Examination of Witness (Questions 700-720)
Mr Jürgen Weis
8 MAY 2008
Q700 Chairman: Can we put it the
other way? At the moment the Common Fisheries Policy is a very
top-down policy and I would have thought that to get a culture
of compliance you need to have quite a bit of bottom-up as well
so that those involved in the industry, the stakeholders, feel
directly involved, having some say in the future of the industry.
You get a little bit of that through the advisory role of the
RACs but one of the potential future models that we have heard
about is really the Commission setting what are called the policy
parameters and saying, "Reduce mortality rates to, say, 50%",
or something like that, and then saying to the RACs in different
areas, "Look: that is what the policy parameter is. It is
up to you to advise on how to get there, and if you come up with
something that is credible then we will almost automatically take
that advice". Would you be comfortable with that sort of
model?
Mr Weis: The way you describe it, it seems okay.
But on the other hand the challenge is not to define nice objectives
and to ask the Member States or the RACs or whatever organisation
to reach them. The problem in my eyes is the implementation of
the policy and that is where we have the problems, in particular
the implemention of controls. That is why we would not like to
give too many responsibilities to the RACs or to the Member States
or to regions too soon. You mentioned the Court of Auditors report
on the problems of controls that we have, and I think it would
not be any good to ignore that and do nothing about it.
Chairman: If you go down that route you clearly need
to have some big sanctions behind you to make sure they do it.
Q701 Viscount Brookeborough: Are
you worried that because you are a relatively small fishing nation
in terms of, for instance, the UK you will not get enough say
and you will have to abide by another Member State's rules rather
than the CFP, and therefore you would like protection by the CFP
from other the other Member States? Are you an example of a smaller
fishing Member's attitude to RACs?
Mr Weis: Okay, but it would mean that we were
under-represented in a given RAC. On the other hand we have the
problem that now we are one Member State with 29 votes but there
are 26 others and we are not amongst the biggest fisheries Member
States. My feeling is that in the fishing sector and the Common
Fisheries Policy the interests of the main concerned Member States
are in most cases considered in the decisions.
Q702 Viscount Brookeborough: Who
else shares your views? Do you know?
Mr Weis: In the fisheries policy normally we
are of the same view as the United Kingdom as regards relative
stability and other questions.
Q703 Baroness Jones of Whitchurch:
We have been talking about governance, but the point I put to
you is that we have heard some very powerful arguments from the
industry itself and from other representatives who have come to
see us about the need for reform, that the CFP and the way it
is currently organised needs reform, and one of the ways that
people have felt it is not functioning is that it is over-centralised.
How can you make a decision for one region or one nation if you
make very generalised policies? It seems to me again that you
are just saying you almost do not accept that powerful need for
reform, which decentralisation would be one way of tackling.
Mr Weis: We support the reform processes that
are going on and, as I have told you, we support the primacy of
the Common Fisheries Policy. We are not completely against decentralisation
of certain responsibilities in order to better adapt the implementation
of the CFP to regional or sectoral particularities. But we can
only accept this if it does not undermine the principles of the
CFP and if cost efficiency is ensured.
Q704 Viscount Ullswater: I would
like to go back a little bit. One of the problems has always been
that the fishermen and the scientists and those controlling them
have never really got on very well, whereas now in the RACs there
is an opportunity for all the stakeholders to get together and
agree certain policies or methods. Is that the form of decentralisation
that you think would be effective? You talk about decentralisation
and yet I have not quite worked out the formation that you are
considering as an alternative to a RAC or where this decentralisation
can happen or where the discussion can happen that would have
the agreement of all the stakeholders.
Mr Weis: We support that the RACs discuss the
objectives for their areas and we would certainly like the Commission
to take on board more of these recommendations. Another question
is if they should have their own management responsibilities.
We do not know where this would look lead to. How would integrate
a control system? Would they have powers to sanction?
Q705 Viscount Ullswater: It is really
just that they have not been around for a very long time and they
need to mature a bit before you are prepared to give them more
trust?
Mr Weis: Yes, maybe.
Q706 Chairman: I am beginning to
think there is not all that much difference between the two positions
now. It seems to me that in a way you are saying you would be
quite happy if they were giving advice and the Commission then
endorsed it; they are keeping the Common Fisheries Policy. What
you do not want to do is to give the Commission power. The power
exercised by the Commission at the moment you do not want to go
down formally to the RACs?
Mr Weis: By the Commission and the Council.
We still decide in the Council.
Lord Plumb: And yet doing that would surely be adding
to the complications if we are not careful. At the moment you
have two methods—a quota and the effort scheme, which seem
to complicate things. Last night we were hearing about the hundreds
of forms that fishermen and others involved in the fishing industry
have to fill in. Surely decentralisation ought to simplify that
but it does mean that you have to give more responsibility to
those who are in the field doing the job, involved in the industry,
involved in the business, rather than leave it to the politicians.
