Examination of Witness (Questions 660-670)
Mr Harm Koster
7 MAY 2008
Q660 Baroness Jones of Whitchurch:
We went to Scotland last week and one of the interesting things
there when we were talking to the Scottish Fisheries Protection
Agency was that they talked about the fact that increasingly their
evidence came from other fishermen, that other fishermen were
telling them when illegal fishing was going on. I cannot remember
if they gave a proportion but they certainly said that that was
very helpful. I wondered if that was symptomatic of the changing
culture of compliance. I wondered how widespread you thought that
was and what else needs to be done to create that atmosphere where
people do recognise the need for enforcement and also, dare I
say it, shop their colleagues if they think they are not living
up to the same standards that individuals are.
Mr Koster: Every industry should have a culture
of compliance. You cannot have an industry which consists of anarchists,
to put it a little strongly. I think in the past in fisheries
the fishermen were really individuals and they acted sometimes
a little bit anarchistic and did not really follow a culture of
compliance. I think that is essential. We have to establish a
culture of compliance because that is for the fishing industry
the only way to survive. If we want to achieve sustainable exploitation
of resources the only way to do it is to create a culture of compliance.
The example in Scotland is not the only example in the Community.
We have other areas where we have the same problems. In some areas
they have come to grips with the situation. In other areas they
have not really come to grips with it yet, and I have already
pointed to Poland. There are other situations in the Community
where the fishing industry and the Member States have not come
to grips with the situation.
Q661 Baroness Jones of Whitchurch:
When you say "with the situation" do you mean with the
need to comply?
Mr Koster: To explain what was black fish in
Scotland, black fish in Scotland is less black than you think.
It is rather grey, I would say. In Scotland one of the issues
was the quantity which they had in the boxes.
Q662 Chairman: Packing the boxes?
Mr Koster: Yes. Now in the boxes there are about
45 kilos and you can see if you are in Peterhead that all the
boxes are filled to the same level. If you had come into Peterhead
about ten years ago you would have seen that the boxes were packed
even with the top on the boxes.
Q663 Baroness Jones of Whitchurch:
So that is counted as one box?
Mr Koster: That was counted as one box and that
was also counted as a weight of about 45 kilos. I can tell you,
I have taken the figures for 1996 because the situation at that
time—and it is still the same situation—was that the
boxes were not weighed in Peterhead. They are still not weighed
today but each fishermen has to put 45 kilos in the box and I
want to believe that today there are 45 kilos in a box and they
are filled to the same level and I think that is about 45 kilos.
In the past they were filled far more but then the Scottish Fisheries
Protection Agency had a duty to weigh a number of boxes to see
what was the actual weight in the boxes. In 1996 in Peterhead
there were more than 1.2 million boxes landed. A little bit more
than 7,000 were controlled. Only for the 7,000 was the weight
adjusted because for the others there was no proof that there
was too much weight in the boxes. Everybody could see that there
was a big pile of fish but if Commission inspectors then said,
"Why do you not weigh more?", they would say, "We
do not have enough resources", so every day there was somebody
paid by the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency to weigh a number
of boxes but that was maybe one per cent of the total number of
boxes.
Q664 Earl of Arran: Was the ice included
in the weight?
Mr Koster: I think the Commission inspectors
weighed certain boxes where there were 70 kilos of fish, which
was almost double the quantity which should have been in the boxes,
and only the ones which were weighed had the weight corrected
because they had established that there was a different weight
in the box, but for all the rest there was no proof. It is a pretty
grey situation.
Q665 Baroness Jones of Whitchurch:
What has happened to change that, or has it changed?
