Examination of Witnesses (Questions 301-319)
Mr Sam Lambourn, Ms Ann Bell and Mr Hugo Anderson
23 APRIL 2008
Q301 Chairman: Good morning. Welcome
and thank you all very much for coming to see us and helping us
with our inquiry. We are actually quite enthused and inspired
by RACs so I hope you can enlighten us even further. There are
a couple of housekeeping points to deal with before we start.
Firstly, this is a formal evidence session so a transcript will
be taken and made available to you within a few days so you can
look through it and if there have been any slips or errors that
have crept in then it is an opportunity to correct them. Secondly—this
is the embarrassing bit—these proceedings are actually web
cast so there is a possibility that somewhere in the outer reaches
of the galaxy someone may be listening to what is being said.
I do have to say that we have had no convincing evidence that
that is the case. Would you like to start by making an opening
statement or would you like to proceed to the question and answer
session straight away?
Ms Bell: Just proceed.
Q302 Chairman: In which case I will
start off with a general opener. Can you give us a brief history
of your individual RACs and how they came into existence? What
was the impetus behind setting them up?
Mr Anderson: First of all I will introduce myself.
I am Hugo Anderson, chairing the North Sea RAC since it started
three and a half years ago, actually four years ago on an interim
basis in June 2004. I come from Sweden and my background is in
politics, working for the government in Sweden, and after that
working in industry in Sweden. Since 2004 I have been chairing
the North Sea RAC. As you will be aware, the Council took a decision
regarding the Common Fisheries Policy at the end of 2002 and one
of the new things in that provision was that regional advisory
councils should be established. At that time we had an organisation
in the North Sea which we called the Partnership for Fisheries
and the Partnership consisted of representatives from industry
and from the scientific world (biologists mainly, working for
ICES). The aim for the Partnership was to get those two groups
together to speak to each other—not to speak about each
other—and we had worked for several years very successfully.
When this decision was taken in the Council that there should
be a RAC for the North Sea we discussed whether we should convert
to be the RAC or not. We came to the conclusion that we should
not convert but we should stay as the Partnership but we were
prepared to be helpful in establishing the RAC. We set up a working
group to start to deal with possible rules and procedures dealing
with everything for a RAC because at that time there were no official
documents from the Commission stating how it should be working
and so on. We had a proposal which we delivered to the Commission
in July 2003 and they were very grateful for our contribution.
Later on in 2003—I think it was in November—the first
proposal from the Commission showed up with the details of how
a RAC should be organised and so on. That proposal was very much
in line with what we had presented to them earlier that same year.
After this there was the process in Brussels. There was a Council
decision in May 2004. In June 2004 we decided to establish on
an interim basis the North Sea RAC and had a meeting in Aberdeen.
In November of the same year we were recognised by the Commission
and we had our first General Assembly on 3 November in Edinburgh.
That is the background and also the reason why we were over year
before the RAC was established. We had this structure with the
Partnership which helped a lot.
Q303 Chairman: When was the partnership
established?
Mr Anderson: I think it was 1999 or 2000.
Ms Bell: Your Lordship may remember that you
chaired that meeting in 1998. We had a conference in Aberdeenshire
and the theme of that conference was Scientists and fishermen
working together to manage the North Sea. Lord Sewel chaired
that first meeting so I always say he was responsible and it is
all his fault! The conclusion of that meeting was that there should
be a standing committee assembly to work to manage the North Sea.
That was the very beginning of this process way back in 1998.
Mr Lambourn: My name is Sam Lambourn. I chair
the North Western Waters RAC. I also chair the Cornish Fish Producers
Organisation. My day job is an active fisherman; I still fish.
It is sometimes—and very often—my night time job as
well. I operate a boat out of Newlyn and I have a very patient
crew. As far as establishing our RAC we started the process somewhere
in the mid-1990s. We had a series of trans-national meetings with
the Spanish, the French, the Dutch, the Belgians and the Irish
talking about No-Take Zones. Our PO was particularly interested
in No-Take Zones at that time, however the agenda very quickly
moved on to some sort of form of regional management in all the
different Member States. We spent all our time talking about how
we might manage if ever we had the opportunity so that when these
things were set up as a result of the CFP review in 2002 it was
quite a natural move and I knew practically all of the players
by that time and of course we all knew each other to some extent.
