Examination of Witness (Questions 721-739)
Mr Sujiro Seam
8 MAY 2008
Q721 Chairman: Thank you very much
indeed for coming and finding the time to meet us. We very much
appreciate it. I will explain who we are. We are a Sub-Committee
of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union.
We are carrying out an inquiry into the future of the Common Fisheries
Policy. We are coming towards the end of collecting evidence for
the inquiry. This is a formal evidence session so a note will
be taken. You will be sent a transcript of it. You can look through
it and make any corrections that are necessary. Would you prefer
to start by making an initial statement about the French position
on reform of the Common Fisheries Policy or would you prefer that
we go to the questions that we have sent you?
Mr Seam: Whatever is best for you. I am prepared
to do both. I have to say that I have covered myself with formal
instructions from my Government on the questions you raised and
therefore I will be in a position today to express the official
views of the French Government. There is absolutely no problem
with that. What I say could be perfectly attributed to the French
authorities and I am prepared to both respond to the questions
I received last week and give you the general views of the French
Government on the reform or the mid-term review of the Common
Fisheries Policy.
Q722 Chairman: I think we will just
go through the questions that we have. The first one is, of course,
the one on the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy. We have
heard argument during our visit to Brussels that perhaps for too
long the Common Fisheries Policy concentrated, not unsurprisingly,
on fish, on the biological side, rather than the socio-economic
objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy. Do you think that is
the case or do you think that in a way from year to year the December
Fisheries Council has been guided much more by employment considerations
than it has by stock considerations?
Mr Seam: On this first question I think within
the European Union all the institutions agree that the general
objective of the Common Fisheries Policy should be sustainable
development of the fisheries industry and sector, which means
we have to strike a balance from the biological point of view
and from the socio-economic point of view. In this debate our
standpoint is that we consider that the socio-economic aspects
are not taken into account sufficiently in the current way the
Common Fisheries Policy is decided. In all the circumstances where
we intervene we always intervene so that the socio-economic aspects
are more taken into account. Indeed, we could say that we believe
that right now the emphasis is much more on the biological aspects
than on the socio-economic aspects, at least when it comes to
the proposals from the Commission, and our role and our behaviour
afterwards in the negotiation process is to try to put the balance
right, which is moving it more towards a socio-economic approach
than a biological approach. I can illustrate that with some examples.
This was our position when we discussed the European Fisheries
Fund where we believe that this instrument should give more priority
to the socio-economic development of the sector. This is also
true when we discuss specific plans like recovery plans or management
plans where we consider that the objectives should be set at a
level which allows recovery of the stock or management of the
stock but at the same time allows our fishermen to conduct their
business in a profitable manner.
Q723 Chairman: It is a difficult
one to know where the balance is, though, is it not, because if
you get the biology wrong ultimately the socio-economic side is
going to go wrong as well?
Mr Seam: Indeed, but, as we all know here, we
have to balance long term and short term. The common line which
is very often explained to us is that we have to make efforts
right now to try and preserve the stocks to allow long-term gains.
That is the approach which is proposed by the Commission in particular
when it comes to the maximum sustainable yield, but at the same
time we consider that even though the long-term objectives are
important we should not forget and just give up the short term
profitability of the sector. Of course, we have to strike a balance.
We all agree that it should be sustainable from the biology point
of view. Our position right now is to consider that the proposals
we receive very often, if not in all cases, are not enough in
the direction of the socio-economic balance and lean more towards
biological preservation or conservation of the resource. That
does not mean that we are not willing to ensure the sustainability
from a biological point of view but every single time it is feasible
we defend an approach which takes account of both, which means
that maybe we have to go for a more progressive approach. For
example, when it comes to reaching the MSY, decreasing the fishing
effort at the rate of ten per cent annually means it could be
achieved in a longer period without endangering the stock. That
is something we have defended with the UK, I believe, because
the United Kingdom was the other Member State directly interested
in the Western Channel stock, for example, where there the reduction
in fishing mortality is not ten per cent annually; it is 20 per
cent spread over a longer period.
