2 Improving scientific advice for Community
fisheries management
(24440)
8123/03
COM(03) 625
| Commission Communication: Improving scientific and technical advice for Community fisheries management.
|
| Legal base | —
|
| Document originated | 27 February 2003
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 16 April 2003
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 30 April 2003
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
2.1 It has long been recognised that one of the key aims of the
Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is the sustainable exploitation
of the Community's fisheries resources, and that accurate, timely
and credible scientific advice is essential in order to achieve
this. In this Communication, the Commission has sought to analyse
the shortcomings in the advice currently available, and to suggest
ways in which it might be improved.
The current document
2.2 The Commission identifies as a basic requirement high-quality,
objective and impartial advice, drawn up on the basis of a wide
scientific participation, and covering all relevant factors, including
the interaction between fisheries and the wider ecosystem, and
a range of technical, environmental, economic and social factors.
It also believes that such advice should be transparent, identify
a recommended course of action, and be accompanied by statements
about the impact and risks of alternative options.
2.3 More specifically, the Commission says that advice needs to
take account of the state of the stocks and the associated biological
risks; the state of the populations of non-commercial species
and habitats, and the effect of fishing activities on them; the
long-term sustainable balance of the stocks, with particular reference
to the link between vessel capacity and fishing mortality; how
fish of different species are caught together; and the avoidance
of waste and discarding. It also draws attention to the implications
of the recent move towards developing multi-annual management
programmes for certain fisheries; to the need to provide advice
both to regional organisations where Community vessels fish in
international waters and to those developing countries with which
the Community has fisheries access agreements (and whose own scientific
capability may be limited); and to the various needs for advice
on a range of issues arising on aquaculture.
2.4 The Commission suggests that the main areas of concern centre
upon the accuracy of the catch data used, particularly when increasing
amounts of fish are being taken in excess of quotas; the lack
of a public review procedure, which it says may hide scientific
weaknesses and give the impression of a "closed shop";
the inability of the present systems to provide urgent advice
in response to particular management problems; and a measure of
inflexibility in addressing specific issues. It also draws attention
to the mismatch which exists between its own lack of specialist
staff and its responsibility for making proposals under the CFP,
which means that it has in practice to rely on the scientific
resources which the Member States provide through the various
advisory bodies involved, notably the International Council for
the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and its own Scientific, Technical
and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). It suggests that
the problems on this last count have been exacerbated, not only
by the growing need for advice, but by the conflict which the
fisheries laboratories can face between meeting that need and
the demands of the national administrations, which increasingly
provide their funding on a formal contractual basis for a range
of activities. Furthermore, it contrasts the reliance in the north-east
Atlantic on ICES with the situation in other areas, where the
relevant regional fisheries organisations have their own scientific
advice.
2.5 The Commission identifies two main ways of addressing these
concerns. The first would involve a reorganisation of the ways
in which advice is provided so as to make this more efficient.
It suggests such measures as making greater use of knowledge within
the fishing industry, particularly in the context of the proposed
Regional Advisory Councils; improved coordination within ICES,
so as to identify priority management needs; a subsequent concentration
of scientific effort on those areas, combined with a reduction
of effort on stocks where, for example, the fishing effort is
well matched to the available opportunities; and bringing greater
clarity to bear on the respective roles of scientific advisers
and managers. However, the Commission also believes that, even
if these steps are taken, a significant shortfall will remain
between the amount of advice needed and the capacity of national
laboratories to provide it, and that it will therefore be necessary
to increase the overall resource base. It says that it is currently
still considering two options — remunerating national laboratories
for their inputs to the STECF (thereby enabling them to develop
their manpower base), and the introduction of short-term contracts
for experts in certain specialist areas where advice is needed
urgently — and that it will use a budgetary provision of
€2.3 million in 2003 to pursue pilot actions in this area.
2.6 In addition, the Commission says that further, long-term steps
may be needed, such as reinforcing the role of ICES to include
advice of special interest to the Community, and the development
of a Community capacity for analysis and advice, through the creation
of a new body — which might be a European agency, an office
of the Commission, or a technical unit within the Joint Research
Centre — whose principal remit would be to provide the scientific
advice needed by the Commission to ensure that its proposals are
soundly based.
The Government's view
2.7 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 30 April 2003, the Minister
of State (Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life) at the Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Alun Michael) simply
points out that scientific advice is the key driver of the CFP
and the decisions taken under it, and that it is vital that all
those involved have confidence in it. He therefore welcomes the
Communication, but does not indicate in more detail the view taken
by the Government on particular aspects of it.
Conclusion
2.8 As we have noted, the need for accurate
scientific advice is essential if the Common Fisheries Policy
is to carry any credibility with fishermen, and it is therefore
not surprising that the Government should have welcomed this attempt
by the Commission to identify
the main areas in which shortcomings currently exist.
That said, before we take a view on this document, we would find
it helpful if the Minister could indicate whether this welcome
is unqualified, or if there are aspects of the Communication on
which the UK has reservations.
|
