Libro Reforma Ingles

8/3/2019 Libro Reforma Ingles

1/110

Proposals rom the sheries industryrepresented by the shing cluster

assembled under the Fishing VesselsOwners Co-operative o the Port o Vigo

Reform of the

Common Fisheries

Policy towards 2013


2/110

122

CLUPESCA

This book has been prepared by the Technical Team o the Fishing Vessels Owners Co-operative o the

Port o Vigo which comprises the ollowing individuals and activity areas:

Jos R. Fuertes Gamundi

Manager Director

Jos A. Surez-Llanos Rodrguez

Deputy Manager or the Associations and Producers Organizations

Reinaldo Iglesias Prieto

Deputy Manager or Services rendered by the Co-operative

Hugo C. Gonzlez Garca

Technical Secretariat or the Ship-owners Associations

Edelmiro Ulloa Alonso

Technical Secretariat or the Ship-owners Associations

Jorge Romn Olea

R&D and EFF aids Department

Jaime Conde Sol

Legar Advisor Dep.


3/110

123

CLUPESCA

Towards an environment,economic and social

SustainabilityThrough a single,

common and openEuropean shing market


4/110125

CL

UPESCA

Presentation. by Javier Touza Touza,president o the Vessel OwnersCo-operative o the Port o Vigo (Arvi)

Introduction. By the authors o thebookPREFACEThe Cluster o the Fishing and ProducerSector (Clupesca)

1. Introduction

2. Clusters initial composition

3. Experience and initiativeson research, innovation andtechnologic development

4. Objectives and activity o theCluster o the shing and producersector

SECTION I: KNOWLEDGE ANDDECISION MAKING IN THE COMMON

FISHERIES POLICY

CHAPTER 1

Knowledge in the uture CommonFisheries Policy

1.1. Current situation

1.2. Steps orward

1.3. How to research

1.4. Conclusions

CHAPTER 2The Governance in the uture Common

Fisheries Policy. Improving unctioningo consulting and advisory Committeesin the European Union shing industry

2.1. Introduction

2.2. Consulting and advisoryCommittees

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

149

149

152

154

154

154

154

155

155

155

155

156

157

157

160

161

2.3. Coordination and eciency

2.4. Solutions

2.5. Conclusions

SECTON II: THE EU-WATERS:MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES AND

FLEETS

CHAPTER 3

Management o resources within thenew CFP. The relative stability andthe European Union internal resh sh

market

3.1. Abstract

3.1.1. The relative stability

3.1.2. Biological consequences

3.1.3. Socio-Economic Impacts

3.1.4. Distortion o competition

3.2. Historical background

3.2.1. The relative stability:

agreement in 1983

3.2.2. The accession o Spain and

Portugal to the EEC (January

1st,1986)

3.3. Tac and Quota systemdisadvantages

3.4. Socio-economic impact o

relative stability

3.5. Distortion o Competition

3.6. Conclusions

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

129

131

137

137

137

141

141

144

144

145

146

146

147

147

147


5/110126

CLUPES

CA

CHAPTER 4Overcapacity o Community feets:Comparative study o shing eort andquota in the European Union

4.1. Introduction

4.2. Fishing Power and Quota

4.3. Fishing eort reduction evolution

4.4. Hypothetical case o balancebetween power and quota4.5. Need to reorm the CFP4.6. Conclusions

CHAPTER 5

Dierentiated regime or small-scalefeet in the New Common FisheriesPolicy

5.1. Introduction

5.2. From perception to reality

5.3. The denition o small-scale feet

5.3.1. A decentralized denition and

the application o IndividualTranserable Quotas (ITQs

5.4. Conclusions

SECTION III: THE NON-EU WATERS

CHAPTER 6The External dimension o EUFisheries: A necessary strategy

6.1. Introduction

6.2. Figures

6.3. Objectives

6.4. Strategies

173

175

175

175

177

177

178

178

179

179

180

181

181

181

182

182

182

182

6.5. Conclusions

SECTION IV: THE CHALLENGE OF

EUROPEAN FISHING COMPANIESCOMPETITIVENESS

CHAPTER 7

Exports: a competitive element o theSpanish Fishing sector

7.1. Introduction

7.2. Exports trends

7.3. Exports by sh groups

7.4. Main species

7.5. Exports destination

7.6. Conclusions

CHAPTER 8Fish products trade and markets withinthe uture Common Fisheries Policy

8.1. Current situation

8.2. Factors to be taken intoconsideration

8.3. Possible uture strategies

8.3.1. Organisation o the supply

8.3.2. The POs action measures

(the toolbox)

8.3.3. Product dierentiation

8.3.4. Promotion

8.3.5. More ecient control o

imports

8.3.6. New markets

162

162

162

163

163

165

165

166

166

166

168

168

168

170

170

171

171

173

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page


6/110

127

CL

UPESCA

8.4. Conclusions

CHAPTER 9The internationalization o companies

in the reorm o the CFP: the paradigmo Community shing companies inthird countries

9.1. Introduction

9.2. Proposals or action

9.3. Conclusions

CHAPTER 10The nancial state aid within the uture

Common Fisheries Policy

10.1. Introduction

10.2. Priority axles in the utureFisheries Fund

10.2.1. Aids or environment

sustainability

10.2.2. Aids or economic

sustainability

10.2.3. Aids or social sustainability

10.3. Conclusions

SECTION V: COOPERATION AND

DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 11

The inclusion o Joint Ventures in theFuture Common Fisheries Policy

11.1. Introduction

11.2. Promoting investment in thirdcountries

11.2.1. Fisheries agreements without

catch opportunities

11.2.2. Investments reciprocity

191

192

192

192

194

194

194

195

195

195

196

196

198

204

11.3. The creation o jobs

11.4. The maritime good governance

11.5. Supply to Community market

11.6. Conclusions

SECTION VI: INTEGRATION IN OTHERCOMMUNITY POLICIES

CHAPTER 12The role o the Common Fisheries

Policy within the Integrated MaritimePolicy

12.1. Introduction

12.2. Objectives

12.3. Strategies

12.3.1. Environmental aspect

12.3.2. Economic aspect

12.3.3. Social aspect

12.4. Conclusions

CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSALS

ANNEX IObservations to the Green Paper on

the Reorm o the CFP.(Presented by the Port o Vigo Vesselsowners Co-op to the EuropeanCommission in 2009)

183

184

184

185

185

186

186

186

187

187

188

188

190

190

191

191

191

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page


7/110

129

CL

UPESCA

anagement towards sustainable development began to spread throughout the sheries sectorin the second hal o last century. Since the end o the 70s, concern about the conservationo shing resources has conditioned policies as well as proessional and business activitiesthrough internationally ranging regulations such as the International Convention on the Lawo the Sea rom the UNO, the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) rom the EU, or those issued byRegional Fisheries Management Organisations in international waters.

In the case o the Spanish sheries sector, the new political context derived rom the extensiono territorial waters to 200 miles, together with the precautionary approach in management,has brought about signicant restructuring. In the case o Spain, converting shing to otheractivities was not a straightorward task as was the case in other European States. I Spanishports were to cease receiving sh, the eects would be elt in other sectors such as shprocessing or marketing. In some regions, such as Galicia, these consequences would bemultiplied i we take into account that over 50 activity sectors are directly dependent onshing activities.

We reer thereore, to a region highly dependent on shing. Moreover, this is a region

where shing has reached very high levels o competitiveness. The main actors which havecontributed to this are the capacity to adapt, capacity to integrate, technological innovation,extensive knowledge and international capacity.

The keys to survival and to the reinorcement o the Spanish sheries sector, and thereoreo European sheries, ully coincide with the strategy refected by the Commission,endorsed by the Parliament and the Council, in the document Europe 2020. A glance at thisdocument reinorces the idea that shing is and should remain a strategic sector or the EU.The initiative o the European Strategy 2020 with regard to the consolidation o the homemarket by struggling against national protectionisms and a clear orientation towards theinternationalisation o small and medium companies is the reerence that the sector needsto continue onward.

Centring in on the orthcoming reorm o the Common Fisheries Policy, both the GreenPaper and a large part o the contributions to discussions about its content are prior to theestablishment o the European Strategy 2020. From the Spanish sheries sector, we areconvinced that the European Commission will make an eort to adapt the content o theirproposals to these directives designed to get Europe out o the economic crisis it is sueringand which could place in ineriority with respect to other competitors.

