\n
In accordance with Council\nRegulation (EC) No 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable\nexploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries\nPolicy (CFP), the Commission presents a report on the operation of\nthe CFP with respect to chapters II and III.
\n
The Commission is also\nobliged to report on the arrangements set out in Article 17\nparagraph 2 on fishing restrictions in the 12 nautical miles waters\nby 31 December 2011. This report complements the reporting in the\nGreen Paper on the Reform of\nthe Common Fisheries Policy.
\n
Chapter II -\nConservation and Sustainability: the\nreport notes that since 2002, multi-annual recovery and management\nplans with clear objectives and harvest rules have become the core\nof the conservation policy, and it gives an overview of the\ninitiatives undertaken in this area. Community plans were adopted\nfor 17 stocks in the EU waters. By the end of 2010, around 25% of\nthe stocks and 80% of the catches concerned (in tonnes) can be\nconsidered under multiannual plans and harvest rules. The 2010\nCommunication on consultation on fishing opportunities showed\nimprovements in the situation since 2003: a decrease in the numbers\nof stocks outside safe biological limits, as well as in stocks for\nwhich a fishing closure has been advised. However, of the stocks\nfor which robust data is available, over 60% is still fished\nbeyond maximum sustainable yield. Progress has been made as\nregards the levels of Total Allowable Catches (TAC) adopted by\nCouncil, compared to sustainable catch levels: on average, Council\nexceeded advice by 45%, with peaks as high as 59% (2005) and 51%\n(2008), but the gap between the advice and the result has narrowed\nin the last two years, and the 23% gap in the decision for 2011 is\nunprecedented. There has been an increase in the number of stocks\nfor which no scientific advice is available.
\n
From this overview it can\nbe confirmed that:
\n
\n- multi-annual plans are more effective in taking a\nlong-term perspective in managing stocks than the annual TAC\ndecision-making, especially since Council has started to respect\nthe rules of the plans for the TACs;
\n- nevertheless, the framework resulting from the 2002\nCFP reform has not curbed over-fishing enough, so EU fisheries\ncontinue to see declining catches taken from EU waters;
\n- the very significant gap between the levels of TACs\nagreed in Council and sustainable catches confirms the prevalence\nof short-term concerns over long-term sustainability. This\ncontinues to put stocks at further risk, though the recent\nnarrowing of the gap is a significant step forward;
\n- while vital to sound policy making, the knowledge base\nis under constant pressure, impeding progress in the coverage of\nstocks for which scientific advice is provided;
\n- the new CFP needs to provide the right tools for\nintegrating the ecosystems approach fully into conservation and\nsustainability.
\n
\n
Chapter III - Adjustment\nof Fishing Capacity: in 2002,\nresponsibility for adjusting the size of the fleet was devolved to\nMember States. From then on, targets for mandatory cuts to fishing\ncapacity were no longer set. Nevertheless, there were still global\nlimits on fishing capacity per Member State, and these have been\ncomplied with. However, it is clear that there is still\nsignificant over-capacity, and this is still a serious problem.\nThe devolution of fleet management to Member States has not led to\nsufficient cuts in fleet capacity, even if nominal capacity is\nwithin the ceilings set for Member States. Adjustment has been\nrelatively slow, despite the poor state of stocks throughout the\nEU. The drop in fleet capacity decrease is nominal, and has stayed\nbelow what is considered the technological development rate of the\nfleet. As there are no real yardsticks for success, it has not been\npossible to verify what progress has actually been made. In short,\nthe policy on adjusting the size of the fleet has not delivered\nsatisfactory results.
\n
All Member States have\ncomplied with legal fishing capacity limitations. Though some had\ndifficulties when the new rules came into force, today most Member\nStates have fleets with capacity under the ceilings they are\nallowed. This margin averages 10% in tonnage and 8% in power. This\nmeans that reductions in the size of the fleet were partly achieved\nwithout public aid. Given that Member States have complied with\nfishing capacity management rules, Article 16 on the conditionality\nEU funds for the fleet has never been applied.
\n
Lastly, the report notes\nthat Member States are obliged to report on fleet capacity, and\nthis is an essential component of the policy. The results assessed\nare not satisfactory. Member States have reported to the Commission\nannually, providing information for the Commission's annual report\non the state of the fleet. However, the reports might have been\nexpected to show an excess of fishing capacity, the most important\nissue at stake, and the data available is inconclusive. The\nreporting tool has not enabled precise estimates of excess fishing\ncapacity per segment or fishery.
