Examination of Witnesses (Questions 440-459)
Mr Frank Strang, Mr Stephen Noon and Mr Paul McCarthy
1 MAY 2008
Q440 Chairman: No; that is a new
treaty. There would not be a new treaty, would there?
Mr Noon: You are saying there is never going
to be a new treaty ever again in the European Union? There is
going to be a point where we are going to be discussing the next
treaty and Scotland is an independent country. Scotland as a Member
State will have a huge influence on—
Q441 Chairman: So you would wait
until a normal treaty revision, if there were to be one?
Mr Noon: The Scottish Government has said that
we will have a referendum on independence in 2010, so the earliest
that Scotland would be independent would be after 2010, and if
you look at the timescale of when European treaties have been
negotiated we are talking about that sort of timescale. We cannot
pretend that Scotland tomorrow will be independent, much as I
would love Scotland to be independent tomorrow. The reality is
that this is not going to happen tomorrow.
Q442 Chairman: I think we ought to
bring this to an end but I just want to get something absolutely
clear. Do you accept that Scottish withdrawal from the Common
Fisheries Policy would mean a change to the treaty and that treaty
change can only be done through unanimity?
Mr Noon: Which gives Scotland—
Q443 Chairman: No; I just want to
know whether you believe that my formulation is correct.
Mr Noon: I am not a lawyer so I accept, without
having a lawyer sitting beside me, that that is the exact position.
Q444 Chairman: But I would have thought
you would have checked on this. It is such a central part of your
policy position, is it not? You mean you do not know the legality
of the process?
Mr Noon: I have just told you what I think is
the reality of the process, the fact that unanimity has to be
part of this and Scotland has huge influence, so that is the point.
Can I just make one additional point? In terms of what we want
from a future fisheries policy, it is not creating a tartan boundary
around Scottish waters. It is about engagement with the rest of
Europe but doing it in a way that recognises that we have a distinct
interest and a desire to make this fishery flourish, and we think
that can be done through a different sort of partnership with
the EU which is not a common policy. I just want to refer you
to a report that was done recently for the European Commission
which described the CFP as a "top-down, command and control
fisheries management instrument". We do not want that. We
want something that gives the nations around the North Sea, the
nations with an interest in the West of Scotland fishery, primacy
in terms of deciding the right policy for that area. The Common
Fisheries Policy does not deliver that and that is why we want
to withdraw and why we have made that a priority of our European
policy when we have the ability to do so.
Q445 Chairman: Okay. I think we might
get on to more shared ground if we look at the details of the
policy. You have just mentioned that one of your criticisms is
that it is a very heavy, top-down regime and you want to build
upon moves which I think started with the establishment of the
fishing partnerships in what happened to be round about 1997 to
1999 and the growth of the Regional Advisory Councils. To what
extent do you think it is possible to build upon that and have
much greater self-management of the fisheries by the direct stakeholders?
Mr Strang: Reflecting on why is it we do not
like the CFP, why are we taking this position and what is it that
we are saying does not serve Scotland's interest, it is partly
to do with outcomes, it is to do with what has happened to stocks
over a period, what has happened to fishing communities, what
has happened to the sector. It is partly about the fact that the
CFP seems to be discredited. I would be interested to see your
conclusions from what stakeholders have said to you. It is not
just us saying it. It is the Court of Auditors. It is a discredited
policy. Why these two things? I guess one of the key reasons is
this top-down, prescriptive thing, one-size-fits-all, whether
it is Shetland or the Bay of Biscay, and in great detail. That
matters to us because you get bad decisions because the Commission
does not have the capacity to get it right in each of these places
and it does not have the capacity to focus on different seas,
and it matters because you often get no decision because it does
not have the capacity to look at the different areas or to change
decisions which were taken a long time ago. It is about the quality
of decisions but also about stakeholder acceptance of them in
that often stakeholders are not on side, either because they do
not understand because of the complexity which comes from all
that or because they do not want to be on side because they have
not been involved in the discussion because it is all happening
in the centre. Therefore, the great ingenuity of the sector is
used to get round it rather than go with it, so regionalisation
is really important and matters to us, and that very question
will be one of the things that the expert panel we talked about
will look at—how we could regionalise policy. In terms of
the answer, I think there is something for us in the lessons we
are learning this year in Scotland in what we are implementing
here right now (and I will come back later to the detail) in terms
of our conservation credits and real-time closure schemes. This
has allowed us to focus on particular seas, particular fleets,
working with the sector to develop solutions which apply in those
areas, and then implement those decisions without having to go
through STECF, the Commission, Council, and we can adjust them
if we find they are not working. It is about focusing on a particular
area, local ability to work things out with stakeholders, the
ability to adjust in-year and, importantly, a focus on what the
outcomes are that we are trying to deliver. The Commission and
other Member States are interested in the outcomes; they are not
interested in the detail of how we do it. I am not coming at this
from a theoretical point of view but learning lessons from what
we are doing now. On the RACs and whether the RACs are part of
the answer, we are very positive about the Regional Advisory Councils.