PRESENTATION

The time has come to make proound changesto the Common Fisheries Policy

M

By Javier Touza TouzaChairman o the Port o Vigo Fishing

Vessels Owners Co-operative (Arvi)


8/110

130

CLUPES

CA

We are convinced that the Commission will act rom a European stand point and not justas a reeree between the dierent national interests that come together within the EU. Webelieve that this has up to now been the biggest obstacle to the development o shing as asustainable, necessary and protable activity rom the environmental, social and economicpoint o view. The Commission must decide what is best or Europe and once this is achieved,then accept that the time has come to make proound changes to the Common FisheriesPolicy.

We are rmly committed to the conservation o the resources. Our shing industry due to itsdimensions and characteristics has a long term vision and cannot risk its uture due to badmanagement at the present time. On the contrary, we have to reject any attempt at pressure

rom the infuential capacity o States which may distort competitiveness in the sector andair play in the home market.

One o the main characteristics o our industry is the high degree o interdependence withsociety. Any decision taken in sheries policy must take account o this relationship, whichextends to all groups and institutions in which the society is represented. Among theseinstitutions, I would reer specially to Caixanova, whose support and understanding has beeninstrumental or the development o our sector. And I would also thank Caixanova or itsinvolvement in editing this book.

Europe needs shing and shing needs Europe. This book is our contribution to discussionson the uture o the Community sheries sector rom the stand point o knowledge, technicaland scientic rigor. We strongly believe that we can contribute to the creation o moresustainable, airer and more competitive shing which can guarantee the survival o theresources, the supply o a healthy and necessary ood and the maintenance o an ecientand protable economic and social structure.

PRESENTATION


9/110

131

CL

UPESCA

ishing, in terms o an economic activity dependent on a natural resource requires substantialpublic intervention. In our sector, ree market laws are subject to the characteristics o aresource that is not ours. We do not have a property available to exploit as is the casewith other primary sectors such as agriculture or livestock. However, there are those whocompare us with mining although neither do we have the same kind o autorization tooperate. Moreover, unlike the oil and coal industries, we sh or a renewable resource.Consequently, our industry sector is a catching sector and not an extractive sector as it isnormally called.

We recognize thereore, that public control o our business management is necessary. In actwe are in avour o this being so.

However, we are also aware o the dangers rom public intervention in private businesses,mainly in areas where national interests converge. Anti-dumping regulations are a clearexample o how some States have to deend themselves against the over protectionismo others in certain sectors. The main risk rom public intervention is the distortion o reecompetition.

The European Commission is once again acing the revision o the Common Fisheries Policy(CFP). It is a ramework o public intervention in a private business aecting 27 States,although not all o them have the same shing interests.

The European Union (EU) is a complex political body and one o its main pending issuesis the creation o a European identity. In the decision-making processes so ar, States haveprevailed over the citizens. In economic spheres, national interests have prevailed in eachsector over the strategic interests o the sectors. There is no European shing sector butrather as many sectors as shing States within the EU.

What has been dened as democratic decit has been one o the main restraints which theEuropean Administration model has had to ace.

These national interests are refected in the European Council, which until now has alwayshad the nal say in decisions. Since the Lisbon Treaty came into eect, the Council has toagree with Parliament on most issues; this has been called co-decision procedure. Citizens,thereore, have gained prominence, as it is assumed that the Parliament is the refection opopular will.

INTRODUCTION

Fisheries policies should progress towardssustainable and competitive fshing within the

ramework o the European Single Market

F


10/110

132

CLUPESCA

However, in the absence o a eeling o European identity, the national actor is still playingan important role in all discussions.

For this reason, the EU created a third institution, whose main unction is to encouragethat identity. The European Commission acts as a saeguard o the treaties over and abovepersonal interests. Europes uture depends on its perormance and credibility

The Commission has the obligation o ormulating, rom a European point o view, theproposals that will then have to be adopted by the States in the Council, and by the citizenso those States in Parliament. And to be credible they must make every eort to ensure thatexclusive competition policies such as shing and market consolidation succeed.

So ar, the Common Fisheries Policy has been an exponent o ailure in that role. TheCommissions two major concerns with regard to shing have been: on the one hand, topreserve the resource in terms o sustainability and, on the other, to integrate the dierentnational interests under the guarantee o complying with the spirit o reedom and equalopportunity as refected in the Treaties. The desired results have not been achieved in eithero them.

We ully agree with the idea that the priority in environment and natural resources relatedpolicies should be the preservation o areas and habitats. We have a responsibility to

ensure the uture o orthcoming generations and an obligation to move towards renewableresources, whether in energy or any kind o productive activity.

We also assume that there is a responsibility to the present time, which concerns the supplyo a undamental, healthy and necessary ood, the maintenance o the livelihood o tens othousands o proessionals, and the generation o wealth essential to the development ocommunities dependent on shing.

It is necessary that these two responsibilities, the present and the uture, be compatible. And

this can be done because shing is a renewable resource whose conservation is possiblewith good management and a responsible attitude by the industry and proessionals. Theimprovement o knowledge is the only way to achieve this. Uncertainty can ensure thesurvival o the resource, provided that a precautionary approach is applied, but it does notallow us to ulll our responsibility to the present. We can not thereore resign ourselves toa policy based on reliance on the precautionary approach, but rather on investments and theprovision o means or marine research applied to sheries management.

The management model, which is summarized in the volume o catches or each species,the Total Allowable Catch (TAC), and its quota allocation to the States, all based on scientic

recommendations and political criteria, has not worked to ensure sustainability o theresources. National interest lobbies gave rise at due time to an allocation model based onrelative stability in which one o the variables was the existence o communities highlydependent on shing in some Member States in 1976. Later on, States such as Spain or Portugaljoined the EU, and had to accept the established conditions. In act, the Hague Preerencesdetailing the European regions highly dependent on shing, have not yet been modied soas to assume that in Spain and Portugal there are areas with these characteristics.

As expected, this pattern o shing opportunities distribution has aected the competitiveness

INTRODUCTION


11/110

133

CLUPESCA

o national sheries sectors. The data presented in this book show that the objectives ostability have not been achieved through these distribution criteria, as the infuence o the

sheries sector in each State has changed signicantly as a result o relative stability.

I there were to be a genuine concern or Europe by society and by the European economy,right now there would be no States with excess shing opportunities while shermenrom other States are orced into unemployment because the quotas assigned to them areinsucient. This is one o the consequences o relative stability. An unair situation whichclearly benets the sheries sector in some States to the detriment o others. In view o theeconomic and social consequences, it is not hard to guess what the position o each o themwill be aced with the reorm o the CFP.

And i the quotas do not refect economic reality, the TACs will not conorm to the Europeansheries characteristics. In terms o shing, most o the European feet is multispecic. Thatis, the feet sails out to sea in search o several species o sh. However, the total allowablecatches (TACs) are set or each species. This means that when the quota or a species isexhausted, those species or which the quota is not exhausted will have to continue to beshed. This causes a huge amount o discards insoar as individuals o the ormer must bethrown back into sea. The situation is still worse i no quota is available or one o these species,since it is then obligatory to discard rom the very beginning o the shing operation.

A shing eort regulation system would avoid these undesireable consequences o thecurrent management model. It is only a matter o shermen knowing how long they cansh and with which gear and power, in order to ensure the objectives o the conservationo resources. Here again, the characteristics o national feets and their interests have so ardetermined decision-making.

Those in avour o maintaining the current management model o the Common FisheriesPolicy nd reuge in environmental excuses to deend their positions. However, everythingsaid need not aect conservation objectives. We have not reerred to how much can be

shed but rather how shing opportunities available will have to be allocated. Thereore,no one can say that intervention is strictly due to environmetal reasons. Moreover, it seemsthat the national interests o those who have been avored by the CFP have prevailed overconservation objectives.

This ailure o the CFP becomes even more obvious i consideration is given to the act thatthe sheries sector has had to renounce some o the undamental principles o the EU liberalmodel. Today it is still impossible or a sherman or shing company rom a Member Stateto acquire quotas rom those wishing to sell them in another Member State, thus impedingthe existence o a ree market. The individual and transerable shing rights system works in

major shing nations worldwide where there is a concern or sustainability, such as Icelandor New Zealand. It was a sucess in all cases. In addition, this is the system that best suits theEuropean economic model. Thereore, there is no compelling reason or this model not to beimplemented once and or all in the current reorm o the CFP.