\n
In view of the above, some\nconclusions can be drawn concerning the performance of the fishing\ncapacity management provisions:
\n
\n- despite compliance with the fishing capacity\nmanagement rules defined at EU level, there are still clear\nindications of over-capacity in the EU fleet, namely excess of\nfishing mortality in some stocks, low profitability and low\ncapacity utilisation;
\n- while tonnage is a reliable fishing capacity\nindicator, the Commission has serious concerns about the reported\npower of fishing vessels, as the data suggest under-declaration,\nmaking it extremely difficult to estimate fleet capacity\naccurately;
\n- the policy is static, in that it only establishes a\nceiling, with no specific objectives for reduction. Compliance with\nnominal capacity limits under these ceilings does not mean that\nthere is no persistent overcapacity. The system does not integrate\ntechnical progress into the management measures. However, due to\ntechnological progress, a static capacity ceiling leads to\novercapacity;
\n- it has proven very difficult to set clear objectives\nfor the size of the fleet and to monitor the balance between\nfishing capacity and fishing opportunities due to the complexity\ninherent in quantifying over-capacity. Determining an adequate\nlevel for the size of the fleet given a certain amount of fishing\npossibilities needs to take into account factors other than the\nbiological and economic.
\n
\n
Article 12 - fishing\nrestrictions in the 12 nautical miles waters: since 2002, the Commission has not been not informed\nof real problems on specific restrictions, whether on setting them,\nor on their management and functioning. Member States were able to\nresolve problems without having to refer any of them to the\nCommission. The regime is very stable, and the rules have continued\nto operate satisfactorily. All Member States stressed the\nimportance of the specific restrictions in the light of their\noriginal objectives in their reactions to the Green Paper on CFP\nreform. One Member State suggested extending the 6-12 miles regime\nto 10-20 miles to achieve the regime's objectives more effectively.\nConsidering the current conservation state of many stocks and the\ncontinued sensitivity of coastal waters for conservation, as well\nas difficulties in coastal areas highly dependent on fisheries and\nunlikely to benefit from other economic development, the objectives\nfor the specific regime appear to remain as valid as they were in\n2002. Modifying current arrangements might disrupt the balance that\nhas developed since the introduction of the special\nregime.
\n
\n
PURPOSE: to present a Commission report on Council\nRegulation (EC) n° 2371/2002 regarding the chapters\nConservation and Sustainability and Adjustment of Fishing Capacity\nand also on the arrangements set out in Article 17 (2) on fishing\nrestrictions in the 12 nautical miles waters.
\n
CONTENT: in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No\n2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of\nfisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), the\nCommission presents a report on the operation of the CFP with\nrespect to chapters II (Conservation and Sustainability) and III\n(Adjustment of Fishing Capacity) as well as on the arrangements on\nfishing restrictions in the 12 nautical miles waters. This report\ncomplements the reporting in the Green Paper on the Reform of the Common\nFisheries Policy.
\n
Conservation and sustainability: since 2002, multi-annual recovery and management\nplans with clear objectives and harvest rules have become the core\nof the conservation policy. They balance ecological requisites\n(state of the stocks and exploitation rates) and economic and\nsocial considerations (stability of catches).
\n
Improvements in the situation since\n2003: a decrease in the numbers of\nstocks outside safe biological limits, as well as in stocks for\nwhich a fishing closure has been advised. However, of the stocks\nfor which robust data is available, over 60% is still fished beyond\nmaximum sustainable yield.
\n
Progress has been made as regards the levels of Total\nAllowable Catches (TAC) adopted by Council, compared to sustainable\ncatch levels. There has also been an increase in the number of\nstocks for which no scientific advice is available.
