Brussels, 30/04/2012 (Agence Europe) - Around 15 EU member states (including France, Ireland, Belgium, Portugal, Finland, Greece, Germany, Slovenia, Malta and Cyprus) were categorical in opposing the European Commission proposal that compulsory transferable fishing concessions in the EU be introduced in the current review of the common fisheries policy (CFP). They highlighted risks that this flagship strand of the reform proposed by European Commissioner Maria Damanaki would have for the industry, in terms of speculation and concentration of fishing rights in the hands of a few. Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom (though not 100% convinced), the Netherlands, Latvia, Estonia and Bulgaria, on the other hand, backed transferable concessions. Italy was not against, but called for safeguards and for account to be taken of the distinctiveness of Mediterranean fisheries.
Numerous states were unhappy about making transferable fishing concessions compulsory, was how Danish minister Mette Gjerskov, who currently chairs the Agriculture and Fisheries Council, summed up the situation. She suggested that there are alternatives to making a market of this sort in fishing quotas compulsory. She said that one possibility was an EU-wide obligation to introduce measures to reduce fleet overcapacity. Thus, the member states could “choose between introducing transferable fishing concessions and putting national plans in place” to reduce the number of fishing vessels. Some member states (France, Italy and Spain) argued for the retention of public aid for vessel scrapping. This aid might be retained on condition that there is a guarantee that it does not end up creating new fishing capacity, Gjerskov said.
During the Fisheries Council debate, Damanaki said that the Commission was proposing transferable fishing concessions to address the issue of overcapacity in the fishing fleets. They were incentives for fishermen, who would be fewer in number, to catch more fish and to give thought to the future. The Commission, she said, was proposing a “flexible and adaptable” system, one that is more effective than the current system which is ham-strung by overcapacity. This issue has to be tackled, the commissioner stated. The Commission is ready to look for ways to ensure that the concessions do not end up in the hands of the biggest and most powerful firms. Those countries which have introduced transferable concessions have succeeded in resolving the problem of overcapacity, she pointed out. She challenged ministers to show her other ways of achieving results. The Commission is calling on the member states to provide it with detailed information and updates on the engine power of vessels so as to be able to decide, together, how to tackle the problem of overcapacity.
Spanish Minister Miguel Arias Canete said that his country “has great experience” in managing transferable fishing concessions. “It's a system that is well suited to distant water fishing and to big companies, allowing them better to plan their business activity”. It is not, however, a system that is best suited to coastal and small-scale fishing, he conceded, as the profits are shared between vessel owner and crew. In areas dependent on fishing, concentration of concessions for vessels under 15 metres would bring imbalances in terms of jobs that would be difficult to resolve. Transferable concessions should be used only in the management of fisheries which are subject to total allowable catches (TACs) and quotas. The Mediterranean should be excluded from the transferable quota system (apart from the bluefin tuna fishery). Spain has called for there to be sufficient flexibility in the application of these instruments (limits on the concentration of quotas, quotas for by-catches and maximum duration).
Irish minister Simon Coveney said he was totally against the introduction of compulsory transferable fishing concessions. They would not work in the Irish fishing industry, he claimed. They would see landings being taken out of Ireland and would affect the competitiveness of Irish fishermen, he argued. That did not mean that the system would not work in other countries, he conceded, expressing the view that the management of fishing rights must remain within national sovereignty. A targeted decommissioning scheme would also reduce overcapacity, he said.
France is “firmly opposed” to the introduction of a system of transferable concessions. It is, however, happy to see individualisation of fishing concessions as that would contribute to sustainable management of resources. Maybe the transferable quota system might work in some countries, but it does not sit well with the style and organisation of French fisheries management, he said. It would mean de facto privatisation of fishing rights which is incompatible with the specificities of fish resources, which are a “public good that cannot be privatised or transferred”. Transferable quotas would also encourage speculation and concentration of fishing possibilities to the disadvantage of the weakest, “which is not in line with our desire to maintain the diversity of European fishing”, said the French representative. The safeguard mechanism envisaged is not sufficient to remove the threat of speculation and concentration that would result from transferability. And nothing leads one to conclude that transferability contributes effectively to reducing overcapacity, argued the French authorities, which took the view that each country should be free to decide which management system best suits its national situation. France proposed alternatives: - a system of individual rights managed collectively (an instrument to give fishermen a sense of their responsibilities) but without monetising fishing opportunities; - targeted aid for vessel scrapping (focusing on those segments of the fleet where there is overcapacity).
