When the Commission met with representatives of the (Regional) Advisory Councils yesterday, the discussion focused on the landing obligation, the omnibus regulation and the consultation on a new technical measures framework.
As this was the second meeting that the Commission has had with the (R)ACs on the discard ban, the discussions this time was more of an update on the current situation, reflecting on progress in the different regions both regarding the creation of discard ban plans, but also on the new regional structures that are taking shape.
Many ACs still found the situation with the new regional structures confusing, as well as difficult to interact with. Regionalisation seem to be developing faster in the Baltic Sea (with BALTFISH), the North Sea (Scheveningen Group) and in the North Western Waters region, but even in the Mediterranean region new ways of collaborating are developing.
In terms of regional discard plans – the more temporary solution to the politically blocked multi-annual plans – progress is largely connected with the timetable set out in the new basic regulation (Art 15.1), with the ban on Baltic Sea stocks and pelagic stocks set to take effect in January 2015.
The Commission was very clear that if no joint recommendations would be forthcoming from the regions, they would be forced to adopt Delegated Acts under a very restrictive mandate – a path that may make the discard ban even more unpalatable to the fishing sector.
Fervent activity on the plans is ongoing in the Pelagic AC, the North Sea AC and the Baltic Sea AC, in order to influence the Member State work as well as meet the 1 June deadline for submission of the first plans that have been announced by the Commission. However, all were encouraged not to wait too long before tackling stocks that would be included in 2016 and further along, as many of these fisheries may pose more of a challenge.
Ernesto Penas from DG MARE explained that the Commission wants to see a fundamental effort to change the way fishermen fish, ultimately only landing what cannot be avoided – a genuine change compared to today.
Mike Park, Chief Executive of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation – a member of the North Sea AC, reminded all that the implementation of the ban will be problematic: it will have business consequences for fishermen and may result in economic failure for some. It could drive big social changes too.
Widespread disappointment with the omnibus proposal
In relation to the so called omnibus regulation – often described by Commission staff as a temporary fix – a “sticking plaster” – several ACs expressed disappointment. They would have liked to see a more ambitious proposal tackling a wider range of measures than just contradictory legislation. There was also some frustration particularly about changes related to the Control Regulation (EC 1224/2009).
In the Med RAC, there were widespread concerns among the sector interests regarding log book entries for catches < 50 kg, the demand for sorting and separate stowage onboard, the cost effectiveness of CCTV and observers, as well as the classification of deviation from the ban as a “serious infringement” from the very start. These concerns were not shared by the 1/3 group members in the Med AC – WWF was specifically mentioned – but by many sector representatives from the other ACs. Another issue debated was the so called “margin of tolerance” for errors in recording of catches in log books and transshipment records, particularly in large-scale pelagic catches.
Ernesto Penas clarified that the ambition of the omnibus is not just to remove contradictory legislation, but also to address the gaps in regulation to ensure a minimum of control of the discard ban.
Regarding the increased work effort necessary to record also catches below 50 kg, the Commission explained that the new provision was to provide better information on catches and discards, in order to make better adjustments in the policy. Excluding smaller catches would create a whole, large category of fisheries that we know nothing about.
– The aim is not to increase the administrative burden but to stop discarding and improve information, said Ernesto Penas. If you think this specific solution is impractical, please provide alternatives that can inspire the co-legislators, as I am sure this will be much debated.
For the more ambitious approach that the ACs called for, the Commission referred to the new technical measures framework.
Response to consultation on technical measures framework encouraged
The Commission consultation on the development of a new framework for technical measures in the reformed CFP is open until 25 April this year. All stakeholders are encouraged to respond. It is quite short and to the point, but many of the questions are broad and require some thought.
The Commission staff explained that while the purpose of the discard ban is to change the way that fishermen do things – to stop the discarding – the technical measures framework should tackle wider issues, such as ensuring that we make fisheries more selective or further the application of the ecosystem approach.
According to them, the current technical measures – of which the main instrument is EC 850/98 – are too detailed, top-down, a manifestation of micromanagement and everything that has failed with the CFP. How can we change this, they asked?
The underlying, very ambitious reasoning of the consultation is: Can we simplify and decentralize, giving regionalization a key role? Give stakeholders much more of a say on how we regulate through technical measures, including creating incentives for the sector? The Commission was clear that they will welcome other ideas from stakeholders, if they are not covered by the general questions.
The basic idea is to create a FRAMEWORK for technical measures between co-legislators but leave the rest to the regional level. The basic components of the framework will be 1) Simplification, 2) Regionalisation, 3) Incentives, 4) Reducing unwanted catches – improving selectivity, including avoidance measures, such as moving on measures, real time closures, and finally 5) Minimizing ecosystem impacts.
For Baltic, the Member States and the BSAC are already thinking of including revised technical measures into the multispecies management plan, maybe even the discard ban plan.
The work on the technical framework will not be rushed, we were ensured, as the Commission does not want to see a repeat of all the problems when they last attempted to revise technical regulations…
Prepare for work on multiannual plans later this year
The final point on the agenda was an update on progress in the task force set up to resolve the conflict over multiannual plans. It was believed that the group would need one more meeting to reach a pragmatic solution and close an agreement between co-legislators. This would take place in early April. After that, the Commission will be starting to table plans again and they already have several in the pipeline.
This will impact AC workload, as they will need to respond to plans as well as continue work on the discard ban. The Commission promised that they would provide ACs with a timetable, but indicated that the Baltic Sea will be early, with the already tabled plan for salmon, and the drafted multispecies plan.
In her closing words, Lowri Evans, Director-General of DG MARE, said about the discard plans:
– We have recognized the nature of the beast, but we have to do the best with what we have got, and be pragmatic. Do what we can reasonably do to meet the new legal obligations. We [DG MARE] are determined to be a facilitator in this implementation phase, just as we were the driver of the reform.
For more information please see documents below.