing
fleet, such as vessels under 15m in length, were not included
in the study) (Tregenza et al, 1997). This figure represents
over 6% of the estimated population raising serious concerns about
the ability of the population to sustain such levels. To date,
no active measures have been taken by Government to reduce porpoise
bycatch in this area. Moreover, there are significant gillnet
fisheries operations which have never been sampled, and for which
there are no estimates of small cetacean bycatch.
11. In the North Sea the Danish bottom-set
gill net fleet, the largest in the European Community, fishes
mainly for cod, sole, plaice and turbot. Observer monitoring during
the early 1990s enabled researchers to estimate the total number
of porpoises caught in the various Danish North Sea gill net fisheries.
These peaked at 7,366 animals in 1994, which represents 4.3% of
the estimated local population. Between 1987 and 2001 the average
annual bycatch rate was estimated at 5,591 porpoises (Vinther
and Larsen, 2002) or 3.3% of the population estimate from the
SCANS survey in 1994 (Hammond et al, 2002) These bycatch
estimates did not take into account the use of acoustic alarms
which became mandatory in the Danish cod wreck-net fishery in
August 2000. Nevertheless, there are concerns about the ability
of the population to sustain such levels of mortality.
12. UK vessels also use bottom-set gill
and tangle nets in the central North Sea. These are estimated
to catch 1,000 porpoises per year (Northridge and Hammond, 1999)
exacerbating an already critical problem. While the UK Government
has acknowledged that bycatch levels due to the UK fleet in the
North Sea are too high, it has not yet taken any practical measures
to reduce these levels.
13. The harbour porpoise population in the
Baltic Sea is believed to have declined dramatically in recent
years, leading to concern about the species status there (ASCOBANS
1997; 2000; Berggren and Arrhenius, 1995a & b): a 1995 survey
estimated as few as 599 animals (Hiby and Lovell, 1996). Surveys
by IFAW's research vessel Song of the Whale in previously
unresearched Polish waters in 2001 resulted in only one acoustic
and one visual porpoise detection from over 2,000km of track surveyed.
In 2002, larger scale surveys by IFAW and others led to the conclusion
that the Baltic population is in a critical state and may become
extinct within 20 years unless immediate action is taken to prevent
bycatch. The current minimum estimated number of porpoises bycaught
in the Baltic "proper" each year is seven. This is more
than three times higher than the estimated level that such a small
population can withstand. (Berggren et al, 2002).
14. Baltic harbour porpoises continue to
be caught, particularly in cod gill net and salmon drift net fisheries.
The Baltic is currently exempt from the EU drift net ban and from
the length restriction of 2.5km that applies to other salmon nets
in the EU. Boats are allowed to use up to 21km of netting in the
Baltic. It is fundamental that the proposed Commission Regulation
on restricting the length of drift nets in the Baltic and subsequent
implementation of a ban on drift nets within this area from January
2007 should be strongly endorsed by the UK Government, particularly
as the UK Government were instrumental in the introduction of
the EU ban at the time of its EU Presidency.
Please see Appendix I, which details the levels of
harbour porpoise bycatch as recorded in EU fisheries.
The likely effectiveness of the Government's UK
small cetacean bycatch response strategy, and further steps to
be taken by the Government and the European Union to address the
problem
15. The UK Bycatch Response Strategy produced
by the UK Government formally acknowledged the significance of
fisheries bycatch as a major threat to the conservation of small
cetaceans and the need for urgent mitigation action. It also set
out the need for improved monitoring and for increased research
effort. Given the urgency of the problems to be addressed we are
strongly of the view that there should be no delay in adopting
and implementing a Bycatch Response Strategy and that the specified
timeline of three years should be reduced to allow for immediate
action.
16. IFAW welcomed the document produced
by the UK Government, but did not consider that the proposed targets
and objectives identified by the UK Government adequately reflected
the need for effective precautions as identified by ASCOBANS.
