General Assembly

REFORM OF THE CFP

The Chips are Down and The Fish are Out

Speech to North Sea Commission General Assembly

Dunston Hall, Norwich

12.00 hrs. Friday 21^st. June 2002

Struan Stevenson MEP

President – EU Fisheries Committee

1. INTRODUCTION

The CFP has been a catastrophe. Collapsing fish stocks, diminishing fleets and lost jobs have been its hallmarks. Emergency closures of fishing grounds, draconian conservation measures, tie-ups, lay-offs and de-commissioning have become familiar features. 66,000 jobs have been lost in the EU catching sector (22%) in the period 1990-1998, Over the same period, employment in the processing sector has fallen by 14%.

Amid great controversy, the European Commission finally published its White Paper on CFP reform a couple of weeks ago. There has been a predictably hostile reaction from many parts of the industry and vociferous opposition to many aspects of the reforms in the Council of Ministers. A serious North / South divide appears to be emerging with Amigos de la Pesca, the lobby group representing the interests of Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, France and, bizarrely, Ireland, leading the charge to protect Mediterranean and Southern interests.

The Commission proposes to enforce a dramatic reduction in fishing effort - days at sea - by between 30% and 60%. They conclude that this will lead to actual cuts in overall EU fleet capacity of around 18%, although the table of anticipated cuts they published in the appendices of their reform proposals shows that on average, Northern EU Member States will be expected to cut the size of their fleets by over 20%, while in the South the cuts will be nearer 10%. This strikes me as deeply unfair and I will say more about these figures later in my speech.

2. DEVOLUTION OF FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

a/ Regional Advisory Councils

Like all policies, the CFP reforms have good bits and bad bits. Let me start by exploring what I see as the good bits.

The centrepiece of this reform package will surely be devolution - devolving fisheries management to key stakeholders in discreet fishing zones. This is an important step forward and represents a major victory for members of the Fisheries Committee. It is inconceivable that even two years ago the Commission would have contemplated loosening their grip on fisheries management. Now they have agreed to accept the need for regional advisory councils to be set up comprising fishermen and scientists, representatives from the fish-farming industry, marine ecologists and NGO’s, who have a specific involvement in a local fishery. Even recreational anglers and regional politicians will have a role.

The new regional advisory councils (RAC’s) will have the power to make recommendations on technical conservation measures, multi-annual TAC’s and quotas, discards and enforcement and other management factors which impact on fishing in their zones. They will also be responsible for monitoring proper enforcement of the rules in their specific fishing zone. Two or more Member States with traditional fishing rights in a specific zone will have to apply to the Commission for permission to set up a regional advisory council.

I believe that we should press for two separate RAC’s for the North Sea. We should have separate RAC’s covering The North Sea (Northern zone), the North Sea (Southern Zone), the West of Scotland, the Irish Sea, the Bay of Biscay, the Mediterranean and the Adriatic. Since attending my first meeting of the North Sea Commission Fisheries group over two years ago, I have urged the European Commission to use you as a perfect role-model of how such a body could work. I am alarmed however that not much thought has been given to the implementation of this policy. These RAC’s will be enormous bodies. They will have dozens of members. How often will they meet? Where will they meet? Will they have a secretariat? Who will pay? Will there be smaller sub groups meeting on a more regular basis feeding in to the RAC’s. We need answers to all of these questions and we need answers soon! Perhaps this in an area in which the North Sea Commission could give us the benefit of their expertise?

De-centralisation in this way is vital. The Brussels bureaucrats have made a hash of the CFP. It is far more likely that fishermen will respect and listen to recommendations from their own zonal committees, rather than diktats from Brussels. It should be our central objective to ensure over the longer term, that RAC’s are given proper power and responsibility and do not remain simply as talking shops. This would represent real subsidiarity in action - true devolution of management to the concerned stakeholders.

b/ Member State Control

The Commission has also recommended that 6 and 12 mile limits should be retained in order to protect sensitive inshore fisheries. It is interesting to note that in the original draft of the CFP Reform proposals which were widely leaked in March, the Commission stated that 6 and 12 mile limits should become a permanent feature of the CFP - “without any time limitation”  - was how they put it. Now, mysteriously, that statement has disappeared to be replaced with a simple reaffirmation of the need for 12 mile limits. Despite Mr Fischler's assurances that he did not succumb to bullying by the Spanish prime Minister Mr Aznar, it seems that Spanish threats to take the Commission to court over open access agreements may have borne fruit!

