REPORT on the annual report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the results of the multi-annual guidance programmes for the fishing fleets at the end of 2001 and on the report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the intermediate results of the multi-annual guidance programmes for the fishing fleets at 30 June 2002
(COM(2002) 446 - COM(2002) 483 - 2002/2262(INI))
8 October 2003
Committee on Fisheries
Rapporteur: Patricia McKenna
PROCEDURAL PAGE
By letter of 1 August 2002 the Commission forwarded to Parliament the annual report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the results of the multi-annual guidance programmes for the fishing fleets at the end of 2001 (COM(2002) 446). By letter of 3 September 2002 the Commission forwarded to Parliament the report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the intermediate results of the multi-annual guidance programmes for the fishing fleets at 30 June 2002 (COM(2002) 483). Both documents have been referred to the Committee on fisheries for information.
At the sitting of 19 December 2002 the President of Parliament announced that the Committee on Fisheries had been authorised to draw up an own-initiative report on the subject under Rules 47(2) and 163 of the Rules of Procedure.
The Committee on Fisheries appointed Patricia McKenna rapporteur at its meeting of 4 December 2002.
It considered the draft report at its meetings of 8 July, 9 September and 2 October 2003.
At the last meeting it adopted the motion for a resolution by 16 votes to 2, with 0.
The following were present for the vote: Struan Stevenson (chairman); Rosa Miguélez Ramos (vice-chairman) and Brigitte Langenhagen (vice-chairman); Patricia McKenna (rapporteur); Elspeth Attwooll, Niels Busk, Ian Stewart Hudghton, Salvador Jové Peres, Heinz Kindermann, Carlos Lage, Giorgio Lisi, Albert Jan Maat (for Ioannis Marinos), Seán Ó Neachtain, Manuel Pérez Álvarez, Fernando Pérez Royo (for Vincenzo Lavarra), Bernard Poignant, Dominique F.C. Souchet, Catherine Stihler, Margie Sudre (for Hugues Martin) and Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna.
The report was tabled on 8 October 2003.
MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION
on the annual report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the results of the multi-annual guidance programmes for the fishing fleets at the end of 2001 and on the report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the intermediate results of the multi-annual guidance programmes for the fishing fleets at 30 June 2002 (COM(2002) 446 - COM(2002) 483 - 2002/2262(INI))
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the annual report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament (COM(2002) 446[1]) and the report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament (COM(2002) 483[2]),
- having regard for the International Plan of Action for the Management of Fishing Capacity adopted by the FAO Committee on Fisheries in 1999,
– having regard to Rules 47(2) and 163 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries (A5‑0332/2003),
A. whereas the fourth generation of Multi-Annual Guidance Programmes has terminated, to be replaced by a simple cap on total fleet capacity in conjunction with an entry-exit scheme,
B. whereas several segments of the Community fleet remain excessively large in comparison with the available resources,
1. Regrets the fact that the MAGPs failed to bring the Community fishing fleets into a sustainable balance with the available resources, stressing that only four Member States (Denmark, Spain, Finland and Portugal) had met all their individual objectives at 30 June 2002, and considers that the current capacity limits and entry-exit scheme will not bring about the necessary reductions;
2. Considers that the current crisis facing so many stocks of fish in Community waters, where too little attention is paid inter alia to the way in which the fishing effort is applied and to the commitment of producer organisations, is at least partly due to the long-standing and repeated failure to adopt meaningful programmes for the management of fishing capacity;
3. Calls upon the Commission and the Council to develop a programme that will bring Community capacity into line with resources, while not exporting vessels to other parts of the world where there is already an excess; considers further that such programmes should be used to develop fleets that provide a maximum of employment while not further depleting fish stocks or damaging the marine environment;
4. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and Commission
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
The fourth generation of the Multi-Annual Guidance Programmes (MAGP) is over, may they rest in peace.
These programmes aimed to reduce Community fleets over a period from 1997 though 2001, extended to 2002: the idea was to achieve a balance, on a sustainable basis, between resources and the exploitation rate. It must be recalled, however, that the specific objectives set under the MAGPs were far, far less ambitious than had been proposed. The Commission had consulted a panel of scientific experts, under the chairmanship of Dr. Hans Lassen, and based its recommendations on their report. The Council considered these recommendations to be unacceptable, and instead established objectives that were so modest that the Community fleet was already smaller than the overall objective even before the MAGPs entered into force. Only certain fleet segments had to be reduced.