Q724 Chairman: Within socio-economic
considerations can I raise the issue of fuel subsidies? What is
the argument for fuel subsidies at the moment?
Mr Seam: We do not have fuel subsidies. We have
a whole package which is designed to address the general situation
of the sector. We are aware, and this is the diagnosis we have,
that the sector faces right now serious difficulties because of
the high prices of fuel but also because of other causes, such
as the constant reduction of fishing possibilities. Therefore,
my Government has tried to develop and implement a global plan
for the fishery sector to address all the issues on the table.
This plan comprises basically three main elements. There is a
biological aspect where we try to reinforce the quality of the
scientific advice to have a better knowledge of what is going
on. There is the economic aspect where we try to put in place
measures which would bring the sector back to a reasonably profitable
situation, and there we have a whole package of subsidies (and
I will come back to that later) and we also have this training
and safety aspect because that is also a very important issue
for us. The Plan Barnier, which is named after our Minister,
Michel Barnier, who is trying to implement this plan tries to
address all these different issues, so this is not fuel-specific.
As far as bringing back the sector to a profitable situation is
concerned, what we decided to do was implement what the Commission
proposed I think two or three years ago in a communication on
the rescue and restructuring of the sector. This comprises two
phases. One phase is dedicated to the rescue of firms which are
facing bankruptcy and there we are allowed under Community law
and competition rules to provide subsidies for the running costs
of the enterprises. This is, of course, of a limited and temporary
nature, and this phase, which is dedicated to the rescue of companies,
has to be followed up by a restructuring phase. In the restructuring
phase we have a huge decommissioning plan in France and also modernisation
subsidies focused mainly on energy saving, like research on more
efficient engines in terms of fuel consumption and fishing techniques
which are less fuel consuming. We also encourage a change of gears
and a change of engine or a change of fisheries if possible within
the limits which are available, so there is no fuel-dedicated
subsidy here. It is a global subsidy scheme within the plan which
does not only cover subsidies, because we have many other issues
to address, and this is the way we try to help our fishermen to
face the situation arising from the high cost of fuel.
Q725 Baroness Jones of Whitchurch:
I guess from what you are saying that the fishing industry is
quite an important sector in France but can you give me some idea
of what proportion of industry it is?
Mr Seam: In terms of absolute value it is not
important at all. We used to compare the annual turnover of the
fishing industry in France for the first landings to the turnover
of the annual sales of tomatoes, half a billion euros a year.
It has the same value. We sell, in terms of value, as much tomato
as fish in France.
Q726 Lord Cameron of Dillington:
How many people are involved?
Mr Seam: I do not know the specifics but beyond
the absolute value of the sector it is true that politically it
has always been considered important to support that sector.
Q727 Viscount Ullswater: When we
look at the science and the control of the fishing stocks it is
very important that all the fishermen should obey rules but they
do not always and therefore control and enforcement is a key factor.
Of course, there was a rather a damning report from the Court
of Auditors last October which indicated that some of the control
measures were not being put in place. Could you tell us what France's
reaction to that report was and perhaps you could also consider
where you think the Community's Fisheries Control Agency fits
in with the new control strategy.
Mr Seam: The report from the Court of Auditors
indeed depicts quite a gloomy image of the way controls are performed
throughout the Community. We do not dispute this diagnosis. We
agree that the situation is not rosy. We consider that, at least
in France, we have taken steps to address the shortcomings identified
in the report from the Court of Auditors and those are the ideas
which we are promoting for the forthcoming revision of the control
framework for the Common Fisheries Policy. I would say that we
have four general ideas. The first one is to take advantage of
the new technologies, for example, to develop a centralised database
of control reports which is accessible to other controllers. Second,
we put the emphasis on the quality of the control when it comes
to the design of the control strategy, and we try to elaborate
a control strategy which is based on risk analysis with cross-references
between different instruments to know exactly where we have to
target the controls because, like many other Member States, we
are on a limited budget, so the idea is not really to increase
the means of control because we have to work within limited budgets
but to make it more efficient, so make more with what we have.