However,  I am pleased that the Commission has agreed to devolve significant management responsibility within the 12 mile limits to the Member States involved. Thus, greater responsibility for conservation, management measures and enforcement relating to all vessels of any nationality operating within these zones will fall to the Member State, provided always, that any measures they implement are no less stringent than any relevant Community measures. Member States will even be able to impose emergency measures for periods of up to three months duration, to protect fish stocks within inshore waters under their sovereignty.

3. ACCESS TO WATER AND RESOURCES

Of course the question of access has always been a sensitive one. The concept of relative stability has ensured that EU fisheries have continued to be allocated to those Member States with traditional fishing rights in specific zones. We fought a strong campaign, during the debate on the Green Paper, to prevent the Spanish from outlawing relative stability and gaining open access to the North Sea and the Shetland Box. We won that debate with a majority of over 300 in the vote in the European Parliament in January and the Commission now acknowledges the need for relative stability to be maintained in its legislative proposals. However, they also recommend the need to identify new arrangements for access to community waters to be considered by the European Parliament by the end of 2003 and to be implemented into Community law by 31^st December 2004. This will almost certainly involve the introduction of Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs) – the effective privatisation of the quota system.

Of course many people fear the introduction of ITQ’s because they believe, correctly, that the countries with the biggest cheque books will buy up all the quotas. It doesn’t take much imagination to figure out who they would be and it perhaps explains why the Spanish and the Dutch are the biggest enthusiasts for this idea. Their ultimate domination of the EU fishery sector would be to the direct disadvantage of the other Member States who would suffer significant job losses in both the catching and processing industries.

Having said all that, I am not entirely opposed to ITQ’s, so long as they can be made to embrace the concept of relative stability. If we could devise a system that would combine ITQs with relative stability, it might be possible to introduce more normal market conditions while at the same time giving priority to traditional fishing rights. This could be achieved by only allowing quota to be sold to Producer Organisations (POs) or Joint Venture Companies, where the majority shareholder was from a Member State with a traditional fishing right in a particular zone. In-comers would only be able to purchase up to 49% of any such quota. Experience of similar joint ventures in the Falkland Islands has shown that minority partners strictly observe conservation and enforcement measures and have no incentive to over exploit a fishery. At the same time, however, they introduce new capital investment into the zone.

4. ENFORCEMENT AND CONTROL

a/ Cut in Capacity

In the EU there are too many fishermen chasing too few fish. The Commission claims that we need an overall reduction of 30-60% in effort. In other words, we need to spend between 30 and 60% less days at sea. The Commission recognise that this will force a great many fishermen out of the industry and their calculations target proportionately bigger cuts in fleet size in the North than in the South, because, they argue, stocks are under greater pressure in the North than they are in the South. The implications of these projected cuts in fleet size are quite shocking. While the UK will be expected to slash gross tonnage by a massive 23%, Spain will only face a 9.4% cut. While Ireland will need to cut by 20%, Greece will only face a 2% reduction.  These proposals are, needless to say, highly controversial and have caused angry protests across the EU. Even the Spanish are outraged that they are being asked to make further cuts. But here in the UK, where we have already had an over-subscribed de-commissioning scheme which has taken out 20% of our whitefish fleet, a further 23% will decimate the industry and destroy thousands of jobs.

I feel that there has to be a more balanced approach to achieving a sustainable fishery. We need to make more use of technical conservation measures and compensated tie-ups with less emphasis on the wholesale destruction of our fishing boats. We must insist on the introduction of more selective fishing gear, such as nets with larger mesh sizes and properly positioned square mesh panels, so that more juvenile fish can escape. We must also limit fishing activity to areas and times when there are few juvenile fish around and, as in the case of Norway, the catching of juvenile fish should automatically trigger strict enforcement measures that can include emergency closures.

