Discards
102. Closely connected to the issue of quota management
is the problem of discards. The Highlands and Islands Fishermen's
Association described discards as "the Achilles heel of the
quota system" to which a solution must be found, while the
North Sea Fishermen's Organisation warned that they were "a
source of great bitterness ... [which] will continue to poison
relations between some fishermen, scientists and fisheries management".[370]
Fishermen have always discarded unwanted fish but there is strong
evidence that this has increased as a result of the use of TACs
and quotas. Fish are discarded for various reasons: because they
are below minimum landing size, because their value is too low
or because the fisherman has no quota left to land the fish. This
is a particularly difficult problem in mixed fisheries because
it is inevitable that fishermen will net by-catches which they
cannot land legally. Their choice then is either to throw the
fish back in which case it will die if it is not dead already
or to land it illegally as "blackfish". Neither option
is attractive to fishermen. The North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee
argued that "this renders the policy [of quotas] counter-productive
and robs the policy of all credibility in the eyes of the industry".[371]
103. The practice of discarding is clearly contrary
to the principles of conservation. It also has a detrimental effect
on the accuracy of the statistics which creates a vicious circle
in that the TACs for the following year will be set at an unrealistic
level and could lead to discarding on an even worse scale. The
information from which the scientists draw their conclusions as
to the status of stocks comes primarily from landing statistics,
backed by samples from the research vessels.[372]
These official figures of course do not include fish caught but
not put through the market but this fish has still been removed
from the stocks. Estimates of the level of discarding in different
fisheries vary greatly. Mr Wentworth of MAFF appeared to belittle
the problem, claiming that it was not "possible to say what
is happening in that area on a year-to-year basis" and cautioning
us that "One should not assume that discards inevitably take
place on a large scale because of the quota system".[373]
He argued that the holdings of different quotas within a PO should
make it unnecessary to discard over-quota or non-target fish.
This position appears to us excessively optimistic. Others are
more concerned. CEFAS stated baldly that "discarding is widespread",[374]
and advised that for cod, over 50% is typically discarded, mainly
because it is too small to land. The SFF also identified a problem
with coley "because very few people actually target coley.
You catch them in big quantities and if you have no quota for
them you just have to let them go".[375]
104. Research on discards is needed in two areas,
first on the numbers and causes and secondly on means of prevention.
In the first case, the UK is at the forefront of research. The
RSPB described the project run by the Scottish Office as "the
best monitoring scheme for discards in the EU".[376]
The EC echoed this, judging that "the data available on discards
is better [than in other states] or even unique".[377]
This research of course covers only one area of sea which may
not be representative.[378]
However, other projects are now being undertaken. For example,
the CFPO is working with CEFAS and the SFIA on a European-funded
discard survey which involves scientists teaching crews to measure
the fish which would normally be thrown overboard for whatever
reason. The acquisition of such data makes it possible to estimate
stocks more accurately and to tell when a fisherman is filing
false information.[379]
CEFAS explained that from such programmes it now had data from
Portugal to Scotland.[380]
In June this year MAFF announced a further piece of research,
part-funded by the European Commission and linked to parallel
research in France and the Netherlands, which "will apply
a new approach to investigating why fishermen discard fish at
sea" and "consider options for reducing the amount of
discards".[381]
We support this work and note with particular approval the assurance
that "a major element of the research will be the views and
experience of working fishermen".[382]
We look forward to receiving the results of the work which is
expected to take eighteen months to complete.
105. Possible solutions to the problem include the
use of selective devices and the introduction of multi-species
quotas. There are a variety of technical conservation measures,
as they are known, which could in theory reduce the bycatch and
hence the discard rate. These include regulations on mesh size,
the shape of the cod end and the insertion of escape panels or
selection grids in the nets. We saw examples of the ongoing research
into these devices at Aberdeen, and the call for more effort to
be put into this area was supported by some POs and the Joint
Nature Conservation Committee.[383]
The North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee agreed but considered
that the use of selective devices such as square mesh panels would
need "some form of compulsion".[384]
Mr Wentworth of MAFF believed that the more problematic aspect
of discards was the catching of undersized fish and that with
"larger mesh nets it would be less of a problem".[385]
Unfortunately, as he accepted, the simplicity of this solution
is misleading as larger mesh sizes can lead to other difficulties.[386]
CEFAS judged that "a general increase to much larger mesh
sizes [was] ... probably not appropriate."[387]
It also advised that selective fishing gears, while having the
potential to be beneficial, "are complicated, and can be
easily re-rigged to negate any selection, thus limiting their
value".[388]
This is tantamount to saying that they can be negated by cheating.
It is not an argument against larger mesh sizes and particularly
not one against square mesh panels which do not constrict in the
same way as diamond mesh. There is, however, a difficulty with
multi-species quotas in that, as North Sea Fishermen's Organisation
told us, they could "lead to increased discarding of low
value species in order to maximize return from a finite quota".[389]
106. There are also more radical proposals. Since
a major concern about discarding is that it destroys the juvenile
fish which are needed to replenish the stocks, some have suggested
a greater use of closed areas to protect them. This was a popular
option among conservation groups, as might be expected, but it
was also proposed by representatives of the fishing industry.