At the time, the MAGPs satisfied nobody - the industry and many governments claimed that the agreed reductions in fleet size were too severe, while the environmental NGOs considered them to be not severe enough.
Now, several years later, it would appear that the NGOs were correct. The current crisis facing so many fisheries, especially cod and hake, is at least partly due to the refusal, in 1996, by the Ministers for Fisheries to accept the need to effect significant reductions in the size of the fishing fleets. The price for that is being paid now by the sector.
Consequently, one can safely say that the MAGPs were a resounding failure, for there is still not a sustainable balance between fleet size and available fishery resources. There are several reasons for that, beyond the modest requirements of the individual national programmes:
- ♦To many Member States, the idea of fleet reductions was so disagreeable that they never put their energies into the programme. Rather; they sought as many ways as possible to dilute and divert the programmes. For example, as of 30 June 2002, only Belgium and Finland had completed the remeasurement of their fleets.
- ♦Several Member States failed to provide the Commission with the appropriate data, so the Commission has not been able to properly monitor the application of the MAGPs.
- ♦Even the objectives that were required under the MAGPs were not always met. For only 78 of the 96 different fleet segments in the Community were the required reductions in GT achieved, and only four Member States (Denmark, Spain, Finland and Portugal) met all of their individual objectives as at 30 June 2002.
One of the many problems with the MAGPs as they have traditionally been conceived in the Community is that they measure only the total tonnage or engine power of the vessels in the segment. No attention is paid to other criteria, such as the amount of energy a vessel consumes, the employment it provides, the incidental mortality it provokes or the quality of the fish it brings to the marketplace. In a situation of excessive fishing capacity, when vessels need to be eliminated, it would only make sense to favour those vessels that provide the most socio-economic benefits in terms of employment or that cause the least environmental destruction, through low energy consumption or by-catch. If the Member States had used these criteria in determining which capacity to remove they could have significantly reshaped their fleets so as to reduce their negative impact on the environment. However, the MAGPs did not even mention these matters.
A proper analysis of the impact of the MAGPs should be conducted in conjunction with data from the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG). For it is only by looking at what the Member States actually spend money on that one can get an idea of what their fisheries policy is and what they hope to achieve. Consequently, the Commission was asked to provide data on the types of fleet restructuring that were financed by the Member States - export, construction, modernisation, joint ventures. Unfortunately, at the time of writing this report (31 July 2003) the requested data had not been received and so such an analysis was not possible.
Another problem is the fate of the vessels that were removed from the EU register. Many vessels were scrapped, and so removed from the global fishing fleets; they contributed to a genuine reduction in capacity. Many others, though, were either exported or else simply de-listed from the register. These vessels, while they may not be part of the excess Community capacity, may still be owned by Community interests and operating in other areas where fish stocks have been depleted or there is an excess in capacity. For a significant number of vessels that were known to have been exported, the Commission does not know the identity of the importing state.
This is contrary to the provisions of the FAO International Plan of Action for the Management of Fishing Capacity, agreed by the EU in 1999. Paragraph 7 (vii) states that "The management of fishing capacity should discourage mobility when it negatively affects sustainability." If the destination of the vessel is not known, it is not possible to evaluate the impact of the exports. The Plan also requires states to avoid transferring capacity to high seas areas when that is not consistent with the Code of Conduct for Responsible fishing.
In the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy adopted in December 2002, the MAGPs were scrapped. There is, at present, no requirement for any further reduction in the capacity of the Community fleets. Instead, each Member State has a total capacity, measured in Gross Tonnes and kilowatts, for all of its segments combined. This was a significant weakening of the provisions of the MAGPs, which controlled the capacity in each fleet segment. Now, some segments can increase while others decrease, as long as the national total is not exceeded. Only when public money is used is there any need to reduce the size of the fleets. Technological innovation will clearly lead to further increases in the fleets.
A programme that failed because it led to insufficient reductions in capacity has been replaced by one that requires no reductions at all. The lengthy list of stocks for which the Commission is developing recovery plans shows exactly where such an approach will lead.