Memorandum by the Spanish Government
CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT
The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) has not made
much use of the fisheries management methods. In fact, recovery
and management measures have only been adopted for a limited number
of stocks, and emergency measures only in those instances when
the conditions set out by Community legislation have been met.
One criticism with regard to the adoption of these measures is
that, often, the proposals have lent more weight to biological
criteria than to socioeconomic issues, putting forward, therefore,
measures which are adequate for the conservation of fishing stocks,
but lacking in information with regard to the socioeconomic repercussions
of their implementation.
Given that the CFP makes provisions for criteria
on sustainability and contemplates socioeconomic aspects, these
should not be forgotten or relegated to the background when adopting
management measures for the various fisheries.
With regard to management tools, it must be
noted that Total Allowable Catches (TACs) are set up in accordance
with scientific advice which, in turn, is based on precautionary
criteria. The establishment of TACs and their distribution into
fishing quotas among Member States are key elements in fisheries
management and in the profitability of the various fisheries.
The establishment of TACs has often been criticized
for being too empirical and for not taking into account the reality
of the various fleets. It has also been pointed out that international
organizations tend to announce their assessments too late in the
year, almost coinciding with the dates when the Commission presents
its proposals to the Council. Consequently, there is not sufficient
time for these proposals to be studied by the scientific organizations
and the fisheries managers of the Administrations of the Member
States, nor between the Commission and the fishing sector through
the Regional Advisory Councils (RACs). Some improvements have,
however, been introduced in recent years like the publication
of some scientific reports earlier in the year, something that
facilitates their study and allows for the better planning of
the fisheries.
Further improvements have been made by achieving
a greater rapprochement between scientists and the industry. In
this regard and for some years now, the International Council
for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) has favoured meetings with
fisheries representatives from the RACs, in order to seek a rapprochement
of viewpoints as well as a greater understanding.
Although the methods used for the establishment
of TACs has improved, their transformation into quotas for the
various Member States does not always match reality. In fact,
the assignation of quotas has been based for many years now on
the principle of relative stability which, with the passing of
time, no longer reflects the fisheries reality or the depedence
of the various coastal regions on this industry.
Another point to be made with regard to the
management system based on TACs and quotas is that the current
system of distribution based on relative stability grants quotas
above the needs of the fleets of some Member States, whilst assigning
inadequate quotas to others. This situation is sometimes remedied
by resorting to exchange mechanisms among the fisheries Administrations
of the Member States. These mechanisms, however, always require
a compensation in the form of fishing quotas. Therefore, Member
States have to resort to swaps of certain amounts of a certain
stock in return for another or others, based on a principle of
equivalence so that the exchange is proportional. Therefore, this
mechanism does not involve a free cession, but merely an exchange.
However, for certain stocks, some of high commercial
value, this mechanism is not sufficient to meet the needs of the
fleet of a Member State which is forced to close a fishery before
the end of the year, while other Member States may have available
quotas of the species in question but are unable to consume them.
Therefore, these quotas remain in the sea uncaught at the end
of the year. This situation is not occasional for, in effect,
it occurs on a yearly basis.
In order to solve this problem, the CFP should
adopt agile and efficient mechanisms which, practically in real
time, would identify the quotas that are not going to be used
by a Member State so that they could be assigned to another Member
State in need of them and which, otherwise and through lack of
quota, would be forced to close the fishery before the end of
the year.
With regard to the current management regime
based on the fishing effort, the last change took place in 2003,
and it involved the fisheries of demersal and deep-sea species
in the Atlantic Ocean. This change established effort limitations
for each Member State in relation to that developed during a period
of reference (1998-2002).
This fishing-effort plan has been completed
in the case of species subjected to recovery plans (cod, south
hake, amongst others) with a maximum assignation of "days
at sea" for those vessels with the largest catches of the
species under recovery, effecting progressive reductions of the
"days at sea" in the years following the implementation
of the recovery plan. In addition to the extreme complexity that
the management of the fishing days for each individual vessel
involves for each Member State, in practice the accumulated reduction
of the fishing days are rendering the fleets unviable from an
economic standpoint.
It is noteworthy that in certain areas and on
an experimental basis consideration is being given to the management
of the fisheries based on a plan of limitation of only the effort
and not the quotas. The results of this new experience should
be considered carefully because in the future and in order to
solve many of the problems that the CFP will face it may prove
interesting to study a management system based on the fishing
effort, instead of the current double system of effort and quotas.
