Many doubts were vented over the process leading to the setting of TACs as the Commission arranged a one-day July seminar for scientists, bureaucrats, stakeholders and politicians in Brussels.
After presentations by scientists of assessment methods and states of stocks in EU waters region by region, discussions continued, dominated by industry representatives claiming that scientific data were often too scarce or dubious to build a base for deciding fishing opportunities.
They also reiterated the need for socio-economic aspects to be included in the process, with a greater weight as compared to the biological aspects. One representative went as far as calling the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF), a body under the Commission that revises scientific advice and also includes economic expertise, as a “rubber-stamp organisation“. That was vehemently denied by a STECF member.
Another complaint from those many present from the industry was that, as far as new regulations go, “the goalposts are constantly moved”.
Hans Lassen, a senior adviser for ICES,replied that fishermen must understand that advice can not be based on a single year’s positive observations: a much longer time series is needed.
Mr. Lassen also gave support to criticism from both NGOs and the sector against the Commission’s recently frequent contention that more than 80 percent of EU waters are “overfished”, as compared to an average of 28 percent globally.
Critics have meant that that is a rather sensationalistic generalisation – a great variety of stocks, many of which are in good condition, are not assessed at all, and consequently not included in those 80+ percent. Furthermore, the expression “overfished” is based on the rather vague concept of “Maximum Sustainable Yield” (MSY). Exaggerated generalisations like these are not needed, critics mean – conditions are bad as they are.
Mr. Lassen agreed that, rather than generalising, one needs to study area by area and stock by stock.
“In short, I think we have a data problem in some areas”, he said. “For the sake of credibility in the eyes of the public, we are more and more inclined to discard data that are not certain about.”
“We are not in the best of worlds, but there are some encouraging trends”, he summarised.
A popular industry viewpoint at the seminar was that too much emphasis was put on fishing mortality and its effect on biomass figures while deciding fishing opportunities. Discards “due to unnecessarily low TACs” are in many places much higher than scientific evaluations indicate, they claimed, thereby contributing to a total mortality much higher than is good for the stock and misleading biomass figures. A Scottish fisheries representative said that reports from his members indicated 60 percent lower discards of cods for the first quarter this year than the same period last year, and he added this was because of “higher TACs”.
There were few indicators from the industry, however, as for how to lower discards, except by raising TACs.
On another note, Reinhard Priebe, a Director in the European Commission, stressed the importance of the proposed Control Regulation being adopted by the Council under the Swedish Presidency this fall, since the probable adoption of the Lisbon Treaty will meen co-decision for the Parliament, and that the decision-making process for the Control Regulation in that case would have to start all over again.
– – –
FOOTNOTE : The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) provides scientific advice for all Union waters except the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, which is covered by the General Fisheries Council for the Mediterranean (GFCM).