Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60
- 70)
TUESDAY 22 OCTOBER 2002
DR EUAN
DUNN, MS
LOUISE HEAPS
AND MS
JULIE CATOR
Chairman
60. You and other lobbying groups obviously
make presentations to government and other bodies and you have
been very active in promoting environmental aspects. Can I ask,
what efforts do you make in respect of going to those countries
that we have called to the south and west, those that are going
to be extremely influential in this whole process? Are they at
all aware of the sort of environmental impact? Do you have other
organisations you work for or do you make direct representations
to those countries as well?
(Dr Dunn) For our part RSPB is the United Kingdom
partner for a much wider confederation of organisations, some
are much smaller—we have over 1 million members in the United
Kingdom—and that umbrella organisation is called Bird Life
International and we have members in all of the European Member
States, including all of the southern Member States blocking CFP
reform, which are called `Friends of Fishing'. It is worth remembering
that Friends of Fishing goes as far north as Ireland. I think
inall of those Member States in all of those countries our partners
have been lobbying their institutions and their governments and
their fishery ministers in the same way as we have been doing
here. It is a much more difficult task because they do not always
have the capacity and the resources that we have, and we have
been assisting them insofar as we can. To me it is the crunch
question, actually. It is critically important now, now that the
negotiating process has moved into the arena of the Fishery Council
the most critical thing is to split up this group of six. I think
Franz Fischler has been very clever at doing that and he has already
found possible ways of compromising that that might, for example,
split off Greece and Italy. I think it is very important that
Ireland looks to its laurels in this. Not to labour this point,
Friends of Fishing collectively have a voting block of 41 votes
and it only take 26 on the Council to block unanimity, so you
have a hell of a chunk of anti-reform voting there. What you have
to do is peel off enough of those countries to finish up with
turning a majority into a minority, and that is what we are trying
to do through Bird Life International.
(Ms Cator) I am based in the European Policy Office
in Brussels and I am head of the Fisheries Programme. This year
we launched a campaign to reform the Common Fisheries Policy,
pulling on resources in the community and advocacy resources in
the WWF national organisations throughout Europe, so we have a
very heavy presence in Spain, in Italy, in Greece, and we work
with our partner organisation in Portugal, so we are treading
a fine line this year between doing advocacy and talking to the
governments and parliamentarians in these countries. We are also
doing direct activity through e-mail actions or communications
in each of those countries. We tackled the five major issues we
targeted as our campaign priorities and we are working on those
this year. In some countries it is more difficult than others.
In Spain our colleagues have a good relationship with the fisheries
ministry, there are negotiations going on in certain issues. We
have a good relationship with Greece. France is slightly more
difficult. Things are moving forward, Italy and Greece seem to
be moving a little bit away from the Friends of Over-Fishing Coalition,
but they are having a meeting today or tomorrow, I believe, with
the Friends of Over-Fishing to regroup. One thing I would like
to add is at the last Fisheries Council meeting on their joint
decision to block reform they all seem to agree on what they do
not want out of reform but there is nothing very positive on the
table of what they do want. That is why I do tend to remain a
little bit more optimistic about the chances of having some measure
of reform by the end of this year because there are concrete alternatives
presented by the opponents of reform so far. I remain optimistic
and I will do until the final Council vote in December.
Mr Mitchell
61. The crisis for them is different than the
crisis or us. That is going to make it very difficult to drive
a wedge. Dr Dunn mentioned Mr Fischler's strategy of splitting
the six, as it were, but he has done that partly by giving extra
concessions to Spain.
(Dr Dunn) There is the sweetener of the deep water
fisheries resolution which infuriated, rightly so, United Kingdom
fishermen.
62. It particularly infuriated them because
he came here one day, talked to us all and said this was the agenda,
and it was one which we would support realistically, and the next
day he went away and made a massive concession to Spain.
(Dr Dunn) I agree. We are talking about Member States
and numbers and figures of votes so the critical question is,
what level of compromise will be acceptable to ensure we get a
reformed Common Fisheries Policy which sustains stocks in the
wider environment? That is the crunch question. If we have to
compromise too far to buy off these people then we have done the
same as we did in 1992 where the quotas were high—admittedly
stocks were not merely as parlous as they are now—and we
did not deliver a Common Fisheries Policy that did anybody any
favours. The critical question is, what compromise can we tolerate
in trying to find some consensus? The one that is attracting most
interest and attention at the moment is the possibility that although
as an NGO—and I know WWF have the same view—in principle
we are highly opposed to subsidies for the fishing industry because
it has undermined the whole process and distorted markets.
63. No concessional subsidies.
(Dr Dunn) Although we are very, very adherent to that
principle there is this proposal on the table from the Presidency
that there may be subsidies for vessels under 12 metres. That,
of course, would be an olive branch to the Mediterranean countries
who have a very domination of that size of vessel in their fleet.
