Examination of Witness (Questions 624-639)
Mr Marcin Rucinski
7 MAY 2008
Q624 Chairman: Thank you very much
indeed for finding the time to come and help us with this inquiry.
We are a Sub-Committee of the House of Lords Select Committee
on the European Union. This is a formal evidence session, so a
note will be taken. You will be given a transcript as soon as
possible and you can have a look through it and make corrections
if any errors have slipped in. Can I start the questions and ask
what has been, do you think, the experience of the more recent
accession countries, the accessions that took place in 2004 and
2007? Do you get the feeling that that has changed the coalition
of interests on fishing within the EU? What is your experience
of being part of it?
Mr Rucinski: Thank you very much, Chairman.
First of all I would like to thank you very warmly for the invitation
to come here. It is a great honour and distinction for me. Personally
also I am sure it will be a very interesting and precious experience
for me. In response to your question, it is difficult to say whether
something has changed or not because if there has been a change
then—
Q625 Chairman: You did not know what
it was before?
Mr Rucinski: Precisely. The change would have
been a natural situation for me anyway, so it is difficult to
judge whether there has been a change. What I can say is that
in the specific area of fisheries what I have noticed is that
many interests are strongly region-based. In terms of TACs and
quota, for example, there are many regional issues of high sensitivity
for different Member States and I think their coalitions have
remained rigid. This is the case for the Baltic. When we discuss
matters pertaining to the Baltic we rarely see colleagues from
other regions intervening save for some who like to see coherence
here and there but regionalisation elsewhere. Other than that
I would say that in general matters such as financing the EFF
I think we have brought in a change. I would imagine we have.
In the discussion of the EFF that I had the opportunity to take
part in in the year 2005/06 I saw a shift of interests and more
attention given to areas of cohesion and Objective 1, the areas
with less GDP, as it were, so certainly there has been a shift.
The other shift I can see, which is dear to us because we have
a fairly well developed sector of inland agriculture and inland
fisheries, is that this has been given considerable attention
in the context of the EFF and also in such dossiers as eels regulation.
Other than that I would say that we are expecting to have a great
change from what will certainly be a co-decision, that is, if
the Irish referendum goes well. That is going to be a reality
for us as of next year. It certainly will be a great change but
I would not endeavour to go into more detail as of yet. It is
still ahead of us. The most interesting time is yet to come, I
think. Perhaps one other remark is that we have a new area within
the CFP, which is the Black Sea with the accession of Romania
and Bulgaria. That is quite interesting if you look at quantities.
It is not on a very big scale but interesting nevertheless and
a new area for EU policy.
Q626 Baroness Jones of Whitchurch:
Before I ask my question on the objectives of the CFP, it would
be really helpful if you could say what proportion of the people
who live in Poland are involved in the fishing industry. I have
not got a sense of it.
Mr Rucinski: The proportion is very small. If
I remember correctly, according to our estimates made during the
preparation of our operational programme for the last programming
period, it was 0.07 per cent which was directly concerned with
fisheries. Our coastline is not that long. It is just 500-odd
kilometres. In terms of people directly concerned with fisheries,
it is several thousands perhaps, but if you add processing, if
you add the local context, then it becomes different. It is the
case everywhere in Europe, I think. The three voivodships[1]
that are interested in fisheries quite a lot are basically Pomorskie-Lakonie,
Pomorskie and WarmiAsko-Mazurskia—I am sorry for that! Other
than that there are also certain regions on the mainland, such
as Silesia or Wiekopolska around Poznan that have meaningful exposure
to inland agriculture and inland fishing, also places where you
have large numbers of lakes. That is how I would characterise
it.
Q627 Baroness Jones of Whitchurch:
That is very helpful. We have received some evidence that not
enough emphasis is put on the socio-economic impact of the Common
Fisheries Policy and too much is put on marine conservation, and
I just wondered, in the context of your experience in Poland and
the people who directly work in the sector, whether they feel
that.