It was a natural move and very much welcomed. Our PO and I think
certainly the other people involved in these talks on No-Take
Zones were all very active in suggesting that fisheries policy
should move in this direction. That is how we came to be.
Q304 Lord Plumb: I wonder why it
took so long. I had the privilege of chairing COPA for some years.
COPA was set up about 50 years ago. You are talking about setting
this up five years ago. Farmers and fishermen have been pretty
close over many years and I was always surprised in COPA days
that there was not a gathering of fishermen. We used to ask the
question regularly at that time and quite obviously you are making
progress now, but with all the difficulties we have had—although
we are not here to talk about history we can learn from history—I
wonder why it took so long. You have given a very good account
of the procedures that have taken place since. There is only one
difference in what you said. You said that the Commission advised
you on how you might proceed; in my COPA days we were advising
the Commission on how they might proceed. It does surprise me
a little that it has not been going for a longer time.
Mr Anderson: There is and has been cooperation
on a European level among industry for many years. The news now
is that we are on a regional base and I think that was obvious
in the Common Fisheries Policy that there needs to be some kind
of regionalisation in the process of improving the Common Fisheries
Policy. There are differences in different regions and you cannot
have exactly the same rules all over European waters because it
does not fit in. There is still cooperation on a European level
between organisations but also on the decision of the Commission
there are advisory councils also on the European level. AGFA is
the one for dealing with fisheries and there are also sub groups
under AGFA. There is now cooperation both on the European horizontal
level and the regional level.
Ms Bell: When we first set in place the partnership
it was to get scientists and fishermen into one room to talk to
one another. I am sure Sam will agree that for fishermen to talk
to one another when they are not actually out in Brussels negotiating
work quotas was difficult. It was a case of proving that this
partnership worked to the cynics both nationally and in Brussels
and to the scientists within ICES. It took us almost a year before
we were in ICES with the fishermen there and they were given access
to the assessments so they could actually give comment on the
assessments and review them. That was a huge step in the right
direction. It was maybe five years but actually, in the grand
scheme of things, I think for industry and for science it was
relatively quick.
Mr Lambourn: I would agree with that. It always
struck me as a fisherman that I spent all day fishing amongst
the Spanish and the French yet we seemed to have no contact with
them at all; they may as well have been Martians. I have no idea
why it took so long, but all I can say is that it was long overdue.
The difference from my perspective about these regional advisory
councils is that they are grass roots organisations; they are
driven from the fishermen, the fishermen have the ownership. As
chairman of my RAC I am continually re-enforcing that: this is
their organisation, they drive it. Some things are seen as rather
abstract and remote by the grass roots fishermen, and they have
no influence; these RACs are supposed to be different.
Ms Bell: One of the differences of the RACs
as well, especially in the North Western and the North Sea, we
made a conscious decision that we would not have all our meetings
in Brussels otherwise we would just be seen as another Brussels
bureaucratic organisation. We decided to move round ports so in
the North Sea we move right the way round and Sam does the same.
Sometimes it is not practical and we have to have meetings in
Brussels, but that was so that we were seen to be nearer the coal
face than we would have been in Brussels.
Q305 Viscount Ullswater: Can you
bring us up to date with how the RACs are working? Perhaps you
could describe the hierarchy between the Assembly, the Executive
Committee and the working groups. What sort of scientific advice
do you seek? Also how easy or how difficult is it to reach a common
decision, and where does that power lie? Does it lie in the Executive
Committee? Do you have to refer it to the General Assembly? I
am really asking how the RAC works.
Mr Lambourn: I will speak for the North Western
Waters. We are made up of an Executive Committee and a series
of working groups which are geographically based. That is where
the work is done; they are the engines that drive the RAC. The
Executive has the decision process using the advice from the working
groups or the recommendations. It is for the Executive members
then to adopt them or not. It is not debated at Executive level.
If it is not accepted then it is returned to the working group.
