Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers' Organisation (ANIFPO) (W22a)
"FISHERIES SCIENCE—BREAKING THE
ICE"
A REPORT ON THE ANIFPO WORKSHOP HELD IN KILKEEL
ON FRIDAY, 5 SEPTEMBER 2003
Decisions taken over many years and culminating
in the well documented decisions made at last December's EU Fisheries
Council have contributed to relations between fishermen and fisheries
scientists being at an all time low. This is certainly the case
in the Irish Sea and in particular Northern Ireland, where scientific
staff were invited to leave the ports in February as a protest
against deep quota reductions, despite four years of sea area
closures all in the name of "rebuilding" the Cod stock.
Earlier this year, in an attempt to move the
situation forward the Northern Ireland based Anglo-North Irish
FPO hired the independent Icelandic fisheries scientist Jon Kristjansson
and asked him to review the main commercial fish stocks in the
Irish Sea, in particular Cod and Haddock.
At the beginning of the summer Mr Kristjansson
spent a few weeks interviewing and working alongside fishermen
from around the Irish Sea and from his base in Kilkeel he examined
the orthodox science, as prescribed by ICES. In order to achieve
a balanced view he also spoke with officials and fisheries scientists
from the Government's Fisheries Division in Belfast. From the
outset the remit he was given by ANIFPO was to tell the truth
as he seen it. ANIFPO's directors recognised the risk in this.
He could either agree with the pessimistic opinion of ICES or
come up with a radically different opinion. Either way, ANIFPO
considered they had no choice. There was no alternative.
The first phase of the project culminated on
Friday, 5 September 2003 when Jon Kristjansson was joined at a
workshop in Kilkeel organised by ANIFPO by Dr Rick Officer from
Ireland's Marine Institute, Sigurjon Thordarson, a Member of the
Icelandic Parliament and Mr Jorgen Niclasen, a Member of the Faeroese
Parliament and the Faeroe's former Fisheries Minister.
Preparation for the workshop proved to be very
interesting in itself. Originally Dr Mike Armstrong from DARD
Aquatic Sciences in Belfast, the UK fisheries scientist who is
most often quoted with regard to Irish Sea demersal fish stocks,
had been invited to present the orthodox ICES opinion, but he
politely refused, sighting previous adverse experience with local
fishermen as the main reason for his absence. Amongst the fishermen
this has obviously further undermined the credibility of the Northern
Irish based fisheries scientists as they now appear to lack even
the confidence in their own advice to present it at the workshop
in their own back yard.
However, ANIFPO were relieved and honoured when
Dr Rick Officer from the Marine Institute in the Republic of Ireland
accepted their invitation to make the orthodox presentation.
Prior to the workshop several participants were
approached by the "ICES Mafia", as one fishermen's representative
described them, and attempts were made to dissuade them from taking
part in or attending the event. This tied in with attempts to
discredit and undermine Mr Kristjansson's reputation long before
the Kilkeel workshop and indeed in the run up to the event telephone
calls were even received by fishermen's representatives from known
individuals attempting to pour scorn upon Mr Kristjansson.
Given their previous calls to industry for a
credible alternative to the orthodox science invitations to the
workshop were sent to the UK's Fisheries Minister Ben Bradshaw
MP, Scotland's Minister Ross Finnie MSP, Northern Ireland Minister
Ian Pearson MP and the Republic of Ireland's Minister Dermot Ahern
TD. Unfortunately, all of the Ministers proved to be too busy
to make it to Kilkeel and while a number of officials and fisheries
scientists from Belfast and Dublin made it, one representative
from Defra was England and Scotland's official contribution to
the workshop. Consequently the question being asked by many attending
the workshop was; are the Fisheries Ministers genuinely interested
in hearing any alternative to the ICES advice?