Each time the Spanish shing sector denounces the situation o inequality in which it mustcompete, with an allocation based on the relative stability that benets other States, with aspecic management system or a multispecies feet and unable to buy the quota it needs,the reply is that Spain is the State which has benetted most rom EU support. But the truth

INTRODUCTION


12/110

134

CLUPESCA

is that such aid has been granted to a great extent in order to adapt the feet to this model,mainly by reducing capacity. That is, aids with which Spain has had to nance the loss o

competitiveness in strategic sectors such as sheries. In many cases, the true beneciaries othis aid were other competing European feets, which have gained specic weight.

This has been the case or over 24 years but it is now time to change the policy i Europe isnot to renounce a sector o great imporance socially and economically, especially in thoseareas which are still highly dependent on sheries.

Moreover it has had to ace, to a greater extent than other sectors, the challenge ointernationalization. According to the 2020 European Strategy, the economic uture o the

EU depends on knowledge and internationalization. That is the recipe or Europe against thecrisis. But the Spanish shing industry has experienced its particular crisis since the UnitedNations extended the Exclusive Economic Zone to 200 miles and years later, Spain joined theEU. Both circumstances orced the quest or alternatives to maintain wealth and employmentin an industry that knew how to accomplish vertical integration processes sucessully. We arenot just talking about shing in terms o the catching activity, but also about processing andmarketing o seaood. The homework that the economic sectors have been set by Europe,has already been done years ago by the shing industry.

In terms o maintaining and supplying this industry, it has been necessary to nd solutions

such as investing in third countries. Today there are many European companies participatingin the capital, production acilities and knowledge o companies established in those thirdcountries which have sheries resources available. The recognition o these investments andtheir benets to Europe (sh supply, job creation and added value) and the development othird countries must be one o the objectives o the reorm o the Common Fisheries Policy.

The success o internationalization together with the integration strategies (vertical andhorizontal), gives a measure o the competitive importance shing could reach i once andor all it were to be addressed rom a European and sector common perspective.

It is in the Commissions hands to build a true European shing sector where competitivenessis measured by its ability to cope with the shing industries rom third countries and not byinternal struggles between producers rom the Member States. It can do so without sacricingthe objectives o resource conservation. Regardless o the shing opportunities available, it isnecessary to ensure a distribution that avors European competitiveness and a managementmodel that places European feets in a better position to compete.

Improved scientic, economic and social knowledget should also be ensured to achieve afeet that combines these needs in competitiveness with sustainable development. Europe

must help to renew the feet without relinquishing sustainability.

We must recognise the Commissions bravery by presenting all these controversial questionsin the Green Paper.

I the Commission now alls into the trap o immobility, i it does not accept an in depthchange to the Common Fisheries Policy, it will be condemning Europe to be less competitiveand allowing a small number o States to gain a small amount o specic weight in theinternal sheries sector. It will contribute to a less competitive Europe taking advantage o the

INTRODUCTION


13/110

135

CLUPESCA

more competitive one by means o an inexplicable protectionism by some Member States,quite contrary to the principles o the internal market that should be the beacon illuminating

the new CFP.

The European Administration is also committed to and responsible or the simplication o itsgoverning actions in order to, on the one hand make rules more accessible and understandableand, on the other, to ensure savings in the expenditure involved in an overly complicatedbureaucracy or an excessively interventionist economic policy. Fishing is a mature industrythat can undertake the management o its business under clear rules and strict control. Thisis one o the great opportunities oered by the reorm o the Common Fisheries Policy, giventhat the current model o intervention has led to the expenditure o large amounts o public

money in the management o a private feet, without achieving the goals o adapting shingcapacity to the resources and distorting competition.

The Cluster o Fishing and Producer Sector (Clupesca) and the Fishing Vessel OwnersCooperative o the Port o Vigo (Arvi) represent the horizontal integration strategy that hasstrengthened the Spanish shing sector in ace o threats to its competitiveness. And theyhave done it rom the dual perspective o knowledge and internationalization as alreadyexplained. Arvi has a proessional structure to serve its members, made up o economists,lawyers, biologists, experts in human resources, etc. Its department o Research, Developmentand Innovation promotes and participates in more than ty projects to make shing more

sustainable, ecient and competitive.

This book is the result o the joint work carried out by these technicians, and its conclusionshave been discussed and agreed with shing proessionals whose knowledge o the activityshould constitute one o the main sources o inspiration or sheries policies. The contentsare intended as a rigorous and documented contribution to the discussions on the GreenPaper and the subsequent phase o consultations, which are the oundation on which theCommission intends to build the new Common Fisheries Policy.

INTRODUCTION


14/110

137

CLU

PESCA

P R E F A C E

Introduction

The Cluster o the Fishing and Fish Producer Sector(Clupesca), was established on the 22nd June 2007

and is made up by the union o business organizationsin the shing feet industry. The Port o Vigo Vesselowners Co-operative and nine associations oshing vessel owners o dierent types and shingmethods as well as two producers organizations oresh and rozen sh have initially ascribed to theCluster which has born with the intention to integrateand unite other shing and producers organizationsin the sector. Thereore, we now invite all those whomight be interested in joining it.

Today, the Vessel owners Co-operative, the shingassociations and the producers organizations thatmake up this cluster represent the most relevantgroup o shing vessel owners in Spain and one othe most important one in the European Union. Thisallows to maintain a privileged position as regardsrelations with the Regional, National and Europeanadministrations, which are essential in trying to

address the present and uture o the CommonFisheries Policy (CFP), easing daily ormalities with

those authorities concerning matters o interest tothe feet and, now, to meet the challenge o researchand technologic development in the shing feetsector.

Clusters Initial Composition

Most o the sheries sub-sectors engaged in theactivity o shing feets are represented in this Cluster,

rom the coastal feet (purse seiners), to the types oshing vessels operating in the Spanish coast andPortugal waters; the feet operating in EU waters oGran Sol and longliners including resh and rozen shshing vessels operating in the worldwide oceans, aswell as Spanish high sea shing feets which includecompanies owning cod shing and reezing vessels.Also, Spanish shing companies with investments inthird countries are represented in this cluster.

Introducing the Cluster othe Fishing and Producer Sector

1.

2.


15/110

138

CLUPE

SCA

Fishing Vessels Owners Co-operative o the Port o Vigo, Galicia Cooperative (ARVI)

It was ormally established on the 2nd December 1964 with the purpose to encourage economicand social improvement or its members, through their combined eorts, joining orces ora common cause. Besides the dierent services rendered to its member, ARVI has beendeveloping technologic research, development and innovation activities or 7 years becominga Technologic Centre or the shing sector.

National Association or Owners o Hake Fisheries Freezing Vessels (Anamer)

This Association covers the entire country and includes the ship-owners o all Spanish shreezing vessels which sh mainly or Hake, Cephalopods (Illex and Loligo), Redsh, Greenlandhalibut and other species. The main species caught by ANAMERs member ships, as its nameindicates, is Hake which is processed and rozen on board, presented as whole, gutted andheadless, in llets, skin-on or skinless, in sh blocks, sausage, by-products such as wings,vale, roes, etc... Nevertheless, this feet also produces important quantities o other species,amongst them we can mention: Greenland halibut, Redsh; Loligo, and Illex which quantities

unloaded have reached real substantial gures in the rozen products market. The mentionedcephalopods are processed as whole or in the orm known as tube or eviscerated tube.

This Association includes the largest and most technologically advanced shing boats o theSpanish Fleet. The average duration o each trip made by these vessels is 5 months.

National Association o Fishing Vessels Owners in Gran Sol (Anasol)

ANASOL is made up o shing vessels owners which develop their activities in European Unionwaters, not Spanish, mainly o Ireland, the United Kingdom and France, in VI, VII and VIII areaso the International Council or the Exploration o the Sea (ICES). The majority o this feet isormed by trawlers, but there are also some longliners and a smaller number o vessels usingdritnets.

Trips made by these vessels vary between 10 and 18 days, bringing dierent species o sh tothe market or trading as resh, o which we can point out: Megrim, Monksh, Hake, Octopus,Ray, Illex, Plaice, Horse mackerel, Mackerel, Ling, Prawn, Pollack, Red Gurnard, Tope, SeaBream, Loligo, Blue Whiting, etc.Most o the companies associated with ANASOL have

a amiliar trait as revealed by the act that, in this Association we observe the eature onecompany, one vessel.

PREFACE: Introducing the Cluster o the Fishing and Producer Sector


16/110

139

CLU

PESCA


National Association or Owners o Mixed Fisheries Freezing Vessels (Anavar)

This is a nation-wide Association which includes trawl reezing vessels that alternate theiractivities in various shing grounds and catch dierent species.