The working group is where the grass roots have their input. Any
fisherman or any member can go there and make their point or insist
on an agenda item. That is how that works. I chair the Executive
but I also sit in on the working groups but I have no part in
them. It is apparent and has been from day one that neither the
working groups nor the Executive function satisfactorily without
scientists being present. The first question generally, when any
topic is raised, is: what can science tell us? That is the starting
position. It seems to be, for one reason or another, essential
that they set the base line from where the discussion can go.
The benefit of that is that it does ground the discussion and
it does not wander too far away from where the evidence is. For
my money the single most important aspect of a RAC is that any
advice we give has to be evidence based. We are not lobbyists.
For any particular Member State or representative of the RAC to
take up a position it has to be evidence based. No amount of arm
twisting is worth anything. From my position as Chair that is
such a relief because everything is judged on evidence and it
does do away with an awful lot of what otherwise would be posturing.
That is how it works with us.
Mr Anderson: I agree very much with what Sam
has said. The basic structure is regulated in the Council decision
that we should have an Assembly and we should have an Executive
Committee. Then we have a number of working groups which differ
between the different RACs. We have a working group which deals
with all fish related issues in all waters except part of the
North Sea which has a special management unit, mainly business
for Sweden and Denmark. That is a separate working group. Then
we have a working group for spatial planning which is a little
bit unusual if you compare it with other RACs. We have worked
out that there are a lot of demands from other interests on the
water, on the sea bed and the area as such. We thought it would
be interesting to have a look at that, to make some kind of mapping
and to see what the other interests are, how much impact do they
have on fisheries but also in the long term out in the spawning
areas which are developed for windfarms or harbours or whatever
it is. That is quite an interesting work. We have dealt especially
with windfarms and also with the MPA which is the subject for
discussion today. We have the Nature 2000 which is also in that
part. The management of the Nature 2000 area is now in progress.
Those are our main working groups and then we have smaller working
groups which deal with long term management, maximum sustainable
yield (MSY); there are five for that subject. That is the basic
structure. How do we reach consensus? When I started in this position
as Chairman I thought it would be quite difficult to reach consensus
but I have been positively surprised that we have reached consensus
in most of the important decisions. Of course there are parts
where it is quite difficult to reach consensus but I think all
representatives from organisations who have started to work in
the RACs have found that they should try to reach consensus with
all these different groups because that is the way we can be strong
from a political point of view in Brussels, if we can show unanimous
opinion from the RACs in certain issues.
Q306 Viscount Brookeborough: Can
I just ask you about transparency? I only mention it because in
the notes we have on the North Sea RACs it says: "The meetings
o f the General Assembly are open to the public". How open
are the Executive Committee meetings?
Ms Bell: Anybody can walk in off the streets
and come in.
Q307 Viscount Brookeborough: The
impression I would have normally is that our fishermen do not
get on with the fishermen of other nations and therefore the PR
side is not as good as it might be.
Mr Anderson: Openness and transparency are key
words for the RACs. People can take part in meetings. As Ann said,
we move around with the meetings to make sure that local people
can take part. We have a website where we give information about
our opinions and activities.
Q308 Lord Plumb: Do the media show
a lot of interest?
Ms Bell: It depends on the topic being discussed.
If there is something controversial then sometimes they come but
otherwise no. We even have Norway sitting in with most of our
meetings; the Norwegian ministry attends and fishermen attend.
Most of the North Sea RAC attends. This can cause problems, especially
at the end of the year when Norway is sitting and listening. We
also have a social and economic focus group which looks at the
impacts. There is a signed protocol for the North Sea RAC and
we have to take account of the social and economic consequences
of any advice that we give so that we are protecting our communities.
The chair of that working group is the chair of the North Sea
Women's Network and that was quite deliberate.
Q309 Baroness Sharp of Guildford:
Do you hold your meetings in English or do you have translations?
Ms Bell: Translations.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch: I was interested
to hear what you said about evidence based and scientists. How
competent is the advice is that you are given on this? We have
heard that the scientific advice is quite often retrospective,
it is not current, so there is always that gap between what your
experience is out in the ocean and what the scientists are telling
you is the case.
Q310 Chairman: It has been put to
us that what the scientists come up with is subject to an error
margin of plus or minus 40%.