Thankfully, the "ICES Mafia" did not
get it all their way and as already mentioned the Fisheries Departments
in Belfast and Dublin were well represented in Kilkeel, as were
local politicians including Iris Robinson MP. Industry representatives
included Barrie Deas, NFFO, Alex Smith, SFF, Jim Portus, SWFPO,
Tom Watson, Fleetwood FPO and Mark Dougal, NESFO from the UK,
as well as Lorcan O'Cinneide, Irish FPO and Mick Walsh, Irish
South & East Fishermen's Organisation from Ireland. A number
of fishermen from around the Irish Sea took time off to attend
the meeting and the Sea Fish Industry Authority was also represented,
as were fish processors in the shape of Northern Ireland Seafood.
In all, over fifty participants attended the workshop, which was
chaired by Dr Stephen Lockwood.
AN ICELANDIC
PERSPECTIVE
Dr Lockwood opened proceedings shortly after
11am and the Icelandic MP Sigurjon Thordarson gave the first presentation.
Mr Thordarson voiced his concerns that the Icelandic fisheries
management system was being held up within the EU as an example
of best practice, and proceeded to explain that from his perspective
this was certainly not the case. He warned against developing
a system as existed in Iceland where ITQs reign. This he claimed
had ruined many coastal fishing communities.
He pointed out that prior to the introduction
of national and ICES inspired fisheries management in Iceland,
the total catch by the Icelandic fleet had been 400,000 Tonnes
per annum. Since the introduction of fisheries management based
on ICES criteria this had fallen to 200,000 Tonnes per annum.
Mr Thordarson said that he had been surprised
by the extremely negative view of the EU and the CFP he had heard
from British and Irish fishermen during his trip. Consequently
it was clear to him that Iceland should not join the EU until
there was a change of course in the EU's fisheries policy and
national control of fisheries was restored.
THE ORTHODOX
VIEW
While not representing ICES, Dr Rick Officer,
an Australian national working for Ireland' Marine Institute,
with possibly the hardest task of the day gave a sterling presentation
on the ICES system and the orthodox view of the situation facing
the Cod stock in the Irish Sea, which ICES claims to be under
similar pressure to most Cod stocks in the north-east Atlantic.
He noted at the outset that none of the speakers, including himself
were from the EU and hoped this would encourage a fresh approach
to the subject.
So far as Irish Sea Cod was concerned, the latest
ICES advice up to 2005 predicted that landings would increase,
but then fall back. He explained there had been a change in the
recruitment regime during the past decade, with generally lower
recruitment feeding through to lower spawning stocks. While slightly
better recruitment to the Cod stock had been witnessed in the
last few years, assumptions based on of recent low recruitments,
combined with the high mortality level, led ICES to conclude that
the SSB would decline by 2005. However, Dr Officer also admitted
to a time lag in the ICES system, stating that if more recruits
were allowed to come into the system because of spawning closures,
this would not be realised for some time in the size of the spawning
stock.
He went onto describe fishing mortality as a
"misnomer", pointing out that ICES assumed the same
level of natural mortality (20%) for all stocks. While ICES had
calculated figures on fishing mortality taking into consideration
the effect of technical conservation measures and recent decommissioning
schemes, he was forbidden to discuss these until they had been
reviewed by ACFM.
Dr Officer explained some of the problems with
the ICES system. While pointing out that the failure to adopt
ICES advice on a regular basis had led to even worse advice, he
said that the orthodox science described, "WHAT we are seeing
and not HOW it came about." He pointed out that what fisheries
scientists wanted was to advise on how to increase fishing yields
and not decrease them. He said that ICES had a huge workload,
but a limited brief and that he would prefer to see "industry
scientists" involved in the process, as was the case outside
the EU. This would help change the industry perception of decisions
being made "behind closed doors".
The role of ACFM was highlighted and Dr Officer
posed the question if others from outside ICES/ACFM should not
be contributing to defining the group's objectives and criteria,
which were based solely on science, with precautionary levels
set in tight time frames. STECF was the first point in the annual
cycle where economics were taken into consideration, but here
over 300 stocks had to be examined in a week. This led to a situation
where the European Commission was the only body proposing management
plans in the shape of TAC proposals that were discussed at the
December fisheries Council, where success was measured "by
reductions in proposed TAC cuts."
