APPENDIX 1
Memorandum submitted by the Shetland Oceans
Alliance (K1)
REFORM OF
THE COMMON
FISHERIES POLICY
In reply to your Press Notice of 24 July 2002
inviting written evidence on the above, please find below our
submission.
1. Proposal for a Council Regulation on the
conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources
under the Common Fisheries Policy
Our main comments are:
1.1 Multi Annual Management Plans for the
management of fish stocks. This has been welcomed by the fishing
industry and was one of the issues SHOAL campaigned on. It is
noted that effort limitation, catch limits and technical measures
will be components of a multi annual management plan. One measure
proposed is the establishment of incentives, including those of
an economic nature, to promote more selective fishing. This suggests
that compensated tie up could be revisited. SHOAL has consistently
argued that transitional aid is necessary if the fishing industry
is to survive and a compensated, gradually decreasing tie up scheme
is necessary if the crisis with fish stocks is to be genuinely
tackled. SHOAL again asks the Scottish Executive to reconsider
its position on compensated tie up.
1.2 It is noted that the 12 mile limit will
remain.
1.3 The principle of equal access is confirmed
in the White Paper but Relative Stability remains, which means
that only countries which have quota in the area will have a right
to fish there. There is mention in the Roadmap however of consideration
being given to altering the allocation keys, for example by basing
allocations on an average share of catches over the past five
to ten years.
It is clear from the preamble to the Regulation,
and from comments in the Roadmap that the Commission's view is
that the structural changes proposed in the CFP will lead to a
more stable economic situation in the fishing industry, such that
relative stability and national fish stock allocations would no
longer be required. However, Relative Stability benefits everybody
so there is unlikely to be much demand for wholesale change in
the future. It is noted that the Commission is proposing to organise
workshops later this year on fisheries management issues, covering
areas such as ITQs and payments for the right to fish, and it
is critical that the Scottish Executive and, more importantly,
representatives of communities heavily dependent on fishing, such
as Shetland, are invited to participate in such workshops.
1.4 Fleet capacity levels for each member
state will be based on the existing MAGPIV objectives. The UK
is presently within its MAGP objectives for all but the pelagic
sector, even before the withdrawals from decommissioning are taken
into account. The Commission proposes to introduce an entry/exit
ration of 1-1, ie no boat can enter the fleet without similar
capacity being withdrawn. The UK effectively works this system
within its vessel licensing rules, so this proposal will bring
other Member States into line with the UK. There are two areas
which require attention in this regard:
(a) arguments need to be put forward to look
at fleet capacity on a per sector basis rather than overall so
that individual sectors of the fleet are not penalised for another
sector's overcapacity. There is no logical basis for this, but
it is the position the UK adopts. The Commission is also taking
that line in its Emergency Vessel Scrapping Regulation (see Para
6 below);
(b) safety capacity. Certain Member States,
particularly the Irish, have argued that a certain proportion
of the tonnage of their fleet is necessary for safety reasons
and therefore should not be included in determining whether MAGP
targets have been met. Clarification is therefore required as
to whether the interpretation of "capacity" and "tonnage"
is the same across all Member States and, if not, then in the
interests of fairness, argue for a recalculation of UK tonnage
and capacity for safety reasons. SHOAL asks the Scottish Executive
to clarify this issue as soon as possible.
1.5 Retention of the Shetland Box is confirmed
in the Regulation, but it goes on to state that all such derogations
are to be reviewed by 31 December 2003 to see whether they can
be justified in terms of conservation and sustainable exploitation
objectives. SHOAL has actively campaigned for the retention and
extension of the Shetland Box and asks the Scottish Executive
for its support for a proposed study, to be undertaken next year
co-ordinated by North Atlantic Fisheries College, to demonstrate
the effectiveness of the Box in terms of fisheries conservation
and management .
