Brussels, 15/04/2010 (Agence Europe) - European agriculture and fisheries ministers meet on Monday, 19 April in Luxembourg to debate reform of the common and fisheries policy (CFP). The Spanish Presidency of the Council of Ministers of the EU have proposed that ministers hold an exchange of views based on the European Commission's working document, which reported back on the consultations that took place on CFP reform between April and the end of December 2009, following the publication of the Green Paper on this subject.
The Spanish Presidency intends to step up political discussions over the next few months, it says, in an effort to promote the debate and “allow the European Commission to finalise its legislative proposals on CFP reform”. The Commission is hoping to adopt its legislative proposals at the beginning of 2011. During a debate on 19 April, the Spanish Presidency is hoping to “listen to and better identify the different priorities and requests” put forward by the delegations. On 2 and 3 May in La Corunna, a large conference will take place on the subject of reform. Conclusions will be formulated at the end of this conference and examined by European fisheries ministers during an informal meeting in Vigo on 4 and 5 May. The Council of ministers will then debate the reform on 28 and 29 June in Luxembourg, on the basis of the European Commission document on “the different options” to be retained in view of reforming the CFP.
In brief, Spain hopes that the CFP will be “adapted to the real situation”. Capacity in certain segments will have to be reduced and the specificities of craft-based and coastal fishing will have to be taken into account. A Spanish diplomat pointed out that “we have a fleet that goes to all the oceans of the world” and that Spain had significant import market share (60% of fisheries products are imported into the EU and the latter is the biggest market in the world for fishing products). Spain hopes to review the system of total allowable catches (TACs) and quotas in an effort to “prevent too many quotas being traded between countries”. Spain hopes that it will obtain the European Commission on this point.
Individual transferable quotas are not applicable to craft-based fishing
In its report, the European Commission summarises the contents of the contributions made on the five structural problems in the CFP (including fleet overcapacity) and other important questions (differentiated management regimes for industrial and craft-based coastal fleets, management tools, relative stability, trade and the market, integration of the CFP in the EU's maritime policy, scientific recommendations, structural policy and public finance, the external dimension of the CFP and aquaculture). Finally, the document mentions other subjects raised by the stakeholders, including the social chapter, the specific situation in remote areas, recreational fishing and ports.
The document summarises the different contributions received but does not formulate any conclusions on the subject of the reform options.
With regard to the problem of fishing overcapacity, the Commission explains that the idea of setting up a publicly funded one-off scrapping scheme did not receive much support, although a majority of stakeholders, such as the EP, thought that this option would be useful in certain conditions.
In its Green Paper, the European Commission outlines how the use of market instruments, such as transferable fishing rights (quotas) “could be an efficient and less cumbersome way of rectifying fleet overcapacity”. The Commission report underlines that “the majority of member states and stakeholders see right-based management as useful in tackling overcapacity, with more hesitation to individual transferable rights”. The Commission adds that a “small number” of countries and stakeholders are strongly opposed to individual transferable rights. The majority of the EU countries, nonetheless, believe that it is up to the countries themselves to decide on how their fishing rights should be managed.
The Commission notes the adverse effects of individual transferable rights. “Many contributions underlined the risk of rights being concentrated” (Ed: in the hands of the most powerful companies) in the event of individual transferable rights being implemented. A large majority of contributions noted that individual transferable rights are not applicable to small-scale fishing (coastal and craft-based fishing).
In the context of strategic objectives, there was broad consensus on the fact that the objective (to be reached by 2015) to bring fish stocks up to a level of maximum sustainable yield (MSY), must be included in the EU targets. The EP and industry sector, however, are demanding flexible implementation of this objective, especially in mixed fisheries (fishing for several different species at the same time) because they believe that the maximum sustainable yield is the direction in which they should go, rather than the specific objective.
The need to minimise or put a stop to the practice of discards was underlined in many of the contributions made, even though some of them affirmed that these discards are inherent in mixed fishing.
In connection with the decision-making process, stakeholders underlined the need to increase the regionalisation of decision-making (regionalisation at a maritime basin level, implementation of regional management committees, enhanced regional consultative councils etc).
Several countries believe that producer organisations and other fisheries organisations should take more responsibility with regard to control measures and protecting stocks. The industry provides cautious support to self-management, when this gives fishermen the opportunity to decide on the best technical solutions for reaching targets. Most environmental NGOs have misgivings about self-management.
In its Green Paper, the Commission put forward the idea of setting up a differentiated regime to protect craft-based coastal fishing. The Commission admits that countries are divided on this issue (some of them support this idea while others do not). Many of them support a flexible approach to take into account the specificities of the regions and fishing activities.
What should the main management system be for Community fisheries? Replies to this question were very varied: most thought the TAC system was the most relevant kind of system, as well as that on fishing effort; others, however, supported TAC management through catch limits for single pelagic fisheries and a management system of fishing effort for mixed species fishing activities; - very few people demanded a subordination of fishing effort regimes to TAC management systems or the scrapping of TAC or fishing effort management regimes; - some of them supported the temporary closure of delineated fishing areas (zones or periods of the year when fishing is banned), protected maritime zones and a mechanism for integrated coastal zone management.
The continuation of multi-annual management plans for fish stocks is supported by almost all the different stakeholders.
Most EU countries are requesting that the principle of relative stability be maintained (this means that each member state share in each Community quota remains stable over the years). Many contributions, however, requested a review in the quota distribution keys and for them to be adapted to the current situation, in an effort to avoid any over-fastidious trading in them between countries. The great majority of countries and professionals in the sector requested that the twelve nautical miles rule be maintained (member states coastal zones reserved for the fleet of this member state).
In the area of structural policy, many different stakeholders underlined the need to continue granting public funds to the fisheries sector. A few countries and most of the NGOs support the scrapping of subsidies. Consensus was reached on the fact that support should primarily go to measures aimed at assisting the industry to restructure. Some countries called for the implementation of crisis management mechanisms.
In connection with the external dimension, most ship-owners called for the current structure of the fisheries partnership agreements to be maintained, which were signed with third countries.
Product markets. During a working dinner on Monday19 April, EU fisheries ministers will also discuss reform of the Common Market Organisation (CMO) in fisheries products and aquaculture sectors. The Commission is proposing that sector reform be integrated into the CFP reform. The Commission report demonstrates a need to: strengthen assistance to producer organisations; simplify price and intervention mechanisms; scrap the withdrawals system (this will help withdraw fisheries products from the market wherein prices fall below a certain level. This level is based on price orientations set by the Council on an annual basis), but to maintain the carry-over mechanisms (once these products are processed, they can be put back on the market and set up by regulatory framework to promote fishing product labelling and certification systems. (L.C./transl.fl)