Fishing vessels belonging to ANAVAR are medium sized reezing trawlers and the main speciescaught by member vessels are: Illex, Loligo, Octopus, Cuttlesh, Hake, Flounder, Witches,Skate, Redsh, Red Hake, Greenland Halibut and Prawn.

The duration o trips o this feet depends on the shing ground where they sh and the speciesthey sh or at any given time. The duration can be three or our months on average.

Association o EU Companies in Fishing Joint Ventures (Acemix)

This is the most recently established Association which satises the need to join the ownerso large to medium sized reezing vessels which due to dierent circumstances have had toestablish Joint-Ventures with non-EU countries throughout the world (Argentina, Chile, Peru,

Namibia, Falklands, Mozambique, Brazil, South Arica, Morocco, etc.) Member vessels sh orHake, Loligo, Illex, Red Hake, Kingklip, etc.

The trips in general are as short as 1-2 months duration as they are located in the waters onon-EU countries.

National Association or Owners o Deep Sea Longliners (Anapa)

This Association was established with a national basis, in April 1988 in the interest o thelongliner reezing vessel owners, the modality o which has had intense development duringthe last years.

Vessels belonging to this Association are sh reezing boats operating as deep sea longlinersalthough they can also operate with other shing gear. They sh or Swordsh, Porbeagle andother Sharks, all o these being species characterised by their migratory conditions moving inthe surace or in mid water. The duration o trips made by these vessels is between 45 and 90days. The activity o this feet is diversied on three Oceans: the Atlantic, the Pacic and theIndian Ocean.

National Association or Owners o Cod Fishing Vessels (Agarba)

A national wide Association which comprises cod shing vessels that sh in Svalbard, Norway,NAFO and in shing grounds in international waters. Trips made by pairs o cod trawlers varybetween 3 and 6 months-. Cod is processed salted and dry and most recently rozen.


17/110

140

CLUPE

SCA

Producers Organisation or Fish Freezing Vessels o Hake, Cephalopods and Various Species.

(OPPC-3)

This Producers Organisation covers the entire country and was established in 1986 ater theSpanish adhesion to the European Economic Community. The OPPC-3 assembles trawlers,

longliners and cod shing vessels which produce rozen sh.

The main species caught by vessels that make up this ProducersOrganisations are: Hake,Loligo, Illex, Swordsh, Greenland Halibut, Redsh, Cod etc.

The main objective o the OPPC-3 is to rationalise shing and to enhance sale conditions or itsmembersproduction. The Producers Organisation prepares annual shing plans in order toadapt supply to market requirements o the time.

Pontevedra Provincial Association or Owners o Purse Seiner Vessels (Cerco)

This Association which scope is within the province o Pontevedra, unites those coastal vessels thatwork with purse seiners which vary in size, ranging rom 14 to 40 GRT. The feet works in waters o

the Galician Ras and along our coast. The main species caught by these vessels is the Sardinealthough they also sh or Mackerel, Horse mackerel, Sprats and others. The duration o trips madeby these vessels varies between 4 and 12 hours bringing resh sh o the day into port.

Pontevedra Provincial Association o Vessels Owners or Spanish and South Portugal Coastal

Fishing (Arposur)

Vessels ascribed to this Association are trawlers which have always alternated their shingactivities between Waters in Spanish jurisdictions mainly in the Galician coast and PortugueseWaters. At present, there are two separate vessel registration lists, one or Spanish territorialwaters and the other or the Portuguese coast.

Arposurs scope is within the province o Pontevedra and this feet brings resh sh into port.The main species caught by these vessels are: Monksh, Hake, Octopus, Pout, Horse mackereland Nephrops. The average trips or vessels in this Association vary between one and our daysor those shing in Spanish territorial waters and up to ten days or those shing in Portugal.

Provincial Association o Owners o longline and other shing gears o Pontevedra (Arpoan)

The scope o this Association is within the province o Pontevedra and is composed by vesselsthat sh with surace longlines. The activity o Arpoan feet depends directly on the species it

shes or: Swordsh, Mako Shark, Blueshark, Pompano and Tuna, al o them with a markedmigratory character. Due to this characteristic, the vessels o this Association have to cover alot o grounds since they depend on the migration o these species.



18/110

141

CLU

PESCA

Fresh Fish Producers Organisation o the Port o Vigo (OPPF-4)

It was established in July, 1986, and its scope is within the province o Pontevedra includingvessels which catch or resh sh and use dierent shing methods.

The main species caught by the feet belonging to this ProducersOrganisation are: Hake,Megrim, Monksh, Pompano, Swordsh, Sardine and Mackerel. The OPPF-4 vessels sh invarious shing grounds: in E.U. waters, the Atlantic international waters and Spanish territorial

waters using dierent shing types, trawling, longlining and purse-seining.This Producers Organisation annually prepares shing plans in order to adapt supply to marketrequirements and to rationalise shing activities carried out by its member vessels. The OPPF-4also arranges shing limits or some species in order to obtain a greater stability in prices and,i applicable, it enorces the withdrawal procedures provided by EU regulations.

The Fishing Vessels Co-operative o the Port o Vigo,as well as the various associations and producersorganizations that make up the Cluster, havecollaborated or years in sheries research related

issues in Spain, contributing to the development ovarious research projects run by dierent researchorganizations.

In light o the resolutions and documents issuedby the United Nations Food and AgricultureOrganization (FAO), the European Commission anddierent research organizations on the sustainabilityo sheries resources, responsible shing, illegalshing, international cooperation, environment,

etc., the Cluster decided to continue their previouscollaboration activities with shing researching and inaddition to lead consortiums in research, technologicdevelopment and innovation (RTDI) projects , disclosureand dissemination o results, awareness o shermenin training programs, experience exchange andpromotion o best practices in the shing industry.

The objectives guiding the Cluster actions in this eld

are linked to the generation o services to support theSpanish shing sector development in the eld oresearch, technologic development and innovation.

The basic target o the Cluster is simply to improveadded value (impact) o services provided to itsassociated companies (as regards quantity and qualityo RTD projects) and the shing industry in general.

This undamental objective will thereore be moreproactive to improve the competitiveness o the Spanishshing sector and increase private participation innancing RTD activities.

The aims and activities o the Association are:

Perform research, technologic development and

innovation unctions undamentally in the eldso quality control o products, standardization andhomologation, sh production and processing;technology transer, business innovation, renewableenergies, environment protection, new materials and

3.

4.

Experience and initiative inResearch, innovation andTechnologic development

The objectives and activitieso the Cluster o the Fishingand Producer Sector



19/110

142

CLUPE

SCA

others which allow to enhance the competitivenessand production development o the shery industry.

Contribute to the transfer of research output,

promoting research co-operation betweencompanies and any other instrument intended toraise the technology and competitiveness levelin shing companies, providing assistance andtechnological services, such as quality, productionorganization, training, inormation, documentation,dissemination, legislation, design or environment.

Ensuregreaterknowledgeandstudyofscienticand

sheries prospection and oceanographic research.

Address technological needs inshing companies

and organizations requiring it.

Promotecooperationbetweencompaniesasregards

research, technological development and innovationtasks.

Triggerandeasethecontributionfromthescience-

technology-business system to internationalcooperation programs in terms o scientic researchand technology development.

Strengthenand expand the cultureofcooperation

in research and technology development among allplayers in the science-technology-business system;stimulating wider projects to cover the maximumnumber o activities in the value chain.

Encourage RTD projects development focused on

the energy eciency, reducing production costs andemissions o gases that cause warming eect.

Carryoutanyotheractivitythatresultsinimproving

the technology level in companies based in Spain sothat they can achieve a more avourable position in

the market.

Encouragean increasingqualicationandtraining

o human resources, to achieve continuousimprovement o technological capacity o shingcompanies.

Promote actions to improve shery products in

terms o quality, hygiene and sanitary

Develop such other activities to complement or

enhance the objectives set out above

Participateinresearch,developmentandinnovation

projects relevant to the extractive and sh producersector



20/110

SECTION I:

KNOWLEDGE AND DECISION-MAKING IN THE

COMMON FISHERIES POLICY


21/110

144

CLUPESCA

C H A P T E R 1

Current situation

The European Common Policy or sheries sector hasresulted in a large number o regulations, directivesand decisions1 which is giving rise to considerableexpenses or European companies insoar as thebureaucracy that this policy entails2.