Mr Koster: That is a good question. It has changed;
it has absolutely changed. I was so lucky because I had to go
to Scotland in about 2001. We were then doing the preparation
of the 2002 reform of the Common Fisheries Policy and I had found
letters in the files from, I think, 1988 where the Commission
discussed average box weight with the Scottish authorities and
where the Scottish authorities accepted that they should establish
an average box weight, and then during the next ten years I found
that on regular occasions the matter of average box weights was
discussed and they always said yes and it was never done, and
so I was the one who went then, during the preparation of the
Green Paper. I had to go to Scotland and say, "Now enough",
and that the Commission would start infringement procedures, and
I went also to London to announce that now it was enough. They
explained how difficult it was for them to control with all these
landing ports in Scotland, and also in England they said, "Yes,
but we have improved", but then Mr Fischler said, "If
I am going to have a reform of the Common Fisheries Policy the
Commission has also a responsibility". The Commission can
start infringement procedures. If you say in France, because they
have not respected the minimum size of hake for 20 years, that
that is symbolic of the non-application of the Common Fisheries
Policy and there are black fish", the French say, "Yes,
but there is black fish in Scotland, so also black fish in Scotland
is symbolic of the non-application of the Common Fisheries Policy".
Everybody points to Spain. Then I started infringement proceedings
for the cases which are symbolic of the non-application of the
Common Fisheries Policy. This then had to go back to the court
for France for insufficient enforcement of over-sized hake landings,
for the UK and for Spain. For France the difference was that there
had already been a ruling in 1992. France was condemned for not
complying with Community obligations, so for France it was the
second time. When the Commission is doing this for the second
time it can ask the Court to impose a penalty. The Commission
then proposed to the Court that it impose a penalty. The Court
imposed first a penalty for not complying during ten years with
these Community obligations, plus an amount of money which France
had to pay for each six months that they did not comply with this
obligation, and France paid about €80 million which was deducted
from the Community contributions to France for the agricultural
policy. For the UK and Spain this was not possible because this
was the first infringement procedure. Mr Fischler wanted to make
a press release, so when we did the press release we put in it
that we estimated that about 50% of the cod landed in the UK was
black. When Tesco and Marks and Spencer saw these press releases
they asked their Scottish providers, "We want you to sign
that we get only legal cod in our shops", and then, as I
understood later, there was a big panic in Scotland because no
supplier wanted to sign that he was only selling legal fish. Afterwards
I think they did a very good job in Scotland and also the industry
made their buyers and sellers scheme and they now have a culture
of compliance. I do not say that there is nothing going wrong
any more, but I think broadly speaking things are correct and
there is now a culture of compliance, which must be really difficult
this year because there is much more cod than expected and it
must be difficult for fishermen not to take on some additional
cod, which is quite expensive, or even to have to discard it.
It must give them a lot of pain.
Q666 Lord Palmer: Last October the
Court of Auditors issued a damning report on control and enforcement,
and I would be interested to know what you thought of it, and
do you consider that there is the political will on the part of
Member State governments to address the problems identified and
to make full use of the available enforcement tools?
Mr Koster: That is a difficult question to reply
to. First of all the Court of Auditors did a very good job because
they made a very good report. Of course, many of the findings
are already in Commission reports. The Commission have already
produced reports in the past about the control and many findings
are based on these reports, but I think they did quite a balanced
report which shows that in the Common Fisheries Policy we have
not managed to implement it properly. There were very good intentions
on capacity but since the 2002 reform there has not really been
a reduction in capacity. In certain areas yes, there was. For
example, in Scotland there is a culture of compliance, but if
there had not been the decommissioning of an important number
of vessels it would have been impossible to create a culture of
compliance because one of the elements of it is that a fishermen
should have a viable living and must have the legal quantities
to support a viable living. In general, however, I think the 2002
reform has not brought about an important reduction in capacity,
which is the most fundamental issue which we have to bring about.
I think we have been lucky lately because of the high fuel prices
and the economy in fisheries, especially trawl fisheries, is turning
worse and there have been many vessels which have been offered
for decommissioning in several Member States. I think the changes
in the policy itself which were made in the 2002 reform have not
really brought about the reduction in capacity which is necessary
to re-establish a balance. We have got improvements in control
but not really on the capacity side. We have since implemented
fishing effort reductions as a scheme and we have also reduced
fishing effort, which was good, but this is not sufficient by
itself. It is much more important that we reduce the number of
vessels and then reduce only the time that each vessel can be
at sea. In that sense the 2002 reform did not bring about a reduction
in capacity. Now the Court of Auditors has written this report
which has come at a good time. The Commission will now propose
again a reinforcement of control but we also need to work on other
issues, such as capacity, and I think that will be essential for
re-establishing that balance. Since the issue of fishing is politically
much more sensitive, I think it is also fairly important to work
on the market side. If the big buyers insist on selling only legal
fish I think also that will be very important for reducing the
outtake and reducing the quantities of fish on the market. We
need also to work more on the market side to make sure that there
are limitations. There is the political will in Member States
to enforce this. We have all democratic Member States and a fishing
minister will always listen to its fishing industry. If there
is no culture of compliance or if there is still an industry which
thinks it can grasp advantages from non-compliance there will
always be pressure on the Member State concerned to look a little
bit less strictly at what is happening and that will be a problem
in ensuring proper implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy.
