Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence


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



 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2002
Prepared 28 November 2002