1.6 It is noted that assistance towards
fleet renewal is to be severely restricted, but since the UK has
not availed itself of European assistance in the past this does
not affect us unduly. However higher scrapping premiums are to
be introduced and, if necessary, extra Community co-funding for
vessels most affected by multi annual management plans which will
encourage additional decommissioning. However, as stated in Para
4a) above, the proposed Council Regulation on an emergency scrapping
measure states that only those Member States which have achieved
both overall and sector reductions will qualify for such assistance,
which means that the UK would not qualify. As mentioned above
SHOAL asks that the Scottish Executive and the UK government present
arguments to the Commission to have fleet capacity assessed on
a per sector basis, so that boats could qualify for this additional
assistance. SHOAL has argued that a certain level of permanent
decommissioning is required but that it is not the only solution,
especially for fisheries dependent communities such as Shetland
where diversification is not an option. SHOAL's position is therefore
one where decommissioning and compensated tie-up should run in
tandem, such that fishing effort is reduced temporarily till stocks
recover, but in the meantime the infrastructure remains so that,
when stocks recover, fishing can resume normally.
1.7 Commission Emergency Measures—the
regulation proposes that the Commission can impose emergency measures
for a period of up to one year, for example in a situation where
stocks look to be in danger of collapse. The Commission already
has these powers (utilised in imposing area closures last year)
but only for a maximum period of six months. The proposed regulation
therefore doubles the time period for such measures.
1.8 Conditions for access to waters and
resources—a number of these proposals are already carried
out in the UK (eg the requirement to carry licences on board).
For those proposals not already in place (eg the proposal for
electronic log books), SHOAL asks the Scottish Executive to confirm
that such measures will only be introduced following industry
consultation. The proposals in the regulations concerning marketing
of fisheries products is broadly welcomed by Shetland's fishermen.
1.9 The proposals on Inspection and Enforcement
and Follow up of Infringements give no particular cause for concern
in that these procedures are largely in place in the UK at present
although suspension of licences is something which, to date, the
UK authorities have shied away from. It is noted that, in order
to ensure that the CFP rules are applied equally throughout the
EU, the Commission is proposing to come forward with a proposal
for a Joint Inspection Structure at Community level. A communication
to that effect will be presented by the end of 2002 with a view
to having a joint inspection structure in place by mid-2004.
1.10 Decision Making and Consultation—the
chapter states that the Commisson will be assisted by a Committee
for Fisheries and Aquaculture. Clarification is required as to
whether this is the same as or a replacement for the European
fisheries advisory committee ACFMA. The regulation also goes on
to refer to the establishment of a further Committee known as
the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries
which is to be consulted on all matters pertaining to conservation
and management. It is not clear where this fits in to the picture,
ie is this a replacement for ACFMA?
This chapter also includes the proposal to establish
Regional Advisory Councils the aim of which would be to bring
together all stakeholders with an interest in fisheries management
and conservation. These Councils would then submit suggestions
to the Commission and Member States on fisheries management issues
within their areas. This is an issue SHOAL campaigned on and SHOAL
therefore asks the Scottish Executive to ensure that there is
sufficient Shetland fisheries representation on the relevant Committee.
SHOAL recommends that there be no dilution of the purpose of these
Committees and that they should be strongly industry focused.
1.11 The Regulation stipulates that because
of the number and extent of amendments to be made to the CFP,
existing CFP Regulations 3760/92 and Regulation 101/76 should
be repealed. SHOAL asks that the Scottish Executive's legal team
provide advice as soon as possible as to whether this would present
any difficulties.
2. Roadmap
2.1 Page 9—Improvement of scientific
advice for fisheries management . It is proposed that an Action
Plan for this will be presented in the second half of 2002. One
of the measures proposed by the Commission is "the development
in the longer term of a European Centre for Fisheries Assessment
and Management, bringing together scientific expertise at Community
level". As an internationally recognised centre of excellence
in fisheries research and development, North Atlantic Fisheries
College is ideally suited to assume this role and SHOAL asks the
Scottish Executive for its assistance in actively promoting NAFC's
case in this regard, particularly in recognition of the very important
and ground breaking work undertaken over the last year by NAFC
on behalf of the Executive in respect of stock assessments and
technical conservation measures.
