Memorandum by the Joint Nature Conservation
Committee, Countryside Council for Wales, Scottish Natural Heritage
and Natural England
INTRODUCTION
1. JNCC is the statutory advisor to Government
on UK and international nature conservation, on behalf of the
Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside, the Countryside
Council for Wales (CCW), Natural England (NE) and Scottish Natural
Heritage (SNH). This evidence is a coordinated response from JNCC,
CCW. SNH and NE ("the Agencies").
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
2. There are some general objectives which
we are striving to achieve in fishery policy and management. These
are:
— implementing an ecosystem approach
to management of marine resources;
— reducing negative impacts on
biodiversity from fishing operations;
— integrating environmental/biodiversity
considerations into fishery management;
— integrating fishery management
with the management of wider marine resources;
— maintaining or making permanent
the 6 and 12 mile limits;
— supporting the work of the RACs;
and
— improving the scientific basis
for informing management decisions.
RESPONSES TO
INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS
1. Chapter II Regulation 2371/2002 on the
conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources
under the Common Fisheries Policy introduced new methods of ensuring
conservation and sustainability, including recovery plans, management
plans and emergency measures. To what extent have these been effective?
3. The overall effectiveness of the CFP
in conserving fisheries resources may be judged by examining the
European Commission's Fishing Opportunities 2008 Policy Paper,
which considered the status of 106-117 stocks over the period
2003-07. There is no evidence of an overall improvement in the
status of stocks. During the period 2003-07, the number of stocks
which were considered to be outside safe biological limits was
estimated to be between 73 and 82%. It is worth noting that the
information upon which the status of stocks can be assessed has
deteriorated over time also, partly because smaller stocks are
more difficult to assess, and partly because data sufficient to
determine the status of only approximately half of all stocks
is currently collected.
4. In relation to the new tools (including
recovery plans, management plans and emergency measures) available
to manage fisheries, the Agencies feel that these have not been
in use long enough to reliably assess their effectiveness. In
principle, the Agencies consider them to be a good way forward,
and some successes have been observed (eg northern hake). In practice,
however, all of them have proved more difficult to put into operation
than was hoped, mostly due to (1) the need to achieve support
of sufficient Member States, (2) lack of legal requirement to
identify a strict deadline by which measures have to be established
and (3) no specific additional resources available for their development.
5. We have twice experienced the (attempted)
use of emergency measures in relation to biodiversity conservation.
The UK applied for and was granted emergency measures in relation
to the Darwin Mounds in 2002, prior to their permanent closure
to protect cold water corals. The UK also applied in 2004 for
a closure of certain fisheries in the South-west Approaches to
protect common dolphins from by-catch. This application was turned
down. In both cases, the advice of ICES was sought by the Commission
and was followed—for the Darwin Mounds there was clear evidence
of long-term, possibly irreversible damage, while in the case
of common dolphins in the South-west Approaches, ICES concluded
that there was not sufficient evidence of an unsustainable (in
population terms) bycatch, In both these cases, the emergency
measure provisions appear to have worked well.
2. A wide range of management tools are available
to fisheries manager., What are your views on the following tools:
— Total Allowable Catches;
— Effort limitation, including
"days at sea ", marine conservation areas and real-time
closures;
— Rights-Based Management tools;
— Technical Conservation Measures.
6. We agree that fisheries managers do have
a wide range of tools, but within the context of the current Common
Fisheries Policy, the full use of these tools is severely constrained
by the political decision-making process, Political `horse-trading'
in the tactical decision-taking process can effectively undermine
the best advice of scientists and intentions of managers. The
Agencies consider that political input and balancing of objectives
is best achieved at a strategic goal-setting level rather than
at the tactical negotiation of the size of the TAC and quotas.
All of these tools have slightly differing effects on fishing
activity, but all depend on the contexts in which they are placed
7. Total allowable catches have the effect
of limiting landings (thus really are a slight misnomer as they
are effectively TALs) but have the unfortunate effect of permitting
high levels of discarding to occur in mixed species fisheries
either through limitations on quota for an individual species
or through `high-grading' (the practice of only retaining the
highest value fish of a particular quota-limited species). However,
it is difficult to imagine an alternative given the current excessive
levels of capacity and expended effort in EU fisheries,
8. Effort limitation comes in many forms,
but is usually associated with some sort of limits in time at
sea. We have not yet analysed whether the recent proposal to distribute
national "kilowatt-days" as national effort caps will
be effective in limiting effort and would give biodiversity benefits.