The state of our stocks leaves little room for optimism. Cod and Northern Hake remain at dangerously low levels and the Commission intends to take further dramatic steps to save these species from being wiped out in EU waters. Their multi-annual recovery plans include massive cuts in fishing effort of up to 43% and the fitting of satellite monitoring equipment to vessels of over 15 metres, in order that proper tracking and monitoring can be maintained. These drastic cuts will be applied in the North Sea, the West of Scotland, the Irish Sea and the Kattegat.

b/ Compensated Tie-Ups

Let me just say a quick word about compensated tie-ups. There is money in the EU budget to compensate fishermen for tie-ups. However, such compensation has to be co-financed and the UK government refuses to apply for EU assistance when, due to the Fontainbleu Agreement, co-financing is based on a 71% (UK) to 29% (EU) split. The Danish government are also guilty of withholding compensation in this way. Spanish fishermen are, on the other hand, routinely compensated for enforced tie-ups. Following the failure of the EU to renew an international fishing agreement with Morocco in 2000, 410 vessels in Galicia and Andalucia were compensated on a daily basis for almost two years.  We must press for a level playing field.  All EU fishermen must be properly compensated for tie-ups on an equal basis and additional aid should even be sought for those affected in the processing sector.

c/ De-commissioning

I am also strongly in support of the Commission’s proposals to provide extra cash incentives to encourage decommissioning, particularly for those fishermen who have suffered a reduction in fishing possibilities of 25% or more due to the imposition of stringent controls and conservation measures. As well as enhanced decommissioning grants, fishermen who can prove that they have been engaged full-time in the industry for more than 5 years will be paid substantial re-training grants and/or substantial cash inducements to leave the industry. I am however convinced that at no time should public aid be used for building new vessels. Aid for modernisation should only be permitted for safety purposes and to assist quality production. Rules need to be tightened up by setting fleet reference levels (set at December 2002 MAGP IV objective levels) and ensuring that every vessel removed under a publicly funded decommissioning scheme will be reduced from that fleet reference number. Fleets must not be allowed to exceed those stated levels. Predictably, the Spanish and the Irish are deeply aggrieved at these proposals. Both have milked the CFP to subsidise the construction of new vessels. But we cannot allow a situation to continue where we are using taxpayer’s money to scrap trawlers in the North, while  simultaneously subsidising the building of new trawlers in the South.

e/ EU Fisheries Inspectorate

There is also a recommendation from the Commission that an EU Fisheries Inspectorate be set up and that in the first instance, Member States exchange fishery inspectors to enable experience to be gained in different zones. There may be merit in this suggestion as a means to ensure the introduction of a level-playing field across the EU. Too often, fishermen complain that they suffer hard-line treatment from UK fisheries inspectors while other Member States “get away with murder!” An EU Fisheries Inspectorate would apply the same rules across the board.

f/ Discards

As far as the controversial issue of discards is concerned it is time to get things right. We cannot continue with a policy which leads to over 2 million tonnes of healthy fish (25% of all fish caught in the EU) being dumped, dead, back into the sea every year. Indeed many UK fishermen admit that discards routinely account for nearer 50-75% of catches! Much of this problem can be traced to the way in which we operate TACs and quotas. The current system of TACs and quotas is not peculiar to the EU. It operates in various shapes and forms throughout the North Atlantic and in many other parts of the world as a conservation tool. However, TACs and quotas were introduced into the CFP, not for conservation purposes, but to aid in the process of sharing out fishing rights.

In the kind of mixed whitefish fishery which is commonplace in the EU and particularly around the UK, in which hundreds of boats are involved, quotas are hugely inefficient, bureaucratic and create enormous waste. There is a need for far more flexibility. Quotas need to be geared more towards the overall amount of fish that can be taken from discreet fishing zones, rather than be based on individual species over vast fisheries. Measures could be introduced which would include un-attributed quotas against which by-catch could be counted by Member States that do not have a quota for a directed fishery. However, increased mesh sizes and square mesh panels will continue to be a significant contributor to reducing discards.

