Memorandum by The Centre for Environment,
Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS)
BACKGROUND TO
CEFAS
The Centre for Environment, Fisheries &
Aquaculture Science (Cefas) is an Executive Agency of Defra. Cefas
was established over 100 years ago in response to national and
international concerns about over-fishing and how the nature of
the seas affected fisheries. The same pressures helped to establish
the International Council for Exploration of the Seas (ICES) which
is a main source of international advice on fisheries. Consequently,
Cefas has a long established role in fisheries and marine environment
monitoring, assessment, research and advice.
For fisheries, Cefas' scientists undertake annual
monitoring and assessment of our key commercial fish stocks. This
is mainly an international process undertaken through ICES. Our
scientists contribute to advice for fisheries through ICES advisory
committees on fisheries, ecosystems and the environment, and through
the EC's Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries.
Underpinning research is undertaken: on the
effect of the environment on fisheries; the effect of fisheries
on the ecosystems; and applied fisheries management. In addition
there are complementary programmes covering the marine environment
and aquaculture. The Fishery Science Partnership provides additional
studies and fosters improved relationships between industry and
scientists.
Cefas is an important source of advice to Defra
for policy development and implementation, and we support Defra
Ministers at negotiations. We work in close collaboration with
scientists at Fisheries Research Services, Scotland, and the Agri-Food
and Biosciences Institute of Northern Ireland.
QUESTIONS
Conservation and Management
1. Chapter II of Regulation 2371/2002 on the
conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources
under the Common Fisheries Policy introduced new methods of ensuring
conservation and sustainability, including recovery plans, management
plans and emergency measures. To what extent have these been effective?
Recovery Plans have been introduced for various
cod stocks, northern hake, southern hake and Nephrops, bluefin
tuna, and eels.
Multi-annual management plans have been agreed
for North Sea plaice and sole, western Channel sole and Bay of
Biscay sole. Other management targets have been agreed for some
jointly managed EU-Norway stocks.
These two measures require some time in operation
before their effectiveness can be determined. For example, the
cod recovery measures, if fully implemented would have needed
a decade to achieve safe levels for cod. The cod recovery plans
were formally agreed for 2003, although measures outside of the
formal plans were being progressed before then. A key part of
the plans was the control of effort through days-at-sea. The effort
levels by country and gear have been monitored. Scientific advice
in 2007 showed that fishing mortality on North Sea cod has eventually
been reduced significantly (to the lowest level for 40 years),
and this has been a very important step to the recovery of the
stock. However, fishing mortality remains stubbornly high on other
cod stocks. Even in the North Sea, effort restrictions have primarily
impacted the northern fisheries, and little attention has been
paid to the sub-structure of cod populations within the North
Sea. So the conservation effectiveness has been mixed. The effect
on some sectors of the industry has been severe, and the use of
vessel determined days-at-sea has introduced economic inefficiencies.
Conceptually, recovery plans are appropriate tools giving a discipline
within which managers can make decisions and the industry can
plan better. However a weakness has been the poor relationship
of initial, and subsequent, Commission proposals for effort levels
to fishing mortality targets, and this has resulted in considerable
year on year uncertainty in implementation.
Emergency measures were introduced to protect
cold water corals (the Darwin Mounds) and these were subsequently
made permanent. A UK attempt to ban pair trawling for bass in
the Channel to protect dolphins was rejected by the Commission,
and the UK resorted to a unilateral measure. We have reviewed
the processes involved in achieving emergency measure in the context
of, for example, real time closures to protect a large in-coming
year-class, and concluded that they are still too sluggish. We
proposed to the Commission, a few years ago, that they might consider
some advance planning for predictable "emergencies"
such as sole being killed in large numbers by cold weather (or
indeed a large year class being identified) but this has not been
picked up.
2. A wide range of management tools are available
to fisheries managers. What are your views on the following tools:
— Total Allowable Catches (TACs);
— Effort limitation, including
"days at sea", marine conservation areas and real-time
closures;
— Rights-Based Management tools;
and
— Technical Conservation Measures.
