Member States offered their first reactions on the Technical Measures Framework (TMF) at the Council meeting on 11 April, a month after the Commission had published their long-awaited proposal.
A great deal of consensus was voiced by Member States for the proposals. Simplification of the existing regulations and implementing regionalisation and decentralisation through delegated acts were the key themes.
Reducing the complexity of technical measures, improving the incentives for selectivity, making the landing obligation more straightforward to implement, as well as making control and enforcement more efficient and effective were also some of the positive thoughts voiced toward the TMF proposal.
As always though the devil is in the detail, and already at this early stage several approaches to weakening environmental aspects of the TMF were introduced into the discussion.
Ireland spoke of the need to dilute the baselines in the proposal, thus lowering minimum standards. Poland pushed for a reintroduction of drift nets into Baltic fisheries, which have been banned since 2008 as a conservation measure in particular for the critically endangered harbour porpoise.
Moreover, France and the UK both spoke about their difficulties with adhering to the landing obligation, catch composition requirements and minimum conservation reference sizes. This was of concern as the consequences of these measures would be to erode incentives to fish more selectively.
There were also discussions concerning lowering the scientific requirements for gear innovations and new fishing gears to be adopted, along with a disagreement concerning the extent to which recreational fisheries should be covered by the proposal. However, such decisions could be taken at a regional level through delegated acts.
Interventions raised to strengthen provisions proposed by the Commission were thin on the ground, if in evidence at all.
The major risk with the TMF is that regional bodies are not adequately capable of dealing with their new added responsibilities. For decades, the Commission has shouldered the responsibility for drafting technical regulations and has experience in holding open consultation processes that are transparent, accountable, inclusive of stakeholders.
While supportive of the objectives of the TMF and regionalisation, as yet the Fisheries Secretariat has not seen enough evidence that regional bodies are capable of managing the significant shift that these reforms entail.
As a regional example, BALTFISH does not yet have a Secretariat. The lack of a coordinating body presents a risk that the forum is unprepared for regionalisation. As yet, there are no registered stakeholders, meetings are often organised at short notice, and AC representation is uneven. Moreover, no clear structures are in place for how Member States will coordinate to create delegated acts.
These factors raise questions as to whether the added responsibilities for regional management that the TMF entails will be managed effectively. We hope that in forthcoming regional meetings, these risks are anticipated and reforms made which will enable the TMF to be a success.