From the outset they have involved stakeholders well and they
look at things in a regional way, as the name suggests. We have
been supportive from the beginning, from the launch of the North
Sea RAC at Edinburgh Castle all the way through to the big event
here in Peterhead a month and a bit ago on compliance, so we have
done lots and lots of support, and the sector is very supportive
of various RACs. I guess the performance of RACs has been mixed
but where it has been most effective has been when their advice
was timely and relevant and so therefore we had open ears from
the Commission. It is very important that the Commission are listening,
so part of our support is encouraging the Commission to listen.
It is about timely and relevant advice and when it is credible
because it is holistic and it has consensus amongst the whole
RACs, including the NGOs. A good example would be the Cod Symposium
in Edinburgh in March last year. It may well be that RACs are
part of the answer to this more regionalised approach and it may
well be that, for example, they could be involved in devising
regional fisheries plans, but if they continue building the capacity
they would need to perform well and it depends a bit on the overarching
framework we end up with.
Mr Noon: May I just add that when thinking about
regionalisation I think it is important to remember that in the
regions we deal with a lot of the fishing interest is coming from
non-members of the EU and non-members of the Common Fisheries
Policy, so there is an engagement with Norway, Iceland and the
Faroes which is important to consider in this.
Mr Strang: I think that is a good general point
in terms of your inquiry generally. Over 50% of our stocks are
governed in the external talks, not the Common Fisheries Policy,
so when we are thinking about a different CFP it is about what
is the impact on Norway, et cetera, and what does "regional"
mean here?
Q446 Chairman: Can I just follow
the RAC thing for a moment? I detect that you are not quite sure
whether the RACs are a vehicle for regional management in the
way you see it developing. Is that right?
Mr Strang: I think they are important because
they identify the need to move down a level. They are still quite
big. The North Western Waters RAC covers a huge area and there
is a thing about the North Sea RAC, for example, having been established
first and having proven itself in the quality of its advice and
others are still working to develop quality-wise. We just have
to clarify where fisheries managers fit in this, where administrations
fit in, so there is a question about not just the scale at which
we are deciding but who is deciding, so some of that stuff has
to be teased out, I guess.
Mr McCarthy: As things stand RACs are a creature
of the Common Fisheries Policy which limits the usefulness of
certain RACs, for example, the Pelagic RAC. The pelagic industry
includes Norway, the Faroes and Iceland as well as various EU
MS. They are all very important in dealing with the pelagic species
and they are not represented in RACs and they will not be represented
in RAC form because it is a creature of the Common Fisheries Policy,
so when you are looking at regionalisation it is another reason
to think about thinking outside the CFP.
Q447 Baroness Jones of Whitchurch:
Can I follow up on the composition of the RACs because in the
dialogue we have had with them even they have accepted that they
are not truly representative of stakeholders and they are very
much dominated by the industry, if you like, and it is quite hard
for environmental and consumer interests to get a foothold and
to feel that their voice is being heard in that. You have not
mentioned that but I would have thought that that was one of the
criticisms of the RACs in the way they are currently composed.
