Memorandum submitted by the Joint Nature
Conservation Committee (K8)
The attached response is from the Joint Nature
Conservation Committee on behalf of English Nature, Scottish Natural
Heritage and the Countryside Council for Wales. We would be happy
to elaborate on any point should you or your Committee wish.
We feel that the broad content of the first
package of CFP reform proposals is encouraging. Significantly,
the environmental dimension of the CFP has been given a much higher
profile than in the past. This is a necessary and welcome move
toward a policy capable of delivering conservation and sustainable
exploitation of fishery resources within EU waters. We are keen
to ensure that the UK Government supports these positive aspects
of the reforms against the opposition that is likely to arise
from some other Member States. The state of Europe's fish stocks
and fisheries has declined dramatically since the last review
of the CFP in 1992. At that time, the Commission also brought
forward reasonably progressive proposals, but these foundered
on the unwillingness of Member States to take tough economic decisions
that would have moved fisheries onto a more sustainable basis.
Consequently, the situation has deteriorated. We do not believe
that such "compromises" can be allowed to occur again
without running a strong risk of the complete collapse of both
fish stocks and fisheries.
For the past four years we have worked closely
with a network of environmental advisory organisations across
Europe in order to promote the integration of environmental considerations
into the CFP. We consider the following to be essential requirements
of a reformed CFP:
— measures to reduce fleet capacity
and effort to bring them in line with available resources;
— effective and full implementation
of the precautionary principle;
— decentralised management in order
to provide greater stakeholder involvement and better integration
of wildlife policies into the decision making process;
— progressive development of an ecosystem-based
approach to management, including the use of indicators to monitor
environmental performance of the CFP.
The contents of the current reform proposals
as outlined in the various Commission Communications and proposed
Council Regulations are broad in scope and diverse. Therefore,
in our response to the terms of reference listed in your letter,
we have attempted to highlight issues of particular relevance
to fisheries conservation and biodiversity protection within EU
waters.
RESPONSE OF
THE UK NATURE
CONSERVATION AGENCIES
This response is from the Joint Nature Conservation
Committee on behalf of UK's statutory nature conservation agencies:
English Nature, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Countryside
Council for Wales.
To help guide and formulate our response to
this consultation, we have broadly interpreted the Committee's
terms of reference in the form of a question regarding CFP reform.
That is, if the European Commission's current reform proposals
were accepted, resulting in a "new" CFP, then what would
the effects of these be?
While this is a useful exercise, we are well
aware that negotiation will likely alter any proposals that may
actually be implemented. It is therefore problematic to predict
what the effects of any final changes will be. Further, we note
that at the time of writing this response, the Commission has
only published a part of the full set of proposals relating to
the CFP reform. Although these proposals include the core draft
Regulation and a Roadmap outlining the nature of proposals yet
to come, our response with respect to the reform can only be partial
at this time.
1. The effects of the proposals on the fundamental
principles of the CFP
One of the difficulties of the existing CFP
is that it has had no separate fundamental principles aside from
those governing the European Union as a whole. Several aspects
of the CFP have in fact been derogations from those fundamental
principles. Furthermore the objectives, where stated in the current
CFP, are derivations from Common Agricultural Policy objectives
rather than specifically taking account of the needs of fisheries
management. It is this lack of specificity, in combination with
a lack of clarity surrounding the objectives of the CFP that has
contributed to its failure to manage fisheries in EU waters in
a sustainable manner.
We are therefore pleased to see that a more
coherent set of objectives has been proposed for the CFP that,
if adhered to, is much more likely to deliver a CFP that is sustainable
biologically, environmentally, socially and economically. In particular
we support:
— the intention to give the management
process a more long-term, strategic outlook;
— the intention to limit fishing capacity
to a sustainable level consistent with availability of resources;
— the removal of funding for new capacity
and a mechanism for progressively reducing the size of the fleet,
thereby tackling the issue of over-capacity;
— the intention to integrate environmental
considerations by moving towards an ecosystem-based approach to
fisheries management;
— the intention to act to eliminate
IUU fishing (see Section 6);
— the continuation of the inshore limits;
and
— the improvements in governance and
thereby encouragement of more responsible fishing that may arise
from the establishment of Regional Advisory Councils.