In describing the annual cycle that leads to
decisions on TACs and quota allocations, he confirmed that data
collection (port collection, surveys, logbook returns) was the
foundation of stock assessment, but because the ICES agenda was
now so prominent in the agenda of national marine institutes this
had relegated some national needs, including how to involve industry
in the process. He explained that in the Republic of Ireland the
Marine Institute shared port facilities with the fishing industry,
had staff based in each port and arranged collaborative projects
with the industry and surveys on board commercial fishing vessels.
On this latter point he expressed some concern that with the delivery
of Ireland's new research vessel "Celtic Explorer",
that the commercial work could take second place and therefore
it was important that fishermen were involved in the design of
all the research vessel's surveys. The danger was that "the
orthodox science could go off the rails without industry involvement."
Overall from his perspective Dr Officer described
a system, which had "a limited suite of outputs in a very
descriptive way", with little input from the stakeholders.
The question was how we could move forward? We could "Kill
the Science" by employing alternative science, "Kill
the System" by withdrawing from the CFP, or "Change
the System".
In summing up Dr Officer explained that ICES
understood that change was needed. Lessons had to be learned from
successful management regimes elsewhere. There needed to be stakeholder
involvement and stakeholder commitment to the outcome. There had
to be a sound scientific foundation, while the criteria and objectives
of the science had to be evaluated. He acknowledged the weaknesses
in the ICES assessments and said that no fisheries scientist could
deny these weaknesses. The big question was how these weaknesses
impacted upon the interpretation of stock assessments. A proper
FISHERIES management system had to be adopted and based on sea
areas that were not too big. He suggested that the proposed Regional
Advisory Councils offered an opportunity to take these proposals
forward.
THE ALTERNATIVE
OPINION
The independent Icelandic Marine Scientist Jon
Kristjansson started by saying that what he aimed to do was challenge
the conventional, mathematical approach to management with a more
biological approach. He suggested that for decades over fishing
had been used as an excuse to introduce firstly fisheries limits
and then so called fisheries management. He presented graphs that
showed the catch of North Atlantic Cod since the beginning of
the 20th Century. Some 20 years after the ICES inspired fisheries
management had been introduced the catch was now 64% of the pre-management
figures, despite initial promises of more fish in the future.
The Faeroese Cod fishery was given as an example where a forced
closure (the Second World War) had not resulted in increased Cod
fishing opportunities after the war. In fact he claimed the fish
had been lost and the fishery did not return to its high pre-war
levels.
He showed the oscillations or natural cycle
that Cod and other fish stocks throughout the North Atlantic followed
around a period of 8-2 years or two life spans in the case of
Cod. In 1993 an international conference that had been convened
to explain these oscillations failed to provide an answer and
this had triggered his investigations into the matter.
What he discovered was that all stocks had "an
upper carrying capacity". When there were sufficient adults
in the stock there was no need for new recruitment. Fish stocks
themselves adjusted to environmental conditions, of which fishing
was one. His evidence also suggested that when the size of the
Cod stock was high, there was a lot of competition for a limited
supply of food and this resulted in low growth rates. Recruitment
to the fisheries was in phase with the growth rate ie availability
of food. ICES own data showed that commercial fisheries around
Faeroes (and elsewhere) had little impact when the stock was increasing,
so why attempt to control the size of the stock by controlling
the fishery, as Cod and other fish always adjusted to the environment
they were faced with.
"If fishing pressure does not restrain
the growth of the stocks, how much can it impact on a reducing
stock?" he said.
