Memorandum by the Marine Directorate,
Scottish Government
INTRODUCTION
(i) The Scottish Government welcomes the
House of Lords EU Committee Review of the Common Fisheries Policy
(CFP). This response provides an overview of some of the key issues
of the CFP as seen from the Scottish Government's perspective.
CONTEXT
(ii) Scotland is the major fishing nation
within the UK and one of the most significant fishing nations
within the EU.
— Scotland's fisheries zone comprises
60.1% (470,063 km2) of the UK total area and represents the biggest
share of EU waters (excluding overseas territories). These waters
are some of the most productive fishing grounds in the world.
— 69% of key UK quotas are held
by Scottish Producer Organisations.
— Scotland lands around 66% of
the UK quota stocks by value, (England and Wales 28%, and Northern
Ireland 6%).
(iii) The Scottish Fishing industry (sea
fishing and processing sector) is the lifeblood of a large number
of coastal communities. In overall terms, it accounts for 1% of
Scottish GDP compared to 0.1% for the UK as a whole. Thus fishing
is 10 times more important to Scotland in pure economic terms
than it is to the UK.
(iv) The Scottish industry is beginning to
emerge from a period of decline. Since 2001 the over 10 metre
whitefish fleet has reduced by 25% with knock on impacts on fishing
communities across Scotland.
(v) The Scottish industry has been at the
forefront of efforts to ensure sustainable fisheries. Fishermen
in Scotland use larger mesh sizes and have additional gear measures
which go beyond those of their EU counterparts. Around half of
all Scottish fisheries are engaged in the process of Marine Stewardship
Council certification. Most recently, Scotland has implemented
a ground-breaking series of Real-Time Closures (RTCs) in EU waters
to protect young cod. These closures are being voluntarily adhered
to by fishermen. Statutory closures are not feasible through the
CFP within a timescale which would provide meaningful protection
to young cod. This is an example of how the CFP fails to protect
stocks, while national action backed by stakeholders can provide
effective conservation.
THE CFP AND
SCOTLAND
(vi) The CFP has to deal with the most complex
fisheries in the world. This complexity is both technical (managing
over 50 commercially significant stocks and many other minor stocks)
and political (with 27 Member States involved in decision making,
around a dozen of whom have an interest in commercial sea fishing).
(vii) Given this context, it is unsurprising
that the CFP often fails to meet its objectives. In Scotland's
case, the CFP's disbenefits have outweighed its benefits. Most
tellingly over the course of the CFP's existence both the Scottish
fishing industry and the majority of stocks have declined.
(viii) The political arrangements for the
CFP leave Scotland, as a major EU fishing nation, disenfranchised.
Although fisheries management is fully devolved to Scotland, EU
negotiations remain a function reserved to the UK Government.
In principle, landlocked countries such as Austria can have a
greater influence on fishing matters than can Scotland. This situation
is both nonsensical and unjust. The Scottish Government remains
committed to seeking to lead for the UK on fisheries matters in
Europe to help address this in the short term.
(ix) From Scotland's perspective, the CFP
has often appeared a distant, centralised, unresponsive and discredited
policy. It has been marked by the Commission's attempt to micro-mange
every aspect of fisheries (TACs, net sizes, where to fish, catch
composition, vessel power, days at sea etc) from Brussels. This
approach has led to a top down, control heavy regime which has
done little to win the support of individual fishermen. As a result
the CFP has become increasingly complex and much harder for even
well informed stakeholders to follow. The resulting mutual suspicion
from fishermen and the Commission has impeded mutual respect and
trust leading to a corresponding decrease in effective policy
making
(x) The Commission may have recognised that
this version of the CFP can no longer work and appears to be considering
moves towards greater regionalisation and self management. In
this context it would be for the Council of Ministers to set broad
policy goals (to reduce cod mortality to a set level for example)
and for Member States to decide how to achieve that: in effect
a move towards a more "directive" based approach rather
than a `regulation' based approach. In this sense the Commission's
decision to allow Scotland to pilot its Conservation Credits scheme
is revolutionary and very welcome.
Scotland's approach to the CFP Review
(xi) The Scottish Government does not believe
that membership of the CFP serves Scotland's interests and is
committed to seeking withdrawal. While working towards this it
is recognised that the current constitutional set-up and UK Government
policy would have to change before such a course of action became
feasible. This will not prevent the Scottish Government from developing
alternative models of fisheries management drawing on experience
from outside the European Union.
