Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Management of fish stocks in the Mediterranean'
C 129/28 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 27. 4. 98 Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Management of fish stocks in the Mediterranean’ (98/C 129/07) On 10 July 1997 the Economic and Social Committee, acting under the third paragraph of Rule 23 of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on the ‘Management of fish stocks in the Mediterranean’. The Section for Agriculture and Fisheries, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 5 February 1998. The rapporteur was Mr Mun˜iz Guardado. At its 352nd plenary session of 25 and 26 February 1998 (meeting of 25 February), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 118 votes for with one abstention. 1. Introduction 1. 1. The present opinion addresses the management of fish stocks in the Mediterranean, a clearly complex and delicate issue of great importance whose particular features demand a specific approach. Different fishing fleets operate in the Mediter- 1. 2. ranean: EU vessels, those from the other countries of the Mediterranean basin, and third country vessels. While the EU fleet is subject to strict rules (Community and national, in some cases), arrangements vary for each of the other Mediterranean countries and third country fleets, concentrating on migratory species (tuna and swordfish), operate with virtually unrestricted freedom. This is creating an increasingly untenable and discrimi- natory situation for all the Mediterranean countries, the EU ones in particular. 1. 3. There is a need for real, comprehensive harmon- ization: it is difficult for EU fishermen to understand why they must obey (national/EU) laws which are not harmonized with those of the other fleets present in the Mediterranean. EU fishermen acknowledge that fishing grounds 1. 4. which are at risk of being wiped out must be protected and regulated, but they cannot accept that such protec- tion should benefit other, unregulated fleets at their expense. 1. 5. Representatives of the 88 Mediterranean fisher- men’s associations met in Ibiza (Spain) on 7 and 8 June 1997. The urgent need for comprehensive arrangements, efficient management and controls on the fleets of other Mediterranean and third countries, together with vessels operating under flags of convenience, was once again emphasized, so as to combat the over-fishing to which most Mediterranean species are subject. 1. 6. The far-reaching importance of this question has already given rise to two diplomatic conferences: one in Crete (Greece) in 1994, the other in Venice (Italy) in 1996. At both conferences aspirations for the future of the Mediterranean were discussed and numerous declarations made, but since then the sector has seen that these intentions have failed to lead to practical measures going any way towards solving the problems. 1. 7. The competent bodies must make faster and more effective progress. An extremely serious situation is being met with rather too much calm, and there is little sense of realism or ambition in seeking solutions, although some national measures have been adopted over recent months (replacement of drifting gill nets in Italy using EU loans, establishment of a protected zone in Spain). 1. 8. Other widely advocated steps, however, have not yet been discussed. Among these, the Committee would highlight trade measures against countries not complying with rules for conserving resources. 1. 9. Although Community law provides for many of these restrictions, it also contains derogations for specific fishing fleets from a number of countries. There are also specific derogations for other countries. 1. 10. The fact that these restrictions continue to be flouted contributes to the exhaustion of all resources. Recovery of fishing grounds should therefore be the guiding principle of all fishery policies: Council Regu- lation (EC) No 1626/94 of 27 June 1994 (1) represented a first step in this direction. Even Regulation (EC) No 1626/94 lacks realism 1. 11. and ambition in solving the very real problems existing in the Mediterranean. The regulation has still failed to produce real, 1. 12. effective harmonization and the Mediterranean con- tinues to lack a regulation system capable of halting the deterioration of resources, the crisis affecting fleets, job losses and market distortion. The Committee therefore advocates: — safeguards for the conservation of Mediterranean fishery resources; (1) OJ L 171, 6. 7. 1994, p. 1; ESC opinion: OJ C 201, 26. 7. 1993. 27. 4. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 129/29 — consideration of the views and advice of those working in the sector on whatever measures are adopted, underpinning their implementation; The following figures outline the make-up of the 2. 