DOCSLIB.ORG

The Progress of the Common Fisheries Policy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Progress of the Common Fisheries Policy HOUSE OF LORDS European Union Committee 21st Report of Session 2007–08 The Progress of the Common Fisheries Policy Volume II: Evidence Ordered to be printed 15 July 2008 and published 22 July 2008 Published by the Authority of the House of Lords London : The Stationery Office Limited £price HL Paper 146–II CONTENTS Page Oral Evidence Dr. Joe Horwood, CEFAS Scientific Adviser and DEFRA Chief Fisheries Science Adviser Written evidence 1 Oral evidence, 5 March 2008 4 Mr. Aaron Hatcher, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Economics and Management of Aquatic Resources (CEMARE), University of Portsmouth Oral evidence, 12 March 2008 16 Mr. Bertie Armstrong, Chief Executive, Scottish Fishermen’s Federation Written Evidence 26 Oral evidence, 19 March 2008 28 Mr. Barrie Deas, Chief Executive, National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations Written Evidence 39 Oral evidence, 19 March 2008 42 Supplementary Written Evidence 50 Dr. Euan Dunn, Head of Marine Policy, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Written Evidence 54 Oral evidence, 26 March 2008 62 Dr. Clare Eno, Senior Fisheries Adviser, Countryside Council for Wales; Professor Colin Galbraith, Director of Policy and Advice, Scottish Natural Heritage, Mr. Mark Tasker, Head of Marine Advice, Joint Nature Conservation Committee; and Dr. Tom Tew, Chief Scientist, Natural England Written Evidence 75 Oral Evidence, 2 April 2008 80 Supplementary Written Evidence 95 Mr. Sam Lambourn, Chairman, North Western Waters Regional Advisory Council; Miss Ann Bell, Executive Secretary, North Sea Regional Advisory Council; and Mr. Hugo Anderson, Chair of the North Sea Regional Advisory Council Oral Evidence, 23 April 2008 97 Mr. Cliff Morrison, Chair, Food and Drink Federation Seafood Group and Technical Adviser to Foodvest Oral evidence, 30 April 2008 112 Mr. Frank Strang, Deputy Director, Sea Fisheries Conservation, Marine Directorate; Mr. Stephen Noon, Senior Policy Adviser; and Mr. Paul McCarthy, Policy Manager, Stock Conservation and Negotiation Team—Scottish Executive Written Evidence 127 Oral evidence, 1 May 2008 133 Mr. Chris White, Buchan Area Manager; and Mr. Malcolm Morrison, Fishing Co–ordinator, Economic Development—Aberdeenshire Council Oral evidence, 1 May 2008 147 Mr. Cephas Ralph, Director of Operations, Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency Oral evidence, 1 May 2008 158 Mr. Mark Dougal, Chief Executive, North East Scotland Fishermen’s Organisation, and board member of Seafood Scotland Oral evidence, 1 May 2008 165 Mr. Poul Degnbol, Scientific Adviser; Mr. Ernesto Peñas, Head of Unit, Fisheries Conservation and Environmental Questions; and Miss Lisa Borges, DG Mare—European Commission Oral evidence, 7 May 2008 173 Mr. Carlos Larrañaga, Fisheries Counsellor, Permanent Representation of Spain to the EU Written evidence 181 Oral evidence, 7 May 2008 187 Mr. Marcin Rucinski, Fisheries Counsellor, Permanent Representation of Poland to the EU Oral evidence, 7 May 2008 190 Commissioner Joe Borg, Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries; Mr. Poul Degnbol, Scientific Adviser; and Ms. Maja Kirchner, DG Fisheries and Maritime Affairs—European Commission Written Evidence 194 Oral evidence, 7 May 2008 200 Supplementary Written Evidence 208 Mr. Harm Koster, Executive Director, Community Fisheries Control Agency Oral evidence, 7 May 2008 214 Mr. Ian Hudghton MEP; Ms. Elspeth Attwool MEP; Mr. Struan Stevenson MEP; and Ms. Catherine Stihler MEP Written Evidence submitted by Ms. Elspeth Attwool MEP 221 Oral evidence, 7 May 2008 223 Mr. Jürgen Weis, Fisheries Counsellor, Permanent Representation of Germany to the EU Oral evidence, 8 May 2008 233 Mr. Sujiro Seam, Fisheries Counsellor, Permanent Representation of France to the EU Oral evidence, 8 May 2008 239 Mr. Robin Rosenkranz, Fisheries Counsellor, Permanent Representation of Sweden to the EU Oral evidence, 8 May 2008 247 Mr. Geir Evensen, Fisheries Counsellor and Mr. Paul Oma, Fisheries Counsellor, Mission of Norway to the EU Oral Evidence, 8 May 2008 255 Mr. Roddy McColl, Director, The Fishermen’s Association Ltd Written Evidence 261 Oral Evidence, 11 June 2008 265 Mr. Andrew Charles, Director, Scottish Seafood Processors Federation Oral Evidence, 11 June 2008 273 Mr. Jonathan Shaw MP, Minister for Marine, Landscape & Rural Affairs and Mr. Lindsay Harris, Head of Sea Fisheries Conservation Division, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Written Evidence 280 Oral Evidence, 11 June 2008 289 Written Evidence Sir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science 300 John and Rosalind Brooks Angling School 301 Álvaro Fernández, Spanish Institute of Oceanography 302 Fisheries Research Services 307 Greenpeace UK 311 Institute for European Environmental Policy 318 National Federation of Sea Anglers 324 New Zealand Government 327 New Zealand Seafood Industry Council 334 Oceana 337 Sainsbury’s plc 341 SHOAL (Shetlands Oceans Alliance) 344 Mr. David Thomson 347 Written Evidence was also received from: Avril Doyle MEP Royal Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs, Norwegian Government This has not been not been printed, but is available for inspection at the House of Lords Record Office (020 7219 5314). We would like to take the opportunity to thank all our witnesses for their submissions to our inquiry. NOTE: The Report of the Committee is published in Volume I (HL Paper 146-I) Processed: 18-07-2008 13:36:07 Page Layout: LOENEW[ex 1] PPSysB Job: 402181 Unit: PAG1 Minutes of Evidence TAKEN BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE EUROPEAN UNION (SUB-COMMITTEE D) WEDNESDAY 5 MARCH 2008 Present Arran, E of Sewel, L (Chairman) Jones of Whitchurch, B Sharp of Guildford, B Palmer, L Ullswater, V Plumb, L Memorandum by The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS) Background to Cefas The Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science (Cefas) is an Executive Agency of Defra. Cefas was established over 100 years ago in response to national and international concerns about over-fishing and how the nature of the seas aVected fisheries. The same pressures helped to establish the International Council for Exploration of the Seas (ICES) which is a main source of international advice on fisheries. Consequently, Cefas has a long established role in fisheries and marine environment monitoring, assessment, research and advice. For fisheries, Cefas’ scientists undertake annual monitoring and assessment of our key commercial fish stocks. This is mainly an international process undertaken through ICES. Our scientists contribute to advice for fisheries through ICES advisory committees on fisheries, ecosystems and the environment, and through the EC’s Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries. Underpinning research is undertaken: on the eVect of the environment on fisheries; the eVect of fisheries on the ecosystems; and applied fisheries management. In addition there are complementary programmes covering the marine environment and aquaculture. The Fishery Science Partnership provides additional studies and fosters improved relationships between industry and scientists. Cefas is an important source of advice to Defra for policy development and implementation, and we support Defra Ministers at negotiations. We work in close collaboration with scientists at Fisheries Research Services, Scotland, and the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute of Northern Ireland. Questions Conservation and Management 1. Chapter II of Regulation 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy introduced new methods of ensuring conservation and sustainability, including recovery plans, management plans and emergency measures. To what extent have these been effective? Recovery Plans have been introduced for various cod stocks, northern hake, southern hake and Nephrops, bluefin tuna, and eels. Multi-annual management plans have been agreed for North Sea plaice and sole, western Channel sole and Bay of Biscay sole. Other management targets have been agreed for some jointly managed EU-Norway stocks. These two measures require some time in operation before their eVectiveness can be determined. For example, the cod recovery measures, if fully implemented would have needed a decade to achieve safe levels for cod. The cod recovery plans were formally agreed for 2003, although measures outside of the formal plans were being progressed before then. A key part of the plans was the control of eVort through days-at-sea. The eVort levels by country and gear have been monitored. Scientific advice in 2007 showed that fishing mortality on North Sea cod has eventually been reduced significantly (to the lowest level for 40 years), and this has been a very important step to the recovery of the stock. However, fishing mortality remains stubbornly high on other cod stocks. Even in the North Sea, eVort restrictions have primarily impacted the northern fisheries, and little Processed: 18-07-2008 13:36:07 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 402181 Unit: PAG1 2 progress of the common fisheries policy: evidence attention has been paid to the sub-structure of cod populations within the North Sea. So the conservation eVectiveness has been mixed. The eVect on some sectors of the industry has been severe, and the use of vessel determined days-at-sea has introduced economic ineYciencies. Conceptually, recovery plans are appropriate tools giving a discipline within which managers can make decisions and the industry can plan better. However a weakness has been the poor relationship of initial, and subsequent, Commission proposals
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Illegal Fishing and Organized Crime Nexus: Illegal Fishing As Transnational Organized Crime
    THE ILLEGAL FISHING AND ORGANIZED CRIME NEXUS: ILLEGAL FISHING AS TRANSNATIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME Lead Author: Dr. Teale N. Phelps Bondaroff | April 2015 Lead Author: Dr. Teale N. Phelps Bondaroff Co-authors: Wietse van der Werf Tuesday Reitano © 2015 Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime and The Black Fish. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without permission in writing. Please direct inquiries to The Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime at: The Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime The Black Fish WMO Building, 2nd floor Postbus 3329 7bis, Avenue de la Paix 1001 AC P.O. Box 1295 Amsterdam CH-1211 Geneva 1 The Netherlands Switzerland www.globalinitiative.net www.theblackfish.org This publication can be downloaded at no cost at: http://www.globalinitiative.net/knowledge-bank/publications/ Suggested Citation: Phelps Bondaroff, Teale N., Reitano, Tuesday and van der Werf, Wietse (2015). “The Illegal Fishing and Organized Crime Nexus: Illegal Fishing as Transnational Organized Crime.” The Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime and The Black Fish. Designed by Moo Graphic Design | www.moographicdesign.com Contents List of Acronyms 5 Executive Summary 6 Introduction 8 Methodology 10 Part I Introduction to IUU Fishing 11 IUU Fishing Defined 12 The Scale of IUU Fishing 14 The Harms of IUU Fishing 15 IUU Fishing Destroys Marine Ecosystems 16 Case Study: Failed IPO Reveals Widespread Fisheries Fraud in