Mr Strang: I take that point. I did say that
when they are most effective is when there is a holistic consensus
point of view, including the NGOs. The Commission are very clear
that when advice comes forward in unanimity from RACs the standard
position will be that it will be listened to and followed. In
other words, that gives quite a lot of power to the other 20%
that is not from the industrial side. I take your point. I particularly
take your point that there is a capacity thing for some of these
organisations, an ability to service these different RACs, and,
incidentally, the more we regionalise the more there is a capacity
issue across the board and sometimes it is in the small number
of people, but it does institutionalise the fact that advice which
has a consensus behind it is much more powerful than advice which
just comes from one particular section. There are examples, and
I will not quote them, where the advice has not necessarily reflected
that. That brings the RACs into disrepute, so it is very important
to us to build up the capacity of the RACs.
Mr Noon: It is also important to remember that
RACs only have an advisory role. Certainly, where we are coming
from, the interests in the fisheries, the decisions should be
taken by nations and stakeholders with an interest in the fisheries,
so that is one weakness of the RACs.
Mr Strang: One reflection I had was a parallel
between the RACs and the in-shore fishery groups we are developing
in Scotland, a bit like the English Sea Fisheries Committees,
but where we are getting local groups together to take decisions
about a management plan for their local area, a dozen around the
coast, and the key message there is that it does not have to be
the same solution all the way round the Scottish coast. You can
have different solutions in different places, so the IFGs and
the RACs can learn from each other.
Chairman: The devil is in the detail. In all
this regional management things there is bound to be an element
of top-down and it is how the bottom-up meets the top-down, is
it not? That is always the problem.
Q448 Lord Plumb: Having talked to
a lot of the fishermen this morning and those who are concerned
in the market, and we were not all together to listen to individual
fishermen but I got a lot of very positive vibes from the fishermen,
and I think if I had said to them, "We are going to recommend
as a group to pull out of it", I think it would have been
shock, horror. That is my opinion and what we have heard this
morning does not reflect what I heard in the marketplace earlier.
Neither does what you have said reflect what it says in your report.
You say in the report regarding management, "The Scottish
Government welcomes the improved stability that it may offer through
the importance of involving stakeholders", and that you have
just said and that is a major point, "which is emphasised
in order that socio-economic factors can be fully taken into account".
Your concern nevertheless, quite rightly, is about the recovery
plan and therefore let us assume that we are in the market and
let us assume we are going to stay in the market because it is
the first I have heard that we are going to consider the CFP expiring
in 2011. As I understand it, at that stage we shall be looking
at the possible recovery, or at least we shall be looking at improvements
to the CFP, which are not overdue, and so in that context I think
if we can be positive we might ask you what changes you would
make in the two policy tools, that is, in present management and
in the recovery plans and how content you are at this stage with
the European Commission's proposals for a revised cod recovery
plan which was published on 2 April.
Mr Strang: It is good to hear what the skippers
are saying to you and in some ways that is encouraging, the tone
of what they are saying. There are two things I would say about
that. One is that we are not saying that everything about the
CFP is bad.
Q449 Lord Plumb: But you did. You
wanted to pull out.
Mr Strang: Not everything about the CFP is bad,
maybe in what it implied, but we will come to that. Who knows
why people say what they are saying, but the sense of confidence
at the moment here is partly about a sense of more control that
we are developing our own Conservation Credits, et cetera, if
you see what I mean, so I think there is a bit of that. We are
positive about the management plans, for example. They give a
bit of stability into the medium term; it is not just year by
year. It is about finding a medium term outcome and being less
detailed about how you get there and an outcome of moderate fishing
pressure which is in everyone's interest. Haddock is a good example
where we have managed to fish longer on the stock. It is famous
for the vicissitudes of the recruitment and the management plan
has allowed us to go on longer, so that is great. I suppose one
comment would be that sometimes the socio-economic aspect is tagged
on at the end, it is all biology anyway, so it is working through
from the outset the rules of the management plan and how we take
account of the impact, and it is quite difficult to do but it
is about doing it explicitly from early on. Recovery plans, of
course, are much more about how you get to the state where you
can have a management plan. There are two problems. One is the
kinds of targets which are set in recovery plans. Sometimes it
is about the wrong thing; it is about biomass, over which we have
very little control, it is nature rather than fisheries management
decisions, and sometimes the pace of change is unrealistic. Also,
sometimes the recovery plans are prescriptive. In other words,
there are lots of detailed things you have to do rather than it
being about the outcome. We want the future recovery plans to
be about realistic targets, about things we have control over
and at a decent pace, and to be a bit more about the outcome and
devising ways of getting there. When it comes to the Commission's
proposals, which came out in time for the last Council, they measure
up not too badly on those principles but the devil, of course,
will be in the detail and we are all digesting the detail. We
are having discussions with the sector. There are still concerns
about the pace of change. A 25% cut every year is quite radical.