Politicians are fine, but you are going to have yet a further
layer of politicians if the Lisbon Treaty goes through and that
means, of course, that you have a joint operation between the
Council and the Commission and with the European Parliament. Is
that going to delay things? Is it going to make it more complicated?
Should we not be saying in the beginning that if further reform
of the CFP is on the cards, as a fisherman would tell you it has
to be, then the priority should be how can we cut the red tape
and how can we simplify the whole scheme to make it more adaptable
and more acceptable to those who are fishing? May I just add to
that a very practical point? When the skipper of a trawler comes
in after ten days, as we saw at Peterhead in Aberdeen last week,
and tells you that his bill for oil alone for his ten-day trip
is €36,000 or whatever, you begin to think that this is going
into a range of business that is a killer. You have to sell fish
at an enormous price to cover the costs that these trawlers are
facing. The whole thing is changing. We are going to be dealing
with capacity and opportunity in a moment. I think we need a fresh
look at the whole thing rather than maybe that we keep that and
maybe these would combine better and maybe we should decentralise.
I would just like to see it set down on one side of a piece of
paper so that we could have the points that we think matter. That
is my philosophy.
Q707 Chairman: Prices up, taxes down!
Mr Weis: We support the reduction of red tape.
Q708 Lord Plumb: But how are we going
to do it?
Mr Weis: It is really difficult, especially
in fisheries, because it is a control issue. We have so many problems
with illegal catches, with the implementation of and with compliance
with the rules. You could easily reduce red tape by saying, "I
do not control any more and I trust that the fishermen will do
the right thing", but that will not solve the problems. The
European Parliament is very fond of having stricter rules as regards
IUU fisheries and as regards control. But whenever you call for
official action, whenever you call for the state then it comes
with rules and controls and bureaucracy. We are in a dilemma there.
It is very difficult to reduce red tape. We are trying to improve
the proposals of the Commission in order to make them more pragmatic.
On the other hand, there are many other Member States trying to
improve and change the proposal and the outcome is unpredictable
in many ways. The other point you mentioned was energy prices.
This will give a big incentive for a reduction of capacity. This
will maybe change the conditions so much that it will become much
easier to have a fundamental change of the European policy in
the end.
Chairman: You have already, I suppose, pinned your
colours to the mast on relative stability.
Q709 Lord Cameron of Dillington:
As the Chairman says, you have already indicated that you support
the principle of relative stability. What is the political mood
within the Member States in your view for supporting this principle?
Mr Weis: My impression is that most of the Member
States support the principle, like we do.
Q710 Lord Cameron of Dillington:
Apart from Spain, perhaps.
Mr Weis: Well. Perhaps more and more Member
States will open up to other ideas and I also think that this
principle is perhaps not carved in stone forever. But it is very
important for us that our fishing industry has a long-term perspective
to plan its activities. That is what relative stability is good
for. We can discuss amendments to our position if these long-term
planning possibilities are provided to our industry by other means.
But on the other hand we would not support any amendments if the
background were only that some Member States are not to adapt
to the changed conditions, the changed fishing opportunities.
But if we have to change our policy because they have missed that
train then it is not okay.
Q711 Lord Cameron of Dillington:
I am slightly going back to the whole question of fuel. What is
the general view of the support that France and Spain are giving
to their fishermen by subsidising them for the increase in fuel
costs?
Mr Weis: We do not support it. We are against
it.
Q712 Lord Plumb: Can I follow that
because I think this is important? "We are against it",
you say, the UK are against it and yet it is happening. How can
we talk about a level playing field and fair play? You cannot
just say, "We are against it". What can you do about
it?
Mr Weis: You can make it clear in all the Council
discussions what our position is and try to influence decisions
on that.
Lord Plumb: And you can therefore block it?
Chairman: No, you cannot.
Lord Plumb: Exactly. I am asking the question.
Lord Cameron of Dillington: You should be able to.
Lord Plumb: Exactly.
Lord Cameron of Dillington: You cannot at the moment.
Chairman: Part of the relative stability argument
goes on to rights-based management, so shall we go on to that?
Q713 Lord Palmer: What is your Government's
position on the tradability of fishing rights and are you worried
that an ITQ system might lead to an undesirable concentration
of fishing rights either in particular waters or indeed among
certain types of fishing vessel?
Mr Weis: Our Government has not yet determined
its position on that. We are debating and co-ordinating the position.
We think that these marine biological resources are a public property.
Therefore their use should only be based on rights to harvest
them under special conditions and limitations and not be considered
a property right. If you are considering such an ITQ system then
we have to differentiate again between the fisheries.
