Examination of Witness (Questions 640-654)
Commissioner Joe Borg, Mr Poul Degnbol and Ms Kirchner
7 MAY 2008
Q640 Chairman: Good afternoon, Commissioner.
Commissioner Borg: First of all I would like
to welcome you, not exactly to my office, but today has been one
of those hectic days. We start off on a Wednesday with the usual
college meeting. Today we had two somewhat sensitive issues, one
relating to GMOs, and we therefore had quite an intense discussion
in the college with regard to this subject, and the other relating
to the increase in food prices, so that occupied more than most
of our time and I apologise if I am running just a little late.
I understand that you would like to discuss a number of topics
which relate to the Common Fisheries Policy. We have received
11 questions to which I have drawn up written responses which
we will be circulating to you, so rather than repeating what there
is written I could respond to any other questions that you would
like to put and maybe also just give comments on the different
questions over and above what there is in the written responses
if that is okay by you.
Q641 Chairman: That is very helpful,
Commissioner, thank you. In that case, thinking as radically as
possible, can I put to you the proposition that really the Common
Fisheries Policy, if it has not outlived its usefulness, has got
to the stage where it is in need of some fairly radical reform
in that it does not sit very easily with current approaches, it
is centralist, it is excessively top-down, there is little buy-in
from those who are the biggest stakeholders and TACs and quotas
are seen as being an inefficient way of managing the industry?
Do you share the view that it is a matter of looking forward to
a major reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, or is it a matter
as far as you are concerned of perhaps making relatively modest
adjustments to what is already there?
Commissioner Borg: When.
Q642 Chairman: Yes, when.
Commissioner Borg: I share your view, subject
to one qualification, which is that I like to draw a distinction
between, so to speak, attacking the Common Fisheries Policy and
attacking the way it is implemented. I firmly believe, and over
these four years my conviction has become stronger rather than
weaker, that we need a common policy with regard to fisheries.
We are dealing with a stock which does not conveniently reside
in a particular area. Some do, on which we normally do not regulate.
Others stride across Community waters and therefore, unless you
have a common policy, you are going to have a situation whereby
one reaps benefits at the expense of the other by all who are
fishing in one spot. We have experience of this in other areas.
Where you have waters which are subject to exploitation by different
operators you have to have certain common rules, even insofar
as they might have an impact on areas which belong to other countries.
We have agreements, therefore, with regard to fisheries with Norway,
Iceland, Canada and the Faroe Islands, where we have TACs and
quotas, where we have a regulatory regime, because at the end
of the day if we carry out fishing activities, even if it is exclusively
in waters other than Community waters, over-fishing there will
have an impact on the stocks which straddle Norwegian waters as
well, and over-fishing there would have an impact on stocks that
straddle our waters. If we are speaking of certain categories
of fish it makes even more sense to have a common policy. Having
said that, the way that the common policy is implemented in practice
can be subject to criticism. In 2002 the Common Fisheries Policy
went through a radical reform. The problem is that most of the
objectives which were agreed to in 2002 are only now being effectively
implemented. To mention a couple of examples, with the changes
in 2002 the result was an agreement that there should be more
stakeholder consultation and that brought about the formulation
of a regulation to form Regional Advisory Councils. This regulation
took some time to be adopted and then the formation of these Regional
Advisory Councils took some time to be agreed to, and in fact
of the seven there is one that has not yet been set up, which
is the Mediterranean Regional Advisory Council. The first one
to be set up was the North Sea Regional Advisory Council and that
took till 2005, so we are still in the initial stages of the operation
of these Regional Advisory Councils. To take another example,
with the reform of 2002 there was also the decision that there
should be much more multi-annual planning, but the multi-annual
management plans or recovery plans where, according to scientific
advice, the stock was in very bad shape are very complex, very
difficult and very sensitive processes which involve the Council
with the new Lisbon Treaty. It will also involve the European
Parliament by co-decision and therefore the actual drawing up
of these multi-annual plans takes quite some time. In reality,
therefore, we underwent a reform in 2002 which was quite radical,
but in a way the impact of that reform is only now starting to
be realised. Having said that, we have also identified a number
of problems with the operation of the Common Fisheries Policy,
the question concerning technical measures, for example. We have
quite a large number of technical provisions which are drawn up
centrally, as you said, and which are complex and sometimes difficult
to understand and implement, and therefore they themselves create
some complaints, to say the least, by those who are required to
operate under those rules. We have started thinking of moving
from this sort of management regime to one which is more results
oriented and therefore you set the parameters under which it should
be achieved, which would be what would be the optimum sustainable
fishery, and then let the Member States and the operators themselves
determine to a large extent the optimum regulations that should
be in place in order to achieve that. One pilot project which
is moving in that direction was agreed to in the December Council
with regard to the Scottish fishery concerning cod in the North
Sea, and we are hopeful that that will give good results. In this
way there would be a shift from a lot of detailed central management
to setting the policy parameters centrally and then leaving it
up to the operators almost to see how those parameters are to
be achieved but then monitoring that what has been done was done
in the direction of achieving those and intervening only if your
value judgement (based on science) is that the objectives are
not going to be achieved or you are moving in the opposite direction.
