House of Lords - European Union

Select Committee on European Union Third Report

PART 2: BACKGROUND AND EVIDENCE

7. This Report is an intentionally short account of the main conclusions of an inquiry conducted by SubCommittee D (Environment, Agriculture, Public Health and Consumer Protection), whose members are listed in Appendix 1, over the period June-November 2000. The purpose of the inquiry was to prepare the ground for the review of the CFP (see paragraph 19) by identifying the issues which, in the Committee's view, must at all costs be addressed in the Commission's forthcoming Green Paper and to offer some early opinions on what the review should be seeking to achieve. The inquiry did not consider the special problems of the Mediterranean.

8. The Sub-Committee invited evidence on opportunities for reforming the CFP under a number of headings. The text of the invitation and a list of witnesses and others who helped in various ways are at Appendices 2 and 3. We are grateful to all those who responded to our invitation, and to our specialist advisers, Professor John Shepherd FRS and Professor John Pope.

9. The invitation made it clear that the Committee did not propose to go over again in detail ground already covered by recent reports of Select Committees of both Houses of Parliament, but would seek to identify issues of particular importance outstanding from them. There have been at least six such reports, most of which have called attention to persistent problems of over-fishing in European waters and the need to reform various aspects of the CFP. Box 1 lists the most relevant. In particular, the reports have brought out the failure to align fishing capacity and effort with sustainable resources—to manage fisheries activity in a way which protects the natural life cycles of fish stocks and enables them to increase or at least to stabilise at adequate levels.

Box 1

Previous consideration by Parliamentary Select Committees

In June 1992 the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities reported on the Commission's proposals for the mid-term review of the CFP (Review of the Common Fisheries Policy, 2nd Report 1992-93, HL 9).
In August 1993 the House of Commons Agriculture Committee reported on The Effects of Conservation Measures on the UK Fishing Industry (6th Report, 1992-93, HC 620). The Report focused on the CFP.
In January 1996 the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology reported on Fish Stock Conservation and Management (2nd Report, 1995-96, HL 25). The Committee published the Government's response in May that year (4th Report, 1995-96, HL 75).
In December 1996 the House of Lords European Communities Committee reported on Third Country Fisheries Agreements (3rd Report, 1996-97, HL 28).
In March 1997, the Science and Technology Committee issued a short Report on Sustainable Management of North Sea Fisheries (4th Report, 1996-97, HL 63). This took the form of a letter to Ministers, following up various aspects of the 1996 Fish Stock Report.
In July 1999 the House of Commons Agriculture Committee published its Report Sea Fishing (8th Report, 1998-99, HC 141). This avoided going over the same ground as the Committee's 1993 report, but a number of its recommendations had a direct bearing on reform of the CFP. The Government's response was published by the Committee in October that year (7th Special Report, 1998-99, HC 853).

10. Since a great deal of the evidence has reiterated views expressed previously to Select Committees, rather than offer a comprehensive summary in the manner of earlier reports we have cited explicitly only that evidence which seems to us both new and particularly pertinent to the points we are making. We do, however, commend to the reader the full written and oral evidence. Taken as a whole, it provides a comprehensive survey of the present state of the CFP from the viewpoints of the main interest groups, and it will be useful to revisit the evidence when the Commission publishes the Green Paper. In particular, valuable background information and recommendations are to be found in the written submissions of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Institute for European Environmental Policy, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Mr David Symes, Mr David Thomson, the Marine Conservation Society, WWF-UK and the Wildlife Trusts, and Her Majesty's Government. The Committee's attention was also drawn to a number of published reports which are of particular relevance to the reform of the CFP.[1] A glossary of the main fisheries terms used in the Report and evidence is in Appendix 6.

11. Although the Science and Technology Committee's 1996 Fish Stock Report dealt with fisheries management world-wide, its recommendations had a particular bearing on deficiencies of the CFP, on which much of the evidence had focused. When publishing the subsequent government response, the Committee expressed dissatisfaction with it in a number of respects, commenting in particular that it failed "to convey the sense of urgency which the Committee attaches to the problem of over-fishing".

12. The Committee's decision to report again in 1997 was inspired in part by a letter from a group of fisheries scientists which appeared in Nature in September 1996 under the heading "Potential collapse of North Sea cod stocks" and also by the forthcoming meeting of fisheries and environment ministers of States Parties to the North Sea Conference, to be held in Bergen in March 1997. The Committee expressed its continuing concern that fisheries management policy was failing to heed scientific advice and reiterated a number of points made in the 1996 Report.