It is for the member states to decide whether or not to use transferable fishing concessions, in line with the principle of subsidiarity, Finland said. It did not want the system to be compulsory, arguing that it would be very difficult to balance fishing opportunities and fishing capacity. Transferable concessions, Finland argued, “cannot resolve the problems”.
Other countries were of the opposite opinion: that transferable concessions could be useful, and “we are completely satisfied with this system” as it brings more efficient fisheries, the Dutch minister said. “There are no monopolies or concentration of rights in the Netherlands”, he stated, though adding that the Commission proposal goes too far, imposing a greater administrative load. The Netherlands advocated a more flexible approach, with some conditions laid down by the EU, such as collective management of transferable fishing rights. Capacity ceilings must stay, as the Commission has proposed, otherwise capacity will increase, he said.
Lithuania felt that, in some circumstances, transferable concessions could prove useful for adapting capacity to stocks. Indeed, it will very shortly introduce this system for its Baltic fleet. However, bringing in a uniform European model is a very different matter. Whether or not to use concessions for vessels longer than 12 metres should be a decision for each country to make, it felt.
Latvia indicated its support for transferable concessions. It is a system that was introduced in Latvia on 1 January 2010, at the request of the fishermen. A European framework is needed but the fine detail of the rules should be for the individual member states to determine, it said. Latvia says that the countries which have a balance between the fleet and the fisheries resources should be rewarded by the new European aid fund (2014-2020), for example, for the replacement of some kinds of fishing gear.
Romania was prepared to accept transferable concessions but only on a voluntary basis. The situation of each country has to be looked at and account taken of the specific circumstances of each fleet, it said, calling for the coastal fleet to be excluded from such a system.
The Commission proposal is not much to the liking of Slovenia, which cannot see how it can work in practice, especially for coastal fishing. It said the system must be voluntary.
Germany took the view that it is inadequate monitoring that leads to overcapacity and overfishing. “We don't think that compulsory transferable concessions will resolve the problem” of overcapacity, it said. It also highlighted the risk of concentrating rights in the hands of the wealthiest companies. States should have the opportunity to decide if there should be transferable concessions, the German representative said. He argued that monitoring and dissuasive sanctions were the most appropriate ways to address overfishing. Germany was against a linear reduction in capacity across all fleets, as, it said, account has to be taken of what has already been done in some countries.
The United Kingdom warned that an across-the-board approach would not work. Member states must be able to apply their own safeguard measures in all transferable concession systems. The Community framework should not, therefore, make these systems compulsory, the UK said. It welcomed the commissioner's comments on bringing in greater flexibility.
Malta said that transferable concessions should be brought in “when needed”, on a voluntary basis and at the discretion of each member state. It argued that the proposal does not sufficiently protect small-scale fishing.
For Poland, transferable concessions can only be introduced on a voluntary basis. Pointing out that it has considerably cut back the size of its fleet, it hoped that the other countries would take the necessary measures to adapt their fleets to existing resources. Small-scale fishing should be excluded for transferable concessions, Warsaw argued.
The CFP has failed to resolve the problem of fleet overcapacity, said Sweden. It is precisely to bring down overcapacity that it backs a compulsory transferable fishing concession system. This system must not be allowed to harm the small-scale coastal fishery. The concessions system must be linked with a ban on discards.
Belgium is against a compulsory transferable concessions system “as this runs counter to the principle of subsidiarity”. Belgium has a collective system which fits the needs of its small fleet. The transferable rights system could bring with it vastly increased running costs, making vessels less viable, the Belgian representative stated.
Italy does not think it “can agree to making it possible to transfer rights from one county to another, so the Commission proposal will have to be amended on that point”. A massive transfer of fishing rights, concentrated in certain zones, must be avoided. Italy argued that: - a system that operates at regional level is needed; - small vessels should be excluded, - a system adapted to the multi-species fishing typical of the Mediterranean has to be found. The Italian representative supported the retention for several years yet, as part of the next financial framework, of vessel scrapping aid, which helps limit fishing capacity.
The Danish delegation said that it is for the member states to decide whether or not to use transferable fishing concessions. If there were to be an overall framework at EU level, “it would have to be very flexible to take account of the differing conditions from one member state to another”. Overcapacity is a major problem in the CFP and one that has to be resolved. Denmark suggested that the countries of the EU provide information on their respective situations on fishing capacity (fleet) and fishing opportunities (quotas) and that they state which instruments might be used to resolve any possible overcapacity issues. These reports would be approved by the Commission and receipt of funding from the European fisheries and maritime affairs fund 2014-2020 would be conditional on submission of the information, the Danish delegation suggested. (LC/transl.rt)