We are starting to look at this. Another issue concerns the discarding
of fish. We have started to take action to tackle the very big
problem of discarding fish. I hope that later on this year we
will be proposing two measures which will be very much discard-oriented,
one which relates to flat fish in the south of the North Sea and
the Channel and the other which relates to nephrops in the Irish
Sea. One is relatively simple, which is that of nephrops. The
other is much more complex because with regard to flat fish we
are speaking of discard levels of 60-70%. We took two cases, one
which would be relatively simple and one which would be much more
complex, in order to learn from these how to try to plan for the
future. We are addressing issues at the moment which are somewhat
radical in nature. A third is illegal fishing. We have drawn up
a proposal which is very far-reaching. The criticism, when one
looks at the proposal, is that it is perhaps too tough but we
feel that it has to be tough if we really want to effectively
correct illegal fishing activities. We do not want it to be discriminatory,
so we are having some arguments with Member States on the basis
that you should not distinguish between illegal operators on the
basis that they are Community operators or non-Community operators;
it does not make sense, and that we should find a solution whereby
we do not have a weak link in the chain, either by virtue of the
fact that you allow processed products to come in without really
ensuring that the original raw material was legally caught, because
otherwise you might end up having a plant for illegal fish somewhere
abroad and then importing it into the Community, no questions
asked, and that would be a disaster just the same and would not
solve the problem, or by having the situation whereby the sanctions
that are imposed cover a spectrum which goes from taking it on
board as a very small part of operational costs to being something
very prohibitive. Those where it is very prohibitive will not
have their ports used to land illegal fish and the others will
continue landing illegal fish because the sanctions are not sufficiently
deterrent. These are issues which are very sensitive for Member
States.
Q643 Lord Plumb: If the radical proposals
go through, first, to what extent are you talking to WTO about
your proposals at the moment and to what extent do you think they
will want to see the final proposals, and will that not affect
the changes which you have in mind?
Commissioner Borg: The WTO would come into it
very much with proposals, for example, with regard to IUU, illegal
fishing, because my proposing that we will not allow illegal products
to be served, so to speak, upon any Community plate means that
if imports coming from third countries are not properly certified
as being the provenance of legally caught fish they will not be
allowed in and therefore certain third countries in particular,
unless they are developed countries, might have problems with
the provision of certification. What we are doing in the proposal
is seeing to it that a transitional period is allowed so that
we would be able to work out with these third countries (with
many of which we have also standing arrangements, for example,
concerning health and sanitary provisions from these countries)
in order to extend the set-up they have to cover legal or illegal
fish so that they would not suffer any further consequence further,
and also use funds coming from our own funds or from development
funds in order to help these countries build their infrastructure,
because at the end of the day it would also be in their interests
if their waters were not used by illegal operators, by pirates
too, to catch fish at minimal expense and then dump it into our
own market. It would be in their interests if we strengthened
their set-up so that operators in their waters were lawful operators
and paid the proper price for the catches.
Q644 Chairman: Total traceability
of fish; is that the idea?
Commissioner Borg: Yes, the objective is to
have total traceability of fish. As long as we are not discriminatory
and as long as we show that the measures we are introducing are
genuine measures to guarantee lawful operators and are not artificial
barriers to trade coming from third countries, we should not have
any problems WTO-wise, and obviously these go through our own
internal arrangements, what we call inter-service consultations,
and DG Trade is very keen to see to it that whatever is proposed
would not be WTO incompatible. On this we have had the support
of the whole college, including trade, and in Council the decision
was unanimous that we come up with a strong proposal. Now we are
facing the reality that the devil is in the detail. There are
three aspects to it, and perhaps I can briefly say something on
this. One is scope. As I said before, some Member States tend
to argue that the measures should only affect third country operators
or operators in third country waters. We are of the view that
the measure should cover everyone, and on the basis of the latest
information I have Member States are getting round to accepting
this and have introduced some minor changes to the proposal in
order to have a situation in which blacklisting Community vessels
should only happen if a Member State does not take action under
our existing control regulations. It would be a second step and
it seems that on the basis of that we should be home and dry and
therefore the proposal would remain covering all operators and
all illegally caught fish irrespective of where it is caught.