(xii) In December 2007 the First Minister
Alex Salmond announced the Scottish Government's intention to
establish an expert panel to consider and develop fisheries management
models which better serve the needs of Scotland's fishermen. There
are examples of fisheries management practices outwith the EU
which show greater success in supporting fishing communities and
protecting fish stocks. For example, the Faroese regulate fishing
through effort and gear controls rather than quotas. With no minimum
landing size all fish can be legally landed so discarding of non-quota
or undersize fish does not occur. Iceland, on the hand, has adopted
as system of Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs). While not
necessarily an appropriate system for Scottish vessels, it has
increased the profitability of many of the Icelandic fishing companies.
(xiii) We will also seek ways to improve
the CFP in the context of the 2012 CFP reform process. Given the
substantial shortcomings of the CFP, even taking account of the
2002 reform, we will argue that the European Commission should
be ambitious and radical in seeking to reshape EU fisheries policies
if unwilling to abolish the CFP in its entirety.
(xiv) The remainder of this document responds
to the Committee's specific questions. The Scottish Government
is also aware of the response provided by Fisheries Research Services
in Aberdeen, the Scottish Government's statutory scientific advisors
on fisheries management, and concurs with their points.
CONSERVATION AND
MANAGEMENT
Q1. Recovery plans, management plans and emergency
measures
Recovery plans
1.1 There have been two distinct periods
of EU recovery measures. The first period, from 1998, relied on
increasingly restrictive catch and quota limits supported by complex
technical conservation measures. By the end of 2002 it had become
clear that these measures alone had not had adequate impact on
the prospects of some stocks, which remained in decline. Further
measures were added for 2003. These included fishing effort management
(`days at sea') and improved landings controls arrangements, complemented
by national decommissioning schemes in several Member States.
1.2 It has become clear that the second
period of attempted recovery has been more successful than the
first, although still not ideal. At the very least, for example,
in the North Sea it can be demonstrated that fishing mortality
rates have declined across most stocks. However, scientific assessments
indicate that some stocks have not yet recovered to within safe
biological limits, and that there is a risk of their not doing
so without further reductions in fishing mortality rates. The
Scottish Government's views on the cod recovery plan were set
out in its paper of October 2007.
Management plans
1.3 We welcome the improved stability offered
by long term management plans. Developing and adhering to such
plans, on the basis of moderate fishing pressure, should be a
priority. In doing this explicit account needs to be taken of
socio-economic factors: there is little point in seeking to ensure
long-term stability of stocks at commercial levels if, in the
meantime, the fishing industry and communities exploiting the
resource have disappeared. Greater involvement of stakeholders
in the development of long term plans would help address this.
1.4 The development of management plans
needs to take into account the overall health of both the stock
and the industry. A weak fishing industry is not able to sign
up to challenging long term plans if the projected benefit is
in the distant future. As an example, both the haddock and the
saithe stocks are healthy. It was possible to agree a long term
management plan based on moderate fishing pressure which was acceptable
to all sides. This was possible as it "locked in" current
levels of effort only allowing fishing effort to increase or decrease
in line with the size of the stock.
1.5 The greater stability this brings to
both the stock and the industry is welcome, but it would not be
possible at this stage for a stock like cod where cuts in effort
(and therefore boat income) would be sharp and remain so for a
number of years before the increased stock could be fished. In
the interim a number of boats would undoubtedly go bankrupt. Therefore,
there should be a clear distinction between recovery plans and
management plans and an understanding that management plans can
only be put in place once a stock is healthy.
Emergency measures
1.6 Emergency measures have been used in
Scottish waters previously, for example to close the area known
as the Darwin Mounds to bottom trawl fisheries to protect deep
sea corals. However, the process, although speedy by EU standards,
is still too time-consuming to provide real-time management of
fisheries. For example, real-time closures, such as those voluntarily
agreed to by Scottish fishermen, are not practicable through emergency
measures.
Q2. TACs, Effort limitation, rights based
management, technical conservation
TACs and effort limitation
2.1 We agree with the emerging consensus
in support of adopting management targets based on fishing mortality
rates (F), which we are easier to control, instead of biomass
(SSB) targets. But TAC constraints alone are a far from perfect
tool for controlling fishing, and especially fishing mortality
rates in the mixed fisheries which characterise the North Sea.
Unrecorded landings, grading of the catch and the prevalence of
discards have all contributed to undermine the effect of quota
limitations, and an over-reliance or excessive emphasis on this
single management tool would be a failure to learn from our experience
so far.
2.2 Instead the revised harvest control
rules should be treated as a firm template for recovery, but a
greater emphasis should be placed on the full suite of measures
adopted and developed for the different stocks, region-by-region.
