ANNEX I: PROPOSAL FOR CHANGES TO THE PROCESS
FOR ANNUAL FISHERIES MANAGEMENT DECISIONS UNDER THE CFP
BACKGROUND
1. The options to changes to the process for arriving
at annual fisheries management decisions under the CEP were discussed
by Ministers over lunch at the 24 October 2005 Fisheries Council.
The main conclusions were:
- although there was some support
for changing the fishing year (e.g. from January-December to April-March),
this was not the majority view;
- There was a preference for bringing forward the
scientific advice to allow more time for proper consideration
of proposals between publication of the ICES advice (currently
mid-October for the majority of stocks) and decisions in December;
- There was general support for the principle of
'frontloading', allowing discussion to take place earlier in the
year on the basis of informal papers in advance of formal Commission
proposals.
2. This note sets out some thoughts on a possible
way forward on this issue that responds to the key conclusions
reached by Ministers in October, as well as reflecting the United
Kingdom's experience over the last few months of its Presidency
of what might work in practice.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
3. Developments in recent months under the UK Presidency
have highlighted some practical problems which have made it difficult
for the Commission to make frontloading a reality this year and
are likely to do so again in future years. In particular:
- the publication of the informal
views of one Commission DG in the form of a non-paper without
going through the Commission's normal process of internal consultation
and clearance through the College of Commissioners gives rise
to inter-institutional issues, which have become more high-profile
this year for reasons unrelated to fisheries. This has inhibited
DG Fisheries from publishing non-papers on proposals which are
specific or controversial;
- The normal fisheries calendar means that major
dossiers to be decided by the Fisheries Council other than the
annual TACs & quota regulation tend to be decided earlier
in the year in order to enable everyone to concentrate on TACs
& quotas in November and December. This makes it difficult
in practice for the Commission team responsible for conservation
of fisheries resources to give the time to preparing frontloading
papers significantly earlier in the year (e.g. in 2005 because
of the need to concentrate on proposals on technical conservation
measures in the Mediterranean and the European Fisheries Fund).
TIMING OF SCIENTIFIC ADVICE
4. There are also difficulties with bringing forward
the scientific advice. This is potentially difficult because the
timing of the October ICES ACFM meeting is driven by the series
of scientific Working Groups on different groups of stocks, the
reports of which form the basis of the advice. The timing of the
ICES working groups is in turn driven by the timing of the various
national and international scientific surveys. The advice on those
stocks which is not dependent on these surveys is already delivered
earlier in the first tranche of ICES advice in May.
5. There may be scope for re-scheduling some scientific
working groups and/or surveys in order to support a fundamental
change in the ICES advisory timetable. The Commission should invite
ICES to consider and advise on the implications and practicalities
of such changes, including any changes in the character of, and
processes for, delivering advice within a revised policy timetable.
However, realistically such an adjustment of the international
scientific timetable is likely to take some years to design and
implement. The UK has therefore been considering an alternative
approach capable of implementation in the meantime in 2006.
PROPOSAL
6. In order to build on the constructive Ministerial
discussion on 24 October and to address the difficulties outlined
above in relation to frontloading and the timing of the scientific
advice, the UK has developed a proposal for changes to the annual
process. The aim of this proposal is to lengthen significantly
the time available for proper technical consideration of the Commission's
proposals, including consultation of RACs, which all member states
agreed was desirable, but to do so in a way which retains the
current fishing year based on the calendar year.
7. The basis of the proposal is that the Commission
should draw up proposals for TACs & quotas and related measures
as soon as the May ICES advice is available, drawing on the previous
October's advice for those stocks considered at the October ACFM
meeting. The Commission should publish formal proposals by mid-July
at the latest. This would allow four months for technical examination
of the proposals and consultation of stakeholders (mid-July to
mid-November). The Fisheries Council should decide on the proposals
at its November meeting (usually the third or fourth week in November),
allowing national authorities one month to prepare for implementation
on I January and inform those affected. This timetable would imply
the EU/Norway bilateral fisheries negotiations being held a few
weeks earlier.
8. For this proposed timetable to work effectively
there would need to be an understanding between the Council and
the Commission that where the October ICES advice showed a clear
change in the scientific perception of a particular stock compared
to the previous October's advice, the Presidency and Commission
would table as a Presidency compromise any corresponding changes
to the level of TAC in the proposals already on the table. However,
where the October advice implied a more fundamental reassessment
of the approach to managing a particular stock, consideration
of the implications of that advice and of the appropriate management
response would need to be held over until the following year.
9. A schematic representation of how these proposed
changes to the timetable would work if applied next year is set
out in the Annex 1a.
10. An additional element of this revised timetable
could also be that it could represent a good basis for moving
towards more multi-annual setting of TACs. By providing a more
realistic timetable for in-depth consideration of the more fundamental
and difficult management issues, it might make it easier for the
Council to accept that TACs for stocks where the advice has not
fundamentally changed are considered only every other year, for
example. This in turn might lead to ICES not needing to provide
a complete assessment of every stock every year and could lead
to some savings in the cost of the advisory process.
ADVANTAGES & DISADVANTAGES OF THE PROPOSAL
11. Key advantages are:
- a much more reasonable timescale
for full technical consideration of complex Commission proposals
and consultation with stakeholders, allowing for better decision
making and better understanding among stakeholders and respect
for the process and the outcome;
- a timetable which makes it possible to realise
the aspiration of RACs having a meaningful part in contributing
to the process.
- by spreading the work involved in the annual
decision making process more evenly through the year, a lessening
of the current pressure on all those involved in December;
- more opportunity to give proper attention to
implementation aspects of the annual management cycle, including
control and enforcement issues, and
- a better basis for moving in the direction of
multi-annual setting of TACs.
12. Key disadvantages are:
- There would potentially be
a longer lead time between scientific advice in October and implementation
of measures to address its implications (14 months instead of
2 months). However, as noted in paragraph 8 above, where the October
scientific advice showed a changed perception of the state of
a particular stock, the opportunity to amend the proposed TAC
level for the following year to reflect this would still be there.
Moreover, for most stocks it is rare for the scientific advice
to be radically different from one year to the next, so such late
amendments should only need to be the exception rather than the
rule. It would be more technically complex or far-reaching changes
that would be delayed, and it is precisely these kind of changes
where the principles of good regulation suggest that time should
be taken to get them right.
- There is a risk that without the time pressure
which the current timetable places on the Commission to publish
its proposals following the October ICES advice and on the Council
to reach decisions before Christmas, the timetable proposed would
prove more difficult to adhere to (i.e. the mid-July deadline
for the Commission to publish their proposals would tend to slip,
and the Council would be more likely to fail to reach agreement
in November than in December). How serious a risk this is would
depend on how determined the two institutions are to make a revised
timetable work.
CONCLUSION
13. This is a limited proposal in that it would not
require significant changes to other processes (with the exception
of an adjustment to the timing of the bilateral negotiations with
Norway, which would clearly need to be discussed and agreed with
Norway). It is therefore a proposal which could potentially be
implemented in 2006. However, it offers major benefits in terms
of improving the annual decision making process and potentially
in the quality of the legislation adopted.
14. In parallel the scope for making significant
changes in the annual timetabling of the international scientific
advice should be investigated.
UK Delegation, December 2005.
| 