The second point, and again I have already alluded to it, is the
question concerning certification both with regard to fish that
is landed in Community ports and with regard to fish products
processed and what-have-you that come into the Community market.
There has to be certification and this is a tough nut to crack
because you need to do it in a way whereby you do not add exorbitant
costs to the operators, who are importers, et cetera. There the
thinking is that we would have what a general requirement but
with exceptions, and therefore products that are imported into
the Community which are not debarred, which represent a small
percentage, would be exempted so that you do not create unnecessary
bureaucracy, so to speak, but the main products would require
certification because there one needs to attack where it really
hurts if we leave it unregulated and therefore you leave an easy
way out to illegal fish ending up in the Community market. There,
because you are speaking of large quantities, the cost element
would be fairly evenly spread out. We are thinking along these
lines and I think that we will be able to convince the Member
States to move in this direction. Again, I repeat: the problem
is not so much with regard to fish that are caught and landed
in port. The problem is much more with regard to processed fish
products. With regard to those which are exempted, one would have
the possibility of reviewing it so that if there are fish products
that are exempted but which then start being imported heavily
into the Community then certification would need to be included
there. That is one option. The other option is to have a list
of the products that need certification and all the rest would
not. I do not prefer this because that means that whenever you
want to work to the list you have to go through hell in order
to have that product included in the list because it would mean
that now with co-decision it would have to go to Council and the
European Parliament to try to find a solution to it. The third
option with regard to legal fish is the question of sanctions.
Again, I referred to this before. It is also important to have
a situation where the playing field is level, where you therefore
do not have the situation that in some Member States the level
of sanctions is, let us say, on average €100 per fine whereas
in others it is €7,000 or €8,000 per fine. It does not
make sense for the same type of offence or the same type of breach.
Therefore we need to level out the difference as much as possible
because if you do not do so you are stuck with the situation where
those which are lenient would be at a perverse advantage with
regard to illegal operations. In essence, if we want to regain
sustainable fishing, which has always been the objective of the
2002 reform and which is the objective with regard to fisheries
worldwide, there is no doubt about that, but we have to attack,
first, over-capacity. We have ourselves in the past encouraged
construction of vessels and therefore indirectly encouraged over-capacity.
Now we need to undo that. We gave, for example, European assistance
for construction of vessels. Member States were encouraged to
do this. Now we have realised that this has given rise to a situation
where there is significant over-capacity and therefore we need
to undo that and now we are looking at it from the opposite end
in that we encourage Member States to enter into restructuring
programmes for their fleets in order to reduce capacity, to have
capacity match what the fishing possibilities are, and therefore
to encourage decommissioning of vessels and using Community assistance
for the purpose of decommissioning of vessels. That is one area
which it is essential that we deliver on. The other is illegal
fishing. Illegal fishing represents revenue of about €8 billion
per annum, so it is big business. If we manage to make the Community
market inaccessible to these operators, whether they are Community
or non-Community, and most of them would be non-Community, then
it makes this business less lucrative and therefore indirectly,
if this is adopted also by third countries (and we are working
also with a number of Third Countries), the end result would be
that there would be less pressure on fish if you weeded out of
the market the illegal operators or at least reduced them considerably.
Then there is the question of discarding. In certain fisheries
we are speaking of discarding which runs into figures of 50, 60,
70% of the catch, which means a lot of added pressure on the stock
because most of the discarded fish do not survive. There are certain
species which can survive if they are thrown back into the sea.
Most of them, especially the more valuable ones, do not survive,
so it is just dumping that fish back into the sea. We would like
to find solutions in the direction of more selectivity and encourage
more research into selective methods of fishing, for example where—and
this is the experimentation going on with the Scottish fishers—if
you have an area which in a particular period of the year tends
to have aggregations of spawning fish of a particular species,
cod, for example, you close that area for that period and move
elsewhere. These are experiments which have been tried and tested
by our neighbours and others, for example, Norway, Iceland, Canada,
New Zealand, Australia. We are learning also from their experiences
how to move forward. Basically, these are the three major objectives
which I think, if we implement them, or at least start effectively
implementing them, will mean significant, and I would say radical,
changes to the way we manage the Common Fisheries Policy today
without attacking its commonality.