13. A response was subsequently received from the incoming administration in August 1997. Since this has not previously been published, it is reproduced at Appendix 4.

THE CURRENT CONTEXT

14. This Report has thus been prepared against the background of repeated warnings by Select Committees and scientists about a growing crisis over fish stocks in EU waters. On 9 November 2000 the Advisory Committee on Fishery Management of the International Council for Exploration of the Sea (ICES) issued the latest of its reports on the state of fish stocks in the North Atlantic and the European Continental Shelf.[2] Reiterating previous warnings but with heightened urgency, the report revealed an alarming picture, particularly on North Sea cod. It is a tradition that ICES does not produce press releases or executive summaries, but reports in the press[3] drew accurate inferences from the sober language of the scientists, in which "fishing mortality on cod must be reduced to the lowest possible level in 2001" is tantamount to recommending a complete ban.

15. The Council of Fisheries Ministers met in Brussels on 17 November and, in a preliminary discussion of total allowable catches (TACs) and quotas for 2001, agreed that "drastic measures" would have to be taken to save Europe's cod stocks from total collapse. The UK Fisheries Minister, Elliot Morley, however, was reported as saying that they would need to stop short of an outright ban on cod fishing, because of the implications for the UK fishing industry.[4] At the subsequent Council meeting of 14-15 December, TACs and quotas for 2001 were agreed by qualified majority. These did not in all cases follow the recommendations of ICES. An extract from a Written Answer by Mr Morley is in Box 2.

Box 2

Extract from House of Commons Written Answer of 19 December 2000 (col 134W)

(Mr Morley:) The Council agreed by qualified majority, with Belgium and Greece voting against and Italy abstaining, on total allowable catches (TACs) and quotas to apply in 2001 EU Waters and for EU vessels fishing in waters where catch limitations apply. Details of the agreed TACs will be made available in the Libraries of the House.

Following from the advice of fisheries scientists in the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), the Commission proposed severe cuts in many TACs, notably for cod and hake, reflecting the poor state of stocks, and the need to hold fishing effort at a level which will assist the recovery of depleted stocks. In addition, the Commission proposed cuts of 20 per cent for a large range of stocks which may be caught with cod and hake, including prawns (nephrops) and flat fish.

I successfully argued that these cuts went beyond the science and would be excessive in their application. Taking measures to enable cod stocks to recover was a key priority but this should be done by carefully targeted measures to reduce fishing effort, protect spawning and juvenile cod and improve the selectivity of fishing gear. I am pleased to report that such measures will be developed in close consultation with fishermen and scientists under the Cod Recovery Plan which the Council agreed would be adopted early next year. There is also to be a corresponding Hake Recovery Plan.

By acting to protect the cod and hake stocks through recovery plans, it was possible to secure smaller cuts than the Commission had proposed, while still respecting the scientific advice. This particularly applies to flat fish and nephrops. For these the agreed cuts are now generally 10 per cent or less. Also, it will be possible to increase nephrops and other TACs if it can be shown that the cod or hake bycatch in these fisheries is low. Improvements were also secured in megrim, haddock and monkfish TACs and the cut in hake TACs was reduced from 74 per cent to 41 per cent. Our quotas were also improved because Hague Preference was applied on all those stocks on which I judged that it was in our national interest to seek it. As a result of these changes the total UK quotas agreed were some 4000 tonnes higher in cod equivalent tonnes than in the Commission's proposals. This means that the estimated loss of quota value to the industry in 2001 is reduced by £35 million to £72 million.

THE COMMON FISHERIES POLICY AND ITS OBJECTIVES

16. The Common Fisheries Policy is in fact a basket of policies, established at different times under different, free-standing legal instruments and for different (not always mutually consistent) purposes. Between them they have evolved over the past 30 years into one of the most comprehensive Community sectoral policies. There are four main strands:[5]

Structural policy

Market policy—stabilising markets, guaranteeing supplies of fish products and ensuring reasonable prices for consumers and reasonable incomes for workers.

External policy—regulating fishing activities on the high seas or in third country waters, and international trade in fish products.

Conservation and management—the regulatory framework governing the direct exploitation of fish resources in Community waters.

17. Of these, the first two strands date from the early 1970s; the external policy subsumed various multi-lateral agreements, to which have been added a series of bilateral agreements with third countries from 1977 onwards. The final strand, although containing some elements from the 1970s, was the last to be agreed, and in 1983 the Common Fisheries Policy in essentially its present form was established, initially for 20 years and with provision for mid-term review. This brought together the various strands of policy but did not consolidate the different regulations, which to this day remain separate. The mid-term review, completed in 1992, resulted in a roll-over of the key elements, together with a number of improvements, all of which were set out in Council Regulation (EC) 3760/92 ("the basic (CFP) regulation").