Mr Rucinski: I am certain that if you asked
any fisherman in any given EU country he would accept that we
need more social emphasis. In my adventure in fisheries, lasting
something like seven years now, one of the first lessons I learned
is that the task for us, so to speak, managers of this profession
is sometimes to guard fishermen against themselves. It depends
whether you want to see it in the very short term year-to-year
or whether you want to see it long term. When you look at it long
term there is no big contradiction between a sensible conservation
policy and the socio-economic policy. There is no huge contradiction.
This is what we see and this is also the point of departure of
my Government.
Q628 Viscount Brookeborough: Since
you joined the EU in 2004 have you found it a very difficult journey
being involved with the EU legislation in an area which is so
close, like the Baltic, and to what extent do you think it could
be simplified, considering that you have come into it at a very
late stage compared with others?
Mr Rucinski: I will start at the end. I would
say it certainly could be simplified. It is one of the most complicated
and over-bureaucratised areas in EU policy as a whole, if I can
be so bold as to judge as a humble fisheries and maritime attaché.
Certainly this is a place where we can find ways to simplify it
and where we can find ways to explain to people better what we
mean by the regulation. One of the ideas we have been advocating
(not yet realised by the DG) is, for example, to give leaflets
to fishermen so that they understand the regulations better because
it is a certain language that they are written in. Outside Brussels
you can get difficulties understanding this. In our experience
since 2002 when, as I said, my adventure in fishing began, the
pre-accession process has been quite a task. It has been difficult
in some places but I think overall we have managed. I think there
are some regional aspects to this. In comparison to the North
Sea in the Baltic some things are less complicated, as yet, at
least. Overall it has been a success though many fishermen would
not agree with me, but in terms of implementing the provisions,
in terms of transposing the acquis to our own legal system,
I think overall it has been right.
Q629 Viscount Brookeborough: So do
you think, joining the EU, that fishing in the Baltic has become
more stabilised and is more sustainable in the future?
Mr Rucinski: I saw in the following questions
you are going to ask that you have seen that sustainability is
still a goal for us, and we are heading towards it, though perhaps
not in a very straight way all the time.
Q630 Chairman: You did have a recent
problem.
Mr Rucinski: We will come to that later on,
I am sure. I think that for fishermen it has been a lesson. Some
issues have been difficult for us. There are certain provisions
I could name that have been difficult for and have been poorly
understood, if at all, by the sector, such as the drift-net ban,
which from our point of view, for example, is the only way we
can fish. We can seriously fish for salmon for now, but this means
that our second most valuable and fairly important socio-economic
fishery has been essentially brought to an end, so you can imagine
that, though we have had some success in prolonging the phasing
out of certain gears, such as drift nets, which are a taboo almost
in the Council context, especially for Mediterranean Member States,
it has been difficult and it is still difficult, but we will have
to find ways around that. I think it is very important that we
have substantial financing to overcome the problems and, as it
were, sweeten the pills that are sometimes very bitter. This may
be an important thing also for the newcomers, and I think we have
used that quite a lot in the last programming period.
Q631 Lord Palmer: Following a highly
critical report by the Court of Auditors, as you are aware, the
Commission is currently consulting on a new Control Regulation.
What are your priorities for this new regulation and how does
your Government intend to tackle the enforcement problems which
you after all have had to inherit, and do you think you will be
able to carry your own stakeholders with you?
Mr Rucinski: I have before me my minister's
speaking note from the informal ministerial council in February.
To answer I could return to what I said in reply to question 2,
that in the long term there should be no real contradiction between
conservation goals and socio-economic goals. For us the point
of departure is that we need the fishermen to understand that
it is not against them that we are doing this. We are catering
for the long-term future. They have to understand this even if
sometimes the short-term pills may be quite bitter. Otherwise,
if they do not understand, this is a fight; this is a policeman
and thief game. In the policeman and thief game any law-maker
in my personal view is one step behind reality and he has to be
a good law-maker. I would not dare say that in my country we are
just one step backwards.
Q632 Lord Palmer: But you have quite
a good rapport with them at the moment?
Mr Rucinski: You mean with the fishermen?
Q633 Lord Palmer: Yes.