Q645 Chairman: You said that you
saw the future being that centrally the policy parameters would
be set and go down to regional level for implementation at Member
State level. Could you give me an idea of what sort of policy
parameters would be set?
Commissioner Borg: Yes. Basically, one would
establish the right level of the mortality rate of fish and say
that the mortality rate has to be, let us say, 40%. That is the
objective. That is the result that has to be achieved, so if the
mortality rate was 60 then it needs to go to 40. Then you allow
the operators to discuss with Member States how that is to be
achieved, and with the use of Regional Advisory Councils, for
example, if a plan is presented which is very much the plan of
the Member States, very much the plan worked out by the stakeholders,
and you see that that plan will deliver those objectives, then
that is okay, but then you have to monitor, one, that there is
conformity with the plan because it is useless saying, "Okay,
this is our plan", and then doing what the hell you like,
and, two, the plan itself, because it might well be, with all
the knowledge the stakeholders and we have, that at the end of
the day, in spite of the plan, the results do not move in the
direction that we want them to move in, so then you would have
to revise again. Very broadly speaking, this is how we envisage
that would work. I mention this because, for example, in discussions
with Norway we agreed on the 40% mortality rate.
Mr Degnbol: It is around 40. It is very close.
Commissioner Borg: Therefore we set that as
the objective and then, obviously, one has to work within those
in order to attain those objectives. It can be tough but it does
in itself encourage the operators themselves to find ways and
means of doing it because the range of instruments can vary, and
if they want to avoid a lot of measures that are relatively simple
to operate in the form of significant reductions in TACs and quotas
or in the form of significant reductions in fishing days, et cetera,
then you encourage them to come up with alternatives, and the
alternatives could be closures, more selective gear or other measures,
whether they are closed areas or temporary closures, which would
deliver those results. As I said, with Scotland I was given a
presentation a couple of weeks ago and it is very interesting
how the Scottish Executive, together with the operators, identify
the areas which are to be closed for three weeks, if I am not
mistaken, during specific periods of time, and they are also co-operating
with Denmark and with the Netherlands and Belgium, if I am not
mistaken, because during that closed period it is not just the
Scottish fishers that do not go there but also the others, and
therefore it becomes much more effective. I think that this is
the way forward.
Q646 Viscount Ullswater: Commissioner,
you seem to be describing a pretty brave new world because what
we see at the moment in the December Council is intense political
negotiation and the unfolding of a myriad of regulations and paperwork
that thick, all decided on a political level at that particular
Council. How are you going to get rid of that and now you are
going to have co-decision with the European Parliament so you
obviously want to bring down just the policy at that sort of level,
but are you thinking of using the RACs as the regulatory bodies
or the areas where the regulations will be able to be made?
Commissioner Borg: In a way it is true that
what happens in the December Council is very political, but it
is also true that we come up with a proposal which is not a perfect
reproduction of science but which is very closely based on the
scientific advice that we receive, and then in Council we have
to give up on certain aspects but by and large the final outcome
is still something which is less than what we would have wished
for but which still moves in the direction of regaining sustainability.
To give just a couple of examples, having seasonal closures in
the Baltic Sea for cod is something which is of recent origin.