g/ Deep Water Species

For some years strange and exotic deep-water fish have been ruthlessly exploited in EU waters, particularly off the West of Scotland. The French, for example, have strongly targeted the Orange Roughy, a species that can take more than 25 years to reach spawning age. Such fish swim in abundant shoals and are caught at depths of up to 1200 metres with nets that can be up to 50 metres wide. The methods used for fishing at such depths are also highly damaging. ‘Rock-Hoppers’ – large steel or rubber balls, bounce over rocks and obstacles on the seabed to avoid snagging. They trail nets, ropes and wires in their wake. The impact from this type of gear is devastating. Despite the great depths, scientists have discovered rich marine life on the delicate corals that make up the sea-bed. Up to 120 living organisms per 1/2 square metre have been counted. Yet virtually everything is destroyed by these current fishing practices that crush and mutilate wide swathes of the ocean floor. In addition, over 50% of all fish hauled up from such depths are discarded dead, back into the sea. This kind of un-fettered exploitation will quickly drive these deep-water species to extinction. It is therefore imperative that we provide protection for these fish with the strict application of quotas and enforcement measures and with serious limitations on the type of gear used.

7.  INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES

Third country agreements are a common feature of the CFP. Most of the agreements between the EU and northern countries such as Norway, are purely on a reciprocal basis. Fishing rights in EU waters are exchanged for fishing rights in the national waters of the country in question. However, most fisheries agreements with southern states are on a "fish for money" basis, meaning third countries trade the rights to fish for financial support. These types of agreements cost EU taxpayers around £300 million per year, with the fishing industries of Spain, Portugal and France and the southern Member States as the main beneficiaries. There is growing controversy surrounding these agreements and growing evidence of EU fleets plundering the fisheries resources purchased to the detriment of local artisanal fishing communities, often, such as in the case of Mauritania and Senegal, in developing countries with fragile economies and suspect financial controls.

The abuse of such agreements was one of the significant reasons behind the Moroccan Government’s refusal to sign a renewed fisheries deal with the EU. Morocco believes, with some justification, that it can sustain and create many thousands of jobs in its indigenous fishing industry by retaining control over its own fisheries resources. Mauritania, on the other hand, is a country desperately in need of finance to help pay off foreign debts. It’s only natural resource is fish. The Mauritanian agreement has now overtaken the former agreement with Morocco as the EU’s biggest third country fishery contract. However, the mainly Spanish fleet who now fish Mauritanian waters have largely displaced existing Mauritanian trawlers and now threaten the livelihood of the inshore fishermen as well.

Where third country agreements are to continue in future, they must be carefully monitored to ensure that there is no over-exploitation of resources. In addition, that part of the funding in such agreements that is directed towards fisheries conservation must be closely policed to ensure that it is, in fact, used for such purposes. Notwithstanding these objectives, third country agreements contain a large element of social development policy and in future, part of the budget for these agreements should be transferred from the EU fisheries budget to the development budget. There should also be a primary duty on the Commission to ensure that third country fisheries agreements benefit all EU Member States and not simply the small handful of Southern Member States who have traditionally benefited from these agreements.

8. SEA MAMMALS, CETACEANS & VULNERABLE SPECIES

There is a need for a long-term strategy to provide protection for dolphins, porpoises, sharks, sea-birds, skates and rays which are either caught as by-catch or killed by destructive fishing practices. Public anger and concern has been expressed often at the wanton destruction of dolphins and porpoises by pair-trawlers and at the killing of albatrosses by long-liners. Shark-finning is also a practice which must be outlawed without delay and I am glad to see that the Commission intends to implement further stringent control measures affecting fishing gear and to introduce new regulations to prohibit certain types of fishing which cause this damage.

The exponential growth of the grey seal population in the North Sea and off the west coast of Scotland gives serious cause for concern to fishermen who traditionally fish in these waters. There are an estimated 125,000 grey seals now present around the UK. Their numbers continue to expand at the rate of 5% per year and they eat, on average up to 2 tonnes of fish per seal per annum. Clearly their impact on fish stocks must be taken into account when calculating management and stock recovery plans and some method of reducing their numbers should be sought. A Seals Commission, similar to the Red Deer Commission in Scotland, could undertake a careful scientific evaluation of sea mammals, analysing how much they eat, what species they favour and whether they face starvation and disease because their population levels have reached unsustainable limits.

9. INDUSTRIAL FISHING

The TAC for sandeels has been cut to 850,000 tonnes in 2002 because the 2001 TAC of over 1 million tonnes was not being fully taken up. Scientists point out that the Danes, who are the main industrial fishers in the North Sea, take only around 25% of the sandeel biomass. They say that this is fully sustainable compared, for instance, to the 75% biomass of cod which the UK fleet has been accustomed to fish and which has almost rendered the cod extinct in British waters. Scientists also advise that the sandeel fishery is largely clean and that relatively little by-catch of cod or other whitefish is apparent. The Danes do, however, conduct a vigorous fishery inspection system and hand down severe punishments to offenders.

