Examination of Witness (Questions 683-699)
Mr Jürgen Weis
8 MAY 2008
Q683 Chairman: Good morning. Thank you
very much for coming and meeting us and helping us with our inquiry.
I will explain who we are. We are a Sub-Committee of the House
of Lords Select Committee on the European Union and we are conducting
an inquiry into the future of the Common Fisheries Policy. This
is a formal evidence-taking session, so a note will be kept of
the proceedings and you will get a transcript as soon as possible,
so you can have a look at it and see if any errors have slipped
in. Would you like to say anything by way of introduction or would
you prefer that we go straight to the questions?
Mr Weis: I will introduce myself. My name is
Jürgen Weis. I work in the German representation to the EU.
I am the Fisheries Attaché and as such I am the fisheries
expert, but you know how you become an expert. You take a seat
and then you see that it is labelled as "Fisheries Expert".
That is why I am grateful that you provided some of the questions
in advance so I could co-ordinate with my Government at home which
made it easier.
Q684 Chairman: If I could start,
the first question is how things have changed since the 2002 reforms
and two waves of accession, 2002 and 2004. Has that changed the
dynamics of fisheries policy in the EU or not?
Mr Weis: Yes, in our view the enlargement has
had a significant impact on the performance of the CAP—sorry,
the CFP.
Q685 Chairman: It has on the CAP
as well!
Mr Weis: Yes. I also work in the agriculture
sector, so I will try not to confuse them. The accession of the
new Member States in 2004 and 2007 has in our view strengthened
the position of the Commission and weakened the decision processes
in the Council. As to whether this is good or bad for the fisheries
policy as such, there are different opinions on that.
Q686 Chairman: Why do you think that
has happened, that move to strengthen the Commission and weaken
the Council?
Mr Weis: As in other areas, it has become more
difficult to have a decision of the Council against proposals
of the Commission. It has become very difficult to have coalitions
against the Commission. That is an institutional fact that we
see in other policies too.
Q687 Viscount Ullswater: Obviously,
what was done in 2002 was to introduce more the recovery and management
plans but it seems to us that only one or two of them have got
started and I would be interested to hear what your views are
as to why more have not been introduced, if there is an organisational
reason why they have not been and whether they could be speeded
up, because obviously the science would like it to move in that
direction.
Mr Weis: We agree that the introduction of recovery
and management plans was expected to accelerate the processes
and enhance the international reputation of the CFP, and there
are many reasons why only a few plans have been adopted so far
and why the overall success of these plans is so limited. To name
a few, one reason is that a number of fish stocks are straddling
or are migratory, so there is a need to agree and co-ordinate
with different coastal states, such as Norway or Iceland, and
this process is cumbersome and time-consuming and it also leads
to results which are more or less an agreement at the lowest common
denominator. That is one reason as regards the organisation. Another
reason is that due to data sufficiencies or lack of scientific
advice it is difficult to determine the biological reference points
which are always requested in these plans, and this scientific
uncertainty gives rise to controversial views among the stakeholders
and among Member States about the distribution of the biomass
or the measures to be taken. As to the question of how to speed
up the process and how to improve the results; for us one decisive
factor would be whether the plans are accepted by the industry.
Acceptance can only be increased in our view by an early involvement
of all stakeholders and transparent processes. In this regard
we would welcome the involvement of the Regional Advisory Councils
and we would encourage them to develop their own initiatives on
the elaboration of management plans.
Q688 Viscount Brookeborough: In response
to the scathing report produced by the Court of Auditors last
October the Commission is consulting on a review of the Control
Regulation. What are Germany's priorities for the new regulation
and would you support any form of harmonisation of penalties?
How do you see the role of the Community Fisheries Control Agency
evolving as part of your overall control strategy?
Mr Weis: We support the main objectives of the
new Control Regulation. We are in particular favourable to a consultation
on the regulation and a widening of the scope to other activities,
such as transport or marketing activities. Since many of the stakeholders
in the industry are operating internationally this would seem
a logical step to us and that is also why we support the new approach
of the Commission as regards the IUU Regulation on illegal fishing.
We do in principle also support the Commission's aim to harmonise
sanctions within the Community. We know and acknowledge that this
is difficult for many Member States and that traditions and legal
systems have to be respected and taken into account when we develop
harmonised sanctions. But we are convinced that sanctions for
the same category of infringements need to be comparable and equally
deterrent across the Community. As to the role of the Fisheries
Control Agency, we believe that this organisation should play
an important role in improving the European culture of controls.
Beyond its main task of ensuring efficient co-ordination between
Member States we think that other areas of activity could include
the development of methods for inspection and auditing and the
development of training programmes. The European Fisheries Control
Agency could also play an important role in facilitating cross-checks
of data or risk analysis.
Q689 Viscount Brookeborough: Could
you please tell us something about what the German control set-up
is, for instance, whether you have ships and aircraft, and to
what extent you have a problem in your own nation as far as illegal
fishing, net size and that sort of thing is concerned?
Mr Weis: We know that our fishermen are not
holy.
Q690 Viscount Brookeborough: Neither
are ours.
Mr Weis: Our control problems are not as difficult
as those of other Member States in the Baltic or in the Mediterranean,
for example, but—that's my personal view - there are problems.