As a result of Council decisions, obviously, the closures are
less than we hoped for. Having situations where then a particular
fleet of one of the Member States considerably over-fished cod
in the Baltic Sea, and then having a decision taken by Council
to remedy that, and now monitoring closely with that particular
Member State to see to it that that does not recur is a significant
development in the way the Council operates. With regard to blue
fin tuna, using the Community position in order to attain certain
decisions with regard to blue fin tuna in the Mediterranean and
the East Atlantic and a recovery plan for blue fin tuna was quite
a significant achievement, ending up in a situation in the first
year where a couple of our own Member States over-fished considerably
but are coming up now with a position which has been accepted
by Member States whereby the controls are something which is unknown
by Community standards. We are speaking of a whole fleet of vessels
controlling the blue fin tuna fishery in the Mediterranean in
this particular period, round about 50 vessels and 18 aircraft
that we are speaking of that are monitoring Community plus Member
State vessels and the blue fin tuna operations. We are speaking
of significant measures. Yes, it is political but I think there
is a willingness on the part of Member States to work together
in order to try to achieve results in the direction of sustainability,
one, because, yes, the RACs and therefore stakeholder involvement
I think has started to give positive results, that they feel now
that they are involved in the process leading to decisions, maybe
not enough but at least they feel that they are being consulted
and that their voice is heard, but sometimes obviously not necessarily
acted on, but at least that they form part of the process, and,
secondly, there is also a realisation that the picture with regard
to fishing in Community waters is not exactly a rosy picture and
that we have big problems, and therefore there is a realisation
by the sector itself that something needs to be done and a realisation
by the Member States, notwithstanding the political realities,
that something needs to be done, which is significant. Over the
last month we have been in intense discussions with France with
regard to restructuring of the fleet, and the drive for that was
the realisation that operations could not continue with the numbers
that there are by way of the French fleet fishing in various waters
and that there has to be a significant reduction in capacity to
bring about a reduction of effort to levels which would be moving
in the direction of sustainability. We have in the last week virtually
agreed internally with the French administration on a restructuring
package. Now we have to go through the mechanisms here of inter-service
consultations to see whether that package will fly, and if it
does we will be making it public so that first of all these should
be transparent, and secondly because we believe that it could
serve also as a model for others to look into in order to see
what is and what is not acceptable even by way of state aid and
what-have-you in order to restructure your fleet. As I said before,
unless we deliver on the problem of over-capacity, unless we deliver
on IUU and unless we deliver on discards, we will remain with
the problem for the long term. At least if we deliver on those
then there are very good prospects that more and more fisheries
will start being carried out sustainably. With regard to multi-annual
planning, an increase in multi-annual planning would give more
stability to the sector, and also, rather than having decisions
taken just in the December Council we have started having decisions
taken, for example, with regard to the Baltic, in October, with
regard to deepwater fish in November, and with the agreement that
we have reached with ICES that as from 2009 scientific advice
will be given to us for all stocks before summer rather than in
October, it opens up the gap so that you can have more front-loading,
more stakeholder consultation, more consultations with Member
States and also some flexibility with regard to when decisions
are taken, and yes, I do see that if we move in the direction
of more results-oriented management the pressure of decisions
taken almost exclusively on the basis of TACs and quotas can become
less, but this takes time and also takes some culture changes.
Q647 Lord Cameron of Dillington:
Are you saying that if you do get the capacity down to exactly
where you would like it over many years and you stop maybe the
non-EU landing of black fish you think that in the long run you
will be able to dispense with quotas and effort restrictions?
If you get the capacity right would that be the final solution?
Commissioner Borg: Maybe this would be a little
simplistic, but yes, if you get the capacity right, if you get
the virtual elimination of illegal landings, if you have a system
whereby discards will be at a very low level, in other words at
what would be sustainable levels, and if you have the scientific
data available, which is another problem which we need to invest
more time and effort in, and to have the scientific data available
you have to have the facts available and to have the facts available
you have to have the co-operation of the operators first and foremost
so all these work together, then you can work on the basis of
what is the optimum fishing or maximum sustainable yield, although
that is criticised in different quarters because of what one exactly
understands because it can land you in a straitjacket unless you
leave measures of manoeuvrability within it, and how to manage
fisheries on the basis of maximum sustainable yield need not necessarily
be TACs and quotas or mainly TACs and quotas. Maybe I am looking
too far ahead and people are looking at what my point of view
is, but yes, I do not exclude the situation where, if you have
a situation where you establish what the objective is, what the
result is, then how you do it, whether it is TACs, whether it
is quotas, whether it is technical measures, whether it is closures,
whether it is this, that or the other or a combination of everything
is relative because at the end of the day what you need to see
to is that the objective is there and that the objective is based
on science as to what is sustainable and that you have a plan
which very much moves you in that direction, and that once you
attain it you remain at that level.
Q648 Baroness Jones of Whitchurch:
I wanted to follow up what you were saying about the ultimate
aim being sustainable fishing because it is a nice aspiration
and there are lots of warm words about the need to balance the
interests of the environment and the interests of the fishing
industry but it seems that at every step and every call the interests
of the fishing industry win and the interests of the environment
do not really get a balanced consideration, and a lot of that
is structural things about the way the negotiations are organised,
the way the committees are organised. How can you make sure that
there is a real balance, that the environmental interests really
are taken into account, because it always seems that they get
squeezed out at the end of the day when the negotiations are over?
