Brussels, 19/07/2011 (Agence Europe) - The countries of the European Union showed themselves to be divided over the most important points of the reform of the common fisheries policy (CFP) when they met in Brussels on Tuesday 19 July. France, Belgium, Germany and Portugal were, to varying degrees, critical of plans to bring in individual transferable quotas. France, Ireland, Portugal and Spain called for there to be no abrupt end to discards in 2016, but rather that the practice be phased out. Spain and France highlighted the negative consequences of moving to stock management in line with the principle of maximum sustainable yield (MSY) by 2015.
Fisheries Commissioner Maria Damanaki defended her proposals, arguing that 75% of EU stocks are being overfished (compared with 15% in the United States), fleet capacity has increased by 3% as vessels have been modernised and new vessels built with the help of subsidies (€906 million in national and Community funding was spent between 2000 and 2006 on vessel decommissioning schemes), 35% of fishing enterprises are operating at a loss. “Things have to change”, she stated. “If we do nothing, only eight stocks out of 136 will still be at sustainable levels by 2022”, she argued. She stressed the three pillars (sustainability, effectiveness and coherence) of the proposed reform of the CFP, for example: - ensuring that, by 2015, stocks are fished at sustainable levels, guaranteeing MSY (this would generate €2.7 billion for the fisheries sector); - ending the practice of discarding - throwing unwanted fish back into the sea - by 2016 (fishermen will have to land all the fish caught and deduct these catches from their quotas); - regionalising decision-making (leaving policy decisions to the EU institutions) and putting technical decisions, such as on net mesh, in the hands of producers and member states; - putting in place transferable fisheries concessions (with the aim of killing two birds with one stone: reducing the volume of the fleet and bringing an end to discards).
On transferable concessions, Damanaki holds up as examples the experiences of some EU countries (Denmark, Estonia, Spain and the Netherlands) and a number of non-EU countries (Australia, New Zealand and the United States) and noted that Sweden, and indeed Poland, is looking at such a scheme. She sought to give reassurances as to the impact of the system, which, she said, would be good for the sector. She said, however, that she had noted of the concerns and reservations of some countries over transferable concessions. “And I am offering you specific safeguards”: - member states will have a degree of flexibility on how the system is implemented; - transfers of concessions will only be within the same country (and not between EU member states); - only fishermen will be able to obtain fisheries concessions (“We will not allow transfers to banks or financial groups”, the commissioner promised); - member states will be able to provide derogations for small fleets and further safeguards (such as transfers from one segment of the fleet to another); - member states will have to allow vessel owners to trade licences among themselves, to lease or sell them. This will allow fishermen to do two things: - obtain a tailor-made combination of quotas in line with fishing trends on the regions; - when a fisherman discovers that he does not have a quota, for example, for 30% of his catch, he will be able to radio his producer organisation to lease quotas. Damanaki said that the Commission, in the proposals on the financial framework 2007-2013, proposed to keep a similar budget for fisheries and maritime affairs.
During the debate, Finland said that the Commission proposals formed an excellent basis for the reform. It is in full agreement on MSY by 2015, ending discards, the roll-out of multiannual management plans; but it has questions over transferable concessions (which should be compulsory for all regions, it argued).
For France, the commissioner's comments on some points showed “some movement” from the formal proposal, particularly on transferable concessions. At a press conference, French minister Bruno Le Maire said that he could accept the transferable concessions system on condition that “further safeguards” were provided. The date of 2015 for achieving MSY was “five years earlier than the commitments made at Nogaya. Bringing forward the date could mean the closure of half of France's fishing capacity. I cannot accept this proposal”. France agrees that discards have to be reduced and is happy to work to improve fishing gear selectivity. “But high-handedly setting a zero discard level by 2016 does not seem to me to be the right way to go about things”, Le Maire said. The transferable quota system “runs the risk of liberalising European fisheries, with quotas going to the highest bidders leading to concentration in the hands of a few industrial fishermen”. The French minister said he believed that French concerns had “partly” been taken into account: small-scale fishing will not be included in these quotas, there are no longer to be European transferable but national transferable quotas, and the system will be managed by producers' organisations. In addition, France called for “reciprocity between the rules which apply to European fishermen and those which apply to products imported from third countries”. This reciprocity principle was also demanded by Germany, Italy and Spain.