Some fishermen point to the fact that sandeel is the traditional staple food of cod and the removal of vast quantities of this staple feedstock can only further damage any hope of a future recovery in cod stocks. The Spanish in particular are fierce critics of the industrial fishery. Nevertheless, the emergency closures of cod spawning grounds enforced by the Commission during 2001 have already had a beneficial effect on cod stocks, leading to a slight increase in TACs for 2002. The large sandeel fishery appears, therefore, to have had little impact on cod stocks. The Norway Pout industrial fishery tends to be less clean, taking a significant by-catch of whitefish. On balance, however, it may be advisable to maintain the status quo in respect of the Danish sandeel and Norway pout fishery, as to do otherwise would simply drive more fishermen back to the whitefish sector which is already over-fished. However, as part of the CFP reform package there should be an urgent review of the industrial fishing sector to establish exactly how much by-catch is involved and to pinpoint accurately its overall impact on the marine ecosystem.

10. AQUACULTURE

Fish farming has become a large and vital part of the EU fisheries sector. Farmed fish now represent the majority of fish eaten in Europe and the sector is a significant employer in remote rural areas of the Community. Exciting developments in breeding salt-water fish such as turbot and halibut in on-shore tanks, open up new opportunities for the future. However, there are mounting concerns about disease control, chemical and pesticide use and the levels of environmental pollution caused by fish farms. These and other aspects, both positive and negative, will be fully explored in a major ‘Own Initiative’ Report authorised by the Fisheries Committee of the European Parliament. Recommendations on the future of aquaculture in the EU will be made to the Commission by the end of 2002.

11. IMPORTS

Fishermen are deeply concerned in certain Member States, that un-regulated imports of fish continue to enter the EU from countries outside the Community, depressing prices and creating an environment where over-fishing of species such as cod and hake is encouraged as fishermen try to make up the financial shortfall. Nevertheless, the fish processing industry requires guaranteed continuity of supply to maintain production at sustainable levels.   It is therefore necessary for better communication links to be established between fishermen and the processing sector in order that supply lines can be guaranteed.   In addition, while adhering to strict WTO rules on imports, the EU should insist on all such imports meeting the strict hygiene and welfare regulations that we apply to our own product, combined with country of origin labelling to provide consumers with clear information.

12. CONCLUSION

The main problem today is conservation and the need to achieve sustainable fisheries to ensure the survival of our fishing communities. The Commission’s tough new policies for the reform of the CFP point the way ahead for a sustainable future. Nonetheless, I have persuaded the Commission that the reformed CFP should be reviewed again in 5 years time to see whether it has effectively addressed the real problems it is intended to resolve.  If we judge it has not then the present policies should be dismantled and replaced by Member State control over their own fisheries. We therefore have five years to make sure the reforms work. Five years to restore fish stocks, restore profitability and restore confidence. It is an enormous challenge.

SUMMARY

1. Devolution of fisheries management to stakeholders in Regional Advisory Councils.
   
2. Permanent continuation of 6 and 12 mile limits and devolution of greater management  responsibility to Member States.   
   
3. Continuation of relative stability with analysis of new agreements for access to Community waters such as Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQ’s).   
   
4. Significant cut in fleet capacity across the EU plus tighter enforcement; compensated tie-ups; more cash aid for decommissioning, targeting fishermen who have suffered more than 25% reduction in fishing opportunities; generous golden handshakes for leaving the industry and large grants for re-training; EU cash aid to fit VMS to all vessels over 15 metres.   
   
5. EU fisheries inspectorate.   
   
6. Stringent controls against discards.   
   
7. New controls against over exploitation of deep water species.   
   
8. Careful policing of international third country fishing agreements with close focus on conservation and sustainability.   
   
9. Control measures affecting fishing gear and new regulations to prohibit certain types of fishing which kill cetaceans, sea-birds, skates and rays. 
   
10. Major review of aquaculture industry with focus on environmental impacts.

Struan Stevenson MEP

(4,300 words)