Dealing with the Irish Sea Cod fishery, Mr Kristjansson
showed similar oscillations using the most recent ICES figures
and pointed out that it was wrong to assume a linear relationship
between the size of the spawning stock and recruitment to the
stock. His graphs showed that when the spawning stock was high,
there was low recruitment to the stock and vice-versa. This was
evidence of the upper carrying capacity of the stock. As the older
fish died off, then room for new recruits was created and so the
cycle continued. However, so far as the ICES advice was concerned
these oscillations had "gone bananas" when their advice
and the EC's fisheries management regime started to impact in
the early 1990s. The assumption a large spawning stock was needed
to encourage good recruitment was doubtful. In fact Mr Kristjansson
pointed out that the growth rate in a fishery was the key factor,
rather than recruitment. "Its not the capital in the bank
that's of interest, but rather the interest rate. No interest
rate, big capital = no return." He determined that the growth
rate in a fishery should determine management advice and not recruitment.
He went onto sight the "grave mismatch"
between the fishermen's catch observations and the data used in
the ICES models. Samples of the catch he had taken during a fishing
trip in the Irish Sea in June showed that Haddock were growing
fast, while younger Cod were growing slower than older Cod. If
fishing pressure on the Irish Sea Cod stock was high then the
growth rates should have been the opposite. He stated that Haddock
grow fast and then their growth levels out. They also have a high
spawning mortality and need high fishing pressure otherwise they
overpopulate an area, run out of food, begin to starve and in
effect self- destruct. This rang a bell with those present who
were particularly interested in the Haddock stocks in the North
and Irish Seas.
Mr Kristjansson returned to deal with the age
of the Cod stock and explained how the research vessel surveys
apportioned age classes in the fishery. This was then translated
into the actual stock size by scaling it up using the recorded
and observed landings. The October 2002 survey conducted by the
DARD research vessel "Lough Foyle" had captured no Cod
older than three years and in their March 2003 survey there were
few "old" fish. Yet during the commercial trip in June
there were only fish older than three years old.
DARD had sought to explain this by suggesting
that by October the larger fish had moved away from the spawning
grounds and were not caught. However, Mr Kristjansson pointed
out that the trawl used by the "Lough Foyle" was a bottom-trawl,
capturing fish only 3-4 meters of the bottom. The semi-pelagic
trawl used by the fishermen, while inefficient at capturing fish
(he estimated that only 20% of the fish seen on the echo-sounder
ended up in the cod-end), was capturing fish 25 metres off the
bottom. The larger Cod were up in the water column. Video evidence
showed they were feeding on Herring.
Mr Kristjansson stated that the "Lough
Foyle" survey gave an inaccurate measurement of the age structure
in the Irish Sea Cod fishery, which created an impression of over
fishing. This combined with fishermen's observations ended up
in ICES' predictions of small stock sizes. He homed in on the
assumed figure of 20% used by ICES for natural mortality and sighted
evidence from Canada that suggested a natural mortality rate of
between 40% and 60% with Cod in the 4+ age group, and between
60% and 80% in the age 6+ age group. This in a fishery where there
was a total moratorium!
In summarising, Jon Kristjansson claimed that
the "Lough Foyle" surveys (and probably other similar
surveys) did not reflect the age structure of the fishery. Natural
mortality was underestimated, fishing mortality was over estimated
and the catch was underestimated. The conclusion was that all
the stock parameters used by ICES to assess Irish Sea Cod were
wrong and as a result the management had become useless, even
IF the theory behind the assessment was correct.
He ended his presentation with a short video
clip of his trip on board the Kilkeel based semi-pelagic trawler
"Sparkling Sea", highlighting the large meshes in the
mouth of the net and the catch of "old" fish.
LIVING WITH
NATURE
Ending the morning session, Jorgen Niclasen
explained the Faeroese fisheries management regime with a talk
entitled "Live with Nature—where nature is allowed
to control people." Mr Niclasen had been the Faeroe's Fisheries
Minister for four years until January 2003. He remained a member
of the Faeroes Parliament and stressed that he had no economic
links with the Faeroese fishing industry. He pointed out that
fish accounted for 99.5% of the Faeroes total exports, so it was
vital that they get fisheries management right. Like Sigurjon
Thordarson, he explained that there was one reason the Faeroes
remained outside the EU—it's fisheries policy. Again, he
felt the Faeroes would only join the EU if fisheries management
was devolved to the nation states.