Q667 Lord Cameron of Dillington:
I want to talk to you about decentralisation. It is the future
not only of the RACs but also of the whole policy. The policy
has been decided centrally but implemented according to Member
States' own ways and technical solutions. How would you cope with
that in a future world?
Mr Koster: Decentralisation for me has also
to do with regionalisation. When I became Director of the Agency
one of the first things which the board members insisted on was
that if we were undertaking the work of the Agency this must be
on a regional basis. I had to organise the Agency on a regional
basis. It is now also the Commission, this DG Mare, which is organised
with regional directions. I think Mr Borg has emphasised very
often that we cannot continue with a one-size-fits-all approach
if we have a Community with 27 Member States. We cannot continue
to say that we need to respect all kinds of requirements, that
in the Black Sea it should be respected in the same way as in
the Baltic, so I think that is the kind of policy which does not
work. It is technocratic. Also, the Community must be based on
a political approach and I think the approach must be on a regional
basis. If we have the North Sea then we need to bring together
the stakeholders from all Member States, and they can consider
together how they want to go about this conservation and exploitation
of resources in the North Sea. They can make sensible proposals
to the Commission and I think they could agree what for them means
sustainable exploitation.
Q668 Lord Cameron of Dillington:
Do you have the resources to deal with the different solutions
they are going to come up with?
Mr Koster: For the moment we have set up our
activities on a regional basis. We do not have a lot of resources.
I do not think I need a lot of resources because I am relying
mostly on the resources of Member States and I am organising co-operation
between Member States, so there are Member States' competent authorities
which have quite a number of resources. Others have less, but
I think if we are organising co-operation on the level of the
North Sea the big services will take on the smaller ones and I
think we can use that together. The Agency is independent and
I have a desk with co-ordinators. If I have one desk manager and
three or four co-ordinators for the North sea then for the rest
I am relying on the national authorities and on the staff of national
authorities. Of course, the most expensive part is still in the
Member State. For me, if I spend Community money, I spend maybe
a few per cent. If you calculate the total costs—patrol
vessels and aeroplanes—they are very expensive.
Q669 Lord Cameron of Dillington:
But you have to police the Member States.
Mr Koster: I do not police myself. I use Community
inspectors which are designated by Member States and they can
work across borders, so it is the national inspectors who are
doing the job. I have to train them. That is costing money for
me. I need to have some resources for training these inspectors
and I need to have resources for co-ordinating the national means,
but I do not need to have a hell of a lot. If you come to Edinburgh
with the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency you will see the
co-ordination centre for them. If they co-ordinate their own means
in the Scottish part of the North Sea with the same number of
people they can also co-ordinate the whole North Sea because they
have all the facilities, they have skilled people, and so we are
also giving them some co-ordinators from the Agency in the co-ordination
centre. We are putting liaison officers in from other Member States
and so I do not need to. If there is this operational co-operation
in the North Sea the fishing industry which operates in the North
Sea will feel this is much more of a level playing field. In the
Baltic we can adopt maybe different solutions which are more appropriate
for the Baltic because there are smaller vessels operating in
that area. In the Mediterranean we have adopted again a somewhat
different approach with which Member States are happy.
Lord Cameron of Dillington: Is it effective in the
Mediterranean? One gets the impression that—
Q670 Chairman: Hang on. Yes or no
to that and then we have to go.
Mr Koster: It is too early.
Chairman: Even better! Thank you very much indeed
for your time. It has been very helpful.
| 
