Examination of Witness (Questions 60-72)
MS HELEN
DAVIES AND
MR ANDREW
LEE
16 NOVEMBER 2004
Q60 Ms Atherton: Should the Assessments
be open to a certain degree of flexibility to accommodate the
different range and diversity of fishermen's operations, including
the pursuit of seasonal time-limited fishing operations?
Ms Davies: We have been supportive
of real-time closures, as they are called, based on real-time
data and there has been some difficulty in actually working out
within the Common Fisheries Policy how that might implemented.
As the industry has pointed out, there is a role for Regional
Advisory Councils in that. Sorry, I have lost the thread of what
I was saying.
Ms Atherton: It does not matter, I think
you have answered. I think we get the drift.
Q61 Chairman: Let us move on to the final
questions. You seem doubtful about individual transferable quotas
from an environmental point of view, why is that? Do you see a
better quota system being more effective from the environmental
point of view?
Mr Lee: I think the point for
us is that ITQs, as they are being proposed, are an economic measure
and they are about how you distribute the effort, not about the
amount of the effort, and I think that point has been made by
the industry already. The case is not yet proven on the environmental
side that it will necessarily deliver.
Q62 Chairman: You see it being effective
in reducing fleet size, surely a smaller fleet is a more environmentally
friendly fleet?
Mr Lee: Not necessarily, because
it is the number of boats and the amount of pressure, is it not?
ITQ's might be a good way of streamlining the way the industry
works from an economic point of view but, ultimately, it is the
level of fishing effort on the ecosystem, on the fisheries that
matters. I think it is an issue of public policy how much—and
we heard the debate today—you intervene in the market in
order to benefit coastal communities, for example, disproportionately.
WWF is in favour of people and nature wherever we work in the
world and certainly it applies to the fishing industry here. Basically,
we are in favour of public intervention to ensure that some of
that benefit remains with those communities. Regarding ITQs, I
think it is a political issue between the Government and industry
about how many jobs you want to keep in which areas and which
parts of the community. It is not a measure primarily for tackling
the biological problem of overfishing.
Chairman: I see what you are saying.
I was just a bit worried about it.
Q63 Mr Lazarowicz: You support strongly
the idea of the precautionary approach applying to fishing policy.
Very briefly, can you tell us what you think that means in practice
in terms of one or two headliner points?
Ms Davies: In terms of the precautionary
approach, certainly, I think we would like to see that applied
more to TACs and quotas, so that they are set more in line with
the scientific advice coming from ICES and that they set a precautionary
level of fishing or harvesting. Often that is seemingly ignored
when it comes to the December Fisheries Council. I think the important
point to make about the precautionary approach is that it is enshrined
in legislation and policy statements from internationally renowned
fora and also at a national level. It is really a central tenet
of the ecosystem based approach, where currently there is a large
gap in information about ecosystems; how stocks interact with
each other, predator/prey relationships and so on and so forth.
In areas of uncertainty we would advocate the judicious use, not
overuse, of the precautionary approach until we have more certainty
which should come from more data. Then we can be a bit more relaxed
and a bit more flexible.
Q64 Mr Lazarowicz: I am not sure what
that means in practice? Effectively, are you simply saying that
the ICES recommendations are given a high level of credibility
on decisions taken?
Ms Davies: At the moment a precautionary
level and a minimum level are set, so there are two levels of
fishing mortality and advice is given. Many of the stocks, well
over 75%, are below that precautionary level. The precautionary
approach is not really being implemented at the moment through
the decisions that are made at the December Council meeting. It
is not that they are being too widely used, they are not being
used widely enough. As I say, until we have more data and certainty
to be able to implement the ecosystem based approach, we would
advocate caution where, in many instances, we simply do not know
the impact of fishing and a prolonged over-exploitation of stocks.
In that context and in that climate we feel it would be extremely
unwise to proceed without any caution at all.
Q65 Mr Lazarowicz: You have a specific
recommendation that if fishing activities should cease, if spawning
stock biomass falls below a certain level, who should determine
the level and how would you enforce that level?
