COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN REGIONAL FISHERIES
ORGANISATIONS (RFOs)
(20814)
13676/99
COM(99) 613
|
Commission Communication on Community participation in Regional Fisheries Organisations.
|
| Legal base: |
— |
| |
| Document originated:
| 8 December 1999 |
| Forwarded to the Council:
| 8 December 1999 |
| Deposited in Parliament:
| 6 January 2000 |
| Department: |
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
|
| Basis of consideration:
| EM of 19 January 2000 |
| Previous Committee Report:
| None; but see (20414) 10074/99:
HC 34-xxviii (1998-99), paragraph 19 (20 October 1999), HC 23-i (1999-2000), paragraph 10 (24 November 1999), HC 23-vi (1999-2000), paragraph 9 (26 January 2000)
|
| To be discussed in Council:
| No date set |
| Committee's assessment:
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision:
| Cleared |
Background
13.1 Although most fishing takes place within
waters under national jurisdiction, the management of stocks in
international waters has become the responsibility of so-called
regional fisheries organisations (RFOs), which in recent years
have increased considerably in both numbers and importance. The
traditional involvement of some Member States in distant-water
fishing makes this an important area of activity, in which the
Community has exclusive competence, and this Communication from
the Commission examines the various aspects of that involvement.
The current document
13.2 The Commission identifies five types
of obligation which arise from the Community's participation in
RFOs. These are:
- representing the interests of the Community;
- making a financial contribution to the budget
and work of the RFOs;
- participating in the work of the organisations;
- transposing their recommendations into Community
law;
- implementing the conservation and management
measures adopted.
13.3 The Commission goes on to suggest that
it should maintain its exclusive responsibility for representing
the Community within RFOs, but with Member States playing a supporting
rôle, and continuing to provide experts to attend scientific
and technical committees where the Commission itself is unable
to be present. It does, however, suggest a number of changes,
as a result of which:
- Member States which currently transmit data to
RFOs via the Commission would in future do so direct, with the
Commission restricting itself to monitoring quality and consistency;
- there would be an in depth examination of how
the transposition into Community law of the increasing number
of recommendations made by RFOs might be simplified and rationalised:
at present, this requires Council Regulations, but the suggestion
is that this might in future be done through Commission legislation;
- the increasing inspection and enforcement obligations
arising from RFO activity would become the responsibility of Member
States, who would provide the necessary resources: on that basis,
the current arrangements for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries
Organisation (NAFO) under which the Commission itself provides
inspection vessels and inspectors on behalf of the Community would
be regarded as anomalous and terminated.
The Government's view
13.4 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 19
January 2000, the Minister for Fisheries & the Countryside
at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr Morley)
points out that the Communication is intended to stimulate debate
about the extent and nature of the Community's involvement in
RFOs, and how this can best be achieved. He says that the Government
supports the Community's active participation in those RFOs which
manage stocks and waters fished by Community vessels, and that
it agrees with many of the Commission's suggestions. It does,
however, have two reservations.
13.5 First, since, it says, experience has
shown that there can be serious disagreements between the Community
and Member States about how recommendations can be put into practice,
the Government considers it essential for the Council to retain
legislative powers in this area. Secondly, it does not agree that
inspection and enforcement obligations should fall on Member States,
pointing out that the UK and other Member States rejected last
year the proposal for such an approach in respect of new control
measures adopted by the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission
(NEAFC)[43].
It goes on to suggest that this allocation should be determined
on a case-by-case basis, according to operational priorities and
cost-effectiveness, but that it would make more sense for the
Commission to provide such services for RFOs operating close to
Community waters, and where vessels of several Member States are
involved.
Conclusion
13.6 As the Government has pointed out,
regional fisheries organisations have an increasingly important
conservation rôle in international waters, and it is therefore
right and proper for the Community to be closely involved in their
activities. Likewise, most of the Commission's suggestions appear
to make good sense. However, in clearing the document, we think
it right to draw attention to the two reservations expressed by
the Government, and in particular to the question of inspection
and enforcement responsibilities. In this last connection, we
note that the Commission's preferred approach is somewhat at odds
with the optimism expressed by the Minister, and noted in our
Report of 25 January, regarding the future arrangements in the
NEAFC area. We will, therefore, look with more than usual interest
at the proposals for 2001 and beyond for that area, which the
Government expects the Commission to bring forward in the autumn.
43 (20414) 10074/99; see headnotes to this paragraph. Back
|
