10 Incidental catches of dolphins and
porpoises
| (24788)
11838/03
COM(03) 451
| Draft Council Regulation laying down measures concerning incidental catches of cetaceans in fisheries and amending Regulation (EC) No.88/98
|
| Legal base | Article 37EC; consultation; QMV
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | SEM of 12 March 2004
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 63-xxxiii (2002-03), para 6 (15 October 2003)
|
| To be discussed in Council | 22-23 March 2004
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
10.1 Small cetaceans (dolphins and harbour porpoises) are a protected
species under the Community's Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC),[27]
which requires Member States to undertake surveillance of their
conservation status, and to monitor their incidental capture during
fishing. The Council has already adopted measures to limit the
use of drift nets, which have been found to be a particular problem,
but, in the light of further scientific advice, the Commission
has concluded that the measures taken so far are insufficient,
and that, in addition to an overall reduction in fishing effort,
further specific measures are also needed.
10.2 It therefore set out in July 2003 in the current
document three main areas of action:
- the extension to the Baltic
Sea of the current restrictions on the use of drift nets;
- the mandatory use, in all those fisheries which
could produce a significant cetacean by-catch, of acoustic deterrent
devices ("pingers"), which the Commission says have
reduced such by-catches from gill-net fisheries: the Commission
considers that this approach is particularly valid for those fisheries
using bottom-set gill-nets in areas where harbour porpoises are
found — in particular, the North Sea, English Channel, and
the Celtic shelf — and that, given also the significant
contribution which small vessels with such nets make in those
areas, pingers should be deployed on all vessels, independently
of their size or the total length of nets used; and
- in order to acquire greater knowledge of the
problem, the setting up by Member States of on-board observer
schemes, covering 5 to 10% of total effort, to monitor the situation
in a number of "high-risk" fisheries where pelagic trawls
or gill-nets are used, including those adjacent to the UK in the
North Sea, west of Scotland, English Channel and western approaches.
10.3 As we noted in our Report of 15 October 2003,
the Government has been concerned for some time about the number
of small cetaceans injured and killed in fishing nets, and had
therefore welcomed these proposals, which were broadly in line
with the UK's own thinking. However, it had also pointed out
that the compulsory use of pingers in the gill-net fisheries would
have an impact on UK vessels, and that some aspects of the proposals,
such as the use of these devices in parts of the Channel, went
beyond the strategy adopted by the UK, and would thus need careful
consideration. A further consideration was that enforcement measures,
including the use of on-board observers, would be likely to add
to the Government's costs, though the likely increase had yet
to be calculated.
10.4 Since the Government had said that a full Regulatory
Impact Assessment would be prepared in November 2003, based on
responses to its consultation exercise, we decided to await that
Assessment and the outcome of those consultations before producing
a definitive Report on this proposal. In the meantime, we said
that we would welcome the Government's comments on suggestions
from within the industry that pair trawling is the major source
of the problem in those areas where acoustic devices would have
to be fitted to gill-nets.
Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 12 March
2004
10.5 The Government has now provided the promised
Regulatory Impact Assessment under cover of a supplementary Explanatory
Memorandum of 12 March 2004 from the Minister for Nature Conservation
and Fisheries at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (Mr Ben Bradshaw). The Assessment says that in 2000 about
180 UK vessels over 10 metres were involved in gill-netting in
the North Sea, Channel and Celtic Sea, and about 1500 vessels
under 10 metres, but that the numbers have declined since then.
It recognises that those vessels would bear part of the economic
burden of the proposals, which it says might amount to around
£4,000 for each vessel over 10 metres (and approximately
£750 for those below 10 metres), thus giving rise to an overall
cost of between £1.5 and 1.8 million. However, it also points
out that much of these costs would in any case have been incurred
under the UK's own strategy for addressing cetacean by-catches,
and can be partially offset by existing funding mechanisms, such
as those available under the Community's Financial Instrument
for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG).
10.6 As regards their practical impact, the Assessment
says that, although the proposals are broadly similar to the measures
proposed under the UK's strategy, they are more general in scope,
and less targeted, due in part to the degree of uncertainty over
the by-catch estimates in certain areas. However, it says that
the UK does not believe that the mandatory use of pingers would
currently be justified in the eastern English Channel (ICES Area
VIId), in that, although there have been harbour porpoise populations
there in the past, this is no longer thought to be the case, and
by-catch levels are now understood to be negligible. The Assessment
also points out that the scientific report underlying the Commission's
proposal recommends the use of pingers within the known
range of harbour porpoises, and recognises that further research
is needed at the eastern limit of the English Channel. Furthermore,
it suggests that the protection which the proposal would afford
in the western Channel (ICES Area VIIe) could help the recovery
of the harbour porpoise populations in Area VIId, and that the
use of pingers in the latter area could be reviewed at that stage,
and the general efficacy of pinger usage reassessed. In the meantime,
were the eastern Channel to be excluded, the cost of the measures
proposed would fall from £1.5-1.8 million to £1.4-1.5
million.
10.7 The Assessment also addresses the point we had
raised about the relative threat to cetaceans posed by gill-net
and pelagic fisheries. It says that those fisheries which the
proposal would require to use pingers are those known to have
unsustainable levels of cetacean by-catch, and that it would not
be justified at this stage to target other fisheries, such as
the pelagic fishery for sea bass, where by-catch data are limited.
It adds that this shortfall in data will be addressed by the
wider observer coverage proposed by the Commission, and that this
will provide the basis for further research into the effect of
pingers in the pelagic fisheries (where, in contrast to the position
on set net fisheries, information is currently limited).
10.8 The material provided by the Minister also indicates
that a more flexible approach seems likely on the Commission's
proposal on monitoring, with Member States being allowed to devise
their own strategy within defined levels, instead of being obliged
to achieve a set percentage coverage of fishing effort. Such
a change would reduce the cost of the proposal to the Government
to between £300,000 and £500,000.
Conclusion
10.9 We are grateful to the Minister for this
further information. As we noted in our earlier Report, measures
to protect dolphins and porpoises are clearly desirable in principle,
the main concern being that these should be properly targeted
and proportionate. We are satisfied from the Minister's explanation
that, subject to the need to reconsider their application in the
eastern Channel, the Commission's proposals meet that test, and
we also note that, in the other areas concerned, they are consistent
with the approach which the UK itself intends to adopt. We therefore
see merit in a Community measure, which would ensure that similar
restrictions are imposed on the comparable fisheries conducted
by other Member States.
10.10 In the light of these various considerations,
we are now clearing the proposal.
27 OJ No. L 206, 22.7.92, p.7. Back
|
