TECHNICAL MEASURES AND

Transcription

1 The New CFP TECHNICAL MEASURES AND LANDING OBLIGATION EP Committee on Fisheries Public Hearing 7th April 2014 J. Manuel Liria Franch

2 Technical Measures and LO EU fishing is complex with many mixed fisheries in which, big and small vessels of different MS, with different gears, are working in direct competence, not only at sea but also for the markets. A coherent set of Technical measures and a proportionate Control system (both basic elements of fishing management), are of primordial importance for the fishing sector, to ensure a level playing fieldforallthe f ll fishers, aswellaslong termenvironmental,economic l t l i and social sustainability. But the actual reality is different: There is a general consensus, that the actual rules are dispersed, too complex and difficult to interpret, control and enforce. Actual TMs are not compatible with the new CFP. 2

3 The limits of the Legislative Process Modification attempts blocked by institutional conflicts between Commission, Council and EP on TMs and LTMP. Only provisional measures approved lately. The legislative process is too long and more onco decision (30/40 months av.) The rules are too rigid. Sector claims cannot be met: Simplification (was considered urgent back in 2004 and never comes) Regional approach, micro management: one size does not fit all. Hear and consider the advice of the fishers. (On Regulations and implementation) Adaptability of the rules and temporal validity regulation of fishing gears. Decisions close to the ports. Specifically directed to address concrete issues. Evaluation and elaboration of TR in cooperation with the fishers. Quick reaction to adapt to changing circumstances Management in real time. All that is unthinkable, vacuum aspirations, that the system cannot deliver. Co legislators should be conscious that radical changes are needed on the legislative process allowing for local intervention (make different things in different places on real time), and counteract the industry feeling that their opinions are not taken into account (Top down approach) 3

4 Technical Measures and LO are in conflict Actual rules are discard based, and force fishers to discard. Catch composition rules, By catch Provisions and MLS, specify just what can be landed. Discard of Reg. species is today the only alternative for: All fish caught in excess of catch composition rules Fish bellow minimum landing sizes (MLS) By catch for which the vessel has no quota A new regulatory framework must be in place for the implementation of the newcfp. The Omnibus is nota solution: Only fixes formal legal contradictions. If not, other possibilities are: Soft and progressive implementation of the LO on the different fisheries. As practicable and enforceable as it could be. To use the Regional Cooperation to build up discard plans by fisheries, that incorporate new provisional technical rules overriding the ones in force. To postpone implementation: the landing obligation will enter into force only when all relevant regulation has been aligned to the new concept. 4

5 CFP: From discard-based to L.O. Reducing discards is mainly a question of adapt quotas to catches. The CFP has a 20 years retard in discard reducing policies over other fishing countries, (NW, NZ, CAN, ICE,...) (Council opposition to changes in RS has made impossible to adopt ITQs or similar tactics) New regulation: Politically driven. As obstacles can t be removed, a fully different (and experimental) path has been chosen. AA mechanism to adapt quotas tocatches, th based on 3 flexibilities: High survival rates, Art 15.4 b) (not enough scientific studies) De e minimis exemptions e Art 15.4 c) (7 5% 5%of total annual catches) Possibility to count certain catches against target species quota (9%) Atighttimetable ( ) has been adopted. As it s a new scenario not experienced in practice, flexibilities should not be conditioned and a soft application is advisable. 5

6 Concerns and uncertainties The implementation of the LO is a big challenge for all the EU fishers; too many hold doubts about if compliance will be possible or not: 1. The future evolution of the TACs: Raising TAC levels with an impartial estimation of the discards is a precondition for the LO, but may conflictwithother CFP priorities. In mixed fisheries, unbalances in individual TACs, or changes in natural abundance (Impossible to keep all species at MSY) may create problems. Some quotas will quickly ikl be exhausted and leadto early fishery closures. TACs for data poor, shared and widely distributed stocks may cause additional problems. (Choke species) 2. The possibilities of Regionalisation and discard plans in setting technical rules adapted to the specificities of the areas and fisheries. 3. Applicationof flexibilities is still open to interpretations. There is not an IA that evaluates these risks. 6

7 The Omnibus proposal p Com(2013)889 Not an alignment with the new CFP, just a transitional quick fix. Concern among the fishers with the strengthening in Control: No input from the stakeholders ; it adds further confusion. The impact of the LO has not been analysed (Not in SEC(2011)891) Additional administrativeburden for MS and fishers: extension of the fishing authorisations, Recording of data on all catches particularly when below MCRS, deletion of 50 kg limit, etc. New rules for remote electronic monitoring (REM) & spc. observers. Separate stowage and control of marketing of catches below MCRS (traceability of undersized landed catches) Disproportionate sanctions; violations of LO serious infringement. 7

8 Conclusions The LO should be a long term objective, and everybody is still in the dark about essential aspects. Given theexperimental experimental character ofthelegislation thepriority should be in a good implementation, leaving aside a false sense of urgency. A consultation for a new technical measures framework based on new management principles has been launched, but most probably it should not be in place for, at least, the first year of the implementation of the LO. Regionaliseddiscard discard plansandand LTMPs, can be the driver to fill the gap, setting provisional rules and being the instrument for avoid a new top down approach. Omnibus proposal does not fulfil its objectives and imposes unacceptable new control measures. Again we find ambiguous rules, difficult dff to understand dand to apply, with whom it would be easy to fall in legal insecurity. (No consultation) Control should be introduced in a progressive manner,, building upon the experience gained. A soft control during the first years will help to clarify pending matters in each fishery, and to win the support and understanding of the fishers. 8

9 thank you!