Examination of Witness (Questions 764-779)
Mr Robin Rosenkranz
8 MAY 2008
Q764 Chairman:Welcome and thank you very
much for coming. Can I explain who we are and what we are? We
are a Sub-Committee of our House of Lords European Select Committee
and we are carrying out an inquiry into the future of the Common
Fisheries Policy. We are coming to the end of our evidence-gathering
process and hope to report by the end of July. This session is
a formal evidence-taking session so a note will be taken so you
will get a transcript as soon as one can be produced and if any
slips or errors have come in you can correct them. How would you
like to proceed? Would you like to make an opening comment on
how Sweden sees the future of the Common Fisheries Policy or just
go straight onto individual questions?
Mr Rosenkranz: I could start with a short introduction.
In general the debate in Sweden for the past few years has been
quite critical of the CFP. We have not come as far as you have
but we are starting the procedure of what will be our position
in the future CFP and it is very clear already that we find the
CFP has failed in many different aspects and needs to be changed
fundamentally in its goals and objectives in order to have, as
we see it, one of the most important tasks of the CFP, sustainable
fisheries.
Q765 Chairman: You are based here
and when you look round at your colleagues from other Member States
do you see that as a general perspective or is it limited to a
relatively small number of Member States, this degree of criticism
of what is already in existence?
Mr Rosenkranz: Both, I would say. Speaking to
my colleagues on a personal basis, I think there is quite high
awareness of the difficulties with the CFP. There is quite a high
knowledge of what is wrong. However, when you raise it to ministerial
level things become a bit different and more complex. The question
is whether we have the courage and the political will to change
it, but that is a completely different issue.
Q766 Chairman: Let us try and expose
some of those issues as we go through the questions. My opening
question is based on the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy.
Certainly the Spanish Government in their written evidence and
also your Spanish colleague when he spoke to us earlier put very
strong emphasis on the fact that the Common Fisheries Policy has
been too concerned with fish stocks, the biology, and has not
recognised the socio-economic dimension. At one level there is
not a contradiction there because if you get the fish stocks wrong
you do not have any socio-economic dimension.
Mr Rosenkranz: I am glad you said it and not
me.
Q767 Chairman: Where do you think
the balance has been? Is it right? Is it wrong? What needs to
be emphasised?
Mr Rosenkranz: Our position is the opposite
of that of the Spanish. I would say we are giving too much concern
to the short-term socio-economic aspects. That is our very firm
belief, and we think that we have enough evidence to prove it
because, looking at the stock situation, in particular the demersal
stocks which are the human consumption stocks, it has been going
down for quite a while. Looking at the profitability of the fisheries
policy, it has also been down. I do not know if you have read
David Symes and Michael Sissenwine's report[1].
It is quite illustrative when it comes to the deficiencies of
the Common Fisheries Policy. We have very low net profit in the
Common Fisheries Policy. It is on average less than 7% of landed
value, whereas New Zealand has almost 40% of landed value and
the performance is also better in for instance Australia and the
United States. Our conclusion is that we have taken too little
concern when it comes to the long term gains of not fishing too
hard. To come back to your question about the objectives, when
we decided on the CFP in 2002 we had some objectives. We had social,
economic, biological, cultural and consumer objectives; they were
all there in Article 2 in the framework regulation. So by having
all these priorities, we in fact have no priority. I do not think
it was a mistake because we knew what would happen but we did
not have the political strength to do it, so what we have been
doing since 2002 is negotiating on a year-by-year basis, never
being able to set the priorities between these competing objectives,
and that is one of the flaws we have in the CFP. We have not asked
what is the first and foremost objective of the CFP. We will,
of course, have different opinions on that, but from our point
of view the highest priority is conservation, because if we do
not have biologically sound stocks it is difficult, as you said
yourself, to speak of socio-economic concerns. From our point
of view we would like to see in the new CFP much clearer divisions
of the priorities between these different objectives. We have
to be able to say that the important thing is to have a stock
in balance, and to achieve that we have to do certain things.
