SCIENTISTS AND FISHERMEN
44. When our predecessor Committee in the last Parliament
considered the subject of sea fishing, it concluded that "it
is vital ... that scientists, particularly in England and Wales,
develop far closer contacts with fishermen to bridge the gulf
in communication and understanding between them which currently
exists".[150]
In its response, the Government accepted the principle and undertook
to examine "how best to develop further the contacts and
exchanges within existing resources".[151]
As this shows, relationships between fishermen and scientists
have long been understood to be central to the effectiveness of
the entire conservation policy. Fishermen need to have faith in
the accuracy of the scientific work and to understand its purpose
and how it is conducted. If it is too divorced from their own
experience or sprung on them without proper explanation, then
they are naturally resentful at the interference in their way
of earning a living and the seeming dismissal of their knowledge
of the seas. Without a sense of partnership in the process of
stock assessment and other research, the fishing industry has
little incentive to cooperate. As one of the fishermen we met
admitted about the information given to scientists on landings,
"The scientists know it is a load of rubbish and I am sure
it is."[152]
Since one of the gravest problems identified by the EC and others
is the gaps in the data made available to scientists on which
to base their advice, this is a recipe for continuing animosity.
45. The fishing industry recognised that considerable
effort had been put in recent years into improving the relationship.
The NFFO thought that "scientists have appeared more willing
to discuss the flaws as well as the strength of their work directly
with fishermen", leading to "a more open and productive
dialogue" on stock levels.[153]
It gave as example four meetings held in 1998 "to discuss
both the scientist's techniques, and trends and developments within
the specific fisheries".[154]
CEFAS explained for its part that "increasing effort is ...
devoted to maintaining and developing the confidence of the fishing
industry in the relevance and quality of the science used to support
fisheries management decisions, and in using the specific knowledge
and experience of fishermen".[155]
It too cited the meetings with fishermen organised with the NFFO,
as well as further discussions after the ACFM had made proposals
for next year's TACs, and the UK Fisheries Conservation Group
which brings together fishermen, scientists and administrators
to discuss technical conservation measures. CEFAS also used the
industry media to raise particular issues of current interest
and chartered fishing vessels for a variety of studies. It noted
that the NFFO had commended the joint meetings to the EC as a
possible model for other countries.[156]
46. Unfortunately, CEFAS's recital of praise for
its efforts looked somewhat complacent after the "public
relations disaster" of the introduction of the precautionary
approach to the TACs for 1999.[157]
As has been mentioned, the industry felt it had not been kept
informed, let alone consulted, in this development. We also encountered
many fishermen who had had no contact with scientists and obviously
had felt no benefit from the undoubted improvements in communication.
While industry representatives may feel that on the whole they
are more involved, parts of the industry itself are still alienated.
There is therefore a need for greater definition of what the relationship
between fishermen and scientists should be. Attitudes have changed
on both sides. Professor McIntyre recalled that in the past scientists
from the Aberdeen laboratory "used to pride ourselves on
what we thought was consultation with the fishing industry. We
used to invite them down once a year and tell them what the background
to the TACs was and so on. Looking back on that now I realise
that was not consultation at all, what we were doing was giving
them information, we were telling them what was going on".[158]
He suggested that a better way would be to involve the industry
from the beginning: "we have got to ensure not that we tell
them why we have done things but consult and talk to them and
take them through the whole process from the beginning".[159]
He believed this would give the industry a sense of "ownership"
of the process and its outcomes.[160]
47. Professor McIntyre also recognised that the information
provided by fishermen might alter the process in some way.[161]
Other witnesses agreed, with the South Western Fish Producer Organisation
arguing that "scientists should take more notice of fishing
industry information" and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee
suggesting that fishermen's knowledge should be better harnessed.[162]
It gave two examples of successful collaboration in Scotland,
first the agreement between fishermen and conservationists on
the management of the inshore sand eel fishery, and secondly the
employment by the Mallaig and Northwest Fishermen's Association
of their own fisheries biologist. Mr Gordon of the Scottish Fisheries
Department saw the closeness of the Mallaig biologist to the Marine
Laboratory in Aberdeen as "a co-operative relationship which
is to everyone's mutual advantage".[163]
Witnesses also suggested that the number of occasions on which
scientists take "voyages with real fishermen on real fishing
vessels" should be increased.[164]
It is essential that if this is to work the fishermen have confidence
that any information they supply to scientists is protected and
will not be passed on to authorities in a form that identifies
them. This does not imply any illegality on the part of the fishermen,
merely a need to build up a proper relationship of trust between
the two sides. The SFF thought it was even more important that
"working fishermen should always accompany the scientific
research vessels".[165]
This is already happening in Scotland and it has the beneficial
effect of helping the fishermen to understand the scientific process.
