Memorandum by Elspeth Attwool MEP
What follows is an expression of my own personal
views and should not be attributed to the Fisheries Committee
of the European Parliament or to my political group
CONSERVATION/MANAGEMENT
1. The recovery plans, management plans
and emergency measures introduced following Regulation 2371/2002
have brought improvements in general but the success of each has
depended on its individual features. For example, the Cod Recovery
Plan was initially regarded as having failed, despite evidence
of an increase in stocks. Arguably, this was because the targets
set were unrealistic in terms of the speed expected.
Long term management plans are clearly preferable
to year on year decision taking as they provide for a better balance
between the sustainability of fish stocks and the sustainability
of the fishing industry. The main issues here are the degree of
flexibility that should be built into them and the method of measurement
used. Much depends on the accuracy of scientific evidence and
assessment and the models used for computation. Maximum sustainable
yield is favoured by many but there are some doubts as to whether
the concept is adequately refined and. in particular, whether
it is applicable to mixed fisheries. See the Report of the European
Parliament Fisheries Committee at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/file.jsp?id=5386052
Also, some plans and measures have been less
beneficial than they might because of a delay in putting them
in place. Plans for the Mediterranean and measures relating to
ghost fishing of the north-west of Scotland might be cited as
cases in point.
2. On my understanding, Total Allowable
Catches and Quotas were initially introduced as market measures.
They have, however, effectively become converted to tools for
conservation. There must at least be a question over whether they
are really fit for this purpose. It has to be accepted that, if
conservation is to be taken seriously, management measures must
relate to sustainability criteria, so that something akin to TACs
must be in place. Quotas, however, can be counterproductive to
conservation, particularly where mixed fisheries are concerned.
Effort limitation, including "days at sea",
marine conservation areas and real time closures all have rote
to play. "Days at sea" have the advantage of simplifying
control but can bear heavily on fishermen in respect of fuel prices
and bad weather, particularly where found in combination with
a quota system. Marine conservation areas and real time closures
are both of considerable value but are much more likely to have
the desired effect if established in close consultation with stakeholders.
The recent voluntary agreement by Scots fishermen to close areas
where there is an abundance of undersized cod deserves to be copied
elsewhere.
Rights based management tools effectively operate
already at all levels of the Common Fisheries Policy but they
are varied in form and sometimes inchoate. At times transfer of
the rights for economic value is encompassed and sometimes it
is not. Rights based management is sometimes equated with Individual
Transferable Quotas (ITQs) but this is only one possible form
of such management. See further the Report of the European Parliament
Fisheries Committee (scheduled for the April Mini Plenary Session)
at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/file.jsp?id=5484612
Technical conservation measures contribute considerably
to conservation but more support for research is needed and it
would be helpful, too, if fishermen could be brought to adopt
them through incentives rather than imposition.
3. Discarding is not solely the result of
the quota system, since high grading is also a possibility, but
there cannot be any doubt that quotas are a major cause, particularly
where mixed fisheries are concerned. On how best to tackle the
issue, see the Report of the European Parliament Fisheries Committee
at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/file.jsp?id=5484622
CONTROL/ENFORCEMENT
4. I feel that it is early days to comment
on the efficacy of the Community Fisheries Control Agency but
the systems that have been in place are clearly in need of improvement.
One of the problems within Community waters is the lack of adequate
resources being deployed at member state level. Here the planned
reduction south of the Border in monitoring by the Royal Navy
is a cause for concern. The plans that the Control Agency is establishing
for the pooling of resources between member states could undoubtedly
assist overall but there is a danger that these could simply turn
into cost cutting exercises rather than bringing increased surveillance.
I would argue that more resources also need to be deployed outside
Community waters, too, if IUU fishing is to be tackled effectively,
and that there is a special responsibility, too, for adequate
monitoring and control in the areas where fisheries partnership
agreements have been established.
5. There is a clear case for establishing
a uniform level of minimum sanctions for serious infringements
across the EU. That said, this should be understood as meaning
a minimum, as there is clearly room for a measure of upwards discretion
relating to the extent of the infringement, how far it seems to
have been deliberate/inadvertent and whether it is repeat offence
or not.
STRUCTURAL POLICY
6. The extent of capacity reduction across
the member states has been rather varied. Where it has been extensive,
this has not always been adequately recognised in relation to
quota allocation. A sufficient distinction is not always made
between artisanal and distance fishing fleets.
7. Because of the time it has taken to put
operational programmes in place, it is too soon to comment on
the actual operation of the EFF. There are concerns, however,
that the amounts allocated to it are inadequate, particularly
in the light of the increase in the number of member states with
fishing fleets consequent upon enlargement.
8. My only comment concerning subsidies
is that ways need to be found of assisting fishermen with and
compensating them for necessary adjustments that are WTO compatible,
at least until such time as the proper balance between the sustainability
of stocks and the sustainability of the industry has been struck.
GOVERNANCE
10. There is no doubt in my mind that Regional
Advisory Councils have made a major contribution to fisheries
management, with the North Sea and Western Waters RACs important
pioneers in this regard. I believe that they should be given increased
responsibility for management of the areas that they covet, becoming
capable of taking actual management decisions subject to this
fitting within policy guidelines established at EU level. Some
concerns have been expressed as to whether this approach is compatible
with conservation of marine biological resources being an exclusive
EU competence, particularly since this is incorporated into the
Lisbon Treaty. As RACs can be seen as "arms" of the
EU itself, however, this exclusivity should not, in my view, operate
as a barrier to their acquiring decision making powers.
11. One of the major problems with EU fisheries
policy has been micro management at BU level and a tendency to
treat what may actually be quite discrete fisheries as if they
were all on a par. A regional management model would be both appropriate
and feasible, allowing greater communication between scientists
and those engaged in the fishing industry.
On a more general level, I would add that there
are difficulties at any level in operating a management model
that involves both the regulation of output (such as quotas) and
input (such as "days at sea"). In my own personal view,
consideration at least should be given to the advantages and disadvantages
of moving to a system of input regulation, involving different
types of effort limitation, provided a way could be devised of
ensuring that this remained compatible with the principle of relative
stability—for example, by limiting the right to harvest
to certain geographical areas, found in the tom of rights based
management that concentrates on territorial use (TURFs).
February 2008
| 