There is not one management tool that will solve
all fisheries management problems, and a tool-box of measures
is necessary. However the plethora of current rules suggest that
the tools are not being used optimally.
Probably the most important measure is to ensure
that the size of the international fleets is appropriate to the
size of the resource. We are committed to achieving by 2015 fisheries
at "MSY" levels, and for many fisheries this implies
lower fishing mortality, and effort, giving higher stock sizes,
greater landings and more stability. If such a balance is achieved
then more annual flexibility in catches and effort could be safely
accommodated.
TACs are best suited to fisheries targeting
near single species, such as many large pelagic fisheries. They
are a poor tool for our mixed fisheries, as they require a reasonably
accurate estimate of stock sizes and catches for all the key species.
Imbalances of the TACs with the resource, or with the fishing
opportunities, result in discarding. Accurate estimates of stocks
and TACs sizes requires good estimates of catches and if reported
landings do not reflect catches then the TAC system becomes difficult
to operate.
Effort limitation seems a better tool for mixed
fisheries. But experience in applying effort management in cod
recovery plans shows that implementation is far from straightforward.
How do you compare a days long-lining with a days beam-trawling?
There are steady increases in efficiency, which will leap under
a full effort regime, which would need to be continually addressed.
Effort is easier to enforce. But it is more difficult to allocate
amongst nations and to relate to fishing mortalities than TACs.
Strategically aligning capacity and effort with the size of the
resources is essential both for conservation and the economics
of the industry, but tactical management of effort has unresolved
difficulties.
Closed or restricted areas are a common tool
in EU fisheries management. Flatfish and mackerel spawning grounds
are protected, as are herring spawning grounds. Industrial fisheries
are banned, in the north-western North Sea, to stop the killing
of whitefish. It has proved difficult to find closed areas, or
MPAs, to protect North Sea cod. They are highly migratory and
cod protected in one area can be caught elsewhere. Closed areas
are generally not effective conservation tools for migratory fish.
However, in some instances, aggregations of fish can be sufficiently
high that even if fishing effort is redistributed there is still
a conservation benefit. For more static species, such as scallops,
closed areas are demonstrably effective. Consequently, for fisheries
management, each area and fishery needs to evaluated on a case-by-case
basis. MPAs are not a magic bullet. They also have some problems.
A closed area for cod was introduced in the North Sea in 2001,
and displaced effort impacted upon sensitive biodiversity. For
the protection of the environment and biodiversity closed areas
may be essential, but it may not be necessary to prohibit all
fishing to achieve a particular desired objective.
Technical conservation measures are important.
Mesh size and gear configurations can reduce discarding and can
be used to target some species. They are probably all that is
necessary for some nationally managed shellfish species. The main
technical conservation regulation is being revised at present
(EC 850/98). There may be advantages in considering more "outcome
oriented" regulations rather than in the specification of
large numbers of detailed technical regulations.
3. To what extent have current management
tools increased the levels of discards and bycatch? What is your
view on how these problems can best be tackled?
In 2006 8,100 tonnes of cod was discarded in
the North Sea. In 1986 it was 139,000 tonnes. The main reasons
for discards are : legally undersized fish; unmarketable fish;
over quota but marketable fish and "high grading". With
the different reasons for discarding come different solutions.
Gear technologies can help to reduce the capture of small fish
but if the target species is small, for example the sole fisheries,
then many other fish will be caught. There are recent examples
of the industry seeking markets for previously discarded fish.
For marketable fish, it is necessary that TACs be set in line
with effort levels or vice versa. Iceland bans discards and a
market has to be found for over-quota fish. However, if fishing
effort and mortality achieve the lower levels anticipated the
WSSD MSY targets, then mortality rates will be less, fewer fish
will be caught and discarded, the fish typically will be bigger
and the stock larger, so discard rates will fall dramatically.
Implementation of current cod recovery measures
has resulted in higher levels of marketable cod discards. UK Ministers
have argued that TAC levels on North Sea cod are out of line with
effort levels and that a larger TAC should have been set in 2008.