Limiting "days at sea" has an effect on the profitability
of vessels and effectively produces a fleet that underperforms
economically, although the Commission noted that Member States
reported that only 72% of fishing effort was deployed in 2006,
which they said indicated the regime did not, on average, constrain
the fleet. In addition, improvements in fishing technology mean
that fishing capacity effectively increases continuously. We are
unaware of any recent studies of the rate of such "technical
creep" but see no evidence to see any change from the 4%-8%
per annum rates estimated in the late 1990s.
9. Spatial management measures are a vital
component of fishery management and are used in a wide variety
of contexts. Areas established for fishery management reasons
can have positive biodiversity benefits and vice versa, but marine
protected areas are not necessarily the answer to all management
issues, and other approaches may be more effective in some circumstances.
The Agencies believe that their use is valuable for target species
that are sedentary or have specific location or habitat requirements
at key points in their life-cycles (a good example being scallop
fisheries). We also believe that any closure needs to be carefully
designed to meet its specific objectives, and then needs to be
monitored and managed carefully to ensure that it is achieving
those objectives.
10. Real-time closures may be of particular
use in mixed fisheries where there is a need to avoid particular
concentrations of a species (eg cod) under particular pressure.
11. The current quota system is in practice
rights-based management. Given the failure of the current system
for many wide-ranging stocks, the Agencies remain to be convinced
that this is a suitable way forward for mobile fisheries, In inshore
areas, where fisheries measures are devolved back to Member States,
Regulating Orders may be of considerable use in managing fisheries,
in particular molluscan and crustacean fisheries. For this reason,
and others, the Agencies continue to support subsidiarity and
the management of territorial waters by Member States.
12. Technical conservation measures can
be very helpful if properly researched and developed prior to
their introduction and particularly if they are widely accepted
by the fishing industry. We have recent experience of the introduction
of technical conservation measures to limit the bycatch of harbour
porpoises in certain fisheries. This attempted measure, made for
thoroughly laudable purposes, is failing at present for many reasons.
Other technical measures, such as square-mesh panels and separator
grids that work to release non-target species from trawl nets
appear to work well and have been taken up in some relevant fisheries.
The issues around these measures can be generalised to indicate
that any technical conservation measure should address effectively
each of the following related points:
— technical reliability and effectiveness
of the measure;
— negative ecological impacts;
— economic impacts on stakeholders;
— poor compliance by fishermen
with regulations;
— poor acceptance by stakeholders.
3. To what extent have current management
tools increased the levels of discards and bycatch? What is your
view on how these problems can best be tackled?
13. The Agencies are unaware of any evidence
that current management tools have recently exacerbated the levels
of discards and bycatch. The apparent high levels of cod discarding
in the North Sea are probably due to management decisions not
keeping pace with an increasing, but still relatively small, stock.
14. Some bycatch is an unavoidable part
of nearly all fishing because gears and practices can never be
entirely selective for the species being targeted. Target species
themselves can become bycatch when they are not of the "correct"
size in market value terms or following management regulations.
Non-target bycatch species can be of considerable and marketable
value and will therefore be landed or can be of no value at all
and will be discarded.
15. The Agencies support any measures that
reduce bycatch, but we are particularly keen to see reductions
in the bycatch of species whose removal has a direct negative
impact on the survival of that species or can directly harm the
ecosystem. In all cases we consider that problems can largely
be addressed by well designed technical measures that deal with
the issues listed at the end of our answer to Question 2. We are
very keen that the processes put in place by FAO on the conservation
of sharks, seabirds and deep-sea species be turned into effective
CFP regulations as soon as possible.
16. More specific to discards reduction,
the Agencies have seen no evidence that a discard ban either is
effective (it is very difficult to monitor and therefore be sure
of compliance) or ecologically sound (food items returned to the
sea are more likely to cycle in and maintain the marine ecosystem
than are such items returned to land for use in agriculture or
aquaculture).
17. Closure of areas for fishing may be
appropriate in some circumstances, but there is a danger of perverse
effects caused by displacement of fishing effort when closures
are not considered fully prior to implementation. The process
adopted in Norwegian waters of closing an area to fishing if bycatch
exceeds a certain level is said to be beneficial to their fisheries.
However, this does require a high level of (self-) monitoring
and trust between fishers that all stop fishing at the same time
and move to areas where bycatch is lower. We are not aware of
an independent scientific study of the effects of these measures.
