Falklands : Public Meeting: 27 April 2004
Submitted by Falkland Islands News Network (Juanita Brock) 28.04.2004 (Article Archived on 12.05.2004)
A public meeting took place in the Court and Council Chamber of the Town Hall at 1700 on Tuesday, 27 April 2004.
(Part 1: The Loss of Fisheries Income)
By J. Brock (FINN)
A public meeting took place in the Court and Council Chamber of the Town Hall at 1700 on Tuesday, 27 April 2004. Councillors Birmingham (JB) Edwards, N. (NE) Edwards, R. (RE) Summers (MS) Luxton (SL) and Hansen (IH) were present. Cllr. Mike Summers chaired the meeting. There were questions on a range of subjects with the loss of Illex revenue topping the list.
Q1-P1: What is the projected loss in Illex revenue this financial year?
MS: This financial year we collected £11Million in Illex licenses and we are anticipating returning a very large majority of that. So, as we said previously, the likely reduction of income this year from Illex licenses is £10Million or thereabouts. It may be a little less because there may be other income associated with Illex fishing – customs services, transhipment fees and the like. So, the reduction in income for this financial year is in the order of £10Million. The reduction in the Consolidated fund will be less than that but that’s quite a big hit. That’s why we have a Consolidated fund that we have built up over a large number of years so we can cope with this sort of difficulty.
The real task is going to be dealing with next year. We may not take all the losses this financial year. We will take some of them next year by way of discounts to people who are coming back. The real task for next year is to try and encourage back all those people who buy licenses her. But with the uncertainty, we are going to have to make ourselves more attractive, as it were. It is likely that the reduction of Illex fees next year will be in the order of £3 or 4 or 5 Million – somewhere in there. Our task now is to try and set a budget for next year and years looking forward but we are looking to at least break even in that sort of scenario.
Q2-P1: Have we got the system wrong? I have said before many times that we should have had a quota system where ships are assessed by size and catching capabilities. And, when they reach their allotment, they leave the Zone. Then, we don’t need any of these fast boys assessing the biomass.
MS: Not to our general belier, I don’t think. There have been various different discussions about ways of running the fishery. We talked about fees on a catch as you go basis but that’s much, much more difficult to police. If I understand your question correctly, the way we run the fishery from the scientific point of view is correct. Is that what you are asking?
Comment: I am saying that are there alternatives to giving licences to vessels to catch as much in the time allowed but if we assess the ships and their efficiency and then allow them to catch a corresponding amount. If we have fishery inspectors onboard those ships, then surely we can police it.
MS: We do the first part of that but not the second part of it. Every vessel that applies for a license is assessed on its ability to catch according to the things you are talking about – size, tonnage, etc. And, the number of licences issued is decided by effectively dividing the allowable catch (the biomass the scientists believe is available to catch) by the catching capability of the vessels. That’s how you know how many vessels you can license. It still requires that there is that scientific input. You still have to assess the biomass at the beginning of the season. The beginning of the season starts, in fact, with that assessment. But then during the course of the season there is continuing assessment as to whether the original estimate of the biomass is correct or not. The Director has the right to change the fishery at any time if he thinks that the biomass was underestimated and if the escapement rate is not going to be as affective as it could be. There is a requirement to let go 40,000 tonnes a year to ensure recruitment for the following year. The continuous assessment that’s done during the course of the year is aimed at ensuring that those 40,000 tonnes escape. The problem, particularly this year is that we are not sure that 40,000 tonnes were in place and met. So the fishery had to be closed fairly early to ensure that anything that was there is safe. What we don’t have, of course, is the ability to stop people from fishing on the high seas for the same biomass. That’s the subject of on-going discussions with the Argentines to get a high seas fishing agreement.
Q3-P1: How is that biomass assessed? Is it guesswork?
MS: I am not a scientist and therefore I might struggle to explain to you exactly how the biomass is assessed. It’s certainly not guesswork. We invest quite a lot of scientific effort into assessing the biomass.
Comment: At the end of the day, it’s down to guesswork.
SL: It’s scientific modelling and it takes into account all sorts of factors like the sizes of Squid you are catching, the numbers and different sizes, the rate of catch and things like that. There is a complicated model that actually spits out a figure at the end of it as far as I understand it. Whether you have faith in that, it’s up to you.
Q4-P1: The fact is, is it not, that this is the same model we used in 1986/87? If we used a different model, would the fishery have failed?
SL: The important thing is that the failure of the fishery this year and, I think 2002 is not actually down to the level of catches. It was due to environmental factors as far as scientists can tell - the ocean temperatures and things like that.
MS: Scientists and fishermen agreed this year that the reason for the loss of catches was environmental. It isn’t often that fishermen and scientists agree but we are coming up with the same explanation.
NE: Eric, have you never been to Imperial College?
EG: (Eric Goss) No but I met Dr. Beddington
NE: Next time you go away get there and see for yourself.
MS: A lot of the science we have is down here. We actually have more scientists here than we used to have. We have reduced the contract amount with Imperial College and a lot of the stock assessment is done here.
(100X Transcription Service)
|