Currently the fishing industry is exploring ways of more actively
avoiding cod.
4. Do you consider that fisheries management
policies may need to adapt to climate change? If so, how might
this be achieved?
Climate change will affect both the abundance
of fish and the mix of species; at present there is limited predictability
of what change will occur. A recent publication, which used international
fisheries monitoring data, has shown large increases in the number
of fish species in the North Sea.
A fisheries management system resilient to such
unpredictable changes would probably be based more on effort management
and on fishing mortality rate targets rather than on absolute
TAC levels or target stock sizes. Current precautionary reference
levels include absolute measures of stock size. Such a change
would also affect the fishery science input to management, which
at present is dominated by detailed analyses of large, single
stocks. More generic advice on the management of a mix of stocks
may be necessary.
There may also be consequences for "relative
stability" and access to stocks. Current allocation is based
upon historical relative catches. As fish abundances change then
so will fishing opportunities.
CONTROL AND
ENFORCEMENT
We have not provided evidence for the specific
questions posed, but wish to stress the importance of good compliance
for proper governance of fisheries and in particular for the provision
of accurate catch data which underpin the setting of appropriate
TACs.
Structural Policy
7. Chapter III of Regulation 2371/2002 obliged
Member States to put in place measures to adjust the capacity
of their fleets in order to achieve a stable and enduring balance
between such fishing capacity and their fishing opportunities.
To what extent has this been successful?
We have not provided evidence to Q7, but as
the evidence to other questions demonstrates the proper balance
of fishing capacity with resources is fundamental to good biological
and economic management.
8. The new fisheries structural fund, the
European Fisheries Fund (EFF), has now come into force. What has
been your experience thus far with the new instrument?
As yet we have no experience of the very new
EFF, however the previous fund (FIFG) was helpful in facilitating
a range of Cefas-industry conservation projects.
9. What are your views on the possible impact
on EU fisheries structural policy of WTO-level discussions as
regards subsidies in the fishing sector?
No evidence presented.
GOVERNANCE
10. As a result of Regulation 2371/2002, Regional
Advisory Councils (RACs) were established to advise the Commission
on matters of fisheries management in respect of certain sea areas
or fishing zones. What is your assessment of the success thus
far of the RACs? What is your view on their future evolution?
As pointed out in "Net Benefits" exclusion
of the fishing industry from EC decisions resulted in alienation
from fisheries management and any commitment to its decisions.
The RACs are a major step forward in providing an international,
industry input to key policy decisions. The UK, and Cefas scientists,
have given a high priority to making the RACs successful.
The RACs have delivered high quality advice
to the Commission on a range of important policy issues. This
has been remarkable given the modest resources available to the
RACs and particularly the fishing industry. They have taken on
a significant amount of work. The impression is that most impact
has been made on strategic issues rather than the detail of the
annual round of quota negotiations. The RACs have also been able
to commission some research, supported by Defra, and have started
annual meetings with the International Council for Exploration
of the Seas which produces much of the advice for fisheries management.
The RACs should have a future. There are major
regional variations in the character of fisheries across the EC,
even across the UK. The current centralised system of management
is not responsive to such real variations and dependencies. The
RACs could play a more significant role in delivering strategies
agreed at a higher level.
11. How do you consider EU fisheries should
ideally be governed? How appropriate and feasible do you consider
a regional management model to be?
See above for some comments on current management.
In a wider context, EC marine environment and
biodiversity management is moving towards a more geographically
regional approach, with management within marine regions and sub-regions.
It would be appropriate for the detail of fisheries management
to be more fully embedded in this wider environment management
as fisheries is a significant pressure on ecosystems. Such structures
would more readily facilitate an "ecosystems approach"
to fisheries and environment management. We see some promising
recent moves in this direction, with CFP decisions to close the
Darwin Mounds to trawled gears, and to close several areas off
south-western Ireland to a range of gears, as these features are
designated under the Habitats Directive. However the decisions
are at present ad hoc.
14 February 2008
| 