Our control set-up is that the port controls are done by our BundesLänder,
our federal states. Our coastal federal states perform the coastal
and port controls. Furthermore we have a federal agency of agriculture
and fisheries, and they have control vessels. I think they have
four or five of them. Some of them also are appropriate for the
high seas.
Q691 Viscount Brookeborough: How
far away do your trawlers go? How far north do German fishermen
travel to fish?
Mr Weis: Most of them fish in coastal waters
but we also have a long-distance fleet which goes as far as the
South Pacific, for example.
Q692 Chairman: You mentioned that
you favour harmonisation of sanctions. Do you think that is a
view that is shared across the EU or are there some Member States
who find that particularly difficult?
Mr Weis: We are having this debate at the moment
in the context of the IUU Regulation where the Commission proposed
minimum sanctions for the most dangerous infringements, and these
are quite high amounts of money, €300,000 for individuals
or €500,000 for juridical entities. We support, like some
other Member States, a harmonisation of sanctions at a high level
because we think that it must be a deterrent. We see the problem
that there are quite different levels of sanctions in the Member
States at the moment. Many of the Member States which object to
the proposal of the Commission do not, as far as I understand
it, really object to high sanctions but they have problems with
their own legal systems. I understand that the UK is one of these
Member States which have a system without administrative sanctions
and which have a problem if the Commission forces them to apply
administrative sanctions which they do not have in their system.
The Council Legal Service says that it is not a problem because
the Commission has the right to define that this or that sanction
is administrative and that if a Member States applies its own
system which is a criminal sanction system these sanctions remain
virtually administrative. Whether that is right or wrong, I am
not a lawyer.
Q693 Earl of Dundee: To conserve
fish stocks does the German Government prefer controls on catches
or controls on effort?
Mr Weis: We think that here we have to differentiate
between fisheries. It seems possible that there are advantages
in managing pelagic fisheries mainly through controls on catches,
but that is not possible for all fisheries. Effort controls seem
to be working for certain fisheries on demersal species like cod,
but a large number of practical problems still have to be solved.
As concerns the effort measurement, we are, for instance, concerned
about the lack of uniform and reliable methods for measuring and
verifying engine power. That is what the Commission now proposes,
a switch to an engine power system.
Q694 Earl of Dundee: How confident
are you that we can make systematic progress with that problem
with the measuring and allocating of effort? Are you confident
that that is an exercise which will work systematically or are
you a bit despondent?
Mr Weis: We are hesitant. If we moved to a simple
allocation of fishing effort instead of quotas this would possibly
have an effect on relative stability and that we would not like.
There are also other problems that have to be solved, for example,
a proper definition of the vessels actively involved in fishing
and the treatment of fisheries that have only a minor impact on
the endangered and regulated resources. We would also have to
make sure that a new effort management system would not discriminate
against Member States which have recently reduced their fishing
capacity. Those are our concerns and that is why we actively participate
in the debate on the new Cod Recovery Plan where the Commission
has proposed moving to a kilowatt-based system.
Q695 Baroness Jones of Whitchurch:
From what you are saying it sounds like you would prefer the status
quo to some of the changes that are being proposed, that stability
is really important to you. With the big debate that is going
on at the moment it seems that you are on the side of no change
rather than change. Is that a fair assumption?
Mr Weis: We are not against any changes but
in a way relative stability is a holy cow—for many Member
States; that is for sure.
Q696 Chairman: When you said that
quota for pelagic works for pelagic and effort more for demersal,
is that really a reflection of the fact that pelagic is not a
mixed fishery whereas demersal does tend to be a mixed fishery
and that you can use quotas where you have got one species but
if you have a mixed fishery then effort is a better way than quotas?
Mr Weis: I have to admit that our position is
not really clear at the moment on this point because there are
many developments going on. We have the rights-based management
discussion, we have discussions on a discard ban and the question
of whether we maintain quotas or not is dependent on this. If
you have a complete discard ban and you have an obligation to
land anything that is fished then it is very difficult to work
with quotas.
Q697 Earl of Arran: You have already
said that you think the RACs are a good thing. Let me press you
a little bit further. To what extent would your Government think
that they should be more executive than advisory, which they are
at the moment, for instance, and also would you be prepared to
give them more funding? What do you think the future of the RACs
is from the German point of view?
Mr Weis: The German Government participates
as an active observer in those Regional Advisory Councils to which
the German fishing industry holds membership. These are the North
Sea RAC, the Baltic Sea RAC, the Pelagic RAC and the Long-Distance
Fleet RAC. Support for these RACs is given by annual contributions
and technical assistance to the executive committee and to the
meetings and general assemblies taking place in Germany. We welcome
the work of the RACs, as I told you, and their contribution to
the policy-making processes in the CFP. But as to the question
of whether they should have more responsibility, we are a bit
hesitant. According to the Council decision establishing these
councils, the role of the RACs is defined by offering advice and
we appreciate their advice to the Commission and to the Member
States. But we are not in favour of giving them real management
responsibilities.
Q698 Earl of Arran: Why not?
Mr Weis: This is also institutional. We feel
that this regionalisation, which may be good for some examples
touches upon the primacy of the CFP. If we give more competence
to the RACs then there is the question where this regionalisation
ends.
Q699 Earl of Arran: Have you set
your mind against it for ever?
Mr Weis: No. Nothing is for ever.
| 