We note that the "principle" of relative
stability has been maintained, along the derived implications
of access to waters by the various fleets. These principles are
derogations from the free market fundamentals of the EU, but we
believe that they are necessary, at least at present.
We are less sure that some of the inherent conflicts
among the objectives of the reformed CFP have been fully explored
and resolved. Some of these are carry-overs from the existing
CFP. For example, we note that there remain tensions within the
aspiration to deliver both sustainable fisheries and high yields.
Since the aim of sustainability and an aim of achieving high yield
are likely to pull the policy in opposite directions it would
be better if sustainability was understood to imply a limit to
the quest for high yields. A fundamental principle of the CFP
should be to seek sustainable fisheries in the environmental (biological),
social and economic senses, and to explicitly resolve any conflicting
tensions between these aims.
2. Improvements in quota management, conservation
and possible alternatives
The Commission clearly recognises that the EU
fisheries management system has failed in the past. This failure
may have been for a variety of reasons such as inadequacy of scientific
advice, inability of politicians to take the advice and act on
it, cheating by fishers and inadequate enforcement. Whatever the
real reason (and it is likely to be due to a mixture of factors),
it is plain that EU fisheries management has failed systematically
B and it is therefore hardly likely that reinforcing the present
system will work. The Commission has thus proposed a bold new
approach that we broadly support. A key issue from the environmental
point of view is the currently unsustainable amount of fishing
effort being applied to the marine ecosystem. B Therefore, we
are particularly pleased to see the proposals for significant
effort reduction. We would prefer that environmental (as well
as fish stock) considerations were taken into account in setting
substantially lower effort levels, but whatever reduction levels
are achieved, it should reduce some of the unwanted environmental
effects. From an economic point of view it would make much more
sense to decommission vessels in order to reduce overall effort,
rather than tie vessels up in harbour. This latter option will
only act to impose tremendous pressure on managers to again allow
increases in fishing effort, if and when stocks begin to show
signs of recovery. Such a phenomena is in part to blame for the
failure of groundfish stocks to recover a decade after a moratorium
was imposed on the inshore and Grand Banks fishery of eastern
Canada. Fisheries managers can, and should avoid re-enacting the
same scenario here in EU waters.
We note that the proposals hardly touch on issues
relating to the exploitation of species in deep-sea environments.
Stocks of most deep-sea fish are particularly vulnerable to over-fishing,
as these fish are long-lived, slow to reach maturity, and exhibit
low fecundity. In addition, the habitats fisheries are occurring
within are particularly sensitive to fishing activity, as many
have not been previously disturbed by towed gear. Management of
deep-sea fisheries is thus a particular challenge in terms of
sustainability of both fish stocks and of their environment. Successful
management will mean striking the balance between the need to
maintain sustainable stocks and a sensitive environment, and the
aspirations of the fishing industry. While this is a formidable
challenge, it should not be outside the realm of possibility for
fisheries management providing that the current reform process
results in a CFP with clear objectives and a long-term strategy
for all exploited stocks, including deep-sea species.
We were thus very disappointed with the recent
decisions by the Fisheries Council, and their acceptance by the
Commission, in relation to these fisheries. It has long been widely
recognised in the scientific and policy community that deep-sea
stocks are particularly vulnerable to over-exploitation, and that
there is strong evidence that over fishing has already occurred
on many species in EU waters. It is also well recognised that
TACs (whether precautionary or analytical) are entirely inappropriate
in these fisheries. We are certain that the current proposals
will do little but help better monitor the further decline of
these stocks. We note that the Commission have indicated that
these proposals were only the first step in better management
of deep-sea fisheries. However, the recent setting of TACs, while
deemed an interim measure by the Council and the Commission in
order to offer a degree of protection for deep-sea species, is
a myopic vision and hence exemplary of much that is wrong with
current fisheries management in the EU. Explicit commitments by
the Commission to continue to press for full and proper regulation
of these fisheries, including capacity and effort regulation,
and the consideration of large closed areas, are missing from
the proposals seen so far.
Further, there appears to be scope for improvement
in the TAC and quota management/allocations process for EU fisheries
in general, which is not just limited to deep-sea fisheries. There
is a need across the board for EU fishermen to be instilled with
a sense of ownership and responsibility for the resources upon
which they depend. This is not the case at present, where TACs
have been historically determined behind closed doors, with no
opportunity for local/regional stakeholders to have a legitimate
voice in fisheries management. A move towards a regional approach
to fisheries management and the progressive development of a transparent
process that will allow regional needs to be taken into account
by the Commission and Fisheries Council (ie, via RACs) will be
a step in the right direction.