He pointed out that in such a fisheries dependent
nation that fisheries policy could not only be about science and
calculations, but also about the people, which he felt was the
most important part of the policy.
Mr Niclasen gave a brief history of the Faeroes
fisheries, explaining that when the 200-mile fisheries limits
were introduced the Faeroes fleet had in effect been forced to
return to home waters. However, because fisheries go up and down
in each location, deals with other countries had been made allowing
Faeroese vessels to fish elsewhere. In 1994 the Faeroes introduced
a quota system to their fisheries, but this proved to be a disaster
for a variety of reasons and in 1996 an effort-based scheme was
introduced, which was devised jointly by the fishermen and fisheries
scientists. Mr. Niclasen said that this had been based on the
theory that it was better to control the inputs (fishing effort),
than the outputs (quota).
The effort system included days at sea and area
closures (spawning and juvenile area closures and other closures
aimed at preventing gear conflict). Juvenile closures were introduced
with immediate effect for initial periods of 14 days when catches
comprised mainly of juvenile fish were taken. The days at sea
system rewarded vessels that fished outside Faeroese coastal waters
for alternative species with one day equating to three days in
these areas. To calculate the original effort allocation data
had been used from ten years previously. The days themselves were
transferable between vessels over 15 Tonnes in the same gear group
and depended upon vessel size.
Disadvantages had been with the monitoring of
days and closures, which had led to the introduction of satellite
monitoring systems in March of this year and other technical controls.
The advantages were no discards; no high grading and no re-naming
of species, all of which led to reliable and qualified catch statistics.
With no quotas, there was no reason for other than perfect statistics.
But most importantly said Mr Niclasen, the system
had the respect of everyone involved in it. "A system which
no one accepts will be disaster and will never work." he
said.
He agreed with Jon Kristjansson that fisheries
followed a natural cycle, going up and down. So far as the Faeroese
fishery was concerned, the fishery had peaked and Mr Niclasen
predicted that it would now go down.
He then explained his own experience with ICES
advice.
Following the introduction of the effort based
system in 1996, ICES had recommended a cut of 25%—the Faeroese
Government had applied a 12.5% reduction.
In 1997 ICES recommended a cut of 25%—the Faeroese
Government had applied a 5% reduction.
In 1998 ICES recommended a cut of 25%—the Faeroese
Government applied no cut.
Given the failure to take up their advice Mr. Niclasen
had thought that in 1999 ICES would recommend a cut of between
40% and 50%. Instead ICES recommended a cut of 25%. The Faeroes
applied no cut.
In 2000 ICES recommended a cut of 25%—the Faeroese
Government applied no cut.
In 2001 ICES recommended a cut of 25%. After seeking
the advice of Jon Kristjansson, the Faeroes applied a 1% cut.
In 2002 ICES recommended a cut of 25%—the Faeroes
applied a cut of 2%.
Mr Niclasen explained that because the Faeroes
had failed to follow the ICES advice, then if ICES' theories were
correct all of the fish in Faeroese waters should have been dead,
but what had ICES said in 2003? The stocks of Cod, Haddock and
Saithe were all above the precautionary levels!
Jorgen Niclasen exclaimed that for four years
as Fisheries Minister he had had to cope with advice from ICES
that was either wrong or with which they were constantly changing
their minds. On five occasions they had applied more effort than
what ICES had advised and each time the stocks increased. Only
on one occasion had they fished Haddock less than what ICES had
advised and the result was a drop in the spawning stock. When
they had fished less than the ICES advice the stock had gone down
and when they had fished more than the ICES advice the stocks
had gone up. Why and how they did not know.
Again, the evidence from the Faeroes confirmed
Mr Kristjansson's theory that a high spawning stock equaled low
recruitment and vice versa. After following his advice in 2001,
the Faeroese catch had been 106,000 Tonnes, not the 62,000 Tonnes
predicted by ICES. Such a result was vital for the country. ICES'
advice would have resulted in a 50% loss of income. Between 2000
and 2002 the spawning stocks of Cod, Haddock and Saithe had increased
from a total of 164,000 Tonnes to 254,000 Tonnes, despite ICES'
advice that they were over fishing.
