Brave words, but few deeds

Date: 28/03/1996

Michael Mann reports that attempts by EU governments to implement the Common Fisheries Policy have proved ineffective, jeopardising already dwindling fish stocks.

CONSIDERABLE work is still needed if the EU is ever to respect its governments' oft-repeated desire to protect dwindling fish stocks.

When ministers meet in Luxembourg on 22 April, they will be presented with a catalogue of failure in the Commission's first annual report on “Monitoring the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP)”.

The overriding impression from the report is that few member states have been able to establish a coherent or properly funded control system to protect already overstretched fisheries resources from further decimation.

Where positive aspects do exist, they are thrown into sharp perspective by shortcomings elsewhere.

Despite repeated brave words about the crucial need to put an end to the overexploitation of marine resources, the Commission concludes that “it is becoming increasingly clear that infringements of the rules are endangering the future of the fishing industry”.

Next year's report - based for the first time on legislation which requires member states to submit a detailed annual report of CFP monitoring - will be crucial in assessing the effectiveness of the central regulation on fisheries controls introduced in 1993.

But until there is some kind of uniformity in the way member states police their waters, many doubt there is much hope of any significant improvement.

There is only so much the Commission can do as long as member states cling jealously to their unilateral right to run checks in their own exclusive economic zones (EEZs).

The general pattern which emerges in the report is that even those member states with a genuine desire to bring their checks into line with regulations have been unable or unwilling to commit enough resources to the task to be successful.

The report acknowledges that some countries - including Belgium, Spain and Portugal - have improved their surveillance measures in recent years, but says they still have a long way to go to meet the challenges ahead. And despite the much larger resources at its disposal, the French government is lambasted for not doing enough to improve controls.

While the UK, Germany and Denmark are described as having relatively well-developed and integrated controls, Portugal's government has to coordinate the work of five separate agencies.

Ireland is singled out for praise, but the Commission fears that a lack of manpower will hamper Irish efforts to ensure proper checks in western waters on the new system of controls introduced at the start of this year.

Some viewed this system as a possible blueprint for the future of EU fisheries management. But many gaps remain and Fisheries Commissioner Emma Bonino has warned member states that their decision to water down the Commission's proposals (which EU governments branded as complex and over-bureaucratic) could lead to flashpoints in the future.

Certainly, it is too early to gauge the true effectiveness of the scheme with discussions on the final pieces of the jigsaw - particularly on the use of computerised satellite monitoring - still at an early stage.

Member state officials maintain that there is no need to extend the regime to the North Sea. Norway, however, which shares several key stocks with the Union in the area, is not so sure.

Even the Commission's own monitoring report admits to significant quota overruns in the North and Baltic Seas and stresses that “the twin phenomena of fraud and discarding amply illustrate the urgency for restriction of fishing effort in the North Sea”.

Norwegian officials maintain that the main weakness of the EU's system of controls is that member states cannot police other countries' waters. “These sort of false borders don't impress fish stocks very much. Information on catches only reaches the Commission after being channelled through the member state,” said one official.

In Norway, which prides itself on effective management of its vital fish resources, the coastguard has direct contact with the central fisheries authorities. During its negotiations on accession to the Union, Oslo suggested the creation of regional control centres which would report directly to the Commission. It said this would overcome the handicaps officials currently face because they are only permitted to check the national inspectors.

“Improvements in controls have to be the next step for the Commission, and there is a feeling that this is the general mood in DGXIV (the Directorate-General responsible for fisheries). Everything else is totally in vain if the last link is not working properly,” added the Norwegian official.

Stung by the report's criticisms, member state officials are uncertain how ministers will react.

Control is one element in the equation, but it is only part of the picture as long as ministers continue to agree on quotas which satisfy neither the conservationists nor the fishermen.

While the Union fails to bite the bullet and reduce quotas, ministers continue to tinker at the edges of the regime. Next month's meeting in Luxembourg is expected to adopt measures to inject flexibility into the quota system.

These would allow countries which under- or overfish in one year to balance out the excess or shortfall the following year. But punitive measures would be put in place to ensure that the overshoot was not allowed to become too large. Ministers would decide in December each year to which stocks such flexibility could apply.

But the mooted plan for a longer-term approach to the setting of fishing limits - through the suggested 'multi-annual' quota system - seems destined to remain a pipedream while stocks remain as sensitive as they are at the moment.

“Managing quotas over a number of years will not be possible because we fish stocks so hard. There will not be much progress in the coming years. Until stocks recover to a certain extent, it will be more a question of annual crisis management,” stressed a member state official.

The relative success of quotas and control measures will depend increasingly on the results of the Commission's efforts to encourage member states to scale down their bloated fishing fleets to reflect the limited resources in the EU's waters more accurately.

April will also see ministers confronted with the Commission's initial plans for the next stage in the painful and politically sensitive 'multi-annual guidance programme' (MAGP IV), before lengthy negotiations get under way with the member states during the summer.

Although planned fleet reductions under the MAGP III are running ahead of schedule, with Spain (widely recognised as having the most oversized fleet) reaching its targets for 1994 a year early, the parlous state of most of the major stocks show how unambitious the targets were.

The next programme, which will run from 1997 to 1999, could be crucial in determining whether the EU is able to tailor its fleet to the resources available.

Proposals for the new programme will be based on the conclusions of research into the biological state of stocks currently being finalised by Danish scientist Hans Lassen and the results of consultations with professionals at a series of conferences which were held in December 1995.

Although the EU will make funding available to decommission surplus vessels and retrain fishermen, the big question is whether the member states, under pressure from fishermen's unions, will agree to significant cuts and then have the political will to follow them through.

On a recent trip to the UK, Fisheries Commissioner Emma Bonino stressed that EU funding had not been paid to help reshape the British fishing sector because London had failed to provide the matching finance necessary to trigger Union support.

The Commission is keen to stress the importance of its role in coordinating control over fisheries. But the strength of its determination to act will be judged against the measures it takes against member states who have failed to respect their duties thus far.

“At a certain point it becomes hard for Mrs Bonino to explain to other member states why she is being so kind to the offending countries. The threat of legal action is there as a Sword of Damocles over countries which have not carried out their obligations,” said a Commission official.

Tough words, even if experience suggests the Commission is unwilling to go all the way down the road towards legal action. There is, however, a feeling that the Commission is serious about its role in improving coordination throughout the EU's waters to “dispel suspicion between the various interests involved”. Next year's report will be crucial in ascertaining whether it is proving successful.