48. The North Sea Fishermen's Organisation suggested
that those fishermen who had worked with scientists developed
more positive attitudes towards the researchers as a result.[166]
Mr Goodlad of the SFF wished to take this further with the industry
becoming "actively involved with the scientists in establishing
what kind of voyages should take place, what kind of scientific
assessments should be undertaken."[167]
At the moment there is no formal procedure whereby the industry
can have an input into the research programme undertaken by the
laboratories, although Dr Horwood of CEFAS assured us that "they
make frequent written representations about what they want to
see done".[168]
This works against the construction of a feeling of collaboration
which needs to be developed, particularly in the light of the
damage done by the introduction of the precautionary approach.
The NFFO called for "a more permanent dialogue and involvement
with the industry, involvement of the scientists in developing
a conservation strategy jointly with the industry".[169]
It cited the examples of the Danish industry where scientists
are obliged to spend a number of days on commercial fishing vessels
and the Norwegian experience where there is "a much closer
relationship between the industry, the scientists and the administrators
and against that background, some very, very tough measures have
been introduced, but with the backing of the industry".[170]
We ourselves were impressed by the good relationship which exists
between the two groups in Spain where the industry has a direct
financial input into the research programmes and in Iceland where
the industry is paying for a new research vessel. There appears
to be a direct correlation between a relationship of trust between
the fishermen and the scientists in a country or region and the
success of the fishing industry in that area.
49. We conclude that a more permanent formal arrangement
is needed to facilitate dialogue between fishermen and scientists.
This should aim at achieving a sense of collaboration, rather
than just consultation, with the scientists and fishermen learning
from one another. Under the umbrella of such an arrangement could
come increased numbers of joint ventures as described above as
well as a set procedure for the planning of research programmes,
including the utilisation of research carried out or commissioned
by fishermen themselves, and for the clear exposition of technical
information. Fishermen should be involved in all stages of the
TAC-setting cycle so that they become part of the process and
not merely an interest group to be kept informed after the event.
For their part, fishermen need to be educated about the needs
of scientific research which could perhaps be aided by the inclusion
of the subject in the skippers' examinations, as suggested by
one witness.[171]
Decisions on this and how other matters should be taken forward
are for the industry and scientists to take together. Mr Morley
told us that he had "nothing against a more formalised relationship"
and that he wanted to develop contacts between fishermen and scientists
further.[172]
Like the Minister, we accept that scientific conclusions must
be based on scientific procedures, rather than anecdote, but we
also agree with his assessment that the industry has more to contribute
to the process than it is doing at the moment. We recommend
that MAFF consult with the scientific community and the fishing
industry on the best way to establish a permanent formal procedure
for collaboration and consultation on fisheries research. We further
recommend that MAFF encourage its counterparts in Scotland, Northern
Ireland and Wales to participate in developing such procedures.
We suggest later in this Report that this should be carried
out in coastal and zonal management groups.[173]
50. It could be argued that if the fishermen are
to set the research agenda then they should be prepared to contribute
towards the cost. This is the case in some other countries, for
example, Spain and the Netherlands.[174]
UK fishermen's representatives were unanimous in their rejection
of the idea, citing the relative lack of prosperity in the industry
and the disadvantage in which this would place them as regards
their European competitors.[175]
The Minister agreed that "if the industry are not getting
something which other countries are, I do not think you can justifiably
ask for a contribution in such things as research and development
when we are not paying in other areas".[176]
In any case, as Mr Wentworth of MAFF pointed out, the industry
is already paying a levy to the SFIA, part of which is for research.[177]
The SFF conceded that in order to contribute more meaningfully
to fisheries research it might need to employ its own scientific
adviser.[178]
The NFFO would like to follow suit but lacked the resources to
do so.[179]
We conclude that, although in the present circumstances it
would not be appropriate to charge the industry for research,
fishermen's organisations should be encouraged to invest in their
own scientific projects and be assisted in applications for European
funding for this purpose.
85 