2.2 Page 19—the Social Dimension of
the CFP. It is acknowledged that structural adjustment is "bound
to have short term consequences for the fisheries sector and for
the economy of a number of coastal areas dependent upon fisheries"
. It is noted that the Commission is proposing to conduct bilateral
consultations with Member states to assess the likely socio-economic
impact of fleet restructuring. Such consultations will, inter
alia, focus on the adaptation of European assistance schemes
such as FIFG and ERDF and it is stated that "appropriate
account will be taken of the need of the outermost regions"
. The Commission proposes to produce an Action Plan on the social,
economic and regional consequences of the CFP in the second half
of 2002. Much work has already been done by Shetland Islands Council
and SHOAL on Shetland's fisheries dependency, peripherality and
insularity and SHOAL agreed that this is presently being drawn
together for presentation to the Scottish Executive, the UK Government
and the Commission to try and gain some recognition of Shetland's
particular status. In recognition of Shetland's heavy dependence
on fisheries, SHOAL therefore asks for the Scottish Executive's
support in presenting Shetland's case to the UK Government and
to the Commission for particular derogations from general and
specific state aids regulations, the retention of current state
aids thresholds and continued access to ERDF and FIFG finance
post 2006, in order that Shetland can continue to support and
develop its key fisheries industries on which it is so dependent.
2.3 Page 22—A Strategy for Integrated
Development of Coastal Areas Dependent on Fishing. It is proposed
that a long term strategy be developed which "recognises
the role played by fishermen and other fisheries stakeholders
in maintaining the social and cultural heritage of coastal areas,
maintaining populations in remote areas where few other economic
activities exist.....". This has been the cornerstone of
SHOAL's arguments leading up to the CFP. However, the proposal
also mentions "providing leverage for the development of
alternative activities, tourism in particular. It must be recognised
that, for Shetland, there are no realistic economic alternatives
to the fishing industry. SHOAL has consistently argued this point
in its submissions to the Scottish Executive, the UK Government
and the Commission and it is critical for the future of these
islands that this is taken on board by all three bodies when coming
to decisions on the future direction of the Common Fisheries Policy.
3. Proposal for a Council Regulation on Community
Structural Assistance for Fisheries
3.1 The explanatory memorandum to this regulation
states that "renewal of the fleet must take place without
any increase in fishing effort, within a sound economic environment
and without public financial support". It is noted that the
regulation stipulates that FIFG assistance will be concentrated
on vessel scrapping and that public aid for fleet renewal will
no longer be permitted. Modernisation assistance will be restricted
to measures connected with safety, quality, hygiene, etc or measures
to increase gear selectivity, reduce by-catches etc.
3.2 It is also noted that the Regulation
confirms that compensation could be granted to fishermen for a
period of three months "in the event of unforeseeable circumstances
particularly those caused by biological factors" or for up
to a year where multi-annual management plans are adopted or where
emergency measures are decided by the Commission. This brings
compensated tie up back on the agenda and SHOAL's position on
this and its requirements from the Scottish Executive are detailed
previously in this letter. It is unclear from the regulation whether
overall MAGP targets have to be met before such assistance is
given and SHOAL therefore asks the Scottish Executive to clarify
this matter.
4. Proposal for a Council Regulation re scrapping
fishing vessels
See Para 4a) and Para 6 above.
5. Communication from the Commission regarding
the integration of Environmental Protection requirements into
the CFP
5.1 It is very clear that the environmental
bodies will have a major input into fisheries management decisions
within the CFP. Multi Annual Management Plans will take into account
environmental factors and environmental bodies will be involved
in the Regional Advisory Councils.
5.2 It is noted that the Communication proposes
as a first step to consult the Scientific Technical and Economic
Committee for Fisheries (see Para 10 above), which itself will
include environmental representatives, with a view to designing
an experimental monitoring system to become operational during
2003. The Commission then proposes, by 2005, to prepare a report
for the Commission and the Parliament on the environmental performance
of the CFP.
5.3 SHOAL's commitment to the environment
has already been made very clear to the Scottish Executive, to
the UK Government and to the Commission in its various responses
to the CFP review and continues to emphasise these, particularly
in relation to fisheries conservation. SHOAL would also like to
reiterate its call for an urgent review of the effects of industrial
fishing on the marine ecosystem. SHOAL also emphasises the important
role served by the Shetland Box in preserving biologically sensitive
stocks and in conserving the marine environment and asks for the
Scottish Executive's support in ensuring that the Shetland Box
is retained.
In conclusion SHOAL would welcome an opportunity
to discuss what it considers the main points in the White Paper.
4 August 2002
| 