This bureaucracy could be simplied i greaterscientic, technical, economic and social knowledgeo the sector were available. At present, 62% osh stocks are unknown to scientists due to a lacko sucient data. What is more, this percentage o

unawareness o sh stocks in scientic advices notonly has not diminishing but rather has been on theincrease during this last decade3, which clearly showswe are not going in the right direction. The Scientic,Technical and Economic Committee (STECF) whichadvises the Commission on sheries matters has hardlyany socio-economic data or reports on which to assessthe impact that reductions in shing opportunities will

have on dierent areas.

Normally, the STECF advice is limited to biologicaldata supplied in the orm o Scientic Reports by theInternational Council or the Exploration o the Sea

Knowledge in the utureCommon Fisheries Policy

1.1.

1By the 1/03/2009, the EU legislation in orce incorporated 795 shing-related acts. See COM(2009) 261 nal.2For example, the current control system itsel means an annual expense o 80 million euros or the EU companies (See COM (2009) 261 nal, page 8).3In 2003 the unknown stocks equalled 50% o total stocks See COM (2010) 241 nal (consultation on 2011 shing opportunities).


22/110

145

CLUPESCA

(ICES) in spite o the act that the Council mandate,established in 2003, clearly and precisely stated that

the STECF shall be consulted at regular intervalson matters pertaining to the conservation andmanagement o living aquatic resources, includingbiological, economic, environmental, social andtechnical considerations.4.

The sector is also unaware o any scientic reports ordocuments which analyse the situation on a shery byshery basis in order to compare feet capacity withtrue shing opportunities and thus determine whetherover capacity o shing feets exists or not and in whichshing zones or areas this occurs. The Commission inits Green Paper on the Reorm o the Common FisheriesPolicy (CFP) only mentions overcapacity in generalterms but does not go into detail about which feetsand in which areas this overcapacity exists, which inturn makes it very dicult or EU shing companies tomake plans or their uture.

Furthermore, the knowledge rom RTD and innovationprojects nanced under the 7th Framework Programme(2007-2013)5 has not been coordinated nor adequatelylinked to the priorities o the sector in the dierentsubjects. This again is not a good indication that weare going in the right direction towards a deeperknowledge o the sector both rom the point o viewo resources and with regard to social and economicaspects.

We should thereore assume that the balance o thecurrent sheries policy rom the point o view oscientic, technical, economic and social matters isnot in good health and or this reason radical change isappropriate i we wish to adequately protect resourcesand saeguard the survival o EU shing companiesparticularly in those areas highly dependent onshing.

Steps orward

Given the lack o scientic, technical, economic andsocial knowledge, as is the case o the Communityshing sector, other sectors with the same problem

usually orm what are known as knowledge-basedsocieties or triple propellers, which are basically ajoint eort between scientists, administrations andthe sector or sectors aected.

For this reason, the new CFP should support theestablishment o common houses in order toaccommodate the triple propeller in their questor more precise and rigorous knowledge on thesustainability o resources and on socio-economic

aspects derived rom the management measuresadopted within the ramework o the CFP. In particular,this would mean establishing committees or eachmajor shery or shing area made up o scientists,administrations and the sectors involved by way otheir most representative associations.

1.2.

4Article 33 o the EC Council Regulation No. 2371/2002 o 20th December 2002. The current CFP is regulated by this Regulation.5Decision 2006/1982/EC o the European Parliament and Council o 18/12/2006.

CHAPTER 1: Knowledge in the uture Common Fisheries Policy


23/110

146

CLUPESCA

In order to save costs, the current Regional AdvisoryCouncils (RACs) could act as common houses

providing that scientists and administrations areincluded as members with ull rights and participatein the signing o decisions adopted by these councils.I this were to be the modus operandi, there wouldhave to be two levels o discussion and analysis:the rst one between scientists, administrations andrelevant sectors and a second level in which the rest othe stakeholders involved could contribute with theiropinions and comments on the decisions prepared onthe rst level.

Furthermore, it is necessary to deepen in maritimeknowledge in order to guarantee long termsustainability o sheries resources. Perhaps the beststrategy would be to provide incentives or proessionalshermen who are those who best know the day today situation at sea so that they can complement theirshing activities with others related to the protectionand understanding o the environment, making better

use o species or discards, direct collaboration withscientists, etc6.

With regard to the 8th RTDi Framework Programmewhich will start in 20147, it would be necessary tochange the selection procedure or the projects tobe nanced under this Programme. The principlewhereby projects are born within the companiesand then developed by research institutions andorganisations should be applied. This procedure,reerred to as Living Lab, should be applied tothe selection o projects made via the FisheriesTechnology Platorms as their principal componentare the companies rom which the projects shouldstem.

Lastly, training o proessional shermen is veryimportant, not only in shing activity and saety butalso in activities related to the marine environment

sustainability. The reorm o the CFP should includea section on training as one o the main objectives, sothat the shing activity orms part o young peoplestraining and education particularly in areas highlydependant on shing.

How to research

Normally the Commission appoints research institutes,advisors, universities, etc to undertake studies andreports on dierent matters. In turn, these institutionsusually resort to associations, cooperatives, producersorganisations, sheries guilds, etc. via questionnairesin order to gather inormation. This means thatthe ground work is almost always provided by seaproessionals or their representatives.

With the object o saving costs in the EU budgets, itwould be a good idea i the Commission were to use,with greater requency, the Experts Panels, made up osea proessionals and/or their representatives, who are,ater all those who undertake the major part o the work.

1.3.

1.4. Conclusions

The EU shing industry suers rom an acute

inormation decit and hence, rom a lack oscientic, technological, economic and socialknowledge.

The joint involvement o scientists,administrations and relevant sectors is the bestmeans to achieve a higher level o inormationand knowledge o the marine environment. Thetriple propeller, which involves cooperationbetween scientists, administrations and thesector, would work to nd optimum solutionsor the three parties involved and as such,would be an ideal tool to reach better marineenvironment knowledge base.

On the other hand, an RTDi process based onLiving Lab, that is a bottom-up process isnecessary with the companies establishingpriorities in terms o knowledge through

Technology Platorms.

It is also necessary to improve marine andsheries training in matters related not onlyto saety and shing techniques, but also tomarine sustainability.

6See the Commissions paper: Guidelines on positive environmental initiatives to be taken by the shing sector (Guardians o the Sea).7The current 7th Framework Program implementation period goes rom 2007 to 2013.

CHAPTER 1: Knowledge in the uture Common Fisheries Policy


24/110

147

CLUPESCA

Introduction

At present, there are several Committees orconsultation and advise to the Commission in theshery industry whose main task is to help to achievethe aims xed by the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP),it means, long term sustainability o resources andcompetitiveness o the EU feet. However, the nature

and structure o those Committees does not alwayswork in a coordinated manner and occasionally itdelivers contradictory results which hinder the goodmanagement o resources.

Today, the existing Committees are:

Advisory Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture

(ACFA)8

It was established in 1971 and renewed in 1999. Itcomprises 21 members rom dierent sectors suchas shing, aquaculture, processing and trading,trade unions, NGOs, consumers, banks, etc.

Governance within the CommonFisheries Policy. ImprovingFunctioning o Consultation andAdvisory Committees in EU Fisheries Industry

2.1. 2.2.

8See the Commission Decision No. 2004/864/CE.

C H A P T E R 2

Assessment and AdvisoryCommittees

CHAPTER 2: Governance within the Common Fisheries Policy.I i F ti i C lt ti d Ad i C itt i EU Fi h i I d t


25/110

148

CLUP

ESCA

While scientists rom the International Councilor the Exploration o the Sea (ICES) and rom

National Research Institutes are not members o thisCommittee they can participate as experts and/orobservers.

ACFA is a Commission dependent advisory body. Itsstructure includes our working groups: resources,aquaculture, markets and general questions. Eachgroup normally meets about three times a year. TheExecutive Committee and the Assembly (Plenary)also meet three or our times a year.

Advices on sheries matters are normally adoptedbut it is or the Commission to decide whether theyshall be published or not.

The Regional Advisory Councils (RACs)

RACs9 as provided or in the Common Fisheries Policyare structured on a regional basis but not all o themmeet this requirement. There are seven RACs: Baltic

Sea, North Sea, Mediterranean10

, NorthwesternAtlantic Waters, South Western Atlantic Waters,Pelagic Species and Long Distance Waters. Theytotalised 2611 working groups which also meet aboutthree times a year, each o them.

Unlike the ACFA, RACs members are not restricted;however two-third o each RAC members shallbe allotted to representatives o the shing andaquaculture sector. The remaining members arerepresentatives rom NGOs, national administrations,etc. Advices on sheries issues are also adoptedbut in this case, they may be published without theCommissions authorisation.

