House of Commons - Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Sixth Report

8 Progressively regionalising EU management under the CFP

148. The issue of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP)—and specifically, UK membership of the CFP—is one of the more divisive areas of fisheries policy. The argument about whether we should be 'in' or 'out' of the CFP (the latter implying that the UK would regain 'national control') has been a matter of debate since the UK joined the EU in 1973. Many industry representatives are hostile towards the CFP. They blame it for the decline of the UK industry over the past few decades and view it as a political policy weighted against the UK rather than an effective instrument of conservation.

149. The Strategy Unit analysed the CFP and the arguments surrounding UK membership. It concluded that, whilst the system has its flaws—primarily that it is "too centralised and poorly resourced"—national control was "not a solution to the problems facing the UK fishing industry".[191] Some witnesses criticised the report for not giving more serious consideration to the possibility of withdrawal.[192]

150. Our remit was specifically focussed on the recommendations made within the SU report, and therefore we decided to avoid the wider context of the rights and wrongs of UK membership of the CFP. The UK is currently a member of the CFP—and will be so for the foreseeable future—so the most pragmatic and realistic approach is to accept it as the status quo and consider how to work within its limitations to improve the situation in the short- to medium-term. This attitude was shared by the vast majority of representatives from the industry, who—whilst still critical of the CFP—are willing to work towards reform to make progress.[193]

Regionalising management functions of CFP and improving co-operation between EU partners

Strategy Unit recommendation 2

The UK should adopt an aim of progressively regionalising the management functions of the CFP, while strengthening Commission oversight on audit, sustainability goals, compliance and enforcement and environmental issues.

Strategy Unit recommendation 22

Fisheries departments should begin to build the basis for regional management by increasing informal management co-operation with key EU partners, especially on scientific, technical and enforcement issues.

151. The SU report stated that the CFP required reform to make it "more innovative, flexible and industry driven".[194] It argued that the UK should work towards regionalising the system so that, in future, "the bulk" of technical fisheries management is carried out at the regional level, in close collaboration with stakeholders.[195]At the same time, the audit role of the Commission should be strengthened "to ensure sustainability and a level playing field".[196] The SU report also called for an increase in informal co-operation between key EU partners on science, technical and enforcement issues which should lead to "more decisions effectively being taken at the appropriate regional level".[197]

152. The vast majority of witnesses supported these recommendations. The SFF thought the proposals provided "the most realistic avenue to achieve real and lasting improvements in the development of European fisheries policy and the achievement of efficient and effective management of Europe's fisheries".[198] The NFFO confirmed that the recommendations had received "widespread support" within the industry.[199]

Our conclusions

153. We strongly support the Strategy Unit's recommendations that the management functions of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) should be progressively regionalised and the UK's informal co-operation with key EU partners should be increased. We recommend the UK Government to take an active lead in promoting these objectives. It is clear that the current CFP management system is over-centralised and requires reform.

Regional Advisory Councils

Strategy Unit recommendation 23

Fisheries departments and stakeholders should work together to strongly facilitate and support the development of Regional Advisory Councils.

154. The initiative to establish Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) was agreed as part of the 2002 CFP reforms, largely at the prompting of the UK Government. They were set up with the aim of enabling the CFP "to benefit from the knowledge and experience of the fishermen concerned and of other stakeholders and to take into account the diverse conditions throughout Community waters".[200] It is intended to establish seven RACs covering the North, Baltic and Mediterranean Seas, the Northern and Southern western waters, pelagic fisheries and the long distance fleet. The first of these RACs was established in November 2004 for the North Sea. Fishing organisations, environmental and consumer groups and government officials from nine European countries took part in its first meeting.[201]

155. The SU report argued that RACs "hold the key to the future direction of the CFP".[202] It recommended fisheries departments and stakeholders work together to strongly facilitate and support their development. It also insisted that the UK Government should "lead the way in redirecting national resources to make the RACs work".[203]

Evidence received

156. The RAC initiative received almost universal support from those who submitted evidence. There was widespread enthusiasm for the project and also a shared hope that RACs would eventually develop into full Regional Management Councils. Nevertheless, some submitters stressed that certain conditions had to be guaranteed to ensure the RAC initiative was successful.