Finally, in terms of improvements that more
specifically relate to the ability of managers to conserve resources,
there are several options to consider. Firstly, it is important
that scientists and managers make best use of the fisheries and
environmental data that is currently available. There is also
scope for improvement in the amount and reliability of data to
inform fisheries management decisions. In particular, consistent
information to reflect spatial and temporal fishing effort in
EU waters is severely lacking. There is also a paucity of data
to accurately reflect important biodiversity considerations such
as catch composition, bycatch rates, physical damage to habitats
and species, seasonal fluctuations, and other fisheries interactions
with the wider marine environment. Such information will be essential
in order to gauge the performance of a reformed CFP as it attempts
to take account of these wider environmental considerations, and
move toward an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management.
Collecting this information may seem a formidable and expensive
task to impose on a fisheries management system in crisis. However,
we feel that there are reasonable and cost-effective ways of meeting
these challenges.
We consider that observer programs need to be
further developed and expanded in order to address these information
gaps. Extensive observer programmes are already in operation in
the other parts of the world, for instance USA and Canada, and
guidance may be drawn from these existing schemes. Broadly speaking
however, there are several key pieces of information that can
be derived from comprehensive observer schemes, which fisheries
managers should consider as the basis for an expanded programme
across EU waters, including:
— discarding and high grading information;
— foreign and domestic vessel activity
information;
— data to feed into quota monitoring/management;
— information for production and conservation
rate adjustment;
— data for fisheries environmental
impact assessment (EIA);
— data/information to provide input
into the stock assessment process and to examine a variety of
biological and technical problems;
— real-time information on the impacts
of management decisions.
There are potential benefits to the industry
as well, which will help to achieve industry agreement to expanded
observer coverage for the EU fleet, including:
— potential fisheries development opportunities;
— reduced industry reporting requirements;
— potential fisheries expansion resulting
from availability of timely data;
— using data to determine fisheries
openings as well as closures;
— access to independent data on gear
and effort effectiveness;
— prolonged economic opportunity due
to enhanced resource sustainability in the long-term.
The last point is perhaps the most important.
If the new objectives of a reformed CFP are to truly embrace a
long-term strategic vision for fisheries and their future sustainability,
expanded and comprehensive observer programmes will be essential
in helping to ensure these objectives are met. Of course, short-term
cost to the industry and government managers will be required
to get such a program off the ground. As well, there are significant
political challenges between Member States that will need to be
overcome. However, such costs must be borne if the CFP and the
EU as a whole are to see the objectives for sustainable fisheries
come to fruition. We are pleased that statutory observers have
been included in the new proposals for deep-water fisheries.
While observer programmes must be made distinct
from enforcement activities (see below) in order for the industry
to embrace them as a fisheries management tool, there are some
obvious benefits in terms of industry compliance with fisheries
regulation. The presence of fisheries observers can act as a deterrent
to committing fisheries violations. This is particularly important
in remote fishing areas where more formal enforcement mechanisms
may be less reliable. They cannot however, be underpinned by,
or replace formal enforcement mechanisms, but may be able to compliment
them.
The proposal to ban shark finning is very welcome,
and is hopefully a first step towards full and proper management
of shark and other elasmobranch fisheries. Some of these species
are becoming rare and endangered in European waters.
3. The impact of the proposals on the structure
of the British fishing industry
We consider that the proposed overall reduction
in effort of 8.5 per cent is not sufficiently large to meet the
target of sustainable catching opportunities. The Commission,
in some cases, has recognised the advice of the scientific community,
who have estimated that reductions in effort of up to 60 per cent
will be required on the most depleted stocks. It is difficult
to see how these two figures can meet, especially when there is
a background of continuing annual "improvements" in
fishing efficiency. One recent estimate of the annual "improvement"
in catching efficiency placed this at 8 per cent. Thus, the Commission's
proposed 8.5 per cent reduction in effort could be negated within
two years. In many other areas, the proposed reforms should meet
the Commission's aims, but the chances of success overall will
be severely reduced without a substantially greater reduction
in fishing capacity and effort. If catching efficiency continues
to improve, then reductions will need to continue annually into
the future. This is not in the best interest of an industry, which
is in dire need of increased stability. Further, we do not agree
with statements that UK has decommissioned enough of its fleet.
