APPENDIX 2
Memorandum submitted by the Natural Environment
Research Council (K7)
INTRODUCTION
1. Most of the comments in this document
relate to environmental aspects of the Common Fisheries Policy
(CFP) and draws on input from the Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU).
Comments concentrate on the terms of references indicated below
and are presented as follows:
| Introduction | Paragraph 1
|
| Background | Paragraphs 2 to 4
|
| To what extent the proposals will improve quota management and conservation and what alternatives might be considered
| Paragraphs 5 to 17 |
| What will be the impact of the proposals on the structure of the British fishing industry?
| Paragraphs 18 to 19 |
| Whether the plans for social help for fishing communities are adequate
| Paragraph 20 |
Whether enough emphasis has been placed on proper enforcement of the CFP
Other comments
| Paragraphs 25 to 31 |
BACKGROUND
2. The Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) is
one of the UK's seven Research Councils. It funds and carries
out impartial scientific research in the sciences of the environment.
NERC trains the next generation of independent environmental scientists.
Its priority research areas are: Earth's life-support systems,
climate change, and sustainable economies.
3. NERC's research centres are: the British Antarctic
Survey (BAS), the British Geological Survey (BGS), the Centre
for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH) and the Proudman Oceanographic
Laboratory (POL).
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
To what extent the proposals will improve quota management
and conservation—and what alternatives might be considered.
REFORMS
CONSERVATION OF
RESOURCES AND
MANAGEMENT OF
FISHERIES
4. The objective given in the roadmap: "an economically
viable and competitive fisheries and aquaculture industry which
will benefit the consumer" is laudable, but requires further
explanation. The consumer would most likely be served best by
policies that produce most fish, which would result in lower prices.
This may not be in the best economic interests of the industry.
A more explicit statement that the highest practicable yield levels
will be sought, subject to environmental concerns, would have
been useful.
5. It is stated that management will be re-focused on
a more long-term approach to secure sustainable fisheries with
high yields, which goes some way to addressing the point above.
However, elsewhere in the documents, multi-annual management plans
are proposed to ensure sustainable exploitation, a less ambitious
goal, and to "keep stock size and fishing mortality rates
within long-term safe levels" again a less ambitious goal
than trying to ensure highest practicable yields.
6. It is stated in the document that the multi-annual
plans will "establish rules for the protection of non-commercial
fish species, in particular cetaceans and other marine mammals
and seabirds". Clarification on whether the aim here is population
conservation or restoration rather than individual animal protection,
would be welcome. The "other" marine mammals are seals
or pinnipeds, and it might be simpler just to say "mammals,
birds and reptiles", as turtles could also be added to this
list.
7. The proposed Management Committee needs further explanation.
For example, how will this Committee be made up and what resources
will it have, especially to balance stock management and economic
considerations with environmental concerns? Relevant expert bodies
should be consulted on its terms of reference, scope of activities,
constitution and organisation. There needs to be some explicit
link between this proposed committee and at least the Scientific,
Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) and the
proposed Regional Advisory Councils (RAC). It is important that
it has access to expertise in all appropriate disciplines. The
Commission and its Committees may not be set up to access all
significant information at present.
INDUSTRIAL FISHING
8. Some aspects of this section need clarifying. It is
stated first that industrial fishing should target fish for which
there is no market for direct human consumption. Yet the last
sentence also looks for improved management of stocks for which
there are both industrial and human consumptive uses. Blue whiting
is mentioned, but sprats and horse mackerel could be included.
The more appropriate aims should be to minimise any economic waste
brought about by industrial fishing, and to ensure that any risks
of eco-system level impacts from such fishing are minimised.
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
IN THE
MEDITERRANEAN SEA
9. We would have liked to see more here about data gathering
and data management.
INCORPORATING ENVIRONMENTAL
CONCERNS INTO
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
10. The Commission espouses the use of "indicators
of environmental impact" which will presumably be developed
by the "relevant bodies" mentioned. The International
Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) has some experience
here of developing Ecological Quality Objectives for OSPAR, so
perhaps that process should be referred to if this route is to
be taken. This is a task that will need some far-sighted thinking
and would benefit from reviewing approaches that have been taken
elsewhere in the world as well as those that are currently under
development in Europe. There is also a danger in deriving trite
sets of indicators by which performance is measured, as invariably
these lead to a narrowed managerial focus. Ongoing peer review,
as proposed elsewhere under fleet policy, would be a preferable
means of addressing so complex a set of issues. It may be difficult
to establish a set of useful environmental impact indicators by
early 2003.
11. The Commission proposes immediate action (in 2002)
on sharks, seabirds and cetaceans. Whereas some actions could
be taken with respect to all of these groups, there is a lack
of sufficient information on which to base adequate management
actions. This section needs to elaborate on how a management framework
might be set up to address such issues, including pinpointing
where there are important deficiencies in information. In this
respect it should be stressed that STECF and the proposed Management
Committee need to have appropriate expertise to address these
issues.
