11. RESTRUCTURING OF THE COMMUNITY FISHING
INDUSTRY: SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND REGIONAL CONSEQUENCES
(23960)
13908/02
COM(02) 600
|
Commission Communication: Action Plan to counter the social, economic and regional consequences of the restructuring of the EU fishing industry.
|
| Legal base: | —
|
| |
| Document originated: | 6 November 2002
|
| Deposited in Parliament: | 12 November 2002
|
| Department: | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration: | EM of 26 November 2002
|
| Previous Committee Report: | None; but see footnote
|
| To be discussed in Council: | 27 November 2002
|
| Committee's assessment: | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision: | Cleared
|
Background
11.1 In its Communication[46]
("Roadmap") on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy
(CFP), the Commission undertook to provide before the end of this
year an action plan to counter the social, economic and regional
consequences of the restructuring of the Community fishing industry.
Its conclusions are set out in the current document.
The current document
11.2 The Communication is in four parts, of which the
most important is that which seeks to assess the likely socio-economic
impact of the effort limitation and reduction in vessel numbers
arising from the introduction of multi-annual management schemes
for those stocks outside safe biological limits. In making this
assessment, the Commission has drawn on experience over the last
decade, when it says about 8,000 jobs a year have been lost in
the catching sector, half of these because of the scrapping of
vessels, and half because of improvements in efficiency arising
from vessel modernisation. It suggests that, as a result of multi-annual
plans, the current loss of 4,000 jobs a year due to scrapping
could rise to 7,000 a year, equivalent to an additional loss of
12,000 jobs over the period 2003-06.
11.3 However, in the light of its bilateral consultations
with Member States, it adds that these figures are essentially
a theoretical exercise in which there are major uncertainties,
since they depend upon the number of stocks for which multi-annual
plans are drawn up (and when these come into effect), and the
ways in which individual Member States implement them. It suggests
that the outcome will also be affected by any new fishing opportunities
which become available, and the extent to which there is currently
a labour shortage in this sector, with crews being recruited from
third countries. The Commission therefore concludes that its figure
of 12,000 jobs represents a maximum, and that this is "way
beyond" what is likely to occur, particularly if restrictions
on construction grants were to reduce the 4,000 a year job losses
currently arising from modernisation. However, it also points
out that there would be a greater social cost over time if the
measures required to prevent over-exploitation of the fisheries
were to be postponed, and that these difficulties would be compounded
by enlargement, which it says will increase the Community fleet
without a concomitant increase of common fisheries resources.
11.4 The remainder of the Communication identifies
existing measures under the Financial Instrument for Fisheries
Guidance (FIFG), Regional Development Fund and the Social Fund
to support restructuring (where it notes a number of constraints
arising from existing commitments and guidelines), before turning
to the additional measures available in both the short and
the long term. In the former case, it says that these include
a re-programming of assistance under the FIFG for vessel construction
towards support for fleet adjustment and social measures, though
it adds that many Member States are resistant to this idea.
The Government's view
11.5 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 26 November 2002,
the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Commons) at the Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Elliot Morley) says
that the Government appreciates the importance of the fishing
industry to the economies of a number of coastal communities in
the UK, particularly in and around traditional ports, and that
it is taking these into account in the negotiations on the Commission's
CFP reform package. He says that the Government agrees with the
Commission that funds should be released from programmes for building
and modernising fishing vessels and re-targeted towards socio-economic
measures under the FIFG programme, though he points out that within
the UK the FIFG funds are used not to promote vessel construction,
but for such measures as decommissioning, safety training, improvement
of the hygiene and quality of fish on board, and the creation
of value added products. Consequently, any reallocation of FIFG
funds towards remedial measures within the UK would be at the
cost of existing priorities.
11.6 The Minister also says that the Government is taking
account of the potential impact of a smaller fishing fleet on
the onshore industries dependent on fishing, but that, as the
Commission has noted, a substantial proportion of the fish processing
industry in this country is supplied by imports, and therefore
less affected by any change in supplies landed directly in the
UK.
Conclusion
11.7 Since the need to address the various consequences
of the measures proposed to reform the Common Fisheries Policy
is clearly a matter of some economic and social importance, we
are drawing this Communication to the attention of the House.
However, it is evident that the impact of the reforms depends
upon a number of factors which cannot accurately be foreseen at
this stage, and that, as the Commission has tacitly acknowledged,
any attempt to quantify these is, for the moment, little more
than inspired guess-work. We are therefore clearing the document
without making any recommendation for its further consideration.
46
(23511) - ; see HC 152-xxxv (2001-02), paragraph 1 (3 July 2002),
and HC 152-xxxviii (2001-02), paragraph 2 (16 October 2002).
Official Report, 21 November 2002, Cols.801-867. Back
|