With regard to marine conservation areas, it
must be pointed out that the last years have witnessed the creation
of numerous protected areas of significant consequences for the
development of the fishing activity which is either limited or
prevented in the interest of the protection and conservation of
the marine habitat.
In this regard, it can only be said that this
measure is correct, and that when the necessary conditions are
in place new protection measures should be adopted. However, several
facts will need to be specified.
Consequently, the proposals made should be based
on solid scientific evidence confirmed by internationally recognized
organizations. These proposals should also be coupled with clear
control mechanisms to guarantee compliance in the designated areas.
This will be particularly important in those areas where only
certain fisheries are permitted, thus ensuring that this particular
aspect is adhered to.
Finally, both the limits of the areas and the
fishing activity that might be undertaken inside them should be
continuously assessed by means of the necessary reports, as well
as being subjected to revisions. Coinciding with the closure of
an area or the limitation of its activity, assessment mechanisms
should be in place to confirm whether the measures adopted are
having the expected results. In this regard, the assessment campaigns
undertaken should be carried out by the coastal State, but leaving
an option open for the participation of other Member States.
Real-time closures are being used by some third
countries in the management of certain fisheries, and some scientists
regard them as effective for avoiding catching juvenile fish during
the fishing activity. At a Community level there is no clear experience
in the operation of this management system. However, its introduction
is envisaged within the future management plan for the Atlantic
cod fishery.
What is certain and agreed upon by scientists
and the industry alike, is the existence of areas and times of
the year when there is a greater presence of juvenile fish in
the sea, and when real-time closures during a specified period
would be highly beneficial for the fishing stock. This option
should therefore be further explored, so that there could be areas
which would be closed or the fishing activity within them limited
at certain times of the year. This would allow a better planning
of the activity, with much less serious socioeconomic consequences
resulting from the implementation of the above-mentioned closures.
In brief, Spain supports the advancement of
scientific studies so that, when deemed necessary, spatial and
time closures may be implemented in a clear and precise manner
and in specific areas and times of the year, instead of adopting
real-time closures.
With regard to rights-based management tools,
it should be remembered that, firstly, fishing is a common resource
of exploitation for the fishermen of a certain Member State and
is only its exploitation and in order to manage it in accordance
with the principles of rationality and to distribute it among
the vessels, the reason why it could be advisable to resort to
rights-based management tools.
The use of fishing rights is necessary particularly
for those fisheries that cannot guarantee of availability of the
fishing resource for all vessel throughout the year. Right-based
management tools have been accused of having some flaws such as,
for instance, to encourage discards so that only the best fish,
and therefore the most valuable, arrives at ports. However, in
practice the number of Member States and the fisheries that are
being regulated in accordance with fishing rights are on the increase.
Spain has a long tradition of fisheries regulation
based on fishing rights and possibilities. In effect, some fisheries
adopted this operating system in the 1980s which has been continued
and to which some new fisheries have been incorporated, given
that is regarded as advantageous from a biological and economic
standpoint. It follows that this management system compels Members
States to regulate the mechanisms that govern the transfer of
rights among vessels, so that these operations can be totally
transparent.
Nevertheless, in order that this system was
more effective, the transfer or rights should not be confined
to the Member State itself, but there should be the possibility
that the transfer of fishing rights could be done between different
Member States.
With regard to the technical conservation measures,
the legal basis is found in a Council Regulation, which the Commission
plans to amend. To this end the Commission prepared a proposal
in 2004, which for several reasons has been delayed and has not
yet been put forward to the Council.
In relation to this new proposal, our position
is that it must be of an horizontal nature and should, therefore,
refer to all sea areas and fishing zones, as well as to the different
fishing gears. In any case, the regional approaches should be
avoided and only be considered in the cases where are really necessary,
that is to say, the regional approach should be used as an exception.
On the other hand, we are of the opinion that
the responsibility for the establishment of technical measures
should fall within the scope of the Ministers Council, including
any possible regional approach that may be intended to be tackled
in the future, so that the current balance of responsibilities
between the Council and the Commission in this subject is not
changed.
Finally, we also understand that, in the interest
of simplification, all rules referring to technical measures should
be found in a single legal text, in order to facilitate its implementation.
Regarding the discards, we must firstly indicate
that this problem has been linked, almost exclusively, to the
selection of fishing gears that are used in the different fisheries.
Although this might be true in some cases, the insufficiency or
lack of quotas favour likewise the discards.
Modifying the current concept of fisheries and
compelling to unload all the catches, will undoubtedly have a
positive impact on the assessment of resources, since better and
further information on its situation will be made available. Nevertheless,
from the point of view of fisheries management, that will force
to apply important changes to the current management systems,
specially with regard to fishing quotas. The lack of quotas for
one species, the closure of some fisheries due to the depletion
of one fishing quota will not be able to continue operating in
the same way that it is at present.