As well as defining the "unacceptable interaction" as
above 1.7% of the relevant abundance estimate, the third Meeting
of the Parties to ASCOBANS, including the UK agreed a precautionary
objective to reduce bycatches to less than 1% to allow for uncertainty.
This should be acknowledged, along with the general aim agreed
by ASCOBANS at the Second Meeting of the Parties to minimise (ie
to ultimately reduce to zero) bycatch removals.
17. Given the extremely wide confidence
limits of the available population estimates, the fact that they
are very dated, the lack of knowledge of the population structures
and geographical limits and the incompleteness of bycatch level
estimates, we consider that the precautionary objective to reduce
bycatches to less than 1% of abundance must be the minimum basis
for the targets identified in this Strategy.
18. The UK Strategy acknowledges that the
most effective method of bycatch reduction is the closure of the
offending fishery with no displacement of fishing effort elsewhere.
The document also refers to the provisions in Article 7 of Regulation
(EC) 2371/2002, basic text of the CFP Reform, 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 and requiring immediate
action . . .". We consider it essential that provisions
are made within the UK Strategy for the emergency restriction
or closure of fisheries in circumstances, for instance, where
critical new problems are identified or bycatch reduction targets
are not met, until effective alternative mitigation measures or
fishing methods can be implemented.
19. We were also concerned that the Regional
Advisory Councils (RACs), as presently conceived, are inadequate
to evaluate problem fisheries for bycatch or to develop suitable
responses.
20. We consider that the proposed mitigation
measures set out in Section 4 of the UK Strategy represented an
over-reliance on the use of pingers to address the harbour porpoise
bycatch problems in the Celtic Sea and North Sea. As the document
acknowledged, there remains to be serious concerns about the use
of pingers relating to:
(a)
their unpopularity with fishermen as a result of
cost, maintenance requirements and practicalities of use that
call into question their potential to be deployed and enforced
effectively;
(b)
their efficacy in commercial use and in the longer-term.
Experience in the Gulf of Maine gillnet fishery was that efficacy
dropped quite rapidly over a two year period although it is not
known whether this was a result of the pingers not functioning
or the porpoises habituating to them (Read, 2000);
(c)
their potential, when used intensively or over wide
areas, to exclude porpoises, and possibly other species, from
favoured or even critical habitats, with negative consequences
for their conservation status.
21. While we acknowledge the potential for
effective pinger deployment to dramatically reduce harbour porpoise
bycatches in gillnets under certain circumstances, we do not believe
that they should be considered or presented as a long-term solution.
Much greater emphasis should be placed on research and development
of alternative mitigation measures and more selective fishing
methods in both the UK and at Community level. Specifically, we
would like to see alternative fishing practices in place once
the ban on drift nets is in force.
22. Where pinger use is specified, we suggest
that far greater attention should be given to monitoring their
deployment, efficacy and potential negative impacts. In particular,
we do not view the proposed voluntary arrangements with fisheries
obliged to use pingers to take observers onboard as adequate.
We consider that monitoring should be compulsory wherever pingers
are in use. In addition, programmes of research to identify any
potential problems with habitat exclusion should not be limited
to coastal areas but should be undertaken in all areas where there
is widespread pinger use.
For further information, please see Appendix II [not
printed], "Acoustic alarms (pingers)—a review of
application and uncertainties relating to reducing the incidental
capture of porpoises in fisheries". This study provides
a comprehensive review of the efficacy of pinger use, research
undertaken and expert (international) opinion on their use.
23. With regard to incentives outlined in
the UK Strategy, we suggest that any financial incentives to fishermen
under the FIFG be focused on long-term solutions to bycatch, such
as changes in fishing methods and practices to protect small cetaceans.
In addition, we suggest that if these funds are not being taken
up at present, then perhaps they are not acting as incentives,
and need to be reconsidered and improved to encourage further
applications.
24. We note that the aim of the Strategy
is to work towards reducing bycatch to below the target
level, and where practicable to also work towards
reduction to the lowest possible level. However, we consider that
the Strategy should set firm targets and timeframes and identify
a clear and uncompromising course of action to be taken if the
targets are not met by the measures specified.