    [Show full text]
  • Implementation of the Action Plan for the Conservation Ofmarine Mammals (Mmap) in the Widder Caribbean: a Scientific and Technical Analysis
    UNITED NATIONS EP Distr. LIMITED UNEP(DEPI)/CAR WG.42/INF.29 Add.1 1 March 2021 Original: ENGLISH Ninth Meeting of the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) to the Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife (SPAW) in the Wider Caribbean Region Virtual meeting, 17–19 March 2021 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACTION PLAN FOR THE CONSERVATION OFMARINE MAMMALS (MMAP) IN THE WIDDER CARIBBEAN: A SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL ANALYSIS For reasons of public health and safety associated with COVD-19, this meeting is being convened virtually. Delegates are kindly requested to access all meeting documents electronically for download as necessary. *This document has been reproduced without formal editing. Implementation of the Action Plan for the Conservation of Marine Mammals (MMAP) in the Wider Caribbean: A SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL ANALYSIS Implementation of the Action Plan for the Conservation of Marine Mammals (MMAP) in the Wider Caribbean: A SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL ANALYSIS November 2020 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY including from all activities listed in Articles 11(1)(b) of Marine mammals hold a unique place in the collective the Protocol.2 pysche and economies of the Wider Caribbean Region (WCR). As a breeding and calving ground After more than a decade of MMAP-related for some whale species, the warm waters of the programmatic work under the SPAW Protocol, this Caribbean see the perennial return or residency of report compiles and reviews the status of major a diversity of majestic marine mammal species that threats to marine mammals of the region, and aims serve as a boost for tourism and source of inspiration to assess progress by countries towards achieving for some, or a valuable natural resource to be implementation of the MMAP since its adoption consumed or utilized by others.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of the Balance of Competences Between the United Kingdom and the European Union
    Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union Fisheries Evidence Submitted This document is a record of the evidence submitted to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs call for evidence on fisheries. A report on this evidence can be found at: www.gov.uk/government/consultations/fisheries-review-of-the-balance-of-competences The Report is part of the UK Government‘s Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union. 1 Contents Introduction and questions .................................................................................................... 4 Angling Trust .......................................................................................................... 6 Anglo Northern Irish Fish Producer's Organisation ............................................... 13 Atlantic Salmon Trust ........................................................................................... 14 British Ports Association ....................................................................................... 16 British Trout Association ....................................................................................... 18 Campbell Bannerman, David MEP ....................................................................... 20 ClientEarth ........................................................................................................... 36 Coalition for Fair Fisheries Arrangements ............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Implementation of the Action Plan for the Conservation of Marine Mammals (MMAP) in the Wider Caribbean
    Implementation of the Action Plan for the Conservation of Marine Mammals (MMAP) in the Wider Caribbean: A SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL ANALYSIS Implementation of the Action Plan for the Conservation of Marine Mammals (MMAP) in the Wider Caribbean: A SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL ANALYSIS November 2020 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY including from all activities listed in Articles 11(1)(b) of Marine mammals hold a unique place in the collective the Protocol.2 pysche and economies of the Wider Caribbean Region (WCR). As a breeding and calving ground After more than a decade of MMAP-related for some whale species, the warm waters of the programmatic work under the SPAW Protocol, this Caribbean see the perennial return or residency of report compiles and reviews the status of major a diversity of majestic marine mammal species that threats to marine mammals of the region, and aims serve as a boost for tourism and source of inspiration to assess progress by countries towards achieving for some, or a valuable natural resource to be implementation of the MMAP since its adoption consumed or utilized by others. in 2008. A qualitative and quantitative assessment by country was conducted primarily to guide future Many of the marine mammal species within the action for continuing efforts towards the conservation WCR are highly migratory, and are therefore a shared and sound management of marine mammals in the natural heritage among all Specially Protected Areas Region. The assessments focused on the 11 primary and Wildlife (SPAW) Contracting Parties. All marine categories of issues and threat indicators, including: mammal species are technically protected under the fisheries interactions; habitat degradation and coastal SPAW Protocol.
    [Show full text]