In this sense, it seems absolutely essential
not to introduce any changes in the current management systems
while a response to these new situations that will present in
practice is available. A possible solution to this problem could
be given by switching the current fisheries management system
based on a double system of fishing quotas and fishing effort
to a system based only in the fishing effort.
Climate change is a definite fact that also
has an impact on the marine environment since it is observed that
global warming is affecting oceans and this will have a great
impact on the development of the fishing activity in the medium
and long term. There have been some attempts to make the fishing
industry responsible for the climate change due to its high consumption
of fuel, especially by certain fisheries that require a high level
of consumption to operate. However, in fact, the fishing industry
is also suffering the consequences of this effect, especially
regarding the changes in the behaviour of fishing species or even
changes in zones where those fisheries were usually operating.
This is the reason why scientists must pay attention to this fact
and include it in their assessment in order that the management
measures in the fishing industry take into account the consequences
that can be derived from these possible changes.
It is true that throughout the years some changes
linked to climate changes of an isolated nature have been produced
in the different fisheries, but now is safe to think that new
changes will take place, or are already taking place, which will
have an impact on the ecosystem as a whole. This is caused by
an unprecedented combination of climate change and other alterations,
such as acidification and other changes derived from pollution
and overexploitation of certain resources. The impact on fisheries
is expected to be complex and affect some aspects other than the
mere change in the distribution of stocks.
In this respect, instead of falling to drama
or adopting measures without making any check, we consider necessary
to have further information on the impact of climate change on
fisheries and coordinate the efforts of the scientific community
at an international level, since this impact is felt beyond the
EU fisheries and fisheries zones. It would serve to no purpose
to oblige to make efforts in EU waters, if similar principles
are not kept in adjacent zones.
We should also bear in mind the possible impact
of climate change on the current management system of the fisheries
activity. Given that the stocks are managed on the basis of TAC
and quotas, referred to certain management areas, any change produced
in the fishing grounds will oblige to introduce changes in the
current management systems, including the allocation keys, and
this aspect should be studied with great care and all that without
forgetting the likely social and economic consequences, which
will also have to be previously assessed.
CONTROL AND
ENFORCEMENT
With regard to the aspects related to the control
of the fisheries activity, and if we take into consideration the
conclusions of the Court of Auditors Report in this subject, it
can be noted that this document shows the important deficiencies
affecting the fisheries Administrations of both the Member States
and the Community.
It is a fact that the aspects linked to control
could improve, but it is also true that it is necessary to analyze
the real reasons for which the quality of control is not considered
satisfactory.
In this respect, it must be pointed out that
the aspects mentioned in said Court of Auditors Report refer to
the existing situation in 2005 and, at present, that is to say,
three years after the verification mentioned in the report was
made, some improvements have been made in the control systems,
at least as far as the Spanish Administration is concerned, which
are not reflected by said report. These improvements refer to
both human and material resources, as well as the technological
field, all of which are intended for enhancing the number and
quality of the control activity.
The problems experienced in control can also
be put down to the high number of disperse pieces of legislation
that regulate the obligations in the subject of control, to the
duplicity and reiteration that oblige Member States in the aspect
of notifications and communications, as well as to the ambiguity
and vagueness with which other many control obligations are presented.
All this is translated into a huge bureaucratic charge for the
Member States' fisheries administrations and the own fishermen.
In this sense, it is necessary to unify, to codify and simplify
all the control legislation currently in force and study carefully
the new obligations that may be introduced in this subject so
as to lighten the workload and be able to pay more attention to
the quality, rather than the quantity, of the data.
On the other hand, the Control Agency has just
started to operate and, therefore, we will have to observe how
it tackles the tasks that it is undertaking before thinking of
assigning it further tasks and duties. In the case that the situation
requires other duties, it will have to be done in a coordinated
way so that the above-mentioned duplicities are not produced.
The experience of working with the Commission
during the preparation of these documents was highly positive,
having achieved full support from them, which allowed us to finish
both documents on time. In this sense, the Operative Programme
was approved on 13 December 2007.
Regarding the implementation of the EFF, given
that it was recently passed, it is not possible to share our experience,
only point out that the prolonged period of negotiations delayed
its introduction.
STRUCTURAL POLICY
Ever since Spain joined the European Union in
1986, the Spanish Government has made a significant effort to
adjust the capacity of its fleet to the available fishing opportunities,
a fact that is reflected in the figures related to the latest
years.