I am particularly concerned about the effort pot given to Member
States. One concern for me is that it allows Member States to
incentivise people to do the right thing but it does not give
a Member State a reward for doing the right thing. In other words,
no matter what you do in your Member State or your region or whatever,
you will get the same effort allocation as another Member State.
You have to incentivise fishermen within the Member State but
you also have to say to the Member State, "If you do the
right thing you will have a bigger effort pot than you had last
year". At the moment it still looks like a regional approach,
giving Member States effort pots, but all the effort pots go down
or up in the same way depending on how the stock is doing. There
is no reflection of what you have done as a Member State.
Q450 Viscount Ullswater: Perhaps
I could turn to something which looks like a success, and that
is the agreements that you have been able to reach with your Scottish
fishermen about real-time closures. Although I know that very
briefly you touched on the adequacy of emergency procedures in
getting these sorts of closures, how do you think it could be
implemented in a reformed CFP if there were to be one? Should
it be something that the RACs could do and agree amongst themselves
if they had unanimity on it, and is that something which then
could be implemented to ensure that the benefit of real-time closures
was sustained?
Mr Strang: Thank you for that question because
we are really excited about real-time closures. They are going
well. It is a new measure and it has got the prospect of success.
It is very much a first in EU terms and we have had a lot of interest
from Member States that really want to know what is going on,
and in fact at the conference I alluded to here in Peterhead there
was a lot of interest from Member States. Shall I describe how
it works? Basically, they stem from industry enthusiasm to take
action where there are genuine aggregations of cod. They see aggregations
of cod but they do not want to have to take action just themselves;
they want others to do so too, and the key thing is that as long
as they are real time so they reflect the reality now, not what
was in the ICES advice 18 months ago, and as long as they are
time limited so they do not stay in place for ever, like the famous
wind sock closure off the west coast of Scotland which has a permanent
nature about it. These are temporary and they are real time and
they reflect reality. As long as that is the case the industry
is very much up for these measures and last year in the autumn
we developed voluntary measures based on juvenile cod. It is slightly
more formal this year. The first thing is that it is not all about
closures and restrictions. There is an exhortation part of this
in that the industry have identified, "These are where we
think spawning is happening". We publicise that and say,
"Please avoid those areas", and if everybody is up for
the sustainability of cod, which we believe they are, that is
something they can do; they can contribute to it. Just as an aside,
it is really encouraging that the industry identified those areas,
not us. Ten years ago, if you had asked the industry to identify
spawning areas they would not have done so because of fear we
would have closed them permanently. We have a responsibility to
trust them. They have to trust us with the information and we
have to have integrity as to how we use the information because
it is tempting for us to say, "That must be where it is spawning
so therefore we will close", and therefore we would never
get the information again. It is a long-term trust thing. There
is exhortation. In terms of closures, vessels are boarded anywhere
on the sea but particularly focusing around those spawning areas
by our agency, and I think you are seeing a colleague from the
agency later on, the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency. Samples
are taken and if the quantity of cod over a particular period
is above a certain threshold per hour, and those thresholds for
the first part of the year are about adult cod for spawning and
in the second half of the year about juvenile, so we change round
about now to a different threshold, the Marine Directorate informs
us, we decide to close and there is an automaticity about. If
it is above a certain number we close an area which is 15 miles
by 15 miles for 21 days. Everyone knows exactly what the rules
are and we inform all our vessels. We also inform other Member
States, crucially, as to where the closures are. This is partly,
I suppose you could say, a contract with the industry. There are
safeguards around it. In terms of our own capacity, there are
only nine closed at any one time, we probably could not cope with
many more than that, and we have a commercial impact zone within
a 45-mile radius, only three at any one time, so that economically
in one particular port you do not have everything closed. It is
a combination of what science tells us and what is pragmatic.