ACTION PLAN
FOR THE
IMPROVEMENT OF
SCIENTIFIC ADVICE
Improvement in data collection, extended to include environmental
impact:
12. There are enormous problems in terms of data collection,
data management and data availability. Baseline data should be
explicitly mentioned with respect to environmental impacts. It
is not just a question of needing to assess, for example, the
quantities of non-commercial species being impacted by fisheries;
information on the distribution, abundance and ecology of those
species is also vital. Such monitoring needs to be done independently
of fishing operations, should be an integral part of any ecosystem
management schemes, and ideally should be funded from the fishery.
INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES
13. There is very little mention of environmental impacts
in this entire section. A key element must be data collection,
including baseline surveys, and the sharing of this information
with the host nation. Proper data collections schemes must be
established on all distant water fleets to assess environmental
impacts and where necessary environmental/ecological/population
surveys need to be carried out in order to be able to assess the
extent of any impact on the distant water environment. The Commission
should not be responsible for undertaking such an assessment itself
as this is a task that needs to be undertaken by some element
of an environmental management regime that is opaque in the current
proposal.
ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRATION
AND IUU FISHING
(COM (2002) 186 FINAL AND
COM (2002) 180 FINAL)
14. It is suggested that a new set of technical measures
will be adopted by the end of 2002 to reduce bycatch of cetaceans
to levels guaranteeing favourable conservation status. This would
be extremely difficult, if not impossible, as the levels of cetacean
bycatch are unknown in all but a very few fisheries, population
sizes are unknown in almost all cases, and there are limited options
at present to devise adequate technical measures. The Annex notes
that both bycatch and population size will be estimated on the
basis of scientific evidence—but the evidence is not there
and will not be for at least another two or three years. A more
useful and realistic target would be to implement some kind of
management framework that would enable the appropriate questions
to be posed, and then answers to those questions sought, and then
management advice put forward on that basis. Similarly, "full
monitoring" of "populations of marine species on Annex
IV of Directive 92/43/EEC" needs to be undertaken, but it
will take longer than a year (as proposed in the document), and
a proposal is being prepared to address this very issue in 2004-05.
15. There is no doubt that reducing fishing effort and
the elimination of public funds for increasing fishing power will
help environmental efforts, but we would like to know how the
Commission will draw up another action plan on sharks, cetaceans
and sea birds in the next few months and whom it will consult.
This is a major task that has social and economic consequences
and it would be helpful to know how the appropriate expertise
(including that from countries outside the EC) can be brought
to bear in a timely manner. The establishment of ad hoc committees
that have to work within a short time frame to provide advice
on this topic will not be sufficient.
16. The questions involved in integrating environmental
concerns into fisheries management are complex and will require
dialogue between the Commission and any technical committee set
up to address the issue, and also with bodies such as ICES, STECF
and the Advisory Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture. Dialogue
must be initiated to decide on management objectives before management
plans can be devised by a technical committee, and often the appropriate
information to decide on a management plan will not be available.
In this instance a technical committee needs to seek advice on
what to do in the interim (ie how to adjust the management goals
in the short term) and how best to ensure that the appropriate
information is indeed collected and analysed as soon as possible.
If the Commission proposes a full set of action plans for birds,
sharks and mammals (why not turtles and sturgeons) to protect
them from fisheries in the next few months then we fear that those
plans will be inadequate. It would be far better to establish
an institutional framework so that these matters can be addressed
thoroughly using the best available advice.
WHAT WILL
BE THE
IMPACT OF
THE PROPOSALS
ON THE
STRUCTURE OF
THE BRITISH
FISHING INDUSTRY?
Access to waters and resources
17. Perhaps it is time to recognise explicitly the possibility
here that there should at some point be no "national"
fleets, but only European registered ones.
COMPENSATION AND
SANCTIONS
18. These should be extended or it should be made explicit
that the "loss of common resources" includes damage
to the environment. Note again the need for independent monitoring
of the environment if this were to be possible.
WHETHER THE
PLANS FOR
SOCIAL HELP
FOR FISHING
COMMUNITIES ARE
ADEQUATE
19. While a fair standard of living for fishery workers
is a major objective, it appears that the only place safety is
mentioned in the section: A new strategy to address structural
adjustment.