25. The Strategy proposes that in the Celtic
Sea pinger use should only be a legal requirement for UK fishing
vessels using bottom set gillnets beyond the 6 mile limit. This
appears to be an arbitrary geographic limitation that will leave
a great many gill nets in use and liable to catch harbour porpoises
and other inshore species such as bottlenose dolphins in these
waters. We would draw attention to the Strategy's stated aim to
"where practicable . . . work towards the reduction of
bycatch to the lowest possible level". We do not believe
that allowing high levels of bottom set gillnetting effort to
continue unmonitored and unrestricted in inshore waters in this
area of known high porpoise bycatch is consistent with this stated
aim.
26. The UK Strategy stated that it would
assist in meeting targets to maintain the range and abundance
of small cetacean species in UK waters. We are concerned that
it 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. We cannot accept the assertion that bycatch
of harbour porpoises in the English Channel is "negligible".
Although bycatch rates may be very low, the impact may be significant.
In a population as small as that found in the Channel, any bycatch
is likely to have a significant effect.
27. We note that contrary to many recommendations
and the experience from other countries such as the USA, the UK
document presented only a single set of management, research and
monitoring recommendations but failed to make provisions for a
framework or process that would enable the continuous monitoring,
evaluation and adjustment that is likely to be required to achieve
effective bycatch reduction. The document stated that a formal
review of the effectiveness of the measures 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 dynamic process has to be established for proper
evaluation and timely adjustment of bycatch response and mitigation
is to occur.
28. Summary of recommendations:
— Recommendation One: That there should
delay in adopting the bycatch response strategy, and that the
timeline of three years should be reduced.
— Recommendation Two: That the precautionary
objective to reduce bycatch to less than 1% should be acknowledged.
— Recommendation Three: That the UK
Government should facilitate research and development into alternative
mitigation measures (other than pingers) and into more selective
fishing methods.
— Recommendation Four: That compulsory
observer schemes should be in place wherever pingers are in use.
— Recommendation Five: That incentives
should be focussed on long term solutions to bycatch, as outlined
in Recommendation Three.
— Recommendation Six: That there should
be a review of the six mile limit on pinger use for bottom set
gill nets in the Celtic Sea.
— Recommendation Seven: That the levels
of bycatch in the English Channel, although low, should still
be addressed.
REFERENCES
ASCOBANS 2000. Report of the seventh meeting of the
Advisory Committee to ASCOBANS.
ASCOBANS 1997. Report of the second meeting of the
parties to ASCOBANS, Bonn, Germany 17-19 Nov.
Berggren, P and Arrhenius, F 1995a. Sightings of
harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in Swedish waters
before 1990. Rep. int. Whal Commn (Special Issue 16): 99-108.
Berggren, P and Arrhenius, F 1995b. Densities and
seasonal distribution of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena)
in the Swedish Skagerrak, Kattegat and Baltic Seas. Rep. int.
Whal. Commn. (Special Issue) 160: 109-122.
Berggren, P, Wade, P, Carlstrom, J and Read, A 2002.
Potential limits to anthropogenic mortality for harbour porpoises
in the Baltic region. Biological Conservation 103:311-322.
Hammond, P S, Berggren, P, Benke, H, Borchers, D
L, Collet, A, Heide-J'rgensen, M P, Heimlich, S, Hiby, A R, Leopold,
M F and 'ien, N (2002). Abundance of harbour porpoises and other
cetaceans in the North Sea and adjacent waters. Journal of
Applied Ecology 39: 361-376.
Hiby, L and Lovell, P 1996. 1995 Baltic/North Sea
Aerial surveys—Final report 11 pages and Appendix (unpublished).
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 presented to
Scientific Committee of International Whaling Commission, Grenada,
1999.
Read, A J 2000. Potential mitigation measures for
reducing the bycatches of small cetaceans in ASCOBANS waters.
Report to ASCOBANS. 34 pp.