We have had nine closures so far this year, and there is a map
here if you want to see. It is important to say that compliance
has been excellent. Part of what we want to look at at the end
of the year from our VMS data is, are people changing their behaviour?
Are they moving away from where they were before because of these
measures, and compliance both by Scottish vessels but by other
vessels too. In terms of taking it to EU level, that is a very
good question. First of all, I am encouraged that the Scottish
industry were prepared to do that even without us having done
that. Does that make sense? In the past the idea that we closed
our seas and that our fishermen could not go there but a Danish
vessel could was not popular, but that is very encouraging, that
it is no longer, "We will wait for everybody before we do
it". However, it would be much better if it was respected
by everybody. You are quite right that the CFP is slow-moving.
Twenty-eight days is the fastest you could ever do an emergency
measure and by then we are saying in 21 days it disperses. You
can imagine in due course a provision where Member States are
allowed, subject to certain criteria, to introduce real-time closures
which others respect. Because of the mutual suspicion in the Council,
I have to say, that is quite hard work, in the same way as I can
tell you that in some of the RAC discussions people immediately
assume that our real-time closures are a protectionist measure,
and if we saw some other Member States instituting some closures
we would think, "Is that because of ours?". there is
a suspicion there but you could imagine getting there. I have
not thought this through but the RACs could have a role in that.
At the moment, because there is still that suspicion, it is still
early days, we are much more pursuing a bilateral arrangement.
For example, the Danish administration and the Danish Fishing
Association have said to their industry, "Please respect
the Scottish closures. Here are the details and we would like
you to respect those closures."
Q451 Viscount Ullswater: I just want
to get this clear. If it was a shared fishing ground, although
it may be a Scottish initiative, is it respected by other Member
States?
Mr Strang: Up to now in practice—
Q452 Chairman: On a voluntary basis?
Mr Strang: Yes, on a voluntary basis, correct.
Q453 Viscount Ullswater: And up to
now it is?
Mr Strang: Exactly, yes.
Q454 Viscount Ullswater: But, for
all the reasons why you say you will continue doing so, there
are suspicions that it is protectionism?
Mr Strang: Yes, that is right.
Mr McCarthy: It is possible to envisage that
a future management plan for cod or other species would have a
system of RTCs built into it which would provide that automaticity,
whereby, if anyone who signed up to that management plan detected
undersized cod or any undersized fish that a described area would
be automatically closed. Again, that management plan would need
to be beyond the EU level because I note that one third of the
current closures have impacted on outside regional waters, so
again there is a need to bring in members outside the EU in order
to make this really effective.
Mr Strang: One point that has been made before
to me is how powerful this is with the consumers and the media.
It is good for the stock, that is for sure, but it is also something
people can understand, the fishing sector can understand that
we are doing something constructive to rebuild stocks and they
are proud of it. It is something they have come up with and have
worked with us on.
Q455 Chairman: Almost the reverse
problem, the opposite problem, is where, at the time the TAC is
set, fisheries science being an inexact science, it is set too
low and that becomes obvious a few months into the year. That
leads to quota running out and excessive discarding. Have you
thought how to get round that particular problem?
Mr Strang: Part of that, and it will be very
acute this year again as it was last year and I know it is in
certain parts around the UK, is the speed of reaction within the
Commission, and it is very frustrating. We have had it in the
past with monkfish abundance. The Commission have promised in-year
reviews. Commission officials are dealing with all the stocks.
They cannot cope, so therefore you do not get the adjustment,
the whole thing gets discredited and people do not respect the
rules for that very reason. It was interesting last year that
on North Sea cod advice was early. It was in June rather than
October and there were surveys over the summer which were brought
to bear in October, so they updated the science in-year, but I
think that is going to be rare. I do not think we can rely on
that very often. All I am saying is that you have put your finger
on a key problem and that is to do with the capacity of the Commission.