2. EU fleets operating in the Mediterranean zone: — responsible marketing, to make responsible fishing Country Vessels KWt Personnel GRT both possible and sustainable; — effective checks on third country fleets practising unregulated industrial fishing at the expense of traditional fishing. 2. General comments 2. 1. ‘Mediterranean’ means ‘surrounded by land’: it is a small sea compared to others around the world, but is unique in giving its name to a clearly defined type of climate. It is home to a wide range of economically valuable species. Hake, monkfish, mullet, sole, bream, shrimp and prawn are of particular importance among demersal species: the pelagic species divide into the smaller varieties, such as sardine, anchovy, scad and mackerel, and the larger, which include bluefin tuna and swordfish. 2. 1. 1. These resources basically live and reproduce within the continental shelf area (to a depth of 180 metres). The shelf is narrow, and distributed unevenly along its shoreline. This can be seen from the following table, which also shows territorial waters in nautical miles. Country Albania Algeria Cyprus Egypt France Greece Israel Italy Lebanon Libya Malta Morocco Spain Syria Tunisia Turkey (Mediterranean) Former Yugoslavia Total Territorial waters (naut. miles) 15 12 (1) 12 12 12 6 6 12 12 12 12 12 12 (1) 36 12 6-12 (1) 12 Shelf (km2) 5 450 10 700 2 500 29 200 20 450 57 000 3 250 120 740 1 450 55 000 5 460 4 480 44 100 1 160 77 300 26 100 43 500 511 140 Spain France Italy Greece EU total 5 668 2 365 16 801 20 792 45 626 477 828 183 000 1 524 977 674 310 15 053 3 611 47 587 39 397 101 256 17 458 270 179 146 147 105 648 2. 2. 1. Appendix I describes the characteristics of the EU Mediterranean fishing fleet, as defined in the 1990 working document on guidelines for a common fisheries system in the Mediterranean. 2. 2. 2. These figures reflect the small size of undertak- ings, which are of a predominantly non-industrial character. The proximity of fishing grounds to fishing communities and ease of access to markets (at least in the Community countries) have produced a highly fragmented sector. The size of each country’s fleet depends chiefly on the size of its continental shelf area. The following table illustrates the concentration of fishing vessels in each 1 000 km2 of shelf for each EU country: Country Vessels KWt Personnel GRT Spain France Italy Greece 129 116 139 365 10 835 8 949 12 630 11 830 341 177 394 691 2 296 854 2 238 2 564 2. 3. The Mediterranean is also a major centre for the consumption of fisheries products. It has a strong tradition of seafood consumption, a densely populated coastline and a fragmented but very fluid market on which fishery produce prices are often considerably higher than on other markets. Against this backdrop, it is difficult to check on the size of catches landed — a difficulty compounded by at least two further factors: the geographic dispersal of potential landing places, and budget constraints preventing the authorities from stepping up checks (sea and land surveillance). (1) Algeria extended its territorial waters unilaterally in 1996. Spain has declared a protected fisheries zone between the Cabo de Gata and the French border. Both Spain and Algeria have decided to supervise fishing activities up to the territorial limit permitted by the Convention of the Sea. Turkey applies a 6 mile limit in the Aegean and 12 miles along the rest of its coast. 2. 4. Inspection systems, which are the responsibility of the national authorities, should, as far as possible, involve fishing communities themselves and their organ- izations, based on clear, transparent and fair rules. Fishery resources have long been exploited in the Mediterranean, sometimes under self-regulating ar- C 129/30 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 27. 4. 98 rangements put in place by fishing communities. How- ever, technological change, the increased mobility of the world’s fleets, and market globalization have finally affected the stability of Mediterranean resources. — ensure improved coordination of scientific and tech- nical research, so as to obtain optimum use of specialist bodies’ operating budgets; 2. 4. 1. As long ago as 1972, the General Fisheries Council for the Mediterranean (GFCM) (1) set up a working party on pollution in the Mediterranean. Due to the localized nature of many resources, however, countries have generally made little headway in inter- national cooperation, the GFCM being restricted to a basically consultative role. 2. 4. 2. Nevertheless, the entry of Greece and Spain into the Community in the 1980s, together with the weight of the common fisheries policy in the Atlantic (withdrawal prices, aid for modernization, etc. ) led the member states to begin a