\n
The Commission’s report confirms that:
\n
\n· \nmulti-annual plans are more\neffective in taking a long-term\nperspective in managing stocks than the annual TAC decision-making,\nespecially since Council has started to respect the rules of the\nplans for the TACs;
\n
\n· \nnevertheless, the framework resulting from the\n2002 CFP reform has not curbed overfishing enough, so EU\nfisheries continue to see declining catches taken from EU\nwaters;
\n
\n· \nthe very significant gap between the levels of\nTACs agreed in Council and sustainable catches confirms the\nprevalence of short-term concerns over long-term\nsustainability. This continues to put stocks at further risk,\nthough the recent narrowing of the gap is a significant step\nforward;
\n
\n· \nwhile vital to sound policy making, the\nknowledge base is under constant pressure, impeding progress\nin the coverage of stocks for which scientific advice is\nprovided;
\n
\n· \nlastly, the new CFP needs to provide the right\ntools for integrating the ecosystems approach fully into\nconservation and sustainability.
\n
2) Adjustment of fishing capacity: in 2002, responsibility for adjusting the size of\nthe fleet was devolved to Member States. From then on, targets for\nmandatory cuts to fishing capacity were no longer set.\nNevertheless, there were still global limits on fishing capacity\nper Member State, and these have been complied with.
\n
However, it is clear that there is still\nsignificant over-capacity, and this is still a serious\nproblem. The devolution of fleet management to Member States has\nnot led to sufficient cuts in fleet capacity, even if nominal\ncapacity is within the ceilings set for Member States. Adjustment\nhas been relatively slow, despite the poor state of stocks\nthroughout the EU.
\n
All Member States have complied with legal fishing\ncapacity limitations. Though some had\ndifficulties when the new rules came into force, today most Member\nStates have fleets with capacity under the ceilings they are\nallowed.
\n
Lastly, Member States are obliged to report on fleet\ncapacity, and this is an essential component of the policy. The\nresults assessed are not satisfactory. The reporting tool has\nnot enabled precise estimates of excess fishing capacity per\nsegment or fishery.
\n
In view of these considerations, some conclusions can\nbe drawn concerning the performance of the fishing capacity\nmanagement provisions:
\n
\n· \ndespite compliance with the fishing capacity\nmanagement rules defined at EU level, there are still clear\nindications of over-capacity in the EU fleet, namely: excess of\nfishing mortality in some stocks, low profitability and low\ncapacity utilization;
\n
\n· \nwhile tonnage is a reliable fishing capacity\nindicator, the Commission has serious concerns about the\nreported power of fishing vessels, as the data suggest\nunder-declaration, making it extremely difficult to estimate fleet\ncapacity accurately;
\n
\n· \nthe policy is static, in that it only\nestablishes a ceiling, with no specific objectives for\nreduction. Compliance with nominal capacity limits under these\nceilings does not mean that there is no persistent overcapacity.\nThe system does not integrate technical progress into the\nmanagement measures;
\n
\n· \nit has proven very difficult to set clear\nobjectives for the size of the fleet and to monitor the balance\nbetween fishing capacity and fishing opportunities due to the\ncomplexity inherent in quantifying over-capacity. Determining an\nadequate level for the size of the fleet given a certain amount of\nfishing possibilities needs to take into account factors other than\nthe biological and economic.
\n
3) Fishing restrictions in the 12 nautical miles\nwaters: the objectives related to\nintroduction (before entry into force of the CFP) of specific\narrangements in the waters up to 12 nautical miles were: (i)\nconservation of fish resources through allowing only small-scale\ncoastal fleets into the area; (ii) preservation of coastal fleets'\ntraditional fishing activities to maintain the social and economic\ninfrastructure of these areas.
\n
These specific restriction provisions were introduced\nin the CFP in 1983 and have been extended with every reform of the\npolicy since.
\n
Since 2002, the Commission has not been not\ninformed of (real) problems or conflicts on specific\nrestrictions, whether on setting them, or on their management\nand functioning. Member States were able to resolve problems\nwithout having to refer any of them to the Commission. The\nregime is very stable, and the rules have continued to operate\nsatisfactorily. All Member States stressed the importance of the\nspecific restrictions in the light of their original objectives.\nOne Member State suggested extending the 6-12 miles regime to 10-20\nmiles to achieve the regime’s objectives more\neffectively.
\n
Considering the current conservation state of many\nstocks, and the continued sensitivity of coastal waters for\nconservation, as well as ongoing difficulties in coastal areas\nhighly dependent on fisheries and unlikely to benefit from other\neconomic development, the objectives for the specific regime\nappear to remain as valid as they were in 2002. Modifying\ncurrent arrangements might disrupt the current balance that has\ndeveloped since the introduction of the special regime.
\n