18. The aim of the CFP, as described in Article 2 of the basic regulation, is to:

"protect and conserve available and accessible living marine aquatic resources, and to provide for rational and responsible exploitation on a sustainable basis....taking account of its implications for the marine ecosystem...."

PREPARATIONS FOR THE REVIEW OF THE CFP

19. Under Article 14 of the basic CFP regulation, the Commission is required to produce a report on the operation of the CFP by 31 December 2001, on the basis of which the Council must decide by 31 December 2002 on any necessary changes to the basic regulation. The Commission plans to issue a Green Paper in the spring of 2001 and will prepare its proposals to the Council in the light of responses. The Green Paper will reflect the outcome of a series of preliminary consultations with fishing interests in 1998 and 1999, on which the Commission reported in January 2000; it will also reflect some initial thoughts which the Commission set out in its triennial report of January 2000 on the operation of the CFP. These are summarised in Box 3. Further background to the review, with references to the relevant Commission documents, is set out in a note of a discussion which the SubCommittee held with officials of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) prior to launching the inquiry; this is reproduced at Appendix 5.[6]

Box 3

Summary of views emerging from the Commission's preliminary consultations in 1998-99

There is no general desire in the EU to dismantle the six and twelve mile limit access restrictions or the national quota system for the allocation of catching opportunities based on relative stability* shares;
New access to the North Sea for Spain and Portugal after 2002 is perceived by various interests as likely to lead to problems;
There is a difference of views on the value of the Shetland Box;*
There is a need to improve the effectiveness of the total allowable catch (TAC)* and quota system and to tackle the discard* problem;
Environmental issues should be integrated into fisheries policy more effectively;
Fishermen are unconvinced by fisheries science; firm support exists for strong and consistent enforcement; and
Mixed views exist over increasing the regional dimension of the CFP.

Initial thoughts by the Commission in January 2000 on priority areas for the 2002 Review

Better coherence between different CFP objectives;
Taking account of the economic dimension of fisheries management, including the future of subsidies and alternative fisheries management options;
Achieving better integration of environmental considerations into the CFP;
Improving management tools and reviewing discard and control policies;
Securing more accountable decision-making by increasing the involvement of the fishing sector; and
Maintaining the external dimension of the CFP, whilst re-orientating fisheries agreements with third countries and strengthening the EC's role in international fisheries bodies; ensuring a more effective EC contribution to global fisheries management through implementation of relevant international fisheries instruments.

* See glossary in Appendix 6
Source: Government's written evidence (p 78)

1 In particular: Coffey, C, Sustainable Development and the EC Fisheries Sector, Institute for European Environmental Policy, London, 1999; Coffey, C, and Dwyer, J, Managing EC Inshore Fisheries: Time for Change, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Sandy, 2000; Review of Fisheries in OECD Countries, OECD, Paris, 2000; Transition to Responsible Fisheries: Economic and Policy Implications, OECD, Paris, 2000; Lequesne, C, The Common Fisheries Policy: Letting the Little Ones Go?, in: Wallace, H, and Wallace, W, Policy-making in the European Union, Oxford, 2000; FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome, 1995; Shepherd, J G, Breaking the Deadlock, paper presented to a Greenwich Forum Conference "Seapower at the Millennium" (Portsmouth, January 2000), Greenwich Forum, London, 2000; Ecosystem-based Fishery Management: a Report to Congress by the Ecosystems Principles Advisory Panel, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, US Department of Commerce, 1999; Fishing Grounds: Defining a new era for American fisheries management, The H John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment, Island Press, Washington DC, 2000; Governance for a Sustainable Future: a report by the World Humanity Action Trust, London, 2000; The Common Fisheries Policy: Background and Review for 2002, WWF-UK and the Wildlife Trusts, Marine Update No 42, WWF-UK, Godalming, 2000. Back

2 Advisory Committee on Fishery Management , ICES, Copenhagen, 2000. Back

3 For example, The Times and The Guardian, 6 November 2000. Back

4 For example, BBC News Online and Fishing News, 17 November 2000. For the Government's official account of the meeting see House of Commons Official Report, 22 November 2000, col 227W. Back

5 Coffey, C, Sustainable Development and the EC Fisheries Sector, Institute for European Environmental Policy, London, 1999. Back

6 Reference should also be made to the Government's written evidence (p 77 et seq). Back