Mr Rucinski: It is difficult to say. Fishermen
are not a homogeneous group. In our own back yard there are many
groups with many different views which are wildly diverging, I
would say. There are situations where we have to find a middle
ground. We have to find ways between the hard-liners and those
who want real measures because they feel that confidence is important.
Speaking of confidence, confidence is becoming more and more important
because of the interests of consumers in the legality of the fish.
I think in the UK you have more of this than in our back yard
but it is getting to our back yard too. Coming back to the control
reform targets, it is very important that we ensure the legality
of the products that are on the market because consumers are getting
more and more aware of this. One of the measures which we see
here as important is the broadening of responsibility beyond just
fishermen because they do not function in a world of their own.
They have certain demands from processors, traders, and so I think
you have to broaden responsibility to the whole market place and
not just concentrate on those fishermen at the end because they
are driven by certain processes, by certain companies even, I
could say, here and there. Other than that, for control targets
what we support—and this is something that the Court of
Auditors have called for—is a methodology for control activities.
It should be streamlined, certainly, and we should develop common
methodologies at the Community level by way of guidelines. This
is something that we would like and something that I spoke of
today with respect to the IUU Regulation drafts that we are now
hammering out, so to speak, in the Council working party. We could
also see the mandate of the Control Agency broadened. Simplification
is the way forward because it will ensure better understanding
of goals, and, of course, we have to bear in mind the question
of costs, so this is also something that we have to address in
the new reform. Also, of course, the question of sanctions must
be dealt with with respect to national systems and traditions.
Q634 Lord Plumb: In the proposals
that will come forward for the next reform of the Common Fisheries
Policy you and the new Member countries may be in a unique position
because you do not have baggage to bring with you; you are looking
at the whole policy afresh. One of the major issues, and it has
become more obvious for me as we meet with people involved in
the fishing industry, is the business of the challenge between
the change from quota possibly to what is called effort management.
At the moment we seem to have a combination of the two which adds
to the complication, and I think everyone we see would say let
us work towards simplification rather than further complication.
Therefore, would you perhaps join with others in saying, "Let
us get rid of one", which might be the quota, "and let
us concentrate on effort management", or where does your
Government stand on this at the moment?
Mr Rucinski: At this stage, having been strongly
reminded lately of the importance of quotas and attaining them
rightly, I think there is understanding that we should, at least
in our Baltic situation, in our regional situation, which is the
most important politically to us, base ourselves on catch and
landing controls to ensure that we exert the right fishing effort.
We have, of course, the effort management system within the Baltic
based on days at sea, but it is far simpler in our version, let
us say, than in the North Sea version. I can only say that it
is just one page that suffices to regulate it in the Baltic whereas
you have at least 50 pages in the North Sea, so there are ways
to deal with days at sea in a simple manner and this is dependent
on gears, technically speaking. We are lucky to have one net rule
in the Baltic in this context for demersal fishing and for the
controls, so perhaps this is where it comes from. The real problem
I have with effort management is that it is a fairly difficult
concept to define. If you think of kilowatt days, for example,
it might be a good way forward but kilowatts in terms of fishing
vessels technically are a concept that might well be escaping
control. Of course, it would have been nice to get rid of quotas,
fine and good; maybe we could then get rid of some of our payback
until 2011, but, joking aside, it is difficult for me personally
to imagine that the Commission will live with this. I know that
some Member States have this as a priority but in the Baltic context,
for now at least, the way I see it personally is that the quotas
still matter more than the fishing effort. That is not to say
that it will not change, that it will stay set in stone for years
and years. It might evolve in the years to come, but for now catch
and landing control is key in the Baltic context.
Q635 Lord Plumb: Let us suppose that
the quota will stay after 2013. How would you simplify that system
then, because there is going to be a lot of change?
Mr Rucinski: Yes, I know we are going to have
a new CFP. Our Presidency will be deeply involved in this, although
it is quite far off. The second half of 2011 will be a nice moment
to be involved in the discussions. If I look at the example of
the Baltic Sea, I would not say I understand the specifics of
North Sea fishing but you have so many fishing gears that sometimes
I get lost in this, and then you have all those special conditions.