Commissioner Borg: On the one hand when we speak
of sustainability we speak of environmental sustainability but
we are also speaking of economic and social sustainability. Having
said that, if, because of social or economic considerations, short-term
considerations, you over-fish to the extent that you deplete the
stock, then the long term effect is going to be that you are creating
more social harm because the communities will suffer for it, operators
will suffer for it and also there will be economic problems.
Q649 Baroness Jones of Whitchurch:
We see that. Other people do not necessarily see it.
Commissioner Borg: No, but it is to try to strike
the right balance, and that is easier said than done. On the one
hand we, it is true, move at a slower pace than science would
prefer. Scientific advice very often tells us that there should
be no cod fishing in various waters. We do not ignore that advice
because it is very tough advice, but we cannot really implement
it and close all the cod fisheries if there is a possibility of
recovering the stock by measures which impact less and this is
what we try to do. However, if we get indicators that the stock
is depleting to such an extent that there is a significant risk
that it cannot recover, then the only solution would be complete
closure. It happened in Canada where they ended up with a complete
closure. We are not at that stage—or at least I hope we
are not at that stage—and on the basis of the measures we
have taken we have had first signs of the recovery of the stock
in the North Sea and therefore at the last Council we were a little
more open-handed, so to speak. It is very complex because, if
you just take cod, for example, since we are mentioning cod, is
it just over-fishing that is causing less cod in certain Community
waters? Are there impacts with regard to pollution, for example?
Are there impacts with regard to climate change and therefore
cod stocks are moving further north, because at the same time
Norway and Iceland are finding more cod? Is it because they are
more efficient in managing? It may be that they are. Is it also
because the climate helps and more cod are moving in that direction?
It is not easy to point the finger of blame at one particular
cause. This is why we try to work with the aid of the scientific
data that we have. Yes, we need to try to balance out all the
different factors and then what is important at the end of the
day is that the decision that is ultimately taken will lead to
regaining sustainable fishing in a way which is maybe at a slower
pace but still at a pace whereby we can attain that so that in
that way you cause the least possible harm to the operators themselves
as long as you can do it. As I said, where we had to take tough
measures we did, for example, with anchovy in the Bay of Biscay.
We closed the fishery, notwithstanding almost a French revolution,
and notwithstanding also having to intervene between the French
and the Basques, which is not very easy, but we did for two years.
We are hoping that now in May we will have the first advice which
will allow us to reopen.
Q650 Baroness Jones of Whitchurch:
Those are emergency situations where the stock is virtually depleted
anyway. What we are looking for is more of a genuine eco-system.
Commissioner Borg: Yes, but this is why we have
been working in the direction of more multi-annual management
and more management on the basis of achieving results and working
hard in order to reduce capacity. I think this is the first European
Fisheries Fund which has just now come into effect that can start
making use of the funds. This is a guesstimate but I would say
that on average 20-25% of the funds available are going to be
used on the basis of the operational programmes submitted by the
different Member States for perhaps the decommissioning of vessels,
and it took some convincing. During last year when we were in
the process of approving the operational programmes under the
European Fisheries Fund where we saw certain Member States dedicating
less to the axes which relates to decommissioning we contacted
those Member States in order to convince them to beef up the part
of the programme or the part of the funds that they wanted to
dedicate for this purpose. If one looks at the experience over
the last few years, I would say that, yes, there are specific
instances where the state of the stock has gone down further.
I do not want to hide that, but I think there have been more instances
where the state of the stock has improved over the last years.
It is still in bad shape; I am not saying that the situation has
changed from bad to good, but on the basis of the scientific advice
that we are receiving there is an improvement in the state of
a number of stocks, but we and the operators are seeing this and
we are obviously telling them not to hurry because if we say,
"Okay, the state of the stock is improving; therefore we
can open up" almost indiscriminately, then you end up going
downhill again, so yes, we are starting to see signs that a number
of stocks have improved through a combination of factors. If we
see that we need to take drastic action in exceptional cases,
as we did with anchovy, as we did with cod, as we did with blue
fin tuna, we will take it, but if we can avoid it so as not to
create in the short term enormous problems with regard to the
operators, we will do so as long as we see that over a time frame
things can improve.