Concluding, Mr. Niclasen stated that to control
a system in nature you needed:
1. Acceptance by the people inside the system.
2. Reliable and qualifiable statistics and
3. Immediate response to changes in nature.
This he felt was best achieved by the effort
system.
QUESTIONS AND
ANSWERS
Following lunch (Irish Sea Haddock and chips),
Dr Lockwood chaired the question and answer session and asked
the audience to challenge the speakers, in particular the alternative
view as represented by Jon Kristjansson. At the outset it was
Dr Officer who sought to defend the orthodox science against a
series of probing questions, but he in turn challenged Jon Kristjansson's
alternative science.
However, Mr Kristjansson pointed out that as
a scientist, he was looking to expand his knowledge. If he was
wrong he wanted to know about it, but he wanted a proper debate
in the public, not in private or even through the pages of fishing
journals where an immediate response was not available.
On behalf of ANIFPO who organised the workshop,
Alan McCulla said that the day had been organised with two objectives
in mind, which was to stimulate thinking and debate on the alternative
science. He felt this had been achieved and it was now obvious
this alternative theory had to be discussed further. "We
have proved to many sceptics that we can organise and hold a successful
workshop where the orthodox and alternative opinions are given
an equal say. The proof of the respective opinions is there for
everyone to see," said Mr McCulla.
"The fact is that despite the much vaunted
review of the EU's Common Fisheries Policy, it continues to be
a system that has failed to protect fish stocks or sustain Europe's
fishing industry. The evidence against the CFP and ICES is loud
and clear. Jon Kristjansson has provided advice that has worked
in the Faeroes and should work elsewhere. The example from the
Faeroes proves this. People should not focus on the fact they
operate an effort system, but rather the fact they have a system
that is accepted by everyone involved, most importantly the fishermen
and has been a success."
In conclusion there were several important issues
emerging from the workshop in Kilkeel:
— Iceland and the Faeroe Islands two
countries whose economies depend to a great extent on their fishing
industries refuse to join the EU unless they get assurances they
will be allowed to manage their own fisheries and
— since the Faeroes ditched the ICES
advice in 1998 and followed the alternative approach fish stocks
have undergone a dramatic improvement and in tandem the fishing
industry has gone from strength to strength.
It is clear that all of the speakers in Kilkeel
had important messages.
1. It maybe an institution with 100 years
of experience, but ICES is in danger of becoming a dinosaur if
it does not urgently and radically review the way it does business.
Practically the whole ICES scientific agenda seems to be driven
by one goal, driven by the EC, which is to carry out assessments
and churn out advice for the EC (and others) every year on 300+
stocks.
2. As has been said so many times before,
fishermen, fisheries scientists and Government officials need
to work together in order to create a successful fisheries management
regime that will provide dividends for all involved.
3. Serious and careful consideration must
be given to the alternative approach to fisheries science as advocated
by Jon Kristjansson and others. The Faeroe Islands have shown
that the alternative does work. Europe ignores this at its peril.
Initial reaction following the workshop has
been very positive, but as Alan McCulla stated this was only a
beginning. "It is obvious that Jon Kristjansson and Jorgen
Niclasen have a very important message, which needs to be heard
by all those in the UK, Ireland and beyond who are interested
in promoting a credible fisheries management policy. ANIFPO intends
with our industry colleagues to promote this message and both
Mr Kristjansson and Mr Niclasen have publicly stated that they
will make themselves available to repeat this workshop. We would
call upon our colleagues in the UK and Ireland to press our Fisheries
Ministers, officials and chief fisheries scientists to meet with
these gentlemen, listen and think about what they have to say
and criticise it if appropriate. We are not afraid of the challenge
and we will not make this personal, but we want our science, the
fishermen's science, to be criticised in a constructive and credible
fashion. It is up to the Ministers and their civil servants to
take up this challenge. The question is will they?
Alan McCulla
| 