18. The Agencies consider it essential that
measures to reduce discards should be assessed on an individual
fishery basis and that the involvement of stakeholders in this
assessment is essential. We are pleased in this respect with the
Commission Consultation on Fisheries Discards and the resonance
that this has had among the RACs.
4. Do you consider that fisheries management
policies may need to adapt to climate change? If so, how might
this be achieved?
19. Fisheries policies need to adapt to
all drivers affecting the whole fishing system and in this climate
change is no different from other causes of change or variability.
Climate change has added a greater degree of uncertainty to fisheries
management than was present previously. There is some evidence
that hydrographic change has already caused some effects, especially
in exacerbating problems brought about by over-fishing and consequent
low levels of certain fish stocks. In general, a higher degree
of uncertainty should lead to a higher degree of precaution in
management; thus stocks need to be rebuilt to higher levels to
make them more resilient than would be the case without climate
change. In light of this increased uncertainty, we believe that
it is important to carry out a well designed study of the effect
of climate change on marine habitats and some commercially targeted
species. This would require some areas to be closed to some human
activities in order to understand change in the absence of confounding
impacts, including fishing.
5. Chapter V of Regulation 237J12002 lays
down the responsibilities of the Member States and the Commission
as regards the control and enforcement of the rules of the Common
Fisheries Policy. The recent Court of Auditors Report on the control,
inspection and sanctions systems relating to the rules on conservation
of Community fisheries resources was very sceptical of the systems
currently in place. What is your view of the efficacy of the systems
in place? To what extent has the Community Fisheries Control Agency
already assisted in improving matters?
20. The Agencies consider that the best
control and enforcement systems are those that maximise the chances
of infringements being detected. During the review of the CFP
leading up to 2002, the country nature conservation agencies supported
strongly the introduction of regulations that allowed for the
tracking of fish sales (so called forensic accounting) as a method
to reduce illegal landings of fish. While such landings have not
ceased completely, the "buyers and sellers" regulations
have proved effective in dealing with this illegal behaviour.
The introduction of satellite vessel monitoring systems has helped
in further detection of illegal behaviour (fishing in the wrong
place) but crosschecks using direct satellite and aerial observation
have shown that ways of avoiding detection (eg tampering with
VMS transmitters) persist. We are not aware of any improvements
brought about by the Community Fisheries Control Agency, but it
may be that the Agency is still too young to judge its performance.
21. The benefits of electronic data collection
and vessel position monitoring are considerable and as a general
principle we are keen to see these continue to develop. We believe
that it is a reasonable medium to long term aspiration to see
these systems develop for use on vessels smaller than those to
which regulations currently apply but that in the meantime there
is considerable merit in encouraging the development and use of
voluntary electronic data systems, as have been applied in a number
of research and local management scenarios.
6. The European Commission has regularly highlighted
how serious infringements of the CFP are penalised differently
across the Community. This was a matter that was also raised by
the Court of Auditors and sanctions were included in the recent
Commission Proposal in IUU fishing. What is your view on the issue?
22. We agree that a general principle of
enforcement should be to establish a level playing field across
Europe. The extent to which perceived unfairness across Member
States can undermine the effectiveness of management measures
should not be underestimated.
7. Chapter III of Regulation 2371/2002 obliged
Member States to put in place measures to adjust the capacity
of their fleets in order to achieve a stable and enduring balance
between such fishing capacity and their fishing opportunities.
To what extent has this been successful?
23. AB noted in the answer to Question 2
above, it is apparent that such a balance has not been achieved.
There is no doubt though that without the reductions in fleet
capacity that have occurred, the situation would be much worse.
A good example of the inadequate attempts to reduce capacity and
also the effects of technical creep has been provided recently
by the crisis in the under 10m fleet where the scale of fishing
(landings) by the under 10m fleet and the rate of increase in
the fishing effectiveness of these smaller vessels appears to
have gone unnoticed until recently. It is plain that much further
work is required to reduce the level of fishing capacity in UK
and EU fleets.
24. The Agencies are concerned that some
capacity reduction measures may have resulted in the diversion
of fishing effort into other parts of the world less able to police
their fisheries and sometimes onto stocks already being fished
at full capacity. The concerns around this issue need further
study.
8. The new fisheries structural fund, the
European Fisheries Fund (EFF), has now come into force. What has
been your experience thus far with the new instrument?
