Government Response
INTRODUCTION
1. The Government welcomes this timely report as making a
constructive contribution to the current debate on the future
direction of fisheries agreements between the European Community
(EC) and third countries. The government wishes to express its
appreciation to members of the Select Committee for their work
in preparing such a thorough and positive document.
2. The enquiry focussed on one particular type of fisheries
agreement, namely those in which the EC obtains fishing rights
for Community vessels in third country waters in exchange for
financial remuneration. Most of these agreements are with African
countries and are designed to safeguard traditional distant water
fishing by fleets from southern Member States. However, as the
Committee acknowledges, it is important to bear in mind that
there are other types of agreement, particularly those with Norway
and other North Atlantic countries providing for reciprocal exchanges
of fishing opportunities, which mainly benefit the UK and other
northern Member States and which need to be taken into account
in order to obtain the overall picture.
General
3. As the Government made clear in its evidence to the Committee,
it shares the Committee's concern about the increasing costs
of fisheries agreements. It has, therefore, reviewed how best
to contain those costs and achieve better value for money and
ensure that the agreements operate on a sustainable basis. The
Government has concluded that the overall objective should continue
to be to ensure that:
fisheries agreements are focussed on maintaining traditional fishing
opportunities for EC fishing vessels, operate on a sustainable
basis, are coherent with wider EC policies and represent value
for money.
4. A number of general principles flow from this overall
objective which will be used to guide the Government in responding
to future proposals for new or revised agreements:
(i) the primary purpose of fisheries agreements should be
to maintain traditional fishing opportunities for Member States
or to replace newly lost opportunities;
(ii) fisheries agreements should not be used to subsidise
private arrangements negotiated by EC fishing companies directly
with third countries;
(iii) fisheries agreements should provide reasonable value
for money in terms of their costs and benefits, taking account
of:
- the value and cost of the fishing opportunities provided;
- the employment and other benefits provided;
- the extent to which existing agreements have been utilised;
- the extent to which costs increase when agreements are
renewed;
- the relative costs and benefits of similar agreements;
- the extent to which fishing operators contribute towards
costs;
(iv) fisheries agreements should incorporate practical measures
to encourage the sustainable management of stocks and effective
enforcement of quotas and licences;
(v) fisheries agreements should not prejudice wider development
objectives for third countries.
5. It must be recognised that the UK is only one player in
the process and that, to date, other Member States have not lent
strong support to the concerns expressed by the UK about some
fisheries agreements. This limits what the UK can hope to achieve
in terms of improving the terms and value for money of fisheries
agreements as a whole. However, the Government will continue
to keep up the pressure and will be guided by the objective and
principles outlined above in participating in future discussions
in the Fisheries Council on this subject.
Response to specific recommendations
We . . . recommend that, prior to any increase in expenditure
on third country agreements, an independent study should be commissioned
to assess the costs and benefits to the Community arising from
third country agreements. (Paragraph 41)
6. As indicated above, the Government is concerned about
the rising cost of fisheries agreements. It would, therefore,
want to look very closely at the justification for any further
increase in expenditure. In the Government's view, the pressure
on the EC budget for fisheries agreement means that a review of
future Community policy in this area is imperative to ensure
that the available funds are utilised in the most effective manner.
In addition, the Informal Development Council in Amsterdam on
1 March drew attention to the need for better information on
the costs and benefits to third countries of EC fisheries agreements.
7. The Government is seeking a discussion in the Fisheries
Council of future policy towards fisheries agreements. It will,
in addition, draw to the Commission's attention the Committee's
recommendation of an independent study.
We suggest that the conclusion of any agreement should
take into account the following:
(a) the type and enforceability of regulations aimed at
ensuring the sustainability of the resource in question;
(b) the costs involved and the resulting impact of an
agreement on the availability of funds under other budgetary
headings;
(c) the demarcation of costs which are specifically for
fishing access and those for other aspects, including development
aid;
(d) the quantified potential benefits to employment; and
(e) coherence with other Community objectives. (Paragraph
42)
8. The Government agrees that all these factors should be
taken into account when considering proposals for individual
agreements.
This Committee has argued consistently over a number of
years that the Common Agricultural Policy should be reformed
to reflect greater budgetary discipline. We stress the importance
of the application of similar discipline to this aspect of the
Common Fisheries Policy. (Paragraph 43)
9. The Government agrees that greater budgetary discipline
is required to rein in the increasing cost of third country fisheries
agreements. It notes that the Commission was forced to seek an
additional budgetary appropriation in 1996 to cover greater than
anticipated expenditure in this area. Improved financial discipline
is one of the points the Government intends to promote as part
of the Community review of future policy towards fisheries agreements
which it is seeking.
We strongly recommend that the costs of fishing access
under these agreements should be passed on to the fishing operators
who benefit under the agreements. This adjustment in revenues
could be accomplished by increasing the price of licensing fees
paid by Community fishing fleets in third country waters. Those
funds which are not paid directly for fishing access would be
met by the Community. (Paragraph 44)
10. The Government considers it entirely reasonable that
those fishermen benefiting from fisheries agreements should bear
more of the costs. At present, the EC budget contributes around
two-thirds of the total costs of agreements with the balance
coming from licence and other fees paid by Community fishing operators.
The Government wishes to see a shift in this balance so that
operators pay a greater share of the total costs through higher
licence and other fees.