To be very honest, it can go both ways, of course. It could be
that the stock is much worse than we had thought and so there
can be in-year adjustments the other way.
Q456 Lord Cameron of Dillington:
Would it be helpful if there were three-year quotas, longer term
quotas, and you managed the longevity of the quota system by using
the real-time closures? Is that another way forward?
Mr Strang: Yes. I think the more we can have
a medium term approach the more stability there will be; it is
a good thing. I have to say that it would depend on the stock
because with some stock there is such a variance between one year
and the next. An example would be North Sea herring where last
year the RAC advised that we try and go for a three-year approach,
but the caveats you would have to have around that, say,
if biomass did X or Y, would have to be so strong so it is not
really worth having in that sense. However, there are other stocks
where it would be possible to do such a thing.
Mr Noon: In terms of the capacity of the Commission,
one of the things we have been trying to do in the Scottish Government
is have the sector develop a more strategic responsibility for
setting outcomes and trusting local areas, local government, and
fishing partners, to deliver on outcomes, and, in terms of reform
for the Committee to consider, perhaps we are looking at a common
approach across Europe rather than a common policy and we are
seeking strategic direction, in other words, a series of outcomes
which they trust nation states to get on and deliver because it
is in our interest to have flourishing fishing.
Q457 Chairman: I think that is a
very attractive approach. The trouble then is that you need to
have some sanction lurking around to land on the Member State
that plays ducks and drakes.
Mr Strang: You could always try an incentive.
You are right. The mind says always "sanction" and sanction
is part of it, but what I was saying about the cod recovery plan
was that if you say to people, "If you do the right thing
you will have slightly more to play with next time". It is
both.
Mr Noon: The sanction is perhaps a local one.
If fishery stocks fall there is an economic price, a social price,
to be paid in the country, and ultimately we have to be responsible
for what is happening in our country, so perhaps having a big
stick in the centre is just governments being responsible in their
own nations.
Q458 Viscount Brookeborough: And
this is very much the approach from the fishermen's point of view.
What do the scientists feel about real-time closures because quite
clearly all their evidence is history based and not in any way
current?
Mr Strang: The FRS scientists, are very involved
in devising the scheme. In other words, they are working out what
the thresholds should be and what the impact would be and when
they were dispersed, and they are very encouraged at the idea
of trying something different. There is a bit of a sense that
we have had the effort regime for a long time and the North Sea
is in a bit of recovery but elsewhere there is not much happening,
so anything which takes the sector with us and is doing the right
kind of thing they are up for. What they do say, quite rightly,
is that this is not the be-all and end-all, and if it were to
be the be-all and end-all real-time closures would have to be
very big. We need other things and we need selectivity measures
which we are also introducing. We need to keep an eye on efforts
generally. There is a whole range of things you have to do. Real-time
closures are not everything, that is for sure. I suppose they
would press us to make sure that real-time closures really do
bite, that the thresholds are sufficiently low to make an impact.
Q459 Earl of Dundee: Why do you believe
that technical conservation measures will necessarily be a better
advance for acceptance than coercion?
Mr Strang: Scotland has been very active in
technical conservation measures for a long time, as you probably
know. There are various places where we have been ahead of Europe
in terms of single twine, in terms of the mesh size, et cetera.
Of course, that is for a fishery a logical thing to do, and it
is encouraging, by the way, that technical measures are part of
the range of tools which the Commission are contemplating; it
is not just days and TACs. Our past experience is that if the
industry does not like a technical measure it will find a way
round it. It is impossible to police every boat and they are clever
guys and they will find ways round it if they do not want to implement
it, so they must want to. Therefore, they have to share the objective
that we are trying to achieve, so dialogue is very important.
You have to make sure that the technical measures you are talking
about go with the grain of the industry and can work in practice,
so trialling is really important so that the scientists are happy
that it will give the outcome you want and the industry thinks
it works. We have tried one without the other and it does not
work. In terms of incentive, I suppose it is the same point about
the industry being much more likely to want it to work if it is
not seen as a penalty coming from somewhere else but there is
an incentive to do it. I guess it is the same point. It is not
only incentives. There are some things which must be done.
|