Mr Lambourn: The scientific advice we are given
is the best that there is. The scientists have been extremely
open and really thrived in the regional advisory councils. I think
the percentage of uncertainty in what they are saying is probably
greatly in excess of 40%—it may well be 400%—but it
is still the best we have and we have to work from somewhere otherwise
it has no base. I did not answer the previous question about reaching
consensus. In my experience it is quite difficult if it is a topic
that is current. We are much better as a RAC at dealing with longer
and medium term issues. Something that is happening today gets
much more difficult. The irony of that is that we need to be relevant
to our grass roots and it is the short-term issues that are uppermost
in the grass roots minds and not what may happen in 12 or 15 years'
time. We have a balance to do there. We are much better at the
long term issues but our grass roots want us to deal with the
issues that they are confronted with today and tomorrow and the
quotas and so on at the end of the year. Part of the reason we
have difficulty in reaching consensus with the environmental NGOs
and so on is that they have policy positions on various topics
such as, for example, deep water species, and it is very difficult
for them to compromise without undermining their stated policy
position. They have a real and genuine problem there and I think
they are struggling on how to enter into the sort of debate that
goes on at a RAC without undermining their organisations' policy
position. The industry is used to this and we take care to avoid
making too many decisions that tie our hands and feet, but that
is not the case for the E-NGOs. Quite often we have reached a
consensus—I do not want to give the impression that we have
not—but it requires hard work in my experience and it has
not been particularly easy on some of them. I quite agree that
giving the Commission non-consensual advice is almost worthless;
the Commission does not know what to do with it either. I think
that is the power of the RACs and all members need to appreciate
this is a very powerful advisory tool here, but the discipline
is that you must reach consensus on your advice.
Q311 Chairman: Can I just take up
this business about the NGOs, the point that the NGOs have these
clear policies of what they are in favour of and what they are
against. They almost get themselves into a bit of a box that they
cannot get out of. The other way round that to get the environmental
input is not just to have representatives from NGOs but to have
free-standing environmental scientists. Do you have those people
on the RACs?
Mr Lambourn: Not as members because scientists
are not members of the RAC. The seats we have for the environmental
organisations are not fully taken up which I think is a weakness.
There are eight seats available and only three or perhaps four
are taken up, and even those that are taken up maybe do not have
a very strong European element; they may be one particular Member
State.
Ms Bell: It is exactly the opposite with us;
we do not have enough seats. All our NGO seats are completely
taken up and we have people joining the General Assembly so that
they are General Assembly members. Although they do not have any
voting they can still come to meetings and have access to all
the papers, which anybody has.
Mr Anderson: There is a process in order to
get these different groups to understand each other and to understand
each other's positions. It takes time. Maybe they have to go back
also to their organisations and continue that discussion that
they have had in the RACs and see that maybe it is not as simply
as to just stop fishery or whatever it is; there are a lot of
things you have to consider. You have to give it some time to
learn to work in this new forum because it is quite new. In some
parts of Europe it has just started; one has not even started
yet. I think it is important to realise that this is a process
which takes some time.
Q312 Lord Palmer: Last year the financing
arrangement changed and you are now given a status allowing you
to be financed from the Community budget on a long term basis.
Could you explain exactly how the financing works? Is it, for
example, index linked? Do you think in reality you do have enough
funding to achieve your objectives?
Ms Bell: That is where I come in. I did not
introduce myself earlier; I am the Director and Executive Secretary
for the North Sea RAC and I was the manager of the North Sea Commission
Partnership of Scientists and Fishermen. That is my background.
As to the finance, we got an amendment through and that amendment
came because we also have an InterRAC committee of all the administrators
and chairs and they came with a consensus opinion to the Commission
that the budget had to change. We got an amendment last year to
give us 250,000 per annum right through without the five year
plan they had originally. Originally we got 250,000 digressively
towards the five year, but now we are a permanent part of the
process. Each RAC is a legal entity, so in other words we are
companies. Not only do we have to have audits for the Commission,
but in the North Sea RAC we are a company under Scottish law so
we have to provide audits to Companies House. That goes against
what the Commission does because we are paid for projects. We
get some money up front and the rest we do not get until maybe
four or five months after the work is finished.
Q313 Lord Palmer: Do you have to
indent for this?