Future third country agreements should be consistent with
the technical requirements (i.e., fishing zones, fishing seasons,
mesh sizes, by-catch requirements, quota limits) observed in Community
waters where comparable technical requirements are appropriate.
(Paragraph 46)
11. The evidence provided to the Committee by the Commission
explained that fisheries agreements do specify, usually in some
detail, the technical measures to be applied. These measures are
elaborated in agreement with third countries and, so far as is
possible, should be consistent with the measures applied to similar
species in Community waters.
We strongly recommend that steps should be taken to include
improved monitoring and compliance provisions based on co-operative,
reciprocal observer and inspection systems between the Community
and third countries. (Paragraph 48)
12. The primary responsibility for monitoring and enforcing
activities by EC fishermen in third country waters rests with
the coastal State. The Government, therefore, supports some of
the funds paid by the Community under fisheries agreements being
directed specifically to improving monitoring and enforcement
activities by developing countries. However, the Community also
has a responsibility to ensure that its fishermen behave correctly
and responsibly in third country waters. Member States are also
responsible for enforcement in EC ports where fish are landed.
In this regard, the Government agrees that there is scope for
more direct co-operation between the Community and third countries
in developing joint observer and inspection arrangements. As
suggested by the Committee, for example, there may be opportunities
to extend to other agreements the reciprocal observer arrangements
agreed with Mauritania and Morocco and the pilot satellite monitoring
system agreed with Morocco. The Council Regulation on satellite
monitoring agreed at the December Fisheries Council lists Community
vessels operating in third countries where there is a reciprocal
satellite agreement as one of the three priority areas for satellite
surveillance to be operational by 30 June 1998.
We recommend that the Commission should consider alternatives
to setting catch levels as a basis for conservation standards
or payments. (Paragraph 48)
13. The Government will draw this recommendation to the Commission's
attention.
We recommend that the Commission should act as soon as
possible to implement mechanisms for reporting back to the Council
on the results of scientific and training programmes. (Paragraph
49)
14. The Government welcomes the practice whereby some third
countries decide to seek part of their financial compensation
in the form of direct support to scientific and training programmes
aimed at improving the skills and knowledge of third country
nationals. The Government agrees with the Committee that knowledge
about the objectives, effectiveness and impact of these programmes
is lacking and it would therefore be useful for the Commission
to report back to the Council on this.
We recommend that there should be full consultation between
DG XIV and DG VIII in advance of any future third country negotiations
so that the negotiating mandate of the Commission will guarantee
the integration of the development and commercial approaches.
(Paragraph 50)
15. The Government recognises the need to encourage closer
coordination between DG XIV and DG VIII and will therefore draw
this recommendation to the Commission's attention. Ideas which
might be considered include joint working groups of the Fisheries
and Development Councils, as well as strengthened participation
of DG VIII specialists in the Commission teams negotiating fisheries
agreements with third countries. The Government is concerned
to ensure that fisheries agreements are coherent with development
policy, but emphasises the need for caution about offering development
assistance as part of a deal to secure commercial fisheries access.
We recommend that, where species are known to be vulnerable,
all agreements should provide for variable catch levels or variation
in the number of vessels permitted access to a fishing ground
over a defined period of time to be agreed between the parties
and based on scientific advice. (Paragraph 52
16. The third countries concerned have the primary responsibility
for managing and conserving the fish stock in their waters and
it is clearly in their own interests to ensure that stocks are
not overfished or otherwise endangered. Some third countries
decide to allocate part of their financial compensation specifically
in support of improving their monitoring and enforcement activities.
Furthermore, fisheries agreements generally limit the number
of vessels and fishing opportunities for particular types of stocks
and contain provisions enabling action to be taken to reduce
fishing opportunities, close areas or introduce other restrictions
if there is evidence that stocks are endangered.
17. As the Committee recognises, such provisions are particularly
important for cephalopod species - octopus, squid and cuttlefish
- which are short-lived and can therefore suffer serious damage
to stocks if fishing is carried out at too intense a level. Both
the main agreements providing cephalopod opportunities - Morocco
and Mauritania - provide for Joint Committee meetings with the
EC which can be activated to consider whether reductions in catch
possibilities or vessels are required to take account of new information
about the state of stocks. Catch levels and vessel numbers for
cephalopods and other species can therefore be varied in practice.
We suggest that Council Regulations approving agreements
should require the Commission to produce a mid term review to
the Council and the European Parliament (Paragraph 53)
18. The External Fisheries Group of the Fisheries Council,
at which MAFF officials represent the UK, meets two to three
times each month and is responsible interalia for discussing
matters concerning the negotiation of new agreements and the
day to day operation of existing agreements. Member States are,
therefore, already able to raise with the Commission, new procedures
to allow the Commission to keep the European Parliament informed
on a regular basis of progress with individual agreements.
A proper review of these agreements can only take place
as part of a much wider ranging analysis of the role and function
of the Common Fisheries Policy. (Paragraph 55)
19. The current budgetary situation for third country agreements
means that the Council needs to address, as a matter of urgency,
priorities for allocating scarce funds and how better value for
money can be obtained from fisheries agreements as a whole. The
Government is pressing for this debate to take place in the Fisheries
Council at the earliest opportunity. However, the Government
agrees with the Committee that the role of fisheries agreements
should also feature in the review of the future of the Common
Fisheries Policy after 2002.
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
March 1997