And furthermore, we need to have measurable goals. One issue which
is quite interesting is the debate on the MSY, the maximum sustainable
yield. Could this be a way of making the policy-makers and politicians
understand that we have to find a level of fishing pressure in
order for the stock to remain the same or even increase to next
year? If we find the optimum level of fishing pressure then we
do have a surplus we can fish on and hopefully build up the stock
as well. As it is now, in taking these short-term socio-economic
concerns what we are doing is fishing harder on stocks which are
declining year by year, so from our point of view we see that
we have to have conservation as the first and foremost objective.
This is the basis and the ground for everything we do afterwards.
Q768 Viscount Brookeborough: Just
on that point, if we look at the longer term it becomes really
based on scientific knowledge and one of the major problems is
between real time (which is the fishermen and what they want to
do) and the scientists and whether or not the science is good
enough.
Mr Rosenkranz: I would pose the question a bit
differently. We have had the knowledge of declining stocks for
many years. In Sweden biologists say, "Why do you not listen
to our advice? It is obvious", and since we don't listen
to them, what they do is shout even louder. But the problem is
not the politicians not being able to read what the biologists
say. Because the advice is quite obvious; it says, "No fishing
in the North Sea for cod". It is not difficult to read that,
but we still do not do it, so the question is why? I find the
problem in the inherent difficulties in the CFP and what we have
created. I am not saying we have created a monster but we have
created something which is very difficult to change.
Q769 Viscount Ullswater: A lot of
my question you have already answered because fisheries management
has traditionally been dominated by the Member States working
through the Council and I think you have indicated that there
are various pressures that the Member States feel under when addressing
the management tools at their disposal. Can you indicate anything
that might have occurred since 2002 with the accession of the
other Member States in 2004 and 2007 that might have altered the
balance in the CFP Council?
Mr Rosenkranz: This is a very good question.
We had both fears and hopes with the accession of the new Member
States. I would say that neither of them has been fulfilled. It
is different but still the same. If you look at it from the Swedish
point of view, we were, of course, hoping that we would have more
Member States on the conservationist side. We might not have got
that many on that side, but on the other hand there have not been
many Member States on the other side either, maybe with the exception
of—
Q770 Chairman: Poland.
Mr Rosenkranz: Thank you for saying it. But,
looking at the major bulk of Member States, they more or less
follow the majority, so there has not been that much change. One
thing that we have been trying to see if there has been a difference
in in whether it is easier for Member States to gather blocking
minorities. That could be one thing that has happened and we have
seen a few examples of it already, for instance, on the Eel Recovery
Plan which we decided on about a year ago. There was a minority
there but it was not blocking. It was France, Spain and a few
more. Then, for some reason, Romania came into that blocking minority,
and they had no interest whatsoever in eel but they kept on until
the bitter end to form a blocking minority. It was very obvious
that a new Member State helped an old Member State to form a blocking
minority on an issue which couldn't have been of major importance
for them.
Q771 Viscount Ullswater: So this
was effectively horse-trading on another issue, was it?
Mr Rosenkranz: Yes, that could be one explanation.
Q772 Chairman: That is fascinating
because your German colleague said exactly the opposite. He said
that the effect of the new states coming in was that the Commission
was getting its own way.
Mr Rosenkranz: I just gave you one example.
Then we have all the other examples where I cannot clearly see
where this has been a disadvantage. We were a bit afraid of this
but, as I said, neither my fears nor my hopes have been fulfilled
so it is quite difficult to give a clear answer on that. It is
different but still the same.
Q773 Lord Plumb: Can I ask whether
it will improve or delay after the co-decision procedure starts
when we look at the Parliament itself? There is a greater responsibility,
I put it that way, rather than an involvement. If they have responsibility
surely they have to get their act together a bit and not just
complain all the time.