One way to do that is to increase the quality of the control,
so we have this control strategy which is much more sophisticated
than it used to be, I believe, and secondly we have a system whereby
we control the quality of the controls when they are performed,
which we call the second level control, so we have controllers
in charge of controlling what controllers do. The third element
is that we are in favour of more deterrent sanctions, even though
we are very much aware of the difficulties of harmonising sanctions
throughout the Union. As far as we are concerned, we have a system
which is two-pronged. We have, like in most Member States, I believe,
a criminal sanction system and also we developed two years ago
a system of administrative sanctions, which is deemed to be, by
the Commission at least, more efficient because it produces sanctions
more quickly. You do not have to wait for the whole criminal process
to take place. The fourth element, and that is where the Agency
has a role to play, is that we are in favour of more a Community
approach, more a common approach, because we are very much aware
of the complaints by all our fishermen that there is no level
playing field. The simple fact that all the fishermen have the
same complaints is certainly an indication that the system does
not function so badly because we all know that, for example, French
fishermen consider that the UK authorities control them very strictly
and it is not the same for the control performed by the UK control
authorities on UK vessels, but it is also true the other way round,
so altogether we should achieve some sort of common understanding
on that. Nevertheless, beyond the anecdotal aspect of the situation
we very much believe that a more common approach should develop.
We are very much in favour of exchanging inspectors, putting inspection
vessels in the waters of other Member States (of course, with
reciprocal access) even though we must, for example, put on board
an inspector from the coastal state for legal purposes, but we
are very much in favour of developing these cross-Member States
approaches to have a more common view of and a more common approach
to how controls are performed throughout the Union. Those are
four ideas that we will try to promote in the forthcoming revision
of the Community control framework for the Common Fisheries Policy.
Q728 Viscount Ullswater: Control
obviously will remain with the Member State. I cannot see that
moving or it being agreed to by Member States to have a common
control agency running around the whole seas effecting control.
It will still need to be done by the Member States, but do you
see having the Agency as a useful co-ordinator between the control
operations in Member States?
Mr Seam: That adequately depicts the French
position. We indeed believe that, first, control should remain
a competence for the Member States to perform; second, that the
role of the Agency should develop in a way that it co-ordinates,
"co-ordinating" meaning acting only as a go-between
for the Member States, sharing best practices, but also with the
Agency in developing common standards and common methods so that
things are applied equally.
Q729 Viscount Ullswater: So you are
really giving it quite a welcome?
Mr Seam: Yes.
Q730 Chairman: You talk about administrative
sanctions. Can you give us an idea of what they consist of?
Mr Seam: In the system of administrative sanctions,
contrary to the system of criminal sanction where the judges pronounce
the sanction, the administrative authority pronounces the sanction
and then the recipient of the sanction is free to take that to
court. The sanction is applied, there is due process and a possible
judicial review afterwards but the sanction is applied, whereas
in the criminal sanction normally there is no sanction until the
final judgment is decided. That is the reason why I believe the
Commission considers that this system is more reactive and addresses
infringements more adequately. We developed that, and this is
in the public domain so there is nothing to hide, in response
to the fine we received in the undersized fish case.
Q731 Chairman: That is a direct product
of that case?
Mr Seam: Yes. This is one of the elements that
convinced the Commission that we had reformed our control and
sanction because the two of course go together in a way which
adequately addresses infringements now.
Chairman: That is very interesting.
Q732 Viscount Brookeborough: We have
heard conflicting views as to whether conservation goals should
primarily be implemented through controls on catches (or, in practice,
landings) or through controls on effort. The German representative
that we have just had said that it may even be a combination of
the two. The former allows you to target outcomes directly and
precisely, but the latter may be easier and cheaper to enforce.
Where does the French Government stand in this debate?
Mr Seam: We believe that the primary tool for
management and conservation of fisheries resources lies in the
TACs and quotas regime, so we are more in favour of TACs and quotas
than effort management. That is the longstanding position we have
taken.
Q733 Chairman: Can I come in here?
The evidence we have taken seems to be moving in the other direction,
that people seem to be moving away from TACs and quotas and looking
more at effort.
