THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL IMPORTANCE OF FISHERIES

20. Fishing has been an indispensable human activity from time immemorial. In many cultures, for social, economic and ethical reasons, it remains a preferred source of food. In advanced consumer societies, eating fish is seen as a major element in a healthy balanced diet. Even within the most urbanised communities, far removed geographically and culturally from the lifestyle and values of the coast, sea fishing has a romantic image—of fishermen braving discomforts and dangers to bring home valuable food, activities which far outweigh the hardships of farming. This perception is particularly strong in maritime countries like (in Europe) the United Kingdom, Ireland and Denmark, and in others with long coastlines like France, Spain and Portugal. Although in purely economic terms the fishing industry is insignificant in most developed countries (in the EU it employs no more than 270,000 or so people[7]), at the local or regional level its economic and social importance to coastal communities is disproportionately great. Yet, compared with say agriculture, the fisheries sector has tended to receive a lower level of political attention at the Council of Ministers in Brussels. Many of the failures of the CFP—particularly the failure to bring about real reductions in fleet capacity—can be attributed to a lack of statesmanship and political will on the part of the Council.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRATION PROCESS

21. In parallel with its operational responsibilities for the CFP, the Commission has been pursuing the goal of better integration of environmental and fisheries policies, as part of the process set in train at the Cardiff European Council of June 1998. At the Cologne European Council of June 1999, the Commission was asked to report on progress in this area in 2000. The Commission then produced in July 1999 a Communication on Fisheries Management and Nature Conservation in the Marine Environment, as a starting point for a review.[8] Subsequently the Helsinki European Council in December 1999 repeated the earlier request for a report on progress in this area, and in order to give further impetus to the process the Portuguese Presidency presented a report to the Santa Maria da Feira European Council in June 2000, drawing on the Commission's Communication and entitled "Integrating environmental concerns and sustainable development into the Common Fisheries Policy"[9]. This effectively discharged the request from the Cologne Council. It is expected, however, that the original Communication will continue to form the basis for development of an integration strategy in the first half of 2001.

DEVELOPMENTS SINCE THE MID-TERM REVIEW

22. Some positive developments since the mid-term review can be noted. According to the Government, the following progress in the operation of the CFP has been made (p 79):

• Introduction of the precautionary approach[10] in fish stock management;
• Consolidation and extension of regional workshops to bring together fishermen, scientists and managers from different Member States to address problems in the management of particular fisheries;
• Development of the Irish Sea cod recovery programme, with the close involvement of fishermen, scientists and administrators from the Member States concerned through regional consultation meetings in Brussels, chaired by the Commission;
• Phasing out of tuna drift nets, which involve an unacceptably high dolphin by-catch, and the closure of an area off the north eastern coast of England and Scotland to sandeel fishing to improve prey availability for breeding seabirds;
• Strengthening of Community monitoring, inspection and surveillance arrangements throughout the fisheries sector as well as improving transparency and co-operation between Member States; and
• Progress in technical conservation measures designed to reduce discards and protect juvenile stocks, eg with the introduction in 2000 of compulsory square mesh panels in the North Sea and West of Scotland haddock fishery.

23. Nevertheless the general consensus in evidence to the inquiry was that none of these steps had addressed the fundamental problems of over-capacity and other perceived deficiencies of the CFP, in particular the wasteful (some would say scandalous) discarding of fish (see paragraph 59) and the widespread belief that enforcement remains uneven between EU Member States, to the disadvantage of the national fleet. Whilst the national federations—the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations (NFFO), covering England and Wales, and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation (SFF)—present a united front in proposing improvements to the CFP rather than fundamentally challenging its raison d'être, the level of dissatisfaction with the CFP remains extremely high.

24. Symptomatic of this dissatisfaction is the alternative view (as represented for example by Save Britain's Fish) that the only solution lies in withdrawal by the UK from the CFP and taking control of fishing within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), ie to 200 nautical miles from the coast or to the median line where a tract of sea shared with a neighbouring state is less than 400 miles wide. Whilst exclusive national control undoubtedly works for countries such as Norway and Iceland which border on the ocean, there are serious practical and ecological constraints on moving towards that position in the crowded seas shared by EU Member States. Such a change would in any case mean a Treaty amendment (for which a unanimous vote in the Council would be required).

25. As already mentioned, Sub-Committee D had hoped to avoid revisiting in detail the ground already covered by other recent reports. It was therefore a measure of the degree of concern and frustration felt by witnesses at the failure of Commission and Council to heed repeated warnings about unsustainable fishing practices that much of the evidence repeated, with added urgency, points which had been made to the Science and Technology Committee and the House of Commons Agriculture Committee and fully reflected in those committees' reports.