One of the most important measures implemented
within this structural adjustment was the compulsory withdrawal
of fleet capacity to allow the incorporation of a new one, measure
that the European Union adopted with the Reform of the Common
Fisheries Policy—CFP through Regulation (EC) 2371/2002 of
22 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation
of fisheries resources.
Indeed, within the strict observance required
for the mentioned Regulation, Spain has maintained and doubled
its efforts to adjust their fleet to the conservation and management
of the fisheries resources and reduce to the minimum the fishing
effects on the conservation of the stocks of marine species.
The decommissioning policy to allow the building
of new vessels was aimed to avoid the increase of the capacity
and the withdrawal of the fishing activity has been encouraged
with the support provided in the structural programmes co-funded
with the Institute for the Promotion of Fisheries (Instituto de
Fomento Pesquero—IFOP), in order to adjust the capacity
of the fleet to the existing stocks.
The data to 31 December 2007 reveals the effort
made in this regard by the Spanish fleet, which was reduced by
1,871 vessels, that imply a decrease of the tonnage by 51,438
GT and of the power by 199,716 KW during the scope of five years
of the new CFP.
According to the Spanish Government, this reduction
and that which will probably occur in the future under the provisions
of Regulation (EC) 1198/2006 of 27 July on the European Fisheries
Fund, fulfils the aim of sustainable exploitation of fisheries
resources.
Related to the European Fisheries Fund (EFF),
it was established at the Council of Fisheries Ministers on 19
June 2006 and published in the Official Journal of the European
Union through Regulation (EC) 1198/2006 of 27 July.
The EFF sets the framework for Community support
for the sustainable development of the fisheries sector. It came
into force on 1 January 2007.
Spain, being the first receptor of funds for
the period 2007-13, received 1,131,890,912 euros of which, 186,198,467
euros relate to the Regions not included in the Convergence Aim
and 945,692,445 euros relates to the Convergence Aim.
The drafting process of the mentioned Regulation
was long and complicated. The dossier has been at the Council's
office for two years and was debated more than six times at the
Council of Ministers. Also 25 working groups' meetings have taken
place, as well as more than 17 informal meetings and a hundred
bilateral meetings of Spain both with the Commission and with
the rest of the State Members in order to gain support from the
majority in pursuit of the creation of the EFF.
In this sense, the work carried out during the
drafting process of this Regulation has been arduous, aiming to
the fullest improvement of the proposals that initially were so
restrictive, in benefit of the Spanish fisheries sector interests.
On the other hand and according to the provisions
of the Regulation in question, the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Food (MAPA), through its Fisheries General Secretariat,
started in 2006 the drafting of the documents for the Programme,
which must be coherent with each other and are:
— the National Strategic Plan,
— the Operative Programme,
— the Advance Assessment, and
— the Environmental Assessment.
The Spanish Government committed to carry out
this task aiming at the greatest participation and agreement,
both from the Autonomous Communities and other Public Bodies,
as well as from the fisheries sector, from the social representatives
and NGOs and other associations and stakeholders.
Regarding the subsidies in the fishing sector,
in paragraph 28 of Doha's Ministerial Statement, the Ministers
agreed to start negotiations to clarify and improve the disciplines
of the "Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures",
preserving its basic concepts and principles, and taking into
account the needs of the developing countries. They specifically
mentioned the subsidies in the fishing sector as an important
one for these countries. These negotiations take place at the
WTO Negotiating Group on Rules.
After several meetings, the Chair of the WTO
Negotiating Group on Rules circulated a draft text on rules (Doc.
TN/RL/W/213 of 30 November 2007).
Observations given by the Under Secretary for
Fisheries Commercialisation:
— the document is too complex;
— inexistence of a first article setting
out the scope and the definition of subsidy;
— aquaculture is not included;
— practically all the subsidies for
developed countries are banned. There is no exception for artisanal
fisheries and fishing for shellfish;
— the bans affect the tax for diesel,
special social security regime, temporary unemployment subsidies,
reduction in port taxes...;
— we wonder how the WTO is going to
evaluate the degree of exploitation of stocks, when it does not
have a mandate to that effect;
— with regard to the external assessment
of the management systems applied, any interpretation could clash
with the competences of the countries and regional and international
fisheries organizations that have their own mechanisms for solving
disputes and which should prevail;
— there are very reasonable doubts
about the competence of the WTO in the evaluation of management
systems and the will of FAO to participate.