Spanish minister Rosa Aguilar first of all advocated a “properly funded and stable” financial framework for fisheries. “We share the goal of sustainability”, Spain said, but there has to be balance between “social, economic and environmental” sustainability. MSY must “fall within the Johannesburg and Nagoya decisions and the European 2020 strategy”. Like France, Spain wants stock management according to MSY to be pushed back until 2020. “Any other date will be impossible and will have huge social and economic repercussions”, Aguilar said.
Spain is in agreement with the objective being pursued on discards but “it is unrealistic to think about banning discards by the date suggested” by the Commission (2016). Spain was adamant that small-scale fishing had to be kept out of the transferable fishing rights system. It hailed the proposals seeking to strengthen the role of producers' organisations but called for a mechanism to deal with serious market crises.
Germany described the proposed reform as ambitious. It welcomed the aim of fishing stocks according to the MSY principle, the extension of multiannual management plans and the ban on discards. With regard to transferable concessions, Germany said in a press conference that it opposed the privatisation of fishing quotas.
“The time has come for change if we want a genuinely sustainable policy”, the United Kingdom argued. It welcomed the Commission proposal on ending the “waste” of discards, but recommended a progressive approach, depending on species. The UK also called for: - simplification and decentralisation of decision-making; - management of quota rights so that fishermen are able to plan for the long term while benefiting from improving stocks “but this should not mean imposing the same system on all”. Long-term management plans should be central to the CFP. The UK is committed to achieving the goal of MSY “with flexibility to account for complex mixed fisheries” (over 60% of British fisheries are mixed. MSY must be respected both within and outside EU waters, the UK also said.
The Commission proposal is a good one, according to Sweden. The target date of 2015 for achieving MSY is “reasonable” and banning discards is necessary and must be agreed “as quickly as possible” (“Why wait” for 2016? The proposal could have been “more ambitious”, the Swedish minister said).
Ireland backed the proposals on ending discards but was critical of those on transferable quotas. It felt that the plan for transferable quotas “is not a good thing”. This should be a matter for subsidiarity, Ireland argued. “I am not convinced that the safeguards planned by the Commission will be able to stand up to major companies. The risk is the collapse of the economic and social fabric of coastal areas”, the Irish minister said. It would be impossible to meet the timetable for banning discards, according to Ireland, advocating a progressive approach, fishery by fishery.
Belgium said the proposal on transferable concessions was a matter of concern. It agreed with reducing discards by means of better selectivity of fishing gear. “The results of transferable quotas have been positive”, stated Estonia conversely.
It is crucial that fishing is sustainable “while preserving fishing jobs and ecosystems”, Denmark said. It welcomed plans to ban discards. Thanks to a system put in place by Denmark (transferable quotas and cameras on board vessels), fishermen were fishing “smarter and with more selective gear”. Denmark reassured its fellow countries on transferable concessions, stating that the management of fisheries rights should be left to member states.
Greece backed the overall objectives of the proposed reform, on condition that they be applied with some flexibility to take account of differences between coastal regions.
Portugal is prepared to accept the 2015 date for achieving MSY, but wants it to be done progressively, taking account of local and regional specificities. It supports reducing discards but according to a progressive timetable. The concessions system must be tailored to reality, added Portugal, which spoke of a difficult system to implement and one which it would like to see remain “voluntary”. The social dimension is not given enough weight in the proposed reform, Portugal stated.
Commissioner Damanaki is prepared to make concessions: “We can discuss dates and progressive approaches”, she said, before stating that she had “many arguments to convince you that 2015 is feasible” for fisheries resources to reach a sustainable state. (L.C./transl.rt)