Firstly, I would be prepared to entertain that compromise. In
negotiations you would have to look very, very closely at the
conditions that attended such a compromise. The conditions would
have to be extremely stringent that subsidies to that segment
of that fleet did not result in an overall increased capacity
and it did not result in damage to sensitive inshore fishing.
If you compromise with sufficient conditions it might be an acceptable
compromise. I think this is going to be one of the crunch compromises
that is going to be negotiated in the next several weeks.
64. Do you think that is possible?
(Dr Dunn) I do. I think we are going to have to compromise
somewhere, we are not going to get the Common Fisheries Policy
reform, as proposed by the Commission, through the Council, so
some thing is going to have to give somewhere, it is a question
of where you give some ground. I think that some concession to
that segment of the fleet might be acceptable. The only danger
is that under twelve metre vessels can be powerful and collectively
very damaging.
Mr Drew
65. I apologise for missing most of this. One
of the things I am interested in is the impact of the new entrants.
Clearly they are not part of these negotiations. I wonder of the
new entrants how many of those would be likely to have an impact
on the CFP and is that part of negotiations that have taken place?
We hear about all of the aquacultural negotiations, obviously
the Poles are still not very happy with the 25 per cent they are
going to get initially in terms of subsidy. What is the case for
fishing?
(Ms Cator) At the moment the accession states are
busy translating and adopting all of our acquis communautaire
for the current Common Fisheries Policy. They are not involved
with the current negotiations or keeping up to date with what
is going to happen with the new Common Fisheries Policy. They
are going to have a big shock when the reform comes through. There
are significant parts of the Polish fleet, who fish outside EU
waters as well, and the EU is looking at increasing its global
capacity as well, which we must not forget. Little has been thought
about this so far. I know the WWF last year on other environmental
issues were doing a project on accession and finding information
and finding people within the European Commission and local governments
in accession states that knew about EU fisheries, and they were
few and far between. There was a lot of difficulty finding information.
I think there is going to be a shock in 2004 when some of these
countries start coming in. The other crucial issue, and I would
like to pass over to Euan, is aquaculture, which is part of the
Common Fisheries Policy.
(Dr Dunn) Yes. When we start talking about the accession
countries there is a new clutch of issues. It is not often realised
that the Common Fisheries Policy also covers land locked aquaculture.
In the accession countries like Slovakia, the Czech Republic and
Hungary fresh water aquaculture inland is a huge sector and it
incurs significant environmental problems, just as a badly run
salmon fish farms could incur environmental problems. In terms
of the Common Fisheries Policy reforms the Commission's action
plan and the strategy for aquaculture there is a very, very significant
issue to be addressed for the accession countries, and that is
something that we have to keep in mind. Aquaculture is undoubtedly
going to be a growing sector. The FAO, we are now talking globally,
their best estimate is that by 2030 over half of the fish that
is consumed locally will come from aquaculture. The European Commission
are somewhat in step with this and anticipate a massive increase
in aquaculture in European waters, some fresh water and some coastal.
It raises quite big issues about how the environment can stand
up to this and where is this development going to happen and is
it going to happen in a sustainable fashion. I think that particular
action plan deserves quite close scrutiny.
66. Why was this not taken off as an issue to
the same extent because we are bargaining over the CFP. It is
going to be one of the key issues from the point of view of the
accession states and ourselves. In terms of the CFP whatever is
agreed hopefully before the end of this year is really going to
be completely unpicked by the new entrants.
(Dr Dunn) I would not agree with the idea that everything
would be unpicked by the entry of the accession countries, I do
not think I would be as pessimistic as that. I think the impact
of the accession countries on community water fisheries will be
relatively small, most of the accession countries are fishing
in Baltic waters and I do not think there is a huge expansionist
regime and an expansionist ambition there. I do not think the
CFP reforms, if they are negotiated properly, will allow that
to happen. I am not so concerned as one might expect about that.
Mr Mitchell
67. Can I ask question to follow up on what
David said, when you say subsidies have to end—that is a
statement I agree with—does it include the money paid to
Spain to buy fishing rights in the waters of poor African countries
and smash their boats in the process?
(Ms Cator) The subsidies that are paid as part of
access agreements are paid on behalf of Member States of the European
Union to a third country are not part of structural funding, they
are a separate budget line. No, we are not advocating those should
stop. We may be advocating the vessel owner should pay a larger
share of that amount, rather than the European taxpayer. At the
moment these access agreements for the third country—which
are a pay-to-fish agreement, if we give you money we take your
fish and we leave—are financially benefiting the third country,
which are often developing countries in Africa and they are benefiting
European Union because they provide employment for over capacity
to go and supplying the European Union with fish products, raw
material, which we need. There is a way that the third country
can benefit more from these access agreements, rather than just
benefiting from the money they can benefit from the development
of real partnership. The European Union can assist these third
countries to build up their own fishing capacity and help them
with their own management plans. As we know a lot of these countries
are dependent on fisheries for protein. There is a way that access
can be improved for a win for Europe and a win for the third countries,
and not just in financial terms
68. There is a way, and this may not be it,
do not get too hooked on our argument because it was not the feeling
put to us in Morocco and which prevailed in Morocco. The Agriculture
Committee was much impressed with individual transferable quotas
in Iceland and we had a session with the New Zealand minister
of fishing and we were impressed with the way they work there
because they give fishermen a stake in their own catch, in other
words they make them part of the police force. Such a system would
be difficult to implement on a national basis, is there a case
for such a system on a European-wide basis? Has it been urged?