This approach would enable Member States and national fleets,
co-operating as necessary, to develop the solutions which they
agree are most able to deliver agreed targets effectively. Agreed
harvest rules should set the desired framework for sustainability
but not the full prescription for delivery mechanisms.
2.3 We disagree with the continued reliance
on the blunt instrument of further general cuts in effort or quota.
We believe it should be for individual Member States to draw on
the full range of measures which might make a contribution to
further reductions in mortality, constructing packages that are
appropriately balanced to meet the specific needs of distinctive
fisheries interacting with different stocks. In appropriate places
that might include further fishing gear developments, new spatial
or seasonal management measures such as closed areas or further
changes to fleet capacity or fishing entitlements. In devising
measures we must go with the grain of behaviour on the fishing
grounds, taking full account both of fishermen's expertise and
their legitimate associated interests.
2.4 We endorse adoption of the approach
described by the Commission as "decoupling". The starting
point for decoupling fisheries is to manage all fisheries in the
best possible way for themselves. This measure has already been
adopted in the haddock and saithe fisheries, with agreement reached
on long term management plans based on moderate fishing pressure
consistent with maximum sustainable yield. A commitment has also
been made to move towards managing the plaice and sole fisheries
this way. Adopting the MSY-derived approach has been beneficial
for health of the target stocks, for the long term commercial
interests of fishing-dependant businesses built around them and
for the protection of the marine environment from any damaging
impacts of fishing behaviours.
Rights based management
2.5 It should be noted that under the current
system of "Relative Stability" each Member State's share
of a stock is guaranteed. Therefore it is for each Member State
to decide how national quota is distributed to individual fishermen.
Within the UK this is a devolved matter.
2.6 Under plans for a Scottish Quota Management
and Licensing system, we are looking to resolve the uncertainty
that exists on the current definition to harvest this important
resource, and look to provide more stability to quota holders,
while maintaining the Scottish Government's interest in this national
asset. We plan, therefore, to consult Scottish stakeholders on
proposals to establish "stewardship rights". Subject
to the outcome of consultation, these (user) rights would be granted
on a long-term basis but not in perpetuity.
2.7 We will not strengthen property rights
on fishing quotas, and move towards a "pure" rights
based management system. In order to encourage sustainable economic
growth and support prosperous fishing communities, a shared approach
between quota holders and the Scottish Government is required.
This will help facilitate industry stability, and encourage fishing
rights to remain in fishing communities for the benefit of future
generations.
Technical conservation measures
2.8 Technical conservation measures have
a major role to play in managing fisheries, particularly in mixed
fisheries. They also have a role in reducing adverse environmental
impacts. Previously technical measures have been effective in
principle, but less successful in practice. This is often because
fishermen wish to avoid the unwanted effect of technical measures
(the loss of some marketable fish) and have proved adept at circumventing
these measures. Experience therefore suggests that, in order to
ensure technical conservation measures do provide real benefits
to sustainable fishing, measures must be appropriate and accepted
by the industry and designed and implemented in close liaison
with not only scientists but also enforcement experts. Implementing
measures through incentives is likely to be more effective in
practice than compulsory measures. Provided these conditions are
met, technical measures can make an important contribution.
2.9 The most effective technical recovery
measures will be developed regionally, drawing fully on the expertise
of active fishermen. It is clear that fishing conditions differ
in different areas and solutions developed for one area may not
work, or have unintended consequences, in another area. Attempts
to impose technical measures across the whole of Europe without
sufficient consultation or buy-in from the fishing industry are
likely to be circumvented.
Q3. Discards and bycatch
3.1 Discards and bycatches occur for a range
of reasons, some of which are aggravated by CFP policies. It is
very important that steps are taken to tackle this issue. The
Scottish Government and Scottish industry have undertaken measures
which go beyond those required by the CFP to reduce discards and
bycatches and will continue to seek new means of further reductions,
including under the Conservation Credits Scheme. However, we are
sceptical of the merits of a discard ban. In the absence of root
and branch reform of the CFP such a ban would have serious practical
implications, in particular for enforcement.
Q4. Climate change
4.1 In the face of environmental change
the CFP is a cumbersome and inflexible policy. Whilst quota shares
established regionally and based on historic catch records give
important reassurance to national fishing industries, they will
obviously be inadequate in the face of rapid change. Thus there
is an inherent difficulty in accounting for changes in fish stock
population and distribution in terms of allowing fleets to follow
fish stocks.
4.2 There is evidence of certain species
extending their range northwards. These may, in time, provide
new fishing opportunities available to fishermen, while other
fishing opportunities decline. Establishing a "relative stability"
key for such new stocks may disadvantage northern countries with
southern countries having benefited from a longer track record
in exploiting these species. However, as yet we have little evidence
of any major migration of stocks from their current recognised
grounds.