Ms Kirchner: There is also a significant difference
between the anchovy fishery and the cod fishery. Anchovy is a
single stock fishery, so you only fish anchovy if you put the
net in the water, but if you put a white fish net in the water
you catch haddock, whiting, saithe, nephrops, so closing the cod
fishery is not an option. It would be closing the white fishery,
the whole fleet, and it would mean basically the end of the Scottish
white fish fleet for a decade. It is something we would wish for
but it needs to also be operational in practice.
Commissioner Borg: This is a very good point
because at the end of the day if we have a clean fishery you can
close it and you affect only those with anchovy and to a large
extent blue fin tuna, but if you have a fishery which is essentially
mixed, even though you have a targeted fishery you catch others
with it, so immediately you close that you are going to affect
all those others as well, so there you have to be somewhat more
cautious if you can afford to be, sustainability-wise. With anchovy
you also have the problem that they are very short-lived. Because
they are very short-lived you can have significant fluctuations
and therefore you need to be somewhat more precautionary in the
decision you take, whereas with others which are less short-lived
you can have indicators over a time which are clearer on the basis
of science.
Q651 Viscount Brookeborough: Could
I ask you about quotas and fishing effort? To what extent do you
think that currently this should be tradable within nations or
between nations, and should there be a price on it, and do you
agree with the Spanish proposition that it should be freely tradable
and that in their view it is almost a crime for any quota surplus
to exist anywhere? I took that from one of their papers, that
no quota should be left anywhere that is not taken up.
Commissioner Borg: Individual transferable quotas
are very hotly debated. There are examples of countries that operate
individual transferable quotas. At a Community level it is not
regulated so individual Member States have the system which they
feel is the best in the circumstances. Although you can have transferable
quotas within one Member State there is not at Community level
regulation of transferable quotas across the Community. Spain
might be interested in this because they feel that their operators
are strong and therefore they would acquire through transfers
the lion's share, but it raises a number of very sensitive points,
one of which is sacred to Member States, and that is the question
of relative stability because with ITQs you can affect relative
stability between Member States and that is something which every
particular Member State fights tooth and nail for, including Spain.
Maybe the calculations of certain Member States are that they
will win out of it because their operators are strong and therefore
they will have a stronger relative stability but immediately you
try to touch on relative stability because the allocation is not
fully exhausted, that Member State, and it could be Spain as well,
will be up in arms, so, although we do encourage discussion and
I do not exclude that maybe something will happen in the future,
I do not see it happening in the very short term because it is
extremely sensitive and unless we have a change of mentality with
regard to relative stability it will be extremely difficult. We
have introduced a measure of flexibility with regard to relative
stability when it comes to fisheries partnership agreements that
will happen with third countries. If we are in a way buying fishing
possibilities from third countries it will be a waste if those
fishing possibilities are not utilised to the full because we
are paying good money and now with the new philosophy behind fishing
partnership agreements we are not just paying proper value for
the fishing possibilities; we are also paying over and above the
value to help those countries modernise their set-up. It is quite
a significant amount that we end up paying. If you end up with
the situation where you allocate those fishing possibilities and
some Member State does not use its share to the full, it makes
sense that the unutilised parts could go to others who have utilised
theirs to the full and may want to utilise more, but that means
that you could be affecting the relative stability in that particular
agreement, so the only way we can manage to do this is, for example,
the way we managed it in the Greenland Agreement, which was to
have an in-year review, let us say, in August, in order to see
what has been utilised, and if the allocation of a particular
Member State is low then you re-allocate that to other Member
States who have utilised their allocation fully or almost fully.
That is on a one-year basis so it does not set a precedent, so
the year after you go back to square one and then you repeat it
every time because otherwise Member States would not accept it.
Q652 Viscount Brookeborough: But
internationally we have longer than one-year agreements, do we
not, with some African countries, so we are happy to do it in
other places but not within our own Community?
Commissioner Borg: With other places we have,
for example, with Mauritania, with Morocco, et cetera, where we
have started also to impinge on the absolute meaning of relative
stability, and therefore introduce some measure of flexibility
in order to try to maximise the full potential of the fishing
possibilities, as long as this does not create precedents. That
is always spelt out because Member States would only accept it
if it is spelt out that this does not set a precedent with regard
to what are the traditional fishing rights in those third country
waters.
Q653 Earl of Dundee: Commissioner,
for the system of common fisheries control why do so many problems
still remain and, apart from occasional examples of closures and
other pragmatic measures to which you have referred, do you believe
that within Member States in general there is insufficient political
will to achieve proper controls and enforcement?