Mr Seam: Indeed. I was not there at the time
of the reform of the CFP in 2002 but I believe at that time the
Commission, and now the Member States, considered that the TACs
and quotas combined with control measures on TACs and quotas was
not a tight enough system to ensure conservation and management
of fisheries resources, and that is the reason why the effort
management theme was introduced in the 2002 reform with days at
sea, kilowatt days, but this is a system which is extremely difficult
to administer, as you say, because we have to re-design every
single year following the TACs and Quota Council the way we allocate
those fishing days or kilowatt days, depending on the outcome
of the Council. Because it is extremely difficult to manage our
position already at the time of the reform in 2002 was that the
combination of TACs and quotas and control should be the main
driver for the management and conservation of the stocks.
Q734 Viscount Brookeborough: There
is an argument that TACs and quotas encourage discards. What is
your view on discards?
Mr Seam: It is true that discards are a problem.
We are aware of the need to reduce discards. We have some doubts
with the main option put on the table by the Commission, which
is a ban on discards, because we have underlined on several occasions
the difficulties associated with that in terms of control management
and allocation of the quotas, how you count your catches with
the understanding that no discard is available against your quota,
and the impact this could have on relative stability, which is
a topic, I understand, that we will touch on later. It is extremely
difficult to envisage a total ban on discards, so we would favour
more a technical approach encouraging development of more selective
gears, which is what we already do in some fisheries with quite
successful outcomes, for example in the nephrops and hake fisheries,
where the nephrops fishery has developed adaptations to the fishing
gear which allow them to minimise the by-catch of hake. Of course,
we are waiting for the proposals from the Commission on that one
because the Commission is planning, to table a proposal to that
effect before the end of the year.
Q735 Viscount Brookeborough: But
would you not agree that the advances on these technical measures
like net sizes and so on have been very slow because, even when
we did a previous inquiry some years ago, people were talking
about exactly what they are talking about now in the types of
windows in the nets and so on? Why has this not progressed, not
necessarily in your nation, but throughout? Is it because there
is not enough money being put into it or will we still be talking
about this in five or ten years' time?
Mr Seam: I cannot predict the future, but I
am afraid you are right.
Q736 Viscount Brookeborough: It has
not happened.
Mr Seam: Progress is slow. Nevertheless we have
some progress, maybe not to the extent that zero by-catch is achieved.
I am not sure we can ever achieve a zero by-catch target. Of course,
I am a layman in this business, but if you put the gear at sea
and it is designed to catch fish you cannot just prohibit some
types of fish from entering the gear, even though you have the
technical means to design escape windows, a special form or shape
or mesh and other tools to minimise by-catch. Of course, when
it comes to multi-specific fisheries where you target one specific
species because it is of high commercial value but in the area
where you fish you have a mixed basket of fish, it is difficult
to design a gear which would allow under the same ratio a minimisation
of discards for all the other species which are associated with
the target species, so it is a technical debate that I leave to
the technicians. The official position I am able to defend here
is that we will be extremely cautious with the intended implementation
of a total discard ban within Community fleets.
Q737 Chairman: It is very difficult,
is it not, in a mixed fishery like the demersal white fish fishery?
If you have quota for one species and know that you have run out
of quota for the rest, you inevitably end up with high discards.
Mr Seam: Yes, indeed.
Q738 Earl of Dundee: How does the
French Government assess the performance to date of Regional Advisory
Councils?
Mr Seam: We are very satisfied with the way
the scheme is implemented in the areas where it is implemented,
because, as you know, it is not implemented everywhere yet. Progress
is slower in the Mediterranean Sea than in the cold waters maybe,
I do not know why, but we are happy with this tool which provides
in our view a useful place for the sector and other stakeholders
to meet and discuss and exchange views either between different
Member States or between different types of stakeholders, so we
are very much in favour of Regional Advisory Councils in terms
of their advisory function, but we are not prepared to go for
a further step whereby those Regional Advisory Councils would
be given a decision-making or management power at this stage.
Q739 Earl of Dundee: If you do not
like that idea and do not want them to go for a management role
what other thoughts and plans do you have to achieve some proper
measure of decentralisation?
Mr Seam: Decentralisation is the next question,
is it not?
|