WHETHER ENOUGH
EMPHASIS HAS
BEEN PLACED
ON PROPER
ENFORCEMENT OF
THE CFP
A framework for the deployment of observers on board fishing
vessels
20. It has been shown in the US that when scientific
observers are tasked with enforcement and compliance, data quality
is seriously undermined. There are two ways in which this happens—boats
will clearly behave differently when an enforcement official is
on board, and at an individual level the behaviour of such official
also changes or is changed when they are living on board. There
is a risk of coercion where an individual is expected to live
24 hours a day with a potentially hostile company—the dangers
of this are obvious, and can lead to problems, among which poor
data quality or biased data are probably the least worrying. We
recommend that enforcement and compliance tasks are undertaken
by the VMS and remote sensing systems proposed, backed up by roving
inspections, and that any on board scientific observers are divested
of any enforcement authority, both for their own protection and
to ensure the least biased data collection.
REGIONAL ADVISORY
COUNCILS
21. These are a good idea, but further details are required
on how they will be funded, or how they will be constituted or
organised. Outreach is a critical issue here as stakeholders need
to be. There is also a need to think through how such Councils
will interact with other bodies involved in fisheries management
in the EU including ICES, STECF, the Management Committee, the
Advisory Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture and indeed the
Commission itself.
EUROPEAN CODE
OF RESPONSIBLE
FISHERIES
22. This is seemingly being developed—or has been
developed already—by the Advisory Committee for Fisheries
and Aquaculture, without any interactions with other bodies in
relation to environmental concerns. An appropriate organisational
structure whereby the best advice can be sought by all the various
bodies set up to advise the Commission needs to be established.
In this instance it would seem appropriate that the development
of a code of conduct for responsible fishing should also have
some environmental input.
ACTIONS TO
PROMOTE TRANSPARENCY
AND PEER
REVIEW
23. Another subject that should be reviewed here is that
of environmental targets; it should be made explicit that the
Commission and member states will hold to account states that
fail to meet monitoring or enforcement targets set to minimise
environmental impacts.
OTHER COMMENTS
The new CFP "Roadmap" and Framework Regulation
24. From an environmental perspective the new objectives
in the roadmap go some way towards addressing the previous lack
of environmental considerations. Environmental concerns are clearly
flagged in Article 2 of the proposed regulation, which states
that fishery exploitation shall provide "sustainable environmental,
economic and social conditions". Less clear, however, is
what principles should be used in reconciling the obvious conflicts
that such a broad objective will generate. Nor is it clear in
the roadmap or elsewhere exactly how the proposed new management
framework will address environmental concerns at a practical level:
how will advice be sought and made available to the management
committee, how will targets and timetables be decided and how
will transgressions be dealt with?
25. Article 2 also indicates that "eco-system based
approach to management" will be developed, but it is not
clear what it means, and it avoids making any societal choice
or decision about management objectives. Thus, other than saying
that an eco-system approach will be used, the roadmap does not
establish or propose any explicit environmental objectives.
26. A more target-driven and explicit objective would
have been preferable, including the maintenance of marine wildlife
populations at levels that, at a minimum, excludes the possibility
of any further regional extinctions, and the restoration of depleted
populations to historic levels. The precedence of objectives needs
to be clarified.
27. The statement that the CFP should address the integration
on environmental policy concerns into the aquaculture sector could
be more explicit. This is an important sector and serious thought
needs to go into how the environmental concerns surrounding aquaculture
can be addressed at a European level.
28. The implications of coastal zone management need
to be understood. Most of Europe's coasts are already over-developed.
In this case "sustainable development" would seem to
imply repair and restoration rather than further development.
Integrated coastal zone management is not really a tool—it
simply means getting people from different management spheres
to talk to one another and agree on a common set of goals and
an agreed set of management measures. For this to work in Europe
there needs to be a means of communication between those responsible
for all activities impacting the coastal zone to communicate.
The Action Plan does not mention how this will be achieved. Exactly
what the coast zone consists of needs to be defined. For example,
should it include water authorities dealing with catchment areas
hundreds of miles from the sea for example? Again, it would be
helpful to hear how the Commission proposes to get the appropriate
areas of expertise or responsibility to speak to one another.
29. The Plan also mentions the need for the CFP to adopt
a community strategy for distant water fisheries to contribute
to sustainable fishing outside community waters. It is not clear
that this has anything to do with environmental concerns and there
is little mention of environmental concerns in the relevant sections
on distant water fishing in the Road Map document. Some clarity
on how the EU's environmental concerns will be executed in relation
to distant water fishing would be helpful.
30. The UK's priorities seem well founded. As will be
evident from the comments above, we feel there is room for improvement
in the process and organisational structure: given the expanded
nature of the proposed new CFP's remit, we believe that more thought
needs to go into the organisation framework of how the Commission
will receive advice, and how it will solicit answers to specific
questions relevant to management decisions. We note that in the
Proposal for a Council Regulation on the conservation and exploitation
of fisheries under a common fisheries policy, the Commission intends
to broaden the scope of STECF, and will bring forward a Communication
on improving scientific advice.
Natural Environment Research Council
30 September 2002
| 