We have just one net rule in the Baltic. I myself, in my humble
lack of understanding of the North Sea, have to accept that we
are all western waters. I have been always asking myself the question,
"Why do you have so many gears?", because with the gears
you get those days multiplied and then the system becomes for
me practically almost impossible to apply. I salute your administrations
for coming to terms with it. That is my feeling. It is just a
personal feeling. I have to be very clear: it is not a government
position. As far as the Government's position is concerned, it
is that predominantly we are in the TACs and quota reality and
we will certainly look with interest look at replacing it with
fishing effort, but the fishing effort would have to be a really
sure measure to restrict real efforts down there and, as I say,
fishing effort is a concept that is not immediately easy to grasp.
Q636 Lord Cameron of Dillington:
How is your Baltic RAC doing now? Are the Polish Government supporting
it enough, both in terms of finance and also in terms of encouraging
responsibility?
Mr Rucinski: We always encourage responsibility.
This is again a concept that is not so easily spread in these
circles, especially some, but it is not just our phenomenon. On
the financing, we have never had a problem with that. Whether
we finance it enough is a good question. Financing something enough
is always a good question.
Q637 Lord Cameron of Dillington:
But is it working well together?
Mr Rucinski: The feeling we have in terms of
administration, at least as far as I can tell from my administration,
is that it is working fine, yes. They provide us with valuable
advice. They provide us also with what I would call valuable policy
stimulus for different important issues here and there. Let me
just recall the conference on control and enforcement that we
had last year in March, and I think this approach has also been
emulated by the North Sea RAC this year. This conference certainly
was an important support. It was attended by many important figures,
our minister included. I think there have been important outcomes
from this policy stimulus that we are now realising, both in terms
of quota issues and broader control issues that we will plunge
into as of next autumn under the French Presidency.
Q638 Lord Cameron of Dillington:
It is helping make the fishermen be more responsible, is it?
Mr Rucinski: It should, but whether the knowledge
or experience of becoming more responsible comes down to where
it should be is another question and, of course, this is something
fishermen have to work out for themselves. It is not for us as
a government administration to deal with this. In the written
form of your question you have asked about management responsibility.
That will be required in the preparation for the RACs. I would
say that from our point of view their advisory policy stimulus
role is very important, but that should remain enough for now.
Q639 Viscount Ullswater: We have
heard from quite a lot of people we have seen that they feel that
the CFP is currently very over-centralised and they have suggested
that the EU institutions might in future just dictate principles
and set objectives but devolve a lot of the implementation of
the regulation to the Member States or even to the regional organisations,
including the RACs. Would you support that movement and what sort
of governance structure would you like to see?
Mr Rucinski: I would say that not everything
can be done from Brussels, so total regulation from here in one
place is not good and perhaps a move into the direction of regionalisation
is a good one. I think that also the Commission have realised
with the new structure that it is more regional now. Another question
arises of coherence, so we have to balance regionalisation, or
respect for regional differences, particularly specificities,
whatever we call them, and coherence because we are after all
in a Community context where you have to have uniform application,
or at least uniform in general terms, so the balance of these
two should guide any devolving of responsibilities. Essentially
some regionalisation is needed, but we have to maintain coherence.
There is a balance between the two that has to be kept; otherwise
we end up with three, four, five different practices in different
seas and then we will lose sight of the level playing field. I
think the move that the Commission has made with regionalisation
is a good one, provided they manage to maintain coherence, of
course—good luck to Mr Borg and his colleagues. I would
also say that perhaps institution-wise the question arises, whether
from Brussels, or indeed in the future from Vigo, whether you
can maintain coherence from there. One of the ideas I personally
would support, and I emphasise "personally"; this is
not a view of Government, is perhaps some kind of regional offices
that oversee what is happening because you cannot see everything
from Brussels, less still, I would say, from Vigo, because you
would have to catch the planes for free in some instances to get
there in the first place, so I think the idea of some regional
offices for the main regions, maybe not necessarily from the Commission
but in the agency, could be considered. Personally, again personally,
I would not rule that out.
Chairman: That is excellent. Thank you very
much indeed.
1 Polish Administrative Districts Back
|