25. The Agencies have not yet gained any
experience with this fund, but note that the administrations in
the UK have to provide a National Operational Programme (and a
strategic environmental assessment, SEA) for this fund before
it can be used. We have only just received this SEA.
26. Structural funding should support good
environmental practice in fishery management and operations, including
the introduction of an ecosystem approach to management. A wider
range of measures could be supported by EFF—including the
further development of accreditation schemes, the further use
of spatial management regimes and related codes of (environmental)
practice.
9. What are your views on the possible impact
on EU fisheries structural policy of WTO level discussions as
regards subsidies in the fishing sector?
27. At present the European fleet is over-capacity
and in many cases, if all subsidies were removed, would be unprofitable.
This overcapacity lies close to the root of many problems facing
the Common Fisheries Policy. The proposals for reform of the CFP
in 2002 and for the establishment of the European Fisheries Fund
were very progressive in reducing subsidies, both direct and hidden.
These proposals were softened and in some cases negated as they
went through the European process such that many subsidies are
hidden in allowable costs such as replacement engines. We note
that such allowable costs do not apply for other industries such
as shipping or road transport. Fuel costs may also not be taxed—an
effective subsidy to all fishers. We also note that fishermen
pay little towards the cost of enforcing or managing inshore fisheries.
The Agencies would welcome reduction in any subsidies that can
lead directly or indirectly to environmental damage.
10. As a result of Regulation 2371/2002, Regional
Advisory Councils (RACs) were established to advise the Commission
on matters of fisheries management in respect of certain sea areas
or fishing zones. What is your assessment of the success thus
far of the RACs? What is your view on their future evolution?
28. In the run-up to the 2002 reform of
the CFP, the country nature conservation agencies were enthusiastic
supporters of the concept of regional management and of the opportunity
for all stakeholders to better own the fisheries management process.
This support was based primarily on the belief that legislation
that is "owned" by users is more likely to be adhered
to and that greater stakeholder involvement would help reduce
the "tragedy of the commons" through which excessive
pressure is placed on a common resource. We feel that in general
the longer-established RACs (notably the North Sea and the NWW
RACs) have made good progress in bringing together the various
nations and diverse cultures fishing in their regional sea. Progress
has not been perfect though, and it is very apparent that in the
more newly-established RACs the culture is likely to be heavily
dominated by fishing interests with very little input from other
stakeholders such as environmental NGOs. However, it might be
argued that it is too early to judge these RACs and that more
time is needed for them to become mature.
29. We note that the original concept was
for RACs to become self-funding after about five years in existence,
but even this requirement has now been dropped in favour of central
funding of a majority of activities from the Commission. We feel
that such funding should be dependent on meeting certain performance
criteria (such as ensuring a fully representative attendance at
meetings) otherwise there is a risk of the RACs becoming yet another
industry lobby group, but this time funded by the European tax-payer.
30. There has been little evidence of the
RACs attempting to proactively adopt an ecosystem-based approach.
We are pleased that a workshop on marine protected areas is to
be held in March 2008, and the cod recovery symposium was organised
in 2007 among the RACs. We are pleased that the UK has started
to encourage an examination of management of fisheries in each
of the four areas of the NWWRAC. We believe that RACs should remain
primarily as advisory bodies.
11. Haw do you consider EU fisheries should
ideally be governed? How appropriate and feasible do you consider
a regional management model to be?
31. Fisheries are but one activity occurring
in European seas and their management at the moment is still highly
centralised and subject to considerable short-term political interference
that we believe is not helping to achieve long-term sustainability.
As outlined earlier, we believe that politicians should be encouraged
to take strategic decisions in order to balance competing demands
on the marine environment. This will mean that fisheries governance
needs to be much more closely integrated with the governance of
other marine activities. This will demand the establishment of
new frameworks and the introduction of mechanisms such as impact
assessments to put fisheries on the same footing as most other
marine activities. We would hope that any strategic decision-taking
mechanism would also take account of international agreements,
including relevant FAO guidelines. Mechanisms to ensure that the
views of all stakeholders can be heard are also essential.
32. Such a large-scale integrated marine
management system would not work if management needs to be attuned
to regional circumstances. Decisions taken for the Black and Mediterranean
Seas are biologically, socially and economically likely to be
very different to those for the North Sea. We thus think some
sort of regional management system is essential. We think it feasible
to devise appropriate regional management systems.
February 2008
| 