Ms Davies: At the moment, that
level is based on the catches and stock assessments from the previous
year by ICES, which is the international scientific fora, which
advises the European Commission. Obviously, that type of data
can be augmented by data supplied by the industry, but they do
set a precautionary level in order that the stocks can sustain
themselves and reproduce to sufficient levels that can sustain
fishing mortality in subsequent years. The precautionary approach
is built into that criteria.
Mr Lee: We feel that in practice
the answer is not to attack a precautionary principle as an excuse
for increasing fishing effort on over-fished stocks. There are
two things: one is to get more data so we can make clearer and
more precise decisions and the other one is to concentrate on
the job of fish stock recovery, which is why we have put together
the Invest in Fish Partnership in the South West of England with
the fishing industry and the producers to see how we can do this.
History speaks for itself, it says we have not taken enough precaution
never mind too much, otherwise, we would not have 75% of the stocks
over-exploited.
Q66 Chairman: Correct me if I am wrong.
Insofar as the initiative for this Strategy Unit report came from
everybody, it came from you in the sense that there was this suggestion
that to invest in fishing, we had to scale down the effort and
to help finance it from point A—which was bad—to point
B—where there was an improvement—should be regarded
as an investment. There is not much of that investment in the
Strategy Unit report, in fact there is a deliberate avoidance
of spending any Government money. Does this disappoint you? How
do you feel about it?
Mr Lee: I think that is a fair
point that. That is why Invest in Fish was put together, to look
at what the economic case is and what level of investment you
would need in transition to take the industry and the fish stocks
from where they are now to where they need to be. I think the
balance between the industry paying and the public purse paying
is a difficult one.
Q67 Chairman: Which they are not
Mr Lee: This is what we are being
told.
Q68 Chairman: Do you doubt that it cannot
pay?
Mr Lee: Yes. I would always question
any industry position that says: "We cannot afford it, you
should pay for it". That is healthy.
Q69 Chairman: Touché.
Mr Lee: But, there has to be some
public investment in transition if we want a viable fishing industry
as well as the fish stock recovery. We do, we want both and we
think that is an important part of what we should be able to achieve
here in the UK.
Q70 Mr Lazarowicz: What is your message
for the Fisheries Council meeting in December? We heard from the
industry earlier on. What would be your Christmas wish?
Ms Davies: I think I have talked
about and relied a lot on the advice from ICES. It is the best
information we have at the moment. It is not perfect, we recognise
that, and we would urge the industry to try and improve that and
input levels of data through whatever channels they can. Our message
would be to set the quotas in line with the scientific advice
and in line with the precautionary approach.
Q71 Chairman: Part of the argument from
the industry has been that in looking at the ICES recommendations,
the Commission has chosen the worst case scenario and that that
is outdated on the grounds that (a) it does not give account of
decommissioning and (b) it does not take into account the improvements
in the stocks since the figures were first collected in 2003,
I think. Do you see any case for increasing the quotas?
Ms Davies: With some stocks there
is some room for manoeuvre and they are at less of a risk than
others, but the vast majority of stocks are well below precautionary
levels, the levels at which they can sustain themselves. We can
argue about whether you base it on 2002 or 2003, year on year
the quotas are set way above the scientific advice that is given.
For instance, in the plaice fishery in the North Sea, which we
have just been discussing, within the North Sea RAC, the industry
is advocating a 15% reduction in effort. The ICES advice recommends
a 55% reduction in effort, so you can see that there is quite
a mismatch there.
Q72 Chairman: What about cod?
Ms Davies: We have not got around
to discussing cod within the RAC as yet. I think there is a very
strong message from ICES that there should be a zero quota for
cod. I think we would support that insofar as we would recommend
that there is no directed cod fishery, in other words, boats do
not go out and specifically target cod.
There may be some compromise to allow some of
the boats to carry on fishing in a mixed fishery where they are
allocated a quota where cod is caught as a by-catch, for instance,
but it would be wrong to assume that juvenile cod is not caught
within the by-catch of the fisheries and that issue has to be
addressed and, where possible, fleets should be going out and
targeting the areas where there are not aggregations of cod. There
might be aggregations of other species. I think recovery plans
is the final point that I would urge the Commission to implement.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
That is a beautiful piece of timing, we are very impressed. Thank
you.
| 
