1 Electronic recording
and reporting of fishing activities and means of remote sensing
| (26110)
14181/04
COM(04) 724
| Draft Council Regulation on electronic recording and reporting of fishing activities and on means of remote sensing
|
| Legal base | Article 37EC; consultation; QMV
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letters of 22 February, 14 June and 16 July 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 38-ii (2004-05), para 1 (8 December 2004)
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | For debate in European Standing Committee
|
Background
1.1 Since 1992, the Community has promoted the use of a satellite-based
vessel monitoring system (VMS) as a means of controlling its own
fishing fleet and those third-country fleets operating within
Community waters. However, the Commission says that, although
accurate and timely reporting of information relating to fishing
activities[1] is also essential
for proper enforcement, this is currently collected by masters
of vessels using a paperbound logbook. This means that, in order
for it to be transmitted to enforcement authorities, it must first
be digitalised, a process which the Commission describes as slow,
costly and liable to errors. At the same time, it also believes
that the introduction of an electronic recording and reporting
system has become technically feasible.
1.2 It therefore put forward in October 2004 this
document proposing the introduction of such a system, and requiring
the master of a Community fishing vessel to record by electronic
means that information relating to fishing activities which he
is required by Community legislation to record in a logbook, and
to send it by electronic means to the relevant competent authority.
Declarations of catches landed by a Community fishing vessel and
the first sales note related to those catches would also have
to be transmitted in this way, whilst Member States would be required
to set up the necessary administrative and technical structures,
subject to detailed implementation rules being drawn up by the
Commission, in consultation with representatives of the Member
States.
1.3 The proposal also addresses the role which remotely
sensed images sent to earth by satellites can play in assessing
more accurately the presence of fishing vessels in a given area.
It would thus oblige Member States to ensure that they have the
technical capacity needed to cross-check this information with
that obtained via the VMS.
1.4 In an Explanatory Memorandum of 2 December 2004,
the Government said that the UK had consistently supported pilot
and research projects into the feasibility of developing electronic
reporting, and that it therefore gave a cautious welcome to this
proposal. However, it was concerned about pushing ahead with decisions
in advance of the outcome of pilot projects — notably the
SHEEL (Secure and Harmonised European Electronic Logbooks),[2]
in which the UK has participated — and without an impact
assessment for what "might prove to be costly requirements".
It also believed that it would be a mistake to specify any level
of detail in advance of a more developed understanding of the
technical issues, and that Member States and the Commission would
first need to agree specifications and detailed rules; undertake
procurement, testing and installation work; and adapt existing
databases to accept real-time data. The Government also considered
it inappropriate to develop proposals on remote sensing before
experts from the Commission and Member States had reviewed the
outcome of another pilot project,[3]
and understood both the options available and the costs.
1.5 In their Report of 8 December 2004, our predecessors
commented that the steps proposed appeared to be a sensible way
of improving fisheries enforcement, but they noted the Government's
unease that the Commission had come forward with proposals before
the completion of the various pilot projects. They therefore decided
to hold the document under scrutiny, and asked the Government
to keep them closely informed of any further developments, including
the reactions of the UK industry to what had been proposed.
Minister's letters of 22 February 2006, 14 June
2006 and 16 July 2006
1.6 We have since received three letters from the
Minister for Local Environment, Marine and Animal Welfare at the
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Ben Bradshaw).
The first, dated 22 February 2006, said that, following a questionnaire
sent to Member States, the Commission had produced an informal
paper, together with an indication of the basis for its assumptions
about the possible costs of an electronic recording system, but
that, although Member States had encouraged it to prepare a detailed
proposal to assist further discussion, this had yet to be made
available. Despite this, the subject was apparently being scheduled
for discussion and vote at the meeting of the Council in April
2006 on the basis of a compromise text being prepared by the then
Austrian Presidency.
1.7 Our Chairman therefore replied on 1 March expressing
concern at this development, and reminding the Minister that our
predecessors had stressed the need for any further information
to be provided in good time to allow the implications to be considered
by the House, should this be judged necessary. He also asked whether
the UK agreed with the cost estimates (which we were told indicated
that Member States could face capital expenditure of €130,000
and software costs of €400,000,
depending upon their current requirements,
whilst for the industry
there would be hardware costs of €1500-2000 per vessel for
those without suitably integrated on-board PCs and software costs
of around €1000, plus annual transmission costs of between
€425 and €750 for a vessel operating for 250 days a
year).
1.8 We next received from the Minister a letter of
14 June 2006, enclosing a copy of a Presidency compromise text,
in which he indicated that the UK's main concern was that the
implementation date proposed — six months after the detailed
implementing rules had been agreed — was insufficient, and
that Member States had pressed for this to be extended to 12 months.
He also addressed the possible costs of the proposal, pointing
out that the costs to fisheries administration was "thought
to be high". The costs to industry for the introduction and
operation of electronic logbooks were in line with those quoted
during the SCHEEL pilot project, but the latest version of the
proposal would give rise to additional costs of around €350
a year for most businesses as it would require
those involved in the sale at auction and purchase of fish direct
from fishing vessels to record and transmit information electronically;
this would also give rise to setting-up costs estimated at around
€200,000 for fisheries administrations. The Minister added
that there had been no further discussion of the proposal in the
Fisheries Council, but that the intention appeared to be that
it should be adopted as an A point[4]
before the summer. In noting this in his reply of 21 June, our
Chairman asked whether the various pilot projects to which our
predecessors had drawn attention had been completed, and, if so,
whether they had given rise to any issues which had been taken
on board. He also enquired how far the industry had been consulted,
and what its reactions had been.
1.9 These points have now been addressed further
in a letter of 16 July 2006 from the Minister. He says that one
pilot project (IMPAST) was completed in 2004, and showed that,
whilst remote sensing can confirm the presence of vessels, satellite
images alone could not be used for enforcement purposes, other
corroborative evidence of fishing (such as physical sightings)
still being required. As a result, the proposal would no longer
require Member States to use remote sensing without proper justification.
The SCHEEL project was due to report back to the Commission in
the summer, but the work done so far had been helpful in enabling
good and bad practice to be identified, and it would also help
in the formulation of the detailed rules for electronic logbooks.
1.10 As regards the views of the industry, copies
of the original proposal had been sent to interested organisations
in April 2005, and the amended proposal had been circulated in
April 2006. The initial reaction had been "generally supportive",
but there had been concerns over the funding of equipment, together
with some scepticism as to whether the new system would demonstrate
greater accuracy than current methods. Subsequently, concerns
had also been raised over the funding of terminals, but the main
issue had been the development of detailed rules.
Conclusion
1.11 Although it is clearly desirable that information
needed for control purposes should be transmitted in the most
efficient way possible, it will be evident from the above account
of our exchanges with the Minister that it has proved difficult
to establish clearly the precise scope of this proposal or its
likely impact on the industry. Nor are we clear when it will be
considered by the Council, and on what basis. However, it does
seem evident from the information we have received, that the majority
of fishing vessels will incur additional capital and operating
costs, and that this —
and the nature of any detailed rules which may subsequently be
drawn up by the Commission — is
a matter of some concern to the industry. For these reasons, we
think it right that these issues should be considered further
by the House, and we are therefore recommending this document
for debate in European Standing Committee.
1 Such as the quantities of catch on board, species,
time spent fishing, the area where catches are taken, and the
gear used. Back
2
This currently aims to produce a conclusive report by the end
of 2005. Back
3
Improving Fisheries Monitoring by Integrating Passive and Active
Satellite Technologies (IMPAST). Back
4
Without further substantive discussion in the Council. Back
|