Ms Bell: Yes. For the North Sea RAC Aberdeenshire
Council is our underwriter and they actually pay the bills for
us. They then invoice us and get the money back. Other RACs are
not as fortunate as we are because it is a difficulty. The amount
of money we have—the 250,000—we can survive on because
all the secretariats are very prudent and careful with our budgets;
we do not pay unless we have to. Because of the new status we
can actually access funding for projects as long as we do not
double-fund. The inflexibility of the budget is the problem that
we have. We have a budget which we have to guesstimate every year
and then by the end of the year we will find that our travel budget
is higher than other bits of the budget and rather than be flexible
like a company where you transfer funds from one part of the company
to another to make sure your bottom line is correct, the Commission
says, "No, you are not allowed to do that yet; each line
has to be exactly as you said" and that is impossible. That
is our fight with the Commission right now, not for more money
but to be allowed more flexibility within our budget so that we
can operate. We know that everything we spend has to be eligible;
if it is not eligible our auditors will soon tell us. So long
as our costs are eligible, to make all our lives easier, we are
looking for flexibility in the budget. The amount of work we do
with that 250,000 per year include a lot of meetings, a lot of
advice given. We are very fortunate with some Member States who
help us pay for research carried out and also Defra and the Scottish
Executive.
Q314 Lord Palmer: Can you explain
how the Scottish Executive and Defra and all the other agencies
actually provide the money?
Ms Bell: Two years ago we had a joint project
between the North Western Waters RAC and the North Sea RAC and
we held a conference on cod: Is cod recoverable? The Scottish
Executive funded that seminar—they paid for the room, for
the travel, for everything else—and it was funded between
the two RACs. We match funded getting scientists there. That is
how they help us, by providing funding for conferences. We had
another one in Peterhead on control with Commissioner Borg. Again
the Scottish Government helped to pay for that. Defra has paid
for the project on special planning; they paid for the project
on the social and economic gathering of data. They also help us
by providing scientists. SEAFAST does an amazing amount of work
for both the North Sea and the North Western Waters RACs. We do
not get actual cash but by providing scientists, by providing
rooms for our meetings—we are having a meeting in London
on 6 May and Defra will provide rooms for us—that is the
sort of money; we get help in kind. Each Member State, when we
move round, will provide a room for our General Assembly or our
Executive Committee and will provide dinner. That all helps our
budgets, so that means that part of the budget we do not have
to use. This is where I come back to flexibility: we do not spend
it on that so we want maybe to spend it on something else. It
is very complex as most of our InterRAC meetings would tell you.
Q315 Viscount Brookeborough: Originally
how was it thought that you would be funded before the EU changed
the status of it?
Ms Bell: We got 250,000 for the first year which
was 90% of the budget. Each Member State provides the RACs with
240,000 euros per annum and that is their match funding. The North
Sea has nine Member States and that provides the match funding
for the Commission's budget. Every year the original status went
down so we had 90% then 75%, 65% right down until we were going
to be self-funding. However, because the RACs have done such a
good job and have been recognised for their contribution and because
all the RACs came to a consensus opinion they looked at it and
the Council amended it. We are now bodies pursuing a European
interest, or something like that. It means that we have financial
stability and there is not going to be somebody at the end of
five years saying, "That's it guys, you've had enough".
Q316 Viscount Brookeborough: You
have already mentioned your cooperation in organising conferences,
one of which was in Edinburgh. Would you like to say anything
more about the cooperation between RACs? Several of the RACs are
fairly new. Are you cooperating with them at the moment? What
are the issues which you can achieve most on by your cooperation?
Ms Bell: We have an InterRAC committee; we were
very clear at the beginning that we needed to talk to one another.
All the executive secretaries formed an InterRAC committee and
the aim of that committee was to ensure the effective financial
management of the RACs and to avoid duplication because if we
are doing something and Sam's RAC is doing something else and
the South Western Waters RAC is doing the same thing, then when
it comes to science there is a finite amount of fisheries scientists
in Europe so we have to make sure that we do not duplicate. That
InterRAC committee works very closely. We always meet before the
coordination meetings with the Commission so that we get our act
together before we go into them and if there are any issues that
we need to deal with we try to deal with them collectively so
that when we go we go with one voice. That makes administrative
sense. Sometimes this InterRAC is asked to coordinate meetings
of different working groups. As RACs we do cooperate and talk
to one another on a very regular basis.