Commissioner Borg: Yes. I think that Member
States find it difficult to be tough where they need to be tough
because of day-to-day political realities. They are on the front
line, it is the ministers that have to face the fishers every
so often, so it makes it more difficult to take a tough position.
However, increasingly, as I said before, because there is more
stakeholder involvement what we are doing here centrally Member
States are doing hopefully more of when it comes to regular meetings,
dialogue meetings, discussions with stakeholders, and there is
realisation that we have big problems with regard to certain stocks,
so because of that there is, I would say, more of a willingness
to introduce measures which are tough and to see that they are
properly enforced. You mentioned the question concerning control
and enforcement. I made reference to it indirectly when I was
referring to IUU, illegal fishing. First of all the Court of Auditors
came out very strongly with regard to lack of proper controls,
with regard to inadequate enforcement, and we agree with the Court
of Auditors findings 100%. In fact, we ourselves have been saying
this for the last few years, that the controls left a lot to be
desired and that enforcement was the exception rather than the
rule. We will be coming up with a new control regulation proposal,
hopefully in October, which will incorporate all the different
control measures that we have in place, and having it all in one
piece of legislation will make it simpler to operate because,
rather than having to look around 100 different regulations, we
will have one piece of legislation, but it will also strengthen
it. Obviously the strengthening part is going to be the tough
nut to crack because what we are proposing in the IUU, for example,
concerning the harmonisation of the sanctions will then have to
feature in the control regulation and there are other measures
which will have to feature in the new control regulation which
will strengthen the control and therefore will create the obligation,
for example, to have inspectors on board vessels. At the moment
in a way Community inspectors are an option, so having an obligation
to have inspectors trying to set percentages (but those depend
on the type of fishery as well), including land-based controls,
port controls, more direct controls at sea because controls at
sea are much more difficult to operate, are the aspects which
we are going to address in the new control regulation. We are
hoping that in spite of the co-decision requirement—and
I am not saying this in a negative way but it is a fact that with
co-decision, because there is the involvement of the European
Parliament we will need more time—the European Parliament
will be an added force in favour of more sustainability, so although
you need more time the results will hopefully be better if one
looks at the final objectives that need to be attained. We are
targeting that this control regulation will be in place by the
end of next year and that will substitute for the existing control
mechanism. We will also be harmonising the sanctions regime in
the sense of setting a maximum and then also trying to set parameters
for different serious infringements with regard to the level of
sanction that should apply with regard to different serious infringements,
because in that way, if Member States agree to these parameters—and
that is not easy because this is a sensitive subject—you
would avoid having the problems that you have today where you
have significant loopholes because certain Member States operate
a system where the sanctions are very low and therefore you cannot
really have an effective system which operates against over-fishing,
et cetera.
Q654 Earl of Dundee: How do you see
the role of the Community Fisheries Control Agency evolving as
part of your overall control?
Commissioner Borg: Before going to the Fisheries
Control Agency, I would just like to say with regard to the Regional
Advisory Councils that we are in the process of now assessing
how they have operated over these last few years, and come next
year we will be coming up with some proposals to change how they
have been operating where we feel that we can improve on how they
have operated. I say "we". However, it is very much
what they themselves are telling us as to what the teething problems
have been, so where we can improve on that we will. I do not envisage
that in the short term we will be moving in the direction of the
RACs themselves being the ones who will be taking the decisions
with regard to certain management issues, so in the short term
it will still be a question of them providing advice which hopefully
will be more solid and which hopefully will mean that to a very
large extent we will follow that advice, but I do not exclude
either that if the RACs continue evolving in the direction of
providing strong, solid advice which is based on sustainable fisheries
they will also acquire the right to manage, at least in part,
the fishing operators. That is as regards RACs. With regard to
the Control Agency, the Control Agency is still very new. It does
not have the direct right of control but it co-ordinates the control
activities of the different Member States, so the primary responsibility
is in the hands of the Member States to effect controls. This
is why I was saying before that we need to have measures in place
which will make it more difficult for Member States not to implement
controls properly, but we do hope that the Fisheries Control Agency
will be able to deliver effectively when it comes to co-ordinating
control between the different Member States and even though it
is still very early we will be doing a new Control Regulation
in October with some amendments to it in order to strengthen the
Control Agency when it comes to monitoring the control activities
carried out by Member States, and therefore, as I said, having
more possibility of seeing to it that Community inspectors have
the right to board in certain situations.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed. You have
given us well over an hour. It has been very helpful and interesting.
Thank you.
|