Scientists rom the ICES and national researchinstitutes are not members o the RACs12 thoughthey may be invited to participate as experts.

The Social Dialogue Committee on Sea FisheriesIt was established in 1999 and comprises social

partners (business and union associations). Amongother issues, it deals with proessional training and

other aspects related to health, hygiene and saetyon board ships.

Members meet three or our times a year.

The Scientic, Technical and Economic Committee

or Fisheries (STECF)It was established in 1993 and renovated in 200513.The STECF is a scientic body o the Commission,which advises on scientic, technical and economicaspects o sheries. Currently it comprises 32members rom research institutes and universitiesin the European Union (EU).

The sector is not involved in this Committee asa member but it may participate as observer onlimited occasions. It normally meets two or threetimes a year and its activity ocus on analyzing andissuing advices on the International Council or the

Exploration o the Seas annual scientic reports.

The International Council for the Exploration of the

Seas ( ICES)This organisation was established in 1902. It coordinatesand promotes marine research in the North Atlanticincluding the North Sea and the Baltic Sea. The ICESdecisions are taken by over 1600 scientists rom 20member countries including the EU.

Its recently renewed14 structure is occasionallycriticised or its excessive bureaucracy and or theapproval date o scientic advices on which themanagement measures taken by Commission arebased.

On the other hand, the ICES itsel assumes thata substantial number o advices on stocks-areasare based on the precautionary principle since the

existing data on biomass and shing mortality areinsucient.

9See the Council Decision 2004/585/CE.10The Mediterranean RAC has not come into operation yet.11Baltic Sea RAC has three WG; North Sea RAC has ve WG; Pelagic RAC has two WG; Northwestern Waters RAC has 4 WG, Southwestern Waters RAC has seven WG,and the Long Distance RAC has ve WG.12Article 6 o the Council Decision 2004/585/CE sets out that scientists are invited but not members.13Commission decision 93/619/CE, as amended by Decision 2005/629/CE.14ICES Scientic advices were provided by three expert advisory committees on Fisheries, Ecosystem and Environment. Now; there is only one Advisory Committee(ACOM) which manages dierent dependent groups in charge o gathering data, analysing the revision and preparation o advices. See www.ices.dk.

Improving Functioning o Consultation and Advisory Committees in EU Fisheries Industry

CHAPTER 2: Governance within the Common Fisheries Policy.I p i F ti i C lt ti d Ad i C itt i EU Fi h i I d t


26/110

149

CLUP

ESCA

15The European Fisheries Fund Committee, which is responsible or structural unds. The Committee or Fisheries and Aquaculture Sector is responsible or the rameworkregulation (2371/2002) and the Committee or Fisheries Products is responsible or market issues (EC Regulation No. 104/2000).


The industry, through its organisation structure, isinvited as observer to attend the Working Groups

meetings, which normally take place several timesthroughout the year.

Comitology Committees

These committees, consisting o Member Statesrepresentatives and chaired by the Commission areconvoked to discuss issues related to the CommonFisheries Policy. There are 3 committees15 in chargeo addressing conservation o resources, structuralunds and market aspects. The sector can not attendto these Committees.

European Parliament (EP) and the European

Economic and Social Committee (EESC)Finally, we must remember that the EP and the EESCalso issue advices in connection with the CFP. Forthis purpose, their respective committees shall alsomeet several times a year.

Coordination and eciency

From our point o view, the large number o existingcommittees and working groups as well as the hugenumber o meetings that take place each year (overone hundred), obstruct the coordination between themin an eective manner so as to enable a successulachievement o the Common Fisheries Policy targets.This lack o coordination is causing several problemsthat impede, in practice, to have a clear horizon towhat should be done, when and how, with regard tosustainability o resources and competitiveness o thefeet. Some o these problems are:

HighcostfortheEUBudget,tonancethemajority

o meetings.

Shortage of human resources both from the

Commission and Member States, Scientists, NGOs,industry, etc. to attend so many meetings.

Duplicity and overlapping of issues that

occasionally are repeatedly addressed at dierent

meetings. For example, issues directly related tothe RACs (state o sheries, management plans,

recovery plans, TACs, closures, technical measures,etc.) are eventually dealt with by the AdvisoryCommittee or Fisheries and Aquaculture (ACFA)and by any o its working groups. On the otherhand, general issues (industrys crisis, markets,feet competitiveness, etc) normally addressedwithin the ACFA, are also covered by some o theRACs Working Groups.

Lack of time todealwith issues requiring longer

periods o thoughts. On some occasions, theCommission urgently requests the opinion romWorking Groups and/or the ACFA as well as romthe RACs without having much time to discussissues in detail.

Lack of an efcient coordination between the

Commission, Member States, scientists and theindustry. There is no Committee or Working Group

where members rom the administrations, theindustry and scientists are jointly involved. Thissituation is slowing down management based on theTriple Propeller (Administration-science-industry)that is carried out in the sheries sector and othersectors in most o the developed countries ( USA,Canada, Australia, New Zeeland, Norway, Island,etc.).

Strongfeelingonthepartofthesector,although

it is oten consulted on many issues and in manyworking groups, that it is taken into account onew occasions. The sector has no knowledgeabout opinions issued by the committees andgroups in which it participates being ollowed-upso that it can know which it has been taken intoaccount.

SolutionsIn the Clusters opinion, the aorementioned problemscould be addressed through any o the ollowingoptions:

2.3.

2.4.

CHAPTER 2: Governance within the Common Fisheries Policy.Improving Functioning o Consultation and Advisory Committees in EU Fisheries Industry


27/110

150

CLUP

ESCA

Option A:It would consist in keeping the Committees and

working groups organisation structure unchanged,increasing human resources and establishingchronograms to prevent overlapping. This optionwould not solve the problem o coordinationbetween administrations, scientists and the industryand would be more costly or the EU budget.

Option B:It would consist in starting rom the very beginningby eliminating the Committees and Working Groupswhere the industry intervenes and creating newmixed Committees or Groups made up by theCommission, administrations, scientists and theindustry. Working plan o these new Committees andGroups would be such so as to avoid overlapping.

However, this option would be too dicult toimplement bearing in mind that the existingstructures cannot be removed beore a reasonable

time and that it has to be made gradually.

Option C:It would mean to maintain the existing Committeesand working groups with only one change: the RACswould t in scientists as members instead o invitedExperts.

Issues directly related to sustainability o resourcesin each shery would be dealt with within the RACsand its working groups. Functioning would be asollows:

Each RAC, whose organisation structure is opento all shermen, would issue its advices where, ipossible, agreed opinions rom the Commission,administrations, the industry and other stakeholdersas well as rom scientists would be included asregards aspects directly linked to each shery

(technical measures, plans, TACs, ecosystems,control, etc.). Advices would be sent to theInternational Council or the Exploration o the Seas(ICES) and to the Advisory Committee on Fisheriesand Aquaculture (ACFA) or consideration. Finally,the Scientic, Technical and Economic Committeeor Fisheries (STEFC) would issue the relevant adviceor the Commission which would take it into accountand put it orward to the Council o Ministers.

It would be a bottom-up decision-making processwhich would make it easier and clearer to accept and

comply with the CFP rules.

In relation to issues that are not directly linkedto the management o resources like markets,structure, International policy, operational costs,work organisation on board, proessional training,etc., they would be discussed within the AdvisoryCommittee on Fisheries and Aquaculture (ACFA) andits Working Groups as well as the Social DialogueCommittee. In so doing, overlapping and duplicitiesbetween the various working groups would beavoided


ACFA:

Advisory Council or Fisheries and Aquaculture

CC:

Comitology Committees

SDC:

Social Dialogue Committee

STECF:

Scientic, Technical and Economic Council

ICES:

International Council or the Exploration o Seas

RACs:

Regional Advisory Councils

EESC:

European Economic and Social Committee



28/110

151

CLUP

ESCA




29/110

152

CLUP

ESCA


Conclusions

The Cluster o the Fishing and Producer Sectoreels that the current unctioning o the variouscommittees and working groups as establishedto achieve the CFP aims o sustainability oresources and competitiveness o the EU feetentails serious problems o coordination,eciency, high costs and lack o time to lookater and analyse each subject properly.

It urther notes that, even though the sectoris called to attend a number o meetings orconsultation on many issues, its opinion isseldom taken into account in the outcome.

The above problems could be avoided i themanagement model known as. Triple Propellerwould be applied where the administration,science and the industry work in a coordinated

manner rom the beginning o the decisionmaking process.