Mr Rosenkranz: That is one of the things that
we are trying to analyse at the moment very thoroughly because
we all want to know what will happen when the Parliament has co-decision
on most issues of fisheries. They will not have that on TACs and
quotas but they will have on recovery plans and on many other
issues. It will delay things, of course, and in some aspects it
might get worse from our point of view because it is the Fisheries
Committee that will deal with the issues and traditionally there
are more people there from Member States with clear fishing interests
rather than conservationist interests. However, looking at the
Parliament as a whole, the situation is a bit different, so we
would try to raise the fisheries issues to the whole Parliament
and not just the Fisheries Committee. This is an issue that we
will look through very clearly and thoroughly for the coming years.
Lord Plumb: I share your view, having been there.
Q774 Viscount Brookeborough: The
introduction of recovery and management plans was the main plank
of the 2002 reform of the CFP. What is your explanation of why
so few recovery and management plans have been adopted and what
can be done to speed up the process and improve the results delivered
by those plans that are in place?
Mr Rosenkranz: Now you come to the core of the
problem, I would say. We have had some plans that have been adopted.
We have had the Eel Recovery Plan, which I mentioned, we have
the North Sea cod stock and the Baltic Sea cod stock management
plans, and we have the Plaice and Flat Fish Recovery Plan, so
we have had some management plans. The problems is that they have
not worked. We are now revising the North Sea Cod Recovery Plan.
Q775 Viscount Brookeborough: But
your plan is no fishing?
Mr Rosenkranz: No. The recovery plans are for
fishing but why do they not work? I think it has a little bit
to do with the inherent problems that we have when we come to
these recovery plans, and one of these problems is that the European
fishing fleet is way too big. It is huge compared to the fishing
resource we have. As long as it is like that it will be difficult
to come with any recovery plan, any technical measures, any closed
areas, et cetera, as long as we do not deal with the major and
inherent problem of having way too big a fleet in balance to the
available resource. With the fleet we have the pressure is strong
from the Member States' fishing industries that they have to make
a living. They pay rents on these boats, they keep their families,
we have the concerns from the regions, et cetera, and these boats
are extremely expensive and they have to pay for them, so with
this huge over-capacity (and I would think it is most Member States),
in spite of all the recovery plans, all the measures taken, it
will be very difficult to make them work because we will have
this pressure. We will always have the exceptions, we will always
have these socio-economic concerns, so I think that is one of
the reasons why most things we do and most things we have done
since 2002 have not worked sufficiently.
Q776 Viscount Brookeborough: So where
in your view is the over-capacity? Looking at the UK, we found
that probably there was not over-capacity there. The French representative
who was here just previously said, "Yes, we have over-capacity
and we want to reduce it". Where else is this over-capacity?
Mr Rosenkranz: We have it.
Q777 Viscount Brookeborough: And
Spain?
Mr Rosenkranz: Yes, Spain, but I would say most
Member States. I know very little of the UK capacity or over-capacity
but I would say that there is some there as well.
Q778 Viscount Brookeborough: Yes;
there might be some in England rather than Scotland.
Mr Rosenkranz: Possibly. The Commission's assessment
is that we are speaking in general about 40 or 50% over-capacity.
Also, looking at the profitability of the European Community Fisheries
Policy, as I mentioned earlier, we have maybe 8% profitability,
and in some species we pay more money through our funds than we
gain from the fishing resource. Why could we not have a much higher
profitability like they have in New Zealand or Canada or Australia?
There is a relation between too many vessels and too little resource,
so I would think most Member States have over-capacity.
Q779 Viscount Brookeborough: Approximately
what size is your fleet?
Mr Rosenkranz: We have around 2,000 fishermen
and I would say we have an over-capacity in the pelagic sector,
which is a bit better, with about 30% and in the demersal stocks
like cod maybe 50% over-capacity, and still we have already cut
down a lot. There are extreme benefits from having a fleet in
balance with the resource, and having over-capacity is very detrimental
for all the decisions we take on technical measures and activities.
Chairman: What you have been saying so far leads
to the conclusion that the politicians are not up to managing
the problem, and the question then is why is that?
Lord Plumb: Because they are politicians.
1 "Reflections on the Common Fisheries Policy"-Report
to the General Directorate for fisheries and maritime affairs
of the European Commission. Prepared by Michael Sissenwine and
David Symes, July 2007 Back
| 