4.3 A major concern is the impact of climate
change on food webs. Changes in planktonic species in the North
Sea have been noted, which in turn affects food availability of
primary and secondary consumers with the potential to impact on
commercial populations.
Control and Enforcement
Q5. Court of Auditors report
5.1 We welcome opportunities to compare
levels of controls and enforcement. However, the position described
on control, inspection and sanction systems by the recent Court
of Auditors Report is in many ways a historic perspective with
many of the deficiencies identified already addressed. As the
assessment of UK systems only referred to England and Wales, the
Scottish Government would not wish to offer specific comments
on the detail of the Report. Having said that, the Scottish Government
recognises the importance of ensuring continuing compliance with
the Common Fisheries Policy To that end we have been working extensively
with the European Commission and key stakeholders to promote responsible
and sustainable fishing practices, and to protect vulnerable fish
stocks. National measures operating in Scotland to protect juvenile
and spawning cod are two recently established examples. The very
significant progress we have made in this area has been widely
recognised. A key priority both for the current CFP and for whatever
arrangements apply after 2012 must be to ensure equity throughout
the EU in terms of the standards of control and enforcement.
5.2 The Community Fisheries Control Agency
("CFCA") exists primarily to promote and coordinate
co-operation between Member States in work, primarily through
inspections at sea, related to stock recovery programmes. Much
of that work took over from bilateral arrangements that already
existed between Member States. The Scottish Government works closely
with counterparts in Norway, Russia and key EU Member States on
fisheries control issues and continues to play a lead role in
initial CFCA operations in the North Sea.
Q6. Harmonisation of penalties
6.1 We recognise that this is a sensitive
issue with associated questions of Commission competence. The
emphasis should be on equivalence in terms of the rigour and severity
of monitoring, controls and deterrence, rather than on imposing
uniform approaches which do not correspond to the systems applying
in the different jurisdictions.
Structural Policy
Q7. Capacity reduction
7.1 Since 1993, Scotland has decommissioned
361 Scottish vessels. As a result of this considerable sacrifice
by our industry and our fishing communities, we believe capacity
in the demersal fleet is now in much better balance with the available
resource. We do not believe other Member States have reduced their
effort to a corresponding degree (see Fig 1). The principle of
equity to which we refer in paragraph 5.1 should also apply here.
Q8. European Fisheries Fund
8.1 The Scottish Government welcomes the
European Fisheries Fund as the successor to the Financial Instrument
for Fisheries Guidance. We will seek to maximise the value of
European Fisheries Fund (EFF) resources to support the sustainable
and strategic development of the Scottish fisheries, processing
and aquaculture sectors and their dependent communities.
8.2 EFF funding will make an important contribution
to the Scottish Government's commitment to promoting and supporting
national and community strategies for the sustainable exploitation
of fishery resources. It will build on the existing competitiveness
of the Scottish fisheries industry and sustainably developing
new markets for the export of product and expertise and the development
of fisheries activities outside community waters, as well as the
longer term sustainable development of Scotland's fisheries communities.
Figure 1. Effort (KW days) in the CRZ using
CRG for selected nations 2001-06
Governance
Q10. Regional Advisory Councils
10.1 The Scottish Government believe that
the establishment of RACs represented a positive step in EU fisheries
policies in terms of greater stakeholder involvement and a more
regional approach to fisheries management. We have provided significant
support to the RACs to help them establish themselves and Scottish
stakeholders have been particularly active in these forums. Certain
RACs have been more successful than others in influencing and
cooperating with the Commission. The role of the North Sea RAC
on cod recovery has been a good example of what can be achieved.
Crucial to the success of RACs will be their ability to provide
credible, responsible and timely advice and the Commission's willingness
to engage in genuine dialogue. We would like to see the role of
RACs enhanced in the future in terms of genuine participation
in fisheries management, such as the development of long term
management plans and wider marine environmental policy issues.
Q11. Future governance
11.1 This is a crucial issue to which there
is no quick answer. This is precisely the issue which we intend
the expert panel, alluded to earlier, to address. It is expected
that the panel will wish to cast its net widely to review and
analysis alternative fishing regimes from across the globe and
which have had notably more success than the CFP.
Conclusion
(i) The Scottish Government believes a radical
approach is needed in addressing the future of the CFP. We would
welcome further opportunities to help the Committee with its work
on this important issue.
Marine Directorate, the Scottish Government
February 2008
| 