The Cornish Fish Producers' Organisation impressed us with its
strong advocacy of a pilot scheme to test closed areas in the
South West.[390]
It believed that closed areas had "enormous potential in
terms of fisheries management" and would appeal to fishermen
since they could see the sense in "protecting everything
from a star fish to a marlin".[391]
Later, the Chief Executive of the CFPO sent us academic papers
on the potential offered by closed areas in protecting stocks.[392]
The CFPO regarded "this theory of closed areas [as] a radical
departure",[393]
although closed areas are already used in fisheries management
for specific species, for example the Plaice Box or the Mackerel
Box which have been successful in protecting juveniles from those
species.[394]
Closed areas offer less potential for protecting cod where, as
CEFAS advised us, "juveniles do not congregate in large numbers
in well-defined areas".[395]
What is different about the CFPO suggestion is that it envisages
a "no take zone" for all fish with no derogations. CEFAS
believed that "the utility of any closed area needs to be
considered on a case-by-case basis" and that the benefits
of no take zones in particular "should be evaluated so they
can be considered against any possible cost to the local fishing
industry".[396]
This is obviously the correct approach. We support the principle
of no take zones and closed areas and we recommend that MAFF sympathetically
consider and encourage research into specific proposals brought
forward by the industry. However, we emphasise that under the
CFP these measures would have to be non-discriminatory and apply
to all vessels not just UK fishing. They would therefore have
to be agreed on a European basis.
107. The examples of other countries show different
approaches to the problem of discards. In Norway, the practice
is banned and "every catch of an individual species should
be registered and counted against the quota for that species".[397]
We are grateful to the Norwegian Embassy in London for providing
the Committee with a memorandum on how this system works and on
other aspects of the fishing industry. The Norwegians told us
that "the philosophy behind the discard ban is shared by
everyone involved: politicians, scientists, administrators and
fishermen."[398]
The ban is backed up by the use of closed areas and the use of
grid sorting systems. There is some cynicism among British fishermen
about the effectiveness of the ban in Norway "because the
vessels catching the fish just discard them and it is unenforceable".[399]
CEFAS shared these doubts for three reasons: "First, it is
difficult to police and enforce a discard ban. Second, accurate
up-to-date information on the location of small fish would require
intensive monitoring. Third, implementation relies upon the fleet
being able to move to an area where there are not large numbers
of young fish," which is difficult in the North Sea.[400]
The SFF also argued that the fish in Norwegian waters tended to
be bigger which made it hard to apply the lessons learnt there
to the UK.[401]
108. We were told in Iceland of an aspect of their
enforcement policy which although not directly aimed at preventing
discarding might alleviate the bitterness many feel at throwing
back into the sea fish for which they have no quota. All fish
landed in Iceland is weighed electronically and the information
passed back to the central management system. If any fisherman
lands over-quota fish, he is sent a bill for the full market value
of that fish. Thus, he is allowed to land it but makes no profit
nor indeed recovers his costs. This system is aimed at reducing
over-quota fishing and would not stop discarding where it involves
a fisherman throwing back lower quality, lower value fish in order
that the catch achieved the best possible price within the quota
allowance. However, it would significantly reduce the incentive
to discard fish where fishermen genuinely wished to conserve the
stocks and ensure that their catch did not go to waste. The problem
is that if fishermen believe that landing unwanted fish will involve
a cost the disincentive to discard them will be reinforced, not
diminished. Nevertheless, we recommend that MAFF examine the
feasibility and effectiveness of introducing in the UK a similar
system to the Icelandic arrangements for the non-profit sale of
over-quota fish.
109. CEFAS concluded its discussion of the various
attempts to end the practice of discarding with the dry comment
that "as with many of the fisheries problems, discarding
could be reduced by a reduction in fishing effort, and a restoration
of the balance between fishing capacity and size of the resource".[402]
However, while fishermen may catch only a limited amount of fish
of a particular species, they are bound to catch fish they do
not want because they are too small, the wrong species, poor quality
or just in excess of the quota. It is essential that research
effort is directed into addressing the difficulty. The EC praised
the leading role played by the UK in recent developments as regards
selectivity and in monitoring discards[403]
and we are pleased that this latter work is being taken forward
by MAFF. The continuing commitment of the UK industry to the more
widespread adoption within Europe of square mesh panels as a solution
is also to be welcomed and acted upon by the Government. There
may be other measures which could be taken within the UK to deal
with the problem, such as allowing quota management to be more
flexible in adjusting monthly allocations or rolling over quota
from one year to the next. We recommend that MAFF consider
measures to reduce discards through more flexible quota management
and that it continue to promote within Europe the use of more
selective fishing gear.
320 Fisheries Management from a Property Rights Perspective:
The New Zealand Experience,
New Zealand High Commission. 