Q714 Lord Palmer: But how can you
do that?
Mr Weis: One could make some quotas and rights
transferable for some species or fisheries and for others not.
I think it would be possible. You mentioned in your question some
concerns and I think we share these concerns. Such a system could
lead to an undesirable degree of concentration and could have
consequences for local communities which depend on fisheries or
artisanal fisheries. Another risk is the concentration of the
rights in the hands of individuals or companies that are not actively
involved in fishing. It is easy to predict that it will be very
difficult to come to an initial allocation of these rights. On
the other hand, we see the advantages that it might have in terms
of rationalisation of fisheries policy and enabling simpler monitoring
of fisheries. It would also have positive effects on the reduction
of fleet capacity in many Member States. So we have not yet determined
our position.
Q715 Chairman: It has the potential,
has it not, to lead to more efficient, more profitable proponents
of the industry? The agricultural equivalent is not a direct one
but it is farm amalgamation, is it not? You concentrate the industry.
Mr Weis: Yes.
Chairman: And you get the benefits of scale.
Q716 Viscount Ullswater: What about
temporary adjustments so that the opportunities, even between
Member States, if quotas were not going to be filled, could be
temporarily transferred or temporarily purchased—and I know
we are going to be talking about capacity—so that an individual's
vessel which only has so many days at sea or has maybe run out
of its own quota could become more economic by either leasing
or buying quota for that particular season and the quota then
goes back either to the Member State or to that particular fishery
the next year?
Mr Weis: We have procedures in place in most
of the Member States to distribute and to exchange fishing opportunities
between the fishermen, and it works. As regards the Cod Recovery
Plan, where the Commission is now proposing the kilowatt-based
system, the objective is to enhance the possibilities for redistribution
amongst the fishermen in the Member States. Between the Member
States we have exchange of quotas and that is no problem either,
so the flexibility is already there. But it will create problems,
if we create property rights. We have examples in the agricultural
policy where we have done that with quotas.
Q717 Viscount Ullswater: With milk
quotas particularly.
Mr Weis: It is very difficult.
Q718 Lord Plumb: It is a question
of balance, is it not, between capacity and opportunities? Are
we capacity building and are we missing opportunities? You have
already said that economic forces could well affect capacity,
and I am sure that is true, but how do you see the situation in
Germany between big capacity and opportunities? That is really
what it is about, is it not, in the present-day circumstances?
Mr Weis: We do not have a real problem with
over-capacity at the moment. At the end of 2006 we had about 2,000
vessels with 61,500 registered tonnes and about 155,000 kilowatts,
we are amongst the ten smallest fishing fleets of the Community.
Today our capacity is hardly sufficient to make use of our fishing
opportunities. Therefore our Parliament, the German Bündestag,
has explicitly declared the aim not to further dismantle our fleet
capacity. At the moment there is also no intention and no reason
of limiting or restricting our fishing effort on a national basis.
But that does not mean that we would generally oppose a national
management of effort or capacities. At the moment there is simply
no need to do that. Nevertheless, we feel obliged to consider
any measure to adjust the fishing effort in the context of sound
conservation of endangered stocks. That is European policy and,
as regards the EFF, we think that the tools which are provided
there are appropriate and sufficient.
Q719 Chairman: The 2006 report by
the Commission said that across the EU as a whole not enough had
been done to reduce capacity. You have stated what the German
position is. If you look at other Member States which Member States
are taking the lead in reducing capacity and which are saying,
"No, no, we are not doing that"?
Mr Weis: I do not think that there is any Member
State really taking the lead in reducing capacity because over
the last years we have seen that every year we have agreed on
reductions of fishing opportunities by ten per cent or 20% in
certain fisheries and it is impossible to reduce the capacity
at the same speed. So I think more or less all Member States have
enough capacity or too much capacity. We have Member States which
definitely have big problems, for example in the Baltic. We support
that those Member States receive funding from the EFF to reduce
their capacity. A problem arises if we then move to a kilowatt-based
system with the vast possibilities for manipulating engine power
where you could have a reduction of power on the paper but not
in reality. Therefore we have problems with a move to a kilowatt-based
system.
Q720 Lord Plumb: Would you agree
that this is dependent to a large extent on technology for development,
in other words, two vessels might have been hoovering more fish
than intended not long ago? What effect has this had in Germany
and what effect do you see it having generally on employment?
Mr Weis: We have a coastal fishery where we
have not seen too much progress either in capacity reduction or
in modernisation of the fleet. The influence should be there but
it is not really measurable in my eyes. As regards our very small
high seas fleet, these are modern ships, only a few, and there
is no over-capacity and they behave in a sound and reasonable
manner in my eyes.
Chairman: It seems as though the German industry
is small but perfectly formed. I think that is it. Thank you very
much indeed.
| 