Tregenza, N J C, Berrow, S D, Hammond, P S and Leaper,
R 1997. Harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena bycatch in set
gillnets in the Celtic Sea. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 54:896-904.
Vinther, M and Larsen, F 2002. Updated estimates
of harbour porpoise bycatch in the Danish bottom set gillnet fishery.
Paper SC/54/SM31 presented to the Scientific Committee of the
International Whaling Commission, Shimonoseki, May 2002. 10pp.
18 September 2003
APPENDIX I
HARBOUR PORPOISE BYCATCH RECORDED IN EU FISHERIES
| Fishery |
Fleet studied
|
Target Sp |
Other fleets in fishery
| Year of bycatch study |
Problem identified
|
Mitigation |
| Celtic Shelf Gill and Tangle net | UK and Irish vessels
| Primarily Hake | Spanish |
1992-94 | 2,200 harbour porpoises estimated caught annually representing >6% of population
| Pingers trialled in 1998, pingers malfunctioned, trials halted. Further trials conducted 1999-2000—93% bycatch reduction reported. No current mitigation measures
|
| Central North Sea | Danish vessels
| Cod, turbot, variety
of other species |
| 1994-98 | 6,785 harbour porpoises estimated bycaught annually, representing approx 4% of population
| Pingers trialled, compulsory use introduced seasonally in wreck fishery. Echo enhanced nets trialled—reduction in bycatch and fishing efficacy reported. Awaiting official conclusion of overall bycatch mitigation
|
| North Sea | UK vessels | Variety
of species
| Danish Belgian German Dutch | 1995-97
| 1,000 harbour porpoises estimated bycaught each year, likely impacting on same population as Danish and other vessels
| None |
| Western Isles of Scotland | UK vessels
| Dogfish and others | | 1995-97
| 750 harbour porpoises estimated caught each year in fishery.
| None |
| Dutch Gillnet Fishery | N/A |
Variety
of species | | None
| No study of impact although some bycatch likely. Voluntary reporting scheme.
| None. Apparent view—no need to react to lack of demonstrable problem.
|
| Swedish part of Skagerrak & Kattegat. |
Swedish vessels | Cod and Pollock
| Danish Norwegian | 1995-97 |
Approximately 114 and 50 porpoises in respective areas each year. Former figure represents over 2% of population
| Pingers trialled in 1997—no conclusive reduction in bycatch demonstrated. No further reduction measures implemented
|
| Swedish Baltic Drift and Set Net Fisheries |
N/A | Cod and Salmon | Number of other fleets
| 1995 | 3-5 porpoises reported annually through voluntary scheme. Unsustainable.
| No mitigation trialled to date |
| Kiel and Mecklenburg Bights set nets | German vessels
| Cod and Flatfish | | 1995-96
| Voluntary scheme reported 6 porpoises bycaught in 1996. Likely unsustainable.
| None. Apparent view—no need to react to lack of demonstrable problem.
|
| |
| | |
| |
N.B. The Scientific Committee of the International Whaling
Commission agreed that porpoise populations are unlikely to be
capable of sustaining levels of anthropogenic removal (bycatch
being only one form of this) above 1% of a given population. Where
the population concerned is heavily depleted or is under threat
from other sources, bycatches of much lower levels can have a
debilitating effect.
The above table represents the information gathered, and action
taken to date with respect to those EU fisheries which have been
investigated for porpoise bycatch. In many instances the figures
may underestimate the levels of overall bycatch in these areas.
The true number of porpoises killed today can only be verified
by an independent observer programme in the same fishery.
There have been no attempts made to mitigate the problem of bycatch
in the majority of fisheries where it has been found. Importantly,
many more fisheries remain unobserved. Worldwide, where gillnets
and porpoises exist in the same area of water, porpoises are known
to be caught and killed.
Immediate measures must be taken to reduce the levels of porpoise
bycatch in fisheries where a problem has been identified, and
comprehensive information must be obtained on bycatch levels from
other fisheries.
18 September 2003
| 