Mr Lambourn: I would certainly agree with that.
The sorts of issues that we approach jointly would be things like
how to reach MSY (maximum sustainable yield) and data collection.
The data that fishermen hold can be fed into the ICES process
and improve this business of uncertainty in the science. We generally
work together in these cross-cutting issues. If there is something
related to a species that occurs within the jurisdiction of one
or each of the RACs then of course we have to deal with it on
our own, but there are many issues that cut right across and we
are very conscious of trying to work together, not just with the
North Sea but with the South Western Waters as well. If we can
reach a common position there again it is that much more meaningful
in terms of whether the Commission will accept it. That is where
go from there.
Q317 Viscount Brookeborough: We have
a map here in the notes which shows that the North Sea area goes
right up to the coast of Norway. The Norwegians fish within that
area but they only sometimes attend your RAC. Are they part of
it or not? If not, are you part of some similar organisation that
they have?
Mr Anderson: They are observers in the North
Sea RAC because they are not allowed to be members according to
European legislation. As Ann said before, they take part in most
of our activities on a very high level so they show a big interest
in what is going on in the RAC.
Q318 Viscount Brookeborough: They
fish by different rules and have different regulations on discarding
and so on.
Mr Anderson: Yes, they have of course, but we
meet on this subject where there is negotiation between Europe
and Norway. It has been quite interesting to see their big interest
for the work going on in the North Sea RAC. Also, to add to what
Sam said, the cooperation is also a question of being more and
more efficient but also to be stronger vis-a"-vis the Commission.
Ann mentioned the conference we had on cod and cod recovery a
year ago in Edinburgh. Two hundred participants from different
groups who have an interest in this both in Europe and also international
representatives attended. Of course that has had a big impact
on the revision of the cod recovery plan. That is a way of working
in a way that we can show that we are strong and can have an impact
on the Common Fisheries Policy. If the issues and problems are
similar we should work together and that is what we are doing.
Ms Bell: We also work with other agencies. We
work very closely with ICES on different issues and are now also
working very closely with the new control agency. The RACs have
observership on the control agency and Hugo sits on the Management
Committee representing all the RACs and we work very closely with
them. In fact our next Executive Committee meeting of the North
Sea is in Vigo at their headquarters. We all try working with
the different agencies to avoid conflict.
Mr Anderson: We have formal annual meetings
with ICES where we discuss the cooperation between the scientists
and the RACs where all RACs are represented. ICES also say that
we are an important player in the Common Fisheries Policy so they
want to have close cooperation. We started with a partnership
when we kicked open the door to ICES because ICES had been a very
secret organisation; no-one was allowed to enter the building
even. We managed to open the door and have access to their meetings,
take part and discuss. That is the way they are now proceeding;
they have become a much more transparent organisation over the
past five or six years.
Q319 Lord Cameron of Dillington:
Both of your RACs are obviously more advanced than others. I was
just wondering whether you had any comments on the way some of
the other RACs work, what is different, what is the same; what
is better, what is worse? Do you have any insight into why the
Mediterranean RAC has not even started?
Mr Anderson: Of course there are differences
in the way the RACs work because there are regional differences
in the sector. One RAC which is very special is the Pelagic RAC
which deals with four species in the whole area except the Mediterranean
and the Baltic. They are working in a very special way, so there
are differences. There has never been any cooperation in the Mediterranean
area and it would be very strange if they were to start now establishing
a RAC. There are of course historic reasons. There is no history
of cooperation and a great number of Member States fish in the
Mediterranean and there is also some international fishery going
on in the Mediterranean. I think it will be very difficult to
establish a RAC in the Mediterranean, especially if they work
in the same way as we do. Maybe there could be some solution to
establish something, but I think it is a long way away.
Ms Bell: They are trying very hard to get it
up and running but I think it is a bit like the North Western
Waters, it is a big area to cover. As an administrator we all
try to help them and offer help. The other RACs—for example
the Baltic—are all members of InterRAC. We do try to support
all the RACs wherever possible, but they are all different.
| 