UK may, pro-rata with other Member States, have met its obligations
so far, but we do not believe that fishing by the remaining fleet
can be sustainable without further reductions in capacity right
across the EU, including the UK fleet.
The Commission proposes that no public funds
be made available for improvements in capacity or fishing efficiency.
We support this proposal, but note the importance of safety considerations
within the EU fleet. It will be important to ensure that improvements
in the safety of vessels do not lead to fishermen taking greater
risks (eg with weather). In addition, there appear to be no mechanisms
built into the reforms to minimise the effects of privately funded
improvements in efficiency.
We note, of course, that any decommissioning
is of little use unless there is also a reduction in licences,
track record and other indicators of effort. We would expect these
reductions to also occur.
We are broadly in favour of the proposals for
structural aid and scrapping of vessels. However, we are concerned
that in a few instances, the measures do not provide sufficient
incentive for permanent withdrawal from the fisheries sector.
We expand on this in Section 4.
We note that economic support is proposed for
measures that improve selectivity. In fishery terms this is welcome,
but it is not made explicit that such support should also be available
for measures (beyond catch selection) that reduce impact on the
marine environment. Support could also usefully be provided for
the development of mechanisms to integrate environmental considerations
into management.
4. Adequacy of plans for social help for fishing
communities
It is difficult to comment at present on this
aspect of the reform for two main reasons. First, the manner by
which the Member States meet their proposed obligations under
the reformed CFP are a responsibility of the Member States and
not laid down by the Commission. Thus a Member State can chose
from a variety of approaches that would have differing social
implications. Secondly, the Commission has yet to publish their
Action Plan to counter the socio-economic consequences of fisheries
restructuring.
However, a few social implications are obvious,
and require immediate attention from both the Commission and individual
Member States. The CFP has repeatedly failed to account for the
fact that many of the conservation measures that we, and others,
maintain as being necessary to ensure resource sustainability
in the long-term, will undoubtedly result in reduced industry
earnings in the short term. The inevitable pressure that government
will feel to take measures to counter this could undermine all
attempts at resource sustainability and the entire CFP reform
process.
In part, the management response (by both the
EU and the Member States) in the past has been to introduce or
allow perverse subsidies, which have artificially inflated resource
availability, and available employment opportunities in the sector.
Hence, too many people have remained tied to an industry that
has been altogether unable to support the demands placed on the
resource upon which they depend. This has only acted to force
the industry to respond to the resulting financial pressures arising
from stock declines by finding ways around legislation, regulation,
etc., which are designed to conserve these resources. Unless the
Commission's plans for social help accounts for this, current
plans for effort control, and sustainability through environmental
integration will be doomed to failure.
To a very large extent, Government mismanagement
through an ineffective CFP has contributed to this current set
of circumstances (too many fishermen and not enough fish). Hence
we contend that government, both national and EU, should commit
to helping the industry participants out of this situation in
the short term with the longer-term objective of an industry that
is self-sustaining and not reliant upon government hand-outs.
Hence, we fully support the Commissions proposal
for socio-economic measures to be used to reduce fishing effort
by funding fishermen (and other allied trades) to retrain or diversify
their activities away from the sector. However, the proposal to
allow beneficiaries of diversification measures to continue fishing
on a part-time basis, but with reduced fishing effort, is again,
a potential perversity. There is a risk that funding under such
circumstances acts merely as income support, rather than permanent
withdrawal. This approach failed in Canada following stock collapse
in the northwest Atlantic. We would prefer firmer measures to
ensure that fishers leave the sector entirely here, rather than
measures that could provide incentives for them to remain tied
to the fisheries sector. Permanent removal from the industry and
the support to do so, should form part of the Commission's social
aid proposals.
5. Flexibility of reformed system, including
short-term adjustments to quota
The core of the CFP reform is a new multi-annual
framework for the conservation of resources and management of
fisheries. The multi-annual plans envisaged under this framework
are designed to ensure sustainable exploitation. These plans are
specifically designed to reduce the short-term, often politically-driven,
adjustments to TACs and quotas that have occurred in the past.
Instead they will be designed on a more precautionary basis using
the best available science. Processes for enhancing this science
with evidence from fishermen are already being implemented. We
thus would not want to see a system that allows easier short-term
changes to quota. An exception to this would be in cases of emergency
when there is serious unforeseen risk to stocks (or non-target
species or habitats). Emergency measures to conserve fish stocks
are already permitted under the current CFP and there appears
to be no proposal to change this. We consider that the power to
close fisheries for reasons of significant unforeseen damage to
biodiversity could also be included in the reformed CFP.
We regard the strengthening of the CFP's regional
dimension as a particular priority in allowing a more geographically-flexible
CFP. Regional Advisory Councils (RAC) could, within limits, tailor
local implementation of the CFP to regional peculiarities. Stakeholder
integration will be a crucial component of a reformed CFP and
of the RACs. We feel however that dialogue must improve between
all stakeholders, not just between fishermen and scientists. While
it is important that industry be given more ownership of fisheries
policy in order to instil a sense of stewardship of the marine
environment, we would advocate a broad approach to stakeholder
integration into fisheries management and RACs. This will allow
a more balanced debate and balanced integration of the many sectors
that claim a legitimate stake in fisheries management and the
future of our seas.
There are immediate challenges to face with
respect to regionalisation of fisheries policy. Striking a balance
between the broad, and potentially conflicting interests in fisheries
management within regions (eg the North Sea) will pose serious
challenge with respect to the composition and function of the
RACs. Conflicting interests between Member States will inevitably
result in robust negotiation over what an RAC should be for any
given region. Domestically, this will also be a formidable challenge.
As a Member State, the UK would be wise to begin negotiation on
RAC development from within, and in a timely manner. This will
be necessary to ensure the UK is ready to engage with other Member
States on the issue of RAC establishment with a clear consensus
and agreed focus from within. We recommend that, as a priority,
the fisheries departments should co-ordinate a debate within the
UK on the establishment of RACs. We believe that there is a strong
argument for the explicit inclusion of the nature conservation
agencies in RACs owing to our statutory responsibilities in the
marine environment. These responsibilities have already led to
increased and constructive interaction with the fishing industry.
We believe that regional fisheries management,
which integrates wildlife conservation objectives and the views
of all stakeholders, would lead to more responsible management
of living resources. Indeed, RACs, if properly established within
the regions, could provide the rational and practical basis required
to develop and implement progressively an ecosystem-based approach.
The UK statutory nature conservation agencies have examined the
feasibility of applying this approach, and have specifically considered
its application in an Irish Sea case study. We have held meetings
with stakeholders to explore future options in the Irish Sea,
and will produce further reports.
6. Enforcement
We support the concept of a joint fisheries
inspection structure as this should help in the move toward a
"level playing field" for Community fishermen. However,
we note that the Commission proposes further deployment of observers
with the twin aim of scientific data collection and compliance
reporting. We cannot emphasise enough that observer schemes must
be for scientific data and general "at sea" fisheries
information collection, while enforcement must be strictly for
imposing compliance with fisheries regulation. We advise strongly
against any "hybrid" observers as we feel it is likely
that any scientific data gathering is likely to be hindered or
biased if a dispassionate position for the observer on board EU
vessels is not guaranteed.. We note that the Commission indicate
that observer schemes will be proposed on a case by case basis,
however, we would like the principle of separation between scientific
observation and enforcement of fishery regulation to underpin
any proposals. As stated above (section 2), observer scheme data
can help inform enforcement needs, and can hence be complimentary.
However, observer schemes will only succeed as long as their distinction
from enforcement is maintained.
On its own, enforcement is necessary for several
important reasons and distinct needs:
— to report and prevent illegal fishing
activity;
— to initiate legal action where fisheries
violations occur;
— to enforce compliance with catch
rates and landing requirements;
— to enforce compliance with gear restrictions;
— to enforce compliance with closed
seasons and other license restrictions/conditions;
— to enforce reporting requirements;
— to enforce fishing activity with
regard to Member State's territorial waters derogation;
— to ensure uniform compliance with
EU fisheries regulation in all Member States.
We support all of the proposed Community level
measures to eradicate illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing.
We would like to see measures that prevent, rather than "discourage"
such fishing. In particular, the Commission should implement the
International Plan of Action on IUU fishing (IPOA-IUU), developed
by FAO within the framework of its Code of Conduct for Responsible
Fisheries.
30 September 2002
| 