RADICAL OR INCREMENTAL REFORM?

26. In inviting evidence, the Sub­Committee asked to what extent, and in what ways, it was possible to reform the CFP without undermining its more positive features—ie an international legal framework for enforcement, restricted access to the main fisheries, and "relative stability" (see glossary in Appendix 6) of national shares of the fisheries.

27. On the whole, witnesses accepted that—to put it no higher—the basic principles of the CFP were a necessary adjunct to the Common Market and had helped to restrain pressures which might otherwise have spelled disaster for fish stocks much sooner, particularly with the accessions of Spain and Portugal. The consensus therefore was in favour of making the existing CFP work better rather than attempting more radical solutions, including abandoning the CFP altogether.

28. Experience shows that the principle of relative stability, provided that it allows for adjustment at the margin, can continue to play a useful part in restraining conflict between Member States, particularly in a climate of reducing capacity and quotas and tighter controls on fishing effort.

29. Witnesses were asked whether they considered it possible to reduce the CFP's dependence on TACs and quotas as the main instrument of management, especially if adequate stock assessments were lacking. The general view was that some kind of continuing control by quota was a necessary evil—the SFF said that it was "the worst possible arrangement apart from all the others that have been tried" (p 96)—or even that it had some positive features.

30. Mr Steffen Smidt, Director-General for Fisheries in the Commission, was of the view that TACs should continue, but within a new framework (Q 169). Others argued that until capacity was more in line with resources TACs would continue to be needed; they should, however, be complemented by packages of other measures, notably effort controls (see paragraphs 48-52), tailored to the circumstances of particular areas or regions. Professor Flaaten (OECD) commented that TACs and quotas had "come to stay", not only in the EU but also in most OECD countries (Q 326).[11]

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

31. The emphasis of policy has been progressively shifting since the mid-term review away from mere conservation of fish stocks (ie viewed as commodities) and towards a more holistic approach, in that fish are seen as part of the wider ecosystem. But as many witnesses pointed out, the present instruments of the CFP are not geared to this broader approach. For the Commission, Director-General Smidt conceded that there was "absolutely no inter-linkage between the instruments for conservation....and the decisions we take regarding the fleet" (Q 169).

32. The Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) and environmental non-governmental organisations suggested that the key objective should be that of sustainable development. In IEEP's words, this meant "ensuring that the exploitation of marine resources takes account not only of ecological processes but also social and economic consequences" (Q 65).

33. Professor McGlade, the JNCC and others stressed the need for the CFP to keep abreast with developments in environmental policy, notably the implementation of the Habitats Directive and the Natura 2000 network[12], both of which, it was argued, depended on CFP reform. The EU fisheries sector was lagging in the "Cardiff" process (see paragraph 21) and liaison between those with lead responsibility for fisheries and environmental policy, whether in London (MAFF and DETR) or Brussels, remained ineffectual (QQ 35, 346).

34. One of the worst aspects of over-fishing is the practice of catching juveniles, which has the effect of rupturing the breeding cycle. This is partly the result of progressive decline in numbers of mature fish; it also reflects a shift in the balance of customer preferences. Members of the Sub­Committee were horrified at the small size of some of the fish on display at Billingsgate Market. Most of it had been caught in the Mediterranean or outside EU waters, but the fact that it was being sold in London indicates that there is now a demand which historically has not been prevalent among British consumers, although it is a traditional feature of the cuisine of the Mediterranean and other parts of the world.

35. The Sub­Committee received evidence from Save Britain's Fish and the Fishermen's Association Ltd on a decision by the Council in December 1999 to abolish minimum landing sizes for 11 species of fish. This had led to increased take by Spanish fishermen of baby fish off South West England (QQ 224-5). When asked to explain this, Mr Morley said:

"There is a logic in this...although I have to say we felt from the United Kingdom that it sent all the wrong signals to the industry, and we were opposed to the reduction in minimum landing size....The logic is that if you want to raise minimum landing sizes then you are going to have to increase mesh size....At the present mesh sizes being used in the North Sea and in EU waters, fish of that size are going to be caught and they are going to be dead when they are landed. At the moment they are just chucked over the side because our fishermen do not want them and they do not see that there is a market for them....The Commission view is that if you want to reduce that, you increase the mesh size. If you do not increase the mesh size you have got dead fish there, and if there is a market for them you might as well give them market access. I am not saying that is the right thing to do, but there is a logic in it" (Q 277).

36. Several witnesses commented on the need for the Commission's Fisheries Directorate-General to acquire stronger environmental credentials. The JNCC and WWF argued that a reformed CFP should be given specific environmental objectives in 2002 (QQ 349, 382). Mr Smidt hoped that in due course DG Fisheries might have its own environmental unit (Q 153).

37. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) recommended redefinition of the 6-12 mile access restriction to give it an explicit purpose of supporting "social and environmental development" of the inshore sector. This would include encouragement through structural funding of "low impact" fishing, ie by small vessels (pp 145, 148).[13] The JNCC suggested that access to inshore waters should be restricted to "small capacity vessels" (QQ 362-3).

38. Use of closed, or "no take", zones was thought to be another valuable tool. WWF-UK, among others, commended the Irish Sea cod recovery programme as an example worth following (Q 386). To be effective the zones need to be large enough to protect a substantial fraction of the stock. It can help, too, if they can be declared quickly. Members of the Sub­Committee were struck to be told by representatives of non-EU members of the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) how it was possible for precautionary fishing bans to be declared in their waters within hours of receiving scientific advice. This requires a speed of executive decision-taking which was quite beyond the bureaucratic apparatus of the EU and its institutions.

CAPACITY REDUCTION—THE MULTI-ANNUAL GUIDANCE PROGRAMMES

39. The European Commission has acknowledged the need for "a profound restructuring so as to adapt fishing capacity to the conservation of resources".[14] On 27 June 2000 Dr Franz Fischler, the Commissioner responsible for agriculture and fisheries, stated at a seminar on the CFP beyond 2002 that a future fisheries policy must "contain an effective fleet capacity policy, not merely a cosmetic one".[15]

40. Mr Smidt acknowledged that the Multi-Annual Guidance Programmes (MAGPs—see glossary) had not proved effective in reducing capacity. He stated that the Commission had suggested:

"reinforcement of this instrument, in particular in order to reduce capacity all over the Community even before we come to the reform exercise in 2002. I have to say that the suggestion for strengthening this instrument did not gain much support in the Council of Ministers when it was discussed in June".

He suggested that in spite of successive MAGPs the Community might have greater capacity now than five or ten years ago. (Q 155)

41. There was conflicting evidence on the scale of the overcapacity in the Community fleet, and differences of view as to which should come first—stock recovery (which Dr Kirkwood, SFF and WWF favoured) or capacity reduction. The SFF did not believe that further action was necessary to reduce capacity. They wished to see a concentration on adjusting fishing effort and increased resources allocated to fish stock recovery programmes (QQ 293-4). In contrast Mr Mark Tasker (JNCC) and Ms Sue Collins (English Nature) said that a 40 per cent reduction was needed immediately (or even as much as 60 per cent, according to some opinion within ICES). Phasing the cut over a decade would be useless, because of "technology creep", which could be around 4 per cent per annum (Q 358). WWF argued that capacity needed to be addressed on a regional basis, pointing out that the MAGPs did not permit reductions to be specific to a particular area (QQ 395­6).

42. There was substantial agreement among all witnesses that successive MAGPs had failed to restructure the European fishing fleet at a level commensurate with fish resources. Little evidence was offered, however, on how MAGPs could in practice be made more effective.

43. The overall objectives for reduction in fishing effort from MAGP III to IV amounted to a reduction of less than 10 per cent. As reductions can be achieved by a mixture of decommissioning and effort management measures there is wide scope to increase effort once more and little opportunity for the Commission to monitor the effectiveness of Member States' national implementation plans. In its mid-term review of the MAGP system (COM(2000)272), the Commission stated its preference not to rely on activity controls in future MAGP mechanisms. In the broader context, however, of reforms to the CFP as a whole, such controls will obviously have an important part to play.

8   COM(1999)363 Final, 14 July 1999. Back

9   Council document 9386/00 PECHE 96 ENV 196 of 16 June 2000. Back

10   Coffey (1999) op cit, p 9. Back

11   Evidence to the inquiry included discussion of the scope for introducing schemes of individual transferable quotas (ITQs), as practised in a number of countries, eg Norway and Iceland. We have not addressed the issue in this Report, but would draw attention to the conclusions of the Science and Technology Committee's Report on Fish Stock Conservation and Management (2nd Report, 1995­96, HL 25) at paragraphs 2.67­2.70 and 3.7. We note that the Fisheries Minister, Mr Elliot Morley, stated recently, when announcing a review of the operation of fixed quota allocations, that he had no intention of introducing a system of ITQs (MAFF News Release 316/00, 8 September 2000). Back

12   See House of Lords European Communities Committee, 22nd Report, 1998-99, Biodiversity in the European Union Final Report: International Issues, HL 119. Back

13   See also Coffey, C, and Dwyer, J, Managing EC Inshore Fisheries: Time for Change (report for RSPB and BirdLife International), RSPB, Sandy, 2000. Back

14   Commission submission to OECD study Transition to Responsible Fisheries, March 2000. Back

15   European Commission, DG Fisheries, Speech 00/246. Back