MULTI-ANNUAL GUIDANCE PROGRAMMES FOR FISHERIES
(21280)
7426/00
COM(00) 272
|
Commission Report to the Council in preparation for a mid term review of the Multi-annual Guidance Programmes.
|
| Legal base:
| — |
| |
| Document originated:
| 10 May 2000 |
| Forwarded to the Council:
| 12 May 2000 |
| Deposited in Parliament:
| 5 June 2000 |
| Department: |
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
|
| Basis of consideration:
| EM of 7 June 2000 |
| Previous Committee Report:
| None; but see (17255) 7833/96: HC 51-xxv (1995-96), paragraph 1 (10 July 1996)
|
| To be discussed in Council:
| 16 June 2000 |
| Committee's assessment:
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision:
| Cleared, but relevant to any debate on the revision of MAGP IV or the future of the Common Fisheries Policy
|
Background
14.1 The arrangements governing Community
structural assistance to the fishing industry include provisions
for the restructuring of the fleets to be made in multi-annual
guidance programmes (MAGPs), drawn up by the individual Member
States and approved by the Commission. A series of such programmes
has been adopted by the Community in recent years, with the guidelines
for the most recent (MAGP IV), covering the period from 1 January
1997 to 31 December 2001, having been set out in a Commission
Communication of 30 May 1996[31].
The actual national MAGPs, based on Council Decision No. 97/413/EC[32]
of 26 June 1997, were adopted by the Commission in a series of
Decisions in December 1997[33].
The relevant Council Decision also required the Commission to
report to the Council by 31 March 1999 on the state of the stocks
and the effect on them of the MAGPs; and the Council in turn was
required to decide by 31 December 1999 on any necessary adjustments
to the targets for fishing effort for the period 1 January 2000
to 31 December 2001. However, because of the delay in adopting
the programmes which arose as a result of the protracted negotiations
within the Council, and the need to evaluate them over a sufficient
period, the Commission has only now been able to present its mid-term
report.
The current document
14.2 In introducing this report, the Commission
first recalls earlier reports, which highlighted the very high
rate of exploitation of many of the Community's stocks, and the
consequent need to reduce fishing mortality significantly (typically
by about 40%, and, in many cases, more). This in turn led the
Commission to propose cuts in MAGP III of 20%-30% in targeted
stocks, though it points out that most Member States considered
these figures to be too high, and subsequently reduced them to
15%-20%, representing a reduction of approximately 10% of the
overall Community fleet. The Commission goes on to point out that
it proposed further substantial cuts during MAGP IV, and that,
in order to better target these, it classified stocks according
to whether they were depleted, over-fished, or fully exploited,
with cuts of 30% and 20% respectively proposed for depleted or
over-fished stocks. However, it says these proposals were, once
again, rejected by most Member States, which instead proposed
that the reduction rates should be weighted by the catch composition
of the vessels in the segments concerned, with the reduction in
fishing effort increasing according to the proportion of the most
sensitive stocks. According to the Commission, the effect of this
is that MAGP IV requires an overall reduction in fishing effort
for the Community fleet of about 5% over the 5 year period of
the programme, instead of about 15% under its own original proposal.
14.3 As regards the current situation, the
Commission says that the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee
for Fisheries (STECF) has found no evidence that stocks have in
general deteriorated or improved since the adoption of MAGP IV.
It also notes that the International Council for the Exploration
of the Sea (ICES) now bases its advice on the precautionary approach,
and has thus revised somewhat the earlier definitions of what
comprise depleted, over-fished and fully exploited stocks. On
that basis, it says that 67% of the stocks for which sufficient
information is available are classified as over-fished, some 40%
as depleted, and 37% as both over-fished and depleted, and that
those which cannot be classified because of lack of information
should be treated as at risk of depletion, with fishing effort
being increased only if this can be demonstrated as being fully
in line with the precautionary approach. All in all, the Commission
concludes that these figures provide a clear demonstration that
the state of the stocks in European waters is far from satisfactory,
but it says that this cannot be used as evidence of a deterioration
since the adoption of MAGP IV; indeed, it suggests that the problem
of over-capacity is so large that MAGPs can provide only part
of the solution, and that it would in any case be unreasonable
to expect to observe the effects of MAGP IV over such a short
period. For these reasons, this will be the subject of its next
annual report to the Council.
14.4 In the meantime, the Commission highlights
two features of the current MAGP guidelines. First, it points
out that, whereas unweighted figures would for the Community as
a whole have resulted in reductions of 15% in tonnage and 14%
in engine power (26% and 21% respectively for the UK), the actual
weighted reductions agreed by the Council amount in each case
to no more than 5% (11% and 9% respectively, in the case of the
UK). It further points out that, in the case of heavily depleted
stocks, the weighting system has the perverse effect of giving
less protection, since the more such stocks decline, the lower
their representation and hence the smaller the reduction in effort
required. Secondly, it points out that, for segments using active
fishing gear, Member States can opt to achieve all or part of
their objectives by reducing activity rather than capacity, and
that six Member States — including the UK — have in
fact taken up this option. As a result, the Commission says that
the capacity reduction required by MAGP IV for the Community fleet
as a whole has been reduced from about 5% to less than 3% (and,
in the case of the UK, from 9-11% to around 1%). However, it also
points out that, whilst a reduction in activity might in theory
have a more immediate impact than a reduction in capacity, the
effort management régimes in a number of Member States
are unsatisfactory, and are not sufficient for the purposes of
the MAGP, which calls for permanent, structural reductions in
fishing effort. It therefore concludes that, for the limitation
of activity to have the same effect as the limitation of capacity,
the former must be permanent in the same way as the latter.
14.5 Against this background, the Commission
suggests:
- that deeper cuts should be made for the remainder
of MAGP IV;
- that these should be made in capacity, not effort,
and that the weighted reduction rates should be replaced by unweighted
rates, and applied pro rata to the end of the programme;
- that MAGP IV should be extended for a year until
the end of 2002, so that these cuts can be applied for two full
years, and that the Commission can undertake a further review
of the structural policy for the fleet.
The Government's view
14.6 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 7
June 2000, the Parliamentary Secretary (Commons) at the Ministry
of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr Morley) says that, if adopted,
the suggested measures would require a cut in the UK fishing fleet
of 8% over the two years 2001-2002. This would require a reduction
of up to 22,000 tonnes of capacity (including over 14,000 tonnes
from the Scottish pelagic fleet, representing 30% of the pelagic
fleet capacity). He goes on to say that the Government supports
the principle of reducing the overcapacity in the fleet, and has
taken effective steps to achieve its obligations under the existing
programme. It does, however, have "severe" reservations
about any sudden change in MAGP IV at this stage which would require
large cuts in UK fleet capacity in the short term, both on the
grounds of cost to the Exchequer and its disruptive effect on
industry. It also has reservations about extending the duration
of MAGP IV.
14.7 The Minister goes on to say that the
UK has used controls on activity rather than cuts in capacity
for those segments of the fleet, such as pelagic and beam trawl,
which have not found decommissioning grants attractive. He also
points out that these are the most productive and modern parts
of the fleet, that public decommissioning would be highly expensive,
and that the pelagic industry plays an important rôle in
the economies of local communities in Scotland which have few
alternative employment opportunities. Likewise, the Minister says
that the Government does not accept the contention in the report
that effort control cannot be applied effectively, points out
that the UK has managed the activity of the fleet responsibly,
and wishes to retain the option of limiting by means of effort
management. He also stresses that, should the suggestions in the
report become proposals, the costs of removing capacity would
be substantial.
Conclusion
14.8 Although there is clearly still
an over-capacity problem which the Community will presumably need
to address, we note, and share, the Government's strong reservations
over the suggestion that changes involving large cuts in the capacity
of the UK fishing fleet should at this stage be made in MAGP IV.
In particular, changes of this kind in the middle of a programme
would make it well nigh impossible for sensible long-term decisions
to be taken, thereby adding to the lack of stability to which
the industry is already subject as a result of annual fluctuations
in total allowable catches.
14.9 We therefore regard this as a document
of some potential importance, which should be drawn to the attention
of the House. That said, we are also aware that it is simply a
report from the Commission, whose immediate aim is to stimulate
debate, and that, were there any question of the changes suggested
being pursued, this would require a separate proposal for an amending
Council Regulation, which would itself be subject to scrutiny
in the normal way. In view of this, we do not believe it is necessary
to have a free-standing debate on this document. We do, however,
consider that it would be relevant to the consideration by the
House either of any specific proposals put forward to amend MAGP
IV, or of any more general proposals which the Commission may
advance on the future development of the Common Fisheries Policy.
31 (17255) 7833/96; see headnote to this paragraph. Back
32
OJ No. L 175, 3.7.97, p.27. Back
33
Commission Decisions 98/119/EC to 98/131/EC (OJ No. L 39, 12.2.98,
pp. 1-84). Back
|