Support from UK administrations

157. The NFFO believed it was fundamental that the UK administrations provided "financial and technical support" to the stakeholder representatives on the RACs, to ensure RACs were "effective and credible".[204] It acknowledged that the recent experience with the North Sea RAC had been positive in this respect and had demonstrated the Government's willingness to provide the necessary technical support. It urged that this support continue as other RACs are established.[205] When questioned on this issue, the Scottish Minister told us the Scottish Executive was "very anxious … to be as supportive as we can in the administrative set-up of the Regional Advisory Councils".[206]

Attitude of other Member States and the Commission

158. The NFFO was unsure "whether other [EU] member states will see [the RAC initiative] as the opportunity that the UK certainly does, and the Strategy Unit certainly does".[207] The Scottish Minister told us he was "absolutely convinced" that the other member state representatives in the North Sea RAC were enthusiastic about the project.[208] The Minister for Fisheries added that he detected "a real appetite in the Commission … for these Regional Advisory Councils to work".[209]

Achieving consensus

159. Some witnesses warned that, within each individual RAC, it could be difficult to achieve consensus on decisions. The ANIFPO commented that its recent experience with the cod recovery plan negotiations for the Irish Sea had shown that European delegations tended to "look after their own self interests" in such situations.[210]

160. The RSE also told us it was "unsure" whether the RACs would "succeed in uniting the different interests around the table, both national interests but more specifically the interests of … the environmental groups, the recreational fishermen and so on."[211] The RSPB took a different attitude, however. It told us that the North Sea RAC had resulted in "much more fertile dialogue" between NGOs and the industry than had occurred ever before, and believed RACs were a "tremendous opportunity for people to stop taking up trench warfare positions against each other."[212]

Development into Regional Management Councils

161. The Minister for Fisheries told us it was the Government's hope that the RACs would not "remain simply advisory councils forever".[213] He hoped management powers would eventually be devolved to them from Brussels and thought that there was enthusiasm within the Commission for taking such a step. The Scottish Minister for Environment also stressed that it would be "very desirable" for the RACs to eventually have some management powers, and his view was shared by the vast majority of witnesses.[214] The RSE told us that it considered devolution of powers as "essential".[215]

162. Nevertheless, both Ministers warned that the RACs would need time to develop and that the various representatives must prove they could work together before management responsibilities would be devolved.[216] Most witnesses accepted that the devolution of management powers would not occur overnight and would only be granted under certain conditions. The ANIFPO told us that it was "quite proper [for the RAC] to just have an advisory capacity until it proves its maturity over the next few years".[217] Likewise, the SFF said that it was "quite content for their role to be advisory for the next two or three years."[218]

Our conclusions

163. We strongly support the continued strengthening and development of the Regional Advisory Councils (RACs). We consider them to be the most promising development within the CFP for many years, and we are pleased there is widespread enthusiasm for the initiative amongst the industry and other interested and affected parties.

164. We share the hopes of the Strategy Unit, the UK Government and many other interested and affected parties that the RACs will eventually be granted real and effective management powers. Such devolution of power will, of course, depend on the representatives on the RACs proving that they can work together successfully. There will inevitably be disagreements within each RAC over the coming years, but these should be placed in context and should not be allowed to hinder the development of the RACs. We urge all RAC representatives to work co-operatively to ensure the RAC initiative achieves its full potential.

165. In the meantime, we urge the UK Government to continue taking a lead on this issue within Europe and to champion the value and potential of the RACs to fellow Member States and the Commission. We encourage UK Government ministers to ensure that the proposed RACs are taken seriously in Brussels, as the existing North Sea RAC appears to have been, to date. The Government should ensure that appropriate technical and financial support continues to be provided to stakeholder representatives on the RACs so that the bodies are sufficiently well-resourced to be able to carry out their responsibilities successfully.

191 Net Benefits: A sustainable and profitable future for UK fishing, p.148. The SU report states that, without the CFP, "the UK would have to enter into a complex series of bilateral and multilateral agreements with other coastal states on all key demersal and pelagic stocks. There is no guarantee that such arrangements would be any more beneficial to the UK than at present, or that they would be effective in conserving stocks". Back

192 For example, Q398 (Fishermen's Association Ltd); Ev 84, para 2.1 (South Devon and Channel Shellfishermen) Back

193 For example, Q122 (ANIFPO) Back

194 Net Benefits: A sustainable and profitable future for UK fishing, p.147 Back

195 Ibid. Back

196 Ibid. Back

197 Ibid. p.151 Back

198 Ev 18, Recommendations 21-23 Back