(Dr Dunn) The Commission has proposed that ITQs be
looked at.
69. Administered by the Commission?
(Dr Dunn) I think it would be a matter of subsidiarity
how they were divvied out. I would just say there are significant
the problems with ITQs, and I will just mention two, in Iceland—and
I have spoken to some Icelandic colleagues about this recently—when
fishermen get into dire straits they may be tempted to sell their
ITQ and there has been a concentration into a few big corporations
and that has been to the detriment of remote fishermen and their
communities. The second point is that ITQs do generate a lot of
discarding, because to protect your quotas you high grade and
get rid of the fish you do not want. In the earlier session you
spoke about the cod stock. The Icelandic cod stock is beginning
to struggle now, it is not the panacea that fisheries management
and everyone thought it would be. Part of the problem is high
levels of discarding in the Icelandic cod fishing. ITQs are not
necessarily the best answer to how to allocate quotas.
70. I must say, as a fishing MP representing
what has been for a long time a paranoid industry it is quite
right to be persecuted and misunderstood and unloved, particularly
by government, it is good to see NGOs and the kind of organisations
giving evidence to us today coming in to take an interest and
working with the fishermen because the agenda you have been putting
forward is one along whose lines fishing has to develop. I am
wildly enthusiastic about that but I want to ask, if you get the
kind of reform you are urging and weaken the political aspects,
the political dilution of those reforms, can we get back to a
situation, in your view, of improving stocks which are going to
support a sustainable industry? Will that allow us to get to a
situation where the industry can finance itself rather than be
financed by subsidies and support? It is a big question but yes
or no is a nice answer.
(Ms Heaps) I do not think there is any choice really.
We have to make sure that that happens. I think the main thing
the WWF is currently advocating is there needs to be the initial
investment to support the new initiatives, this new way forward,
this new management. That is going to cost money, implementing
all technical measures is going to cost money, getting scientists
in and economists in to identify what we need to do, that is all
going to cost money. What we would say is that the government
has to underwrite the risk involved.
(Mr Mitchell) The investment is a kind of bridging
loan from A to B.
(Ms Heaps) We hope in the future, we do not know when
that will be, we hope within the next 10 or 20 years, that that
recovery process happens and that in the long term the industry
does not have to rely on any subsidies at all. It will be a self-sustaining
industry which manages its own fisheries in a sustainable way
under the regional advisory committees. That is the hope and the
vision. You have to have that vision in order to make sure the
reform process happens and the appropriate management is used
in a way that is going to be useful for the future.
(Dr Dunn) I would agree wholeheartedly with that.
The danger is, in socioeconomic terms the fishing industry is
quite small—as David Curry would say it is about the size
of the potato industry in this country, in France they say the
size of hairdressing industry, which seems very French to me.
I feel it is an industry in a sense that I would like to think
punches above its weight. It is a small industry but it has huge
cultural significance and I hope the investment will come. I think
the other answer to the question is reflecting a little back to
what Mark said, it was Joe Horwood at CEFAS who said a few years
ago, "we have never got stocks down to this level before
and we do not know what happens to stocks when they get this low".
When stocks get very small they begin to behave completely differently
and I think the ICES are now struggling to apply the systematic
models to stocks that are becoming so depleted, as we have them
now. The best estimate for cod is if the measures that are being
talked about now—this was in the papers last week from the
Commission—are implemented we are looking, perhaps, at a
recovery time of 7 years. That may be optimistic. What worries
me, going back to the Canadian situation, where the cod stock
has simply not recovered and there seems to be an ecosystem shift
in the equilibrium. What is suggested in a recent paper is that
the crustaceans which have been released in abundance by the loss
of the cod, just as sand eels and nephrops have been released
in abundance into the North Sea by the loss of cod and mackerel,
these little critters eat cod larvae, so you could have a negative
feedback there. There is a lot of uncertainty and that is why
it is very difficult to give a yes or no answer to your question.
We are living in an area of huge uncertainty now and that is why
at the very least we have to act on a precautionary principle
very firmly because we are no longer certain that the predictions
that we make will be fulfilled by the way of the science on how
these stocks develop.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed, all three
of you for coming and giving us very interesting evidence this
morning. I offer the same invitation to you, if you want to submit
any further evidence, particularly in the light of the report
at the end of this week, feel free to do so so we can include
in any of our report findings. You will have to do so very quickly—inevitably
it rather seems as if there is some sort of understanding of what
might well have been within that report—if you can do that
because it is going to be very important document not only for
us but for the European Union to consider when they finally, hopefully,
get round to performance. Thank you very much.
|