Consequently, in our opinion, the best solutionwould be to include scientists as members o theRegional Advisory Councils (RACs), which areopen to all stakeholders, and that joint analysisprocess between the Commission, nationaladministrations, scientists, industry and otherstakeholders on matters directly related to

the each shery management (plans, TACs,technical measures, controls, etc.) would startrom the RACs leaving issues related to marketstructures, general questions and social andlabor conditions or the Advisory Committeeon Fisheries and Aquaculture and the SocialDialogue Committee.

This way, a bottom-up decision process would

turn out which would greatly help the industry tounderstand and accept the rules and, ultimately,to better design and implement the CFP.

2.5.

In our opinion, option C would be the most suitableinsoar management would be based on the TriplePropeller model and work overload, overlapping,duplicities, etc. would be avoided.


30/110

153

CLUP

ESCA

SECTION II:

THE EU-WATERS:

MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES AND FLEETS


31/110

154

CLUPESCA

Abstract

3.1.1. Relative stability

The Green Paper on the Reorm o the CommonFisheries Policy (CFP) has raised a debate about one othe current CFPs mainstays: relative stability.

By means o this criterion, Member States quotaallocation has remained constant since 1983 based onan invariable rate o each o the stocks considered oreach Member State. The voluntary exchange o over-quotas is allowed, but the exchange and/or transer oquotas between companies o dierent Member Statesis not allowed. This is an exception to the undamental

principles o the Treaty o Rome and an importantobstacle or the internal market, cornerstone o theTreaty o Lisbon.

The idea o relative stability was interpreted bythe Council in 1983, as such given the temporarybiological situation o stocks must saeguard theparticular needs o regions where local populations

are especially dependent on sheries and relatedindustries16.

3.1.2. Biological consequences

Despite most Member States still support relative

Management o resources in thenew Common Fisheries Policy:the relative stability and internal resh shmarket in the European Union

3.1.

16See Whereas 6 and 7o Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83.

C H A P T E R 3

CHAPTER 3: Management o resources in the new Common Fisheries Policy:the relative stability and internal resh sh market in the European Union


32/110

155

CLUP

ESCA

stability as a cornerstone o the uture CFP, the truth isthat TACs and quota system, in which relative stability

is based, is the main cause o discards, mostly in multi-species sheries. It is clear or all scientists that orthe challenge o achieving the Maximum SustainableYield (MSY) in sheries it is essential to graduallyreduce discard; this aim is not compatible with a TACand quota system such as the current one.

3.1.3. Socio-economic impacts

The report that we have made studies the evolution,during the period 1997-200817 o the key elements toweigh up the socio-economic activity o any sector:employment and business activity. Evolution in theamount o vessels, engine power and employmentin the six main Member States competing or reshsh catches in the EU-waters have been compared:Denmark, France, United Kingdom, The Netherlands,Ireland and Spain.18

The results show an important change in the relativestability o the above mentioned countries withregards to socio-economic aspects. Thus, it can beseen how some States reduced their relative specicweight over that period, as ar as employment, shingeort or production units are concerned, while othersincreased them.

3.1.4. Distortion o competition

In the light o some States losing more jobs, morevessels or more shing power than others, bothregarding absolute and relative values, it can beseen that the resh sh market is experiencing animportant change in relative stability in shing highlydependent regions. According to the sector, this is theconsequence o neither being able to change quota

percentages allocated to each Member State nor tobuy or sell such quotas between companies o dierentMember States.

These eects arising rom the relative stability arecausing distortions o competition among the six

States, some o them losing specic weight at theexpense o some others achieving it. It is clear that this

distortion could be anticipated when the starting point,that is to say, the constant allocation o quota shares,was very dierent and neither air nor in accordanceto each Member States specic weight o shing. Theallocation was political, not based in the historicalrights o each feet.

The important changes as a consequence o thesuccessive enlargements o the European Communitysince 1983 have never been considered to update

relative stability o shing activities. The particularneeds o the new accessed regions where localpopulations are especially dependent on sheriesand related industries have been clearly ignored.Relative stability o shing activities has been wronglyconsidered something xed and unchanging, ar romreality.

According to the sector, this situation is seriously

damaging the internal market consolidation, it is notmoving towards the sustainability o resources sinceit contributes to discards. This is causing a certainrelocation o shing units due to political, not economicreasons that are endangering the survival o someareas highly dependent on sheries and, thereore, theobjective that was aimed at when relative stability wasapproved in 1983.

Historical background

3.2.1. Relative stability: agreement in 1983

In December 1976, the Commission proposed tothe Council, the establishment o TACs or the mainspecies, on the basis o the scientic reports o theInternational Council or the Exploration o the Sea(ICES) and o the Scientic and Technical Committee

or Fisheries (nowadays also Economic), dependent othe Commission.

TACs were allocated among Member States byestablishing quotas or the main species, allowingStates that made a joint request to swap them.

17Latest available data at DG Mare website: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/sheries/index_en.htm.18The 6 Member States represent 80% o the shing possibilities in the EU-waters:

3.2.

y p



33/110

156

CLUPESCA

Nevertheless, as it happened with the debate aboutaccess conditions, 6 years went by beore the Council

adopted the Commissions proposals. The Treaty oAccession o 1972 established a period, beore 1978,in which the Council, acting on a proposal rom theCommission, should determine conditions or shingwith a view to ensuring protection o the shinggrounds and conservation o the biological resourceso the sea19.

However, since no agreement was oreseen beorethe established period,20 the Council decided to stop

the clock, until an agreement or the allocation wasnally reached, as collected in Regulation (EEC) No170/83. The criteria that were accounted or were theollowing:

A. Traditional shing activities.Average o catches during the period 1973-1978,deducing by-catches exceeding authorised limits, aswell as species used or reduction to sh meal and

oil.

B. Particular needs o regions where local populationsare especially dependent on sheries. These regionswere dened by the Council in the The HaguePreerences and were interpreted as ollows:

For Greenland: an important part of catch

opportunities in its waters.

ForIreland:in1979doublethevolumeofcatcheso 1975.

ForNorthernUnitedKingdom:keepingaminimum

catch potential equal to the landings operated in1975 by the vessels below 24 meters, at the portso North Ireland, Scotland and the East coast oEngland up to Bridlington.

C. Lost o catch potential in third country waters21.It is the dierence between what a State is in act

authorized to sh and what could have shed ithe 200 miles extension had not been in orce. Theestimation o the theoretical volume o these catcheswas calculated by taking the average percentage othe species considered, or the period 1973-1976,multiplied by the TAC o the species, i this wasknown, otherwise its estimated value.22

All in all, this allocation regime, known under thename o relative stability, guaranteed each Member

State a constant share o a specic stock until theCommission would submit a report on the economicand social development o the coastal areas, beore31 December 1991. Based on that, the Council wouldenact provisions eecting the necessary adjustments,although there was a possibility o extending accessconditions regime and quota allocation criteria, untilDecember 31, 200223.

The idea o relative stability was interpreted by theCouncil as ollows: given the temporary biologicalsituation o stocks, it must saeguard the particularneeds o regions where local populations are especiallydependent on sheries and related activities, as theCouncil dened it at The Hague Compromise24.

3.2.2. The accession o Spain and Portugal tothe EEC (January 1, 1986)

Almost three years ater the approval o Regulation(EEC) No 170/83, the Treaty25 o Accession o Spainand Portugal to the European Economic Community(EEC) was approved. Article 166 o this Treaty , madeit clear that the regime o access o Spain to the EU-waters, as well as the allocated catch share wouldexpire on December 31, 2002. Beore that date, the

19Article 102 o the Treaty o Accession.20United Kingdom and Ireland supported the principle o national contribution to resources in such a way that quota allocation should account or catches conductedin British and Irish waters The rest o States and the Commission opposed to that arguing that the equal access principle invalidates the concept o national contribution.21This criterion was the last to be included due to the pressure o United Kingdom and Germany.22In act, 100% o lost catches due to the 200 miles extension could not be compensated or by coastal countries. Community resources were not enough, stocks wereimpoverished and coastal shing could possibly be damaged. This prevented United Kingdom, Germany and France rom receiving 100% o compensation.23The writing o the article 4 o Regulation 170/83 is ambiguous. The report o the Commission to which section 2 o this article reers could either be the report drawn upbeore 1992, or the one that had to be drawn up beore December 31, 2002.24See whereas 6th and 7th o Regulation (EEC) No 170/83.25Treaty o Accession, chapter IV, Pesca, BOE o 1/1/1986.