Subsequently, a meeting of the Negotiating Group
on Rules took place on 30 and 31 January 2008, where Spain, besides
stressing the imbalance of the text, requested in Community coordination
the defence of the preservation of the CFP.
The Commission reminded that they already showed
their disappointment in December 2007 and expressed the following:
— The text lacks balance.
— The support to the prices or income
in poor areas should not affect the fishing capacity.
— The text does not take the pro-environmental
measures into account, which have a positive effect and now they
are prohibited.
— The transfer of rights is not regarded
as subsidy.
— Infrastructures should be excluded.
There will be a new meeting of the Negotiating
Group on Rules on 18 and 19 February at WTO, where the same document
of 30 November will continue to be debated (TN/RL/213).
This Office reiterates the opinion previously
given and trust that in the short term a new revised document
will be available in accordance with the conclusions resulting
from the debates and gathered by the President of the Group, in
order to provide a new point of view.
Governance
Further to the governance of the CFP and the
operation of RACs, it must be noted that, with the exception of
the Mediterranean RAC, which has not yet been established, the
rest of RACs created within the framework of the CFP, have been
operating for several years and, therefore, some assessment on
their work can be provided.
RACs have to be given a clearly positive effect
in the sense that they are favouring the approximation of the
fishing industry of the different Member States involved in each
RAC on a nearly permanent basis, which facilitates a better understanding
of the problems of each of them and better systems to find the
best solutions in each case.
Nevertheless, opposite to these advantages which
are very important, there are certain flaws that have to be considered.
Failure to pay the required attention to these flaws, which are
detailed below, will make question the beneficial effect of RACs.
The first difficulties are derived from the
own operational framework which is defined in the Council Regulation
establishing RACs. In this sense, the geographical ascription
of one of them, and the species ascription in other cases, causes
lack of coordination and duplicities in their work subjects. Apart
from this, there is also a difficulty regarding the definition
of the fishing industry, since it groups different activities,
from the catching sector to commercialization passing through
aquaculture and certain fisheries, that clearly have opposing
interests. There is, finally, another difficulty regarding the
composition of the RACs structures of governance, since their
limited number of members, without taking into account the number
of the composing Member States or the singularities of its members
in each case, makes of RACs an structure where the interests of
the different associations and organisations that constitute them
are not clearly reflected. Making the number of members flexible
according to the needs would facilitate the operation of some
RACs.
With regard to the operation itself of RACs,
some deficiencies which make them less efficient should be noted.
In this sense, a high number of meetings are held: focus groups,
working groups, which are in many cases subdivided in fishing
areas or zones, apart from the executive committees and general
assemblies that all of them have. All these meetings cause repetition
and reiteration of the same matter, with the subsequent danger
of examining the problem in a too fractional and local way and,
therefore, slowing the presentation of proposals. If we add to
this the fact that the Commission very often is not present in
the debates, the conclusions tendered are too theoretical.
Another problem posed is the lack of clear objectives
with regard to which matters must be examined in the framework
of RACs and which ones within the framework the Fisheries Consultative
Committee (ACFA). The same documents are examined sometimes in
the same forum, which amounts to a duplication of the works.
It must also be noted that in certain cases,
perhaps due to lack of time, and less and less frequently, the
Commission submit its consultation to RACs after its proposal
is put forward to the Council, thus the statements the fishing
industry may make are given after the Commission has made its
proposal, which adds complexity to the position of the own Commission
and even the Member States.
Coordination between RACs should likewise be
assured. Although some approximation has been made at the initiative
of RACs and some meetings have been held with the participation
of members of some RACs, these meetings do not take place as often
as it should be desirable given the subjects that are dealt with,
which makes it necessary to duplicate the number of meetings.
Finally, it must be pointed out that we must
keep an eye on the RACs' proposals since we could end up having
a too decentralized and regionalist fisheries policy which opposes
the principles of the common fisheries policy.
In view of the above, it seems clear that the
CFP, although has achieved important accomplishments, has not
yet provided itself with the necessary management and control
systems to assure its objectives of biological sustainability
and economic profitability, thus we must continue reflecting on
this subject in order to find the most appropriate systems to
meet these objectives. It is true that the specific circumstances
of each region and coastal areas on which the CFP is applied must
be taken into consideration, but that does not mean that we will
have to resort to a regional approach. A regional management model
could endanger the CFP's foundations and principles and, therefore,
it will be necessary to search for general and universal implementation
models, leaving the regional approach and management for specific
cases for which it is justified in a transparent way. That is
to say, the regional model is an exception and not the general
rule.
25 February 2008
| 
