Falklands : Committee News: Fisheries (25/11/05)
Submitted by Falkland Islands News Network (Juanita Brock) 29.11.2005 (Article Archived on 13.12.2005)
Find out about what this vital committee thinks is important.
FISHERIES COMMITTEE
Compiled by J. Brock (FINN)
A meeting of the Fisheries Committee took place in the Liberation Room of the Secretariat at 1330 hrs on Friday, 25 November 2005. Present at the meeting were Cllrs Cockwell and Clausen, Industry Representatives Dick Sawle, Lewis Clifton and Hamish Wyley, the Chief Executive, Mr. Chris Simpkins, Mr. John Barton, Director of Fisheries and Attorney General Mr. David Lang QC. Apologies were received from Julian Morris, General Manager of FIDC and industry representatives, Drew Irvine and Stuart Wallace. Irene Ewing took the minutes.
Richard Cockwell would chair this meeting but Andrea Clausen had the chair for the following meetings for the rest of the new Council’s life.
Following confirmation of the minutes of the Fisheries Committee meeting held on Tuesday, 25 October 2005, a correction to the minutes was made by Dick Sawle – the previous meeting of the FAC had agreed and decided that the methodology of assessment for ITQ would be made public. It was agreed that clarity on this pivotal point of the policy was of paramount importance. Chris Simpkins and Cllr. Clausen agreed that it was important to make the methodology available.
In matters arising, the Fisheries Ordinance Schedule 2 was discussed. It was to be amended so that the start date would be July 2006. John Barton mentioned that there were several versions going around but the final version would be gazetted. Care must be taken not to make endless amendments a retrograde step and have us wind up where we started. Some Fisheries operated all year around, while others were seasonal. Scallops and Loligo Fisheries would be reintroduced. However, it was mentioned that the season for various species should be closed for three months during spawning season.
Andrea Clausen brought up fisheries protection based on species and based on product. She mentioned this in using both the pelagic (mid to high water) and demersal (bottom) trawling equipment and methods. The product based scenario did not set well with her as fisheries could be defined by fishing methods (pelagic/demersal) rather than by product. Fishing methods often determine the product caught and not visa-versa.
Hamish Wyley said that it made sense but how did one move to the new system. He mentioned that the only pelagic species in the zone were Blue Whiting with a by-catch of Hoki. John Barton mentioned that at the moment fishing vessels were not using pelagic gear for demersal fishing. There was one experiment but that was only a trial. There were too many practicalities to think of before assessing the merit of switching methods.
Hamish Wyley said that pelagic gear was used to trawl for Ice Fish in South Georgia and Dick Sawle mentioned that it took ˝ an hour to an hour for a vessel to switch gears while at sea. However, defining fishing by fishing methods could lead to difficulties, according to John Barton, as most FI trawlers were only equipped for bottom (demersal) trawling. Dick Sawle made the point that most FI trawlers were equipped for both pelagic and demersal trawls.
John Barton wanted to ask for industry views on the subject and Chris Simpkins agreed but said that we needed to get on with the process. Richard Cockwell agreed that we needed to put it to bed.
The Committee then considered recommendations for Aggregation Limits. Part “B” needed to be considered. John Barton said that there needed to be clarification on the whole issue in proportion to any fishing. One company could view limits of the Fisheries Policy differently than another and there needed to be a policy review. John Barton had produced a paper on this. The problem outlined in the paper was that one company would have virtually all of the surimi fishery. In order to maintain their monopoly on surimi, they would have to have an exemption from the limits set. Exemptions should be avoided if at all possible as they were, by definition, contrary to the policy and fundamental philosophies contained in the policy document. The point was made that many companies felt that they could produce far higher value from products such as Hoki – surimi was a high volume low value process. The point was stated that there were high value investments made in any fishery and this should be one of the policy objectives for exemption. It depends on the catch and the species. ITQ and Aggregation Limits apply to licence types. They can be transferred across except for Loligo. In the new scheme, ITQ could be traded but checks needed to be put in place against a high proportion being traded. It should be fixed but not in stone. A change from 30 to 40% Aggregation Limits was mentioned. Comments are awaited from Fortuna Limited.
Next on the agenda was the implementation and commencement of the Fisheries Ordnance. John Barton took the cautious approach saying that people will test the limits wherever and whenever possible. Crunch time would come if the fishery had to be reduced as much as 50%
Lewis Clifton mentioned that there were opportunities to develop a table fish product that would replace Cod. He suggested Blue Whiting. John Barton’s reply was it shouldn’t be a surimi product. Both single operators and surimi will be addressed in the Southern Blue Whiting fishery as by-catches come with the catch of Southern Blue Whiting and companies purchase ITQ for that purpose.
Lewis Clifton mentioned that the Ordinance provided the opportunity for changing the type and method and gear to get difference species but this needed to be thought through. Richard Cockwell mentioned that canvassing the industry about this would be a good idea. Nonetheless, a paper would be produced by John Barton to put to the next meeting of EXCO. EXCO would look at arguments on both sides of the issue and make a decision.
A discussion about when parts of the Ordinance would be put in place took place with David Lang explaining that it would be difficult but achievable to have the whole Ordinance in place by July 2006. Richard Cockwell sees that if the goal of July 2006 were not set then there would be slippage and this would not be a positive outcome.
Effort vs Catch: John Barton said there had been a debate about this as a method of setting ITQ. Dick Sawle asked when and where the debate had taken place as he was not aware of it. John Barton said that Dick Sawle had made representation to him about this and Dick Sawle had replied that these were individual points of view and not a debate. John Barton suggested that data could be laid out based both on catch and effort methods. This would take time to implement but it would be worth it. David Lang mentioned that it was legally possible but complicated.
|