34/110

157

CLUPESCA

Council, in view o the social and economic Report thatthe Commission should draw up on coastal regions,

would undertake the necessary adjustments andadaptations.

But the truth is that the allocation provided to Spainby the Treaty o Accession not in keeping with reality,neither as regards absolute nor relative values andwith a transitional period o 17 years26, is nowadaysstill in orce.

Some conditions, such as the prohibition on access

to the Irish Box or the sheries plans, were partiallyeliminated beore that date27, but some others werenot. Thus, the quota share allocated to Spain, includedin article 161, is still in orce. Also the prohibition onaccess to the North Sea, the Baltic Sea, etc.

Spain, with regions highly dependent on sheries, hasnegotiated a reciprocal access system to the EU-watersby the Spanish feet and access to Spanish waters by

the feets o other Member States. In return, Spainrenounced to their historical rights in the EU-waters,as included in the London Convention, 1964.

The Spanish market was another big compensation. Theprogressive removal o taris, allowed or other Statescatches to be brought into Spain, big sh consumer incomparison to the low consumption in these countries.This way, Spain progressively opened its market; inreturn, it accepted to keep the access conditions and

quota allocation provided by the Treaty o Accession oSpain and Portugal until December 31, 2002.

Tac and quota system disadvantages

There are several scientists and reports28 that emphasizethe serious biological problems arising rom the TACsand Quotas management system approved in 1983

and that is based on the relative stability.

Thus, all o them agree that this system contributes to

discards, especially in mixed sheries, that produce,as scientists highlight, a reduction o biomass and a

reduction o the reproductive potential o the discardedspecies. Furthermore, discards have an infuence onthe quality o scientic data, since some times theyare not accounted or, thus altering the assessmentso sheries biomass.

On the other hand, discards are a ocus o criticism tothe sector by the public opinion because o the misuseo biological resources.

Other disadvantages are the excessive bureaucraticworkload o this system, both or administrations andthe sector, as well as the act that TAC quota allocationdoes not consider the evolution, since 1983, o thefeet, shing gears, stocks, etc.

Socio-economic impact o

relative stabilityAlthough it is true that shing possibilities werereduced in the EU waters since stability was appliedin 1983 (see Figure 1), it is also true that those feets,like the Spanish, which experienced a political quotaallocation, and not based upon the historical catches inthe EU-waters, are suering more than other MemberStates or the reduction o shing opportunities, bothin absolute and relative terms.

That is to say, Spain is losing employment, catchingunits and shing eort aster than the rest o itscompetitors in the EU-waters. This has been caused byan initial quota allocation (1986) absolutely insucientor the majority o sheries in which the Spanish feetparticipates.

The above can be seen by comparing the evolution

o the socio-economic elements (amount o vessels,power and employment) or a specic period o time29,among the dierent feets competing in the EU-waters:

26See document: Revisin de la Poltica Pesquera Comn. SEGEMAR, December 2009, page 23.27Article 162, provided or the possibility o making adjustments and adaptations to the access regime and quota allocation, coming into eect on 1/1/1996.28See, or exemple: M. Sissenwine and D. Symes Refections on the Common Fisheres Policy. July 2007. Fernndez, Alvaro. Is the UE policy on the management o sheryresources a rational and Community Policy?. House o Lords. European Unin Committee, July 2008.29The periods chosen are those corresponding to the latest data available by the Commission. For the evolution in the amount o vessels and motive power, the period is1997-2008, whereas or the evolution o employment, the period is 1998-2004.

3.4.

3.3.



35/110

158

CLU

PESCA

the French, the Danish, the Dutch, the Irish and theSpanish. (see Figures 2 and 3).

Thus, considering share quota allocation amongMember States, we can see that Spain, main shproducer and consumer in the EU, obtains only 6% oshing possibilities in the EU-waters, whereas otherMember States, with ar less vessels and engine

power, have more shing possibilities, since the initialallocation was decided based upon relative stability, in1983, three years beore the accession o Spain to theEU (see Figure 1).

Figure 2 refects how rom the year 1997 to the year2008, the amount o vessels and the global power othe six feet analyzed have been reduced by 26% andby 21% respectively. But, i we analyze the specic

weight o each feet, we can see that Spain represented42% o the amount o vessels in 1997, while in 2008 thispercentage becomes 36%. That means that Spain hasbeen losing up to six percentage points in its specicweight with regards to the other 5 Member States,between 1997 and 2008. Denmark also lost weight(-2), while France (+4), United Kingdom (+2), Ireland(+2) and The Netherlands (+1) have gained weightwhen compared to 1997.

In other words, the six countries have reduced theirfeets, but such reduction has not been carried out ina way proportional to the size each feet had in 1997,since some were losing relative weight and othersgained it in 2008. And Spain is the most aected bythis change in the relative stability that has takenplace in the amount o vessels.

The same can be said about shing eort capacitywhich is a concept directly related to feet power. Figure2 shows how the Spanish feet power represented 31%o the total power o the six countries; whereas in 2008,this percentage is reduced by 4 points, going down torepresent 27% o the total power.

The Netherlands and Denmark reduce their relativeweights by one point, while France and Ireland gain

5 and 1 point, respectively. Only United Kingdommaintains its specic weight in the allocation o enginepower.

Clearly, Spain is losing economic weight in thesheries sector since it is reducing its productionunits and its shing capacity to sh daily becauseit is also losing engine power aster than itscompetitors.

6%6%

8%

16%

44%

20%6%

6%

8%

16%

44%

20%

FIGURE 1



36/110

159

CLUPESCA

FIGURE 2



37/110

160

CLU

PESCA

How are these data refected on employment onboard?

Figure 3 shows that the evolution is similar to thepower and amount o operative units. In this case,

the last period or which we have data is that between1998 and 2004. In this period, Spain loses relativeweight in the global employment oce o the sixStates analyzed, going rom 62% o total employmentin 1998 to 57% in 2004. On the other hand, Franceincreases its weight in this period by 4 points, Irelandby 2 points and The Netherlands by 1 point. Denmarkloses weight by 2 points and United Kingdom keepsthe same percentages.

As a corollary to this study, Annex IV depicts howSpain has lost this specic weight in the EU-watersshing, since it is by ar the one that devoted morepublic unds to its feet withdrawal. During the period1997-200730 Spain has withdrawn 64% o the global

feet capacity o the six Member States, measured upin GTs. Far behind are France (11%), The Netherlandsand United Kingdom (9%), Denmark (5%) and Ireland(1%).

This big eort to contribute to sustainable andresponsible sheries has not been supported by theother ve Member States with the same intensity,what makes the sheries map in Europe to be gradualand progressively modied.

Distortion o competition

One might ask i a feet like the Spanish (that islosing relative weight with regards to its most directcompetitors, both in the amount o units and eortcapacity and employment) could be more ecient andthereore more competitive than beore.

30Apart rom these withdrawals there will be those arising rom the ramework o the Spanish Fleet Adaptation Program (Regulation EC No. 741/2008).

3.5.

FIGURE 3



38/110

161

CLUPE

SCA

The answer would probably be yes in other sectors,but in the sheries sector the loss o specic weightcomparing to the feets o other Member States,necessarily means a loss o competence and, thereore,o the market. In act, Spanish regions such as Galicia,are experiencing a relocation o shing units towardsother Member States, with the only aim o being ableto sh and be competitive31.

Thereore, the opinion o the sector is that the relativestability approved in 1983 or quota allocation isprogressively causing a distortion o competitionamong Community feets, since there was analteration o feets relative stability, eort capacity andemployment.

Conclusions

In the opinion o the sector we represent, oroshore feets operating in the EU-waters, amanagement system only based in shingeort, measured up in power and shing daysand a system o individual shing rights that canbe transerred among Community companies,thus liberalizing shing rights Communitymarket, would allow or a sustainable shing,since it shall acilitate control and eliminate

discards and shall make companies competein the market on an equal basis and with thepossibility o transerring shing rights romthe less ecient units to the most ecient one.

This way, the restructuring needed in somesheries would be carried out by the marketand there would be no need or relocatingcompanies rom some regions to others. That

is, this system would guarantee the Communityprinciples o reedom o capital, goods andservices movement in the sheries sector,eliminating the exceptions to these principlesthat are currently in orce in the CommonFisheries Policy.

3.6.

31Some 10 Galician vessels have fagged out over the past year, operating under the French, British or Irish, feet, due to the lack o shing opportunities in the EU-waters.

FIGURE 4


39/110

162

CLU

PESCA

Introduction

In con

Libro Reforma Ingles

Documents

Transcript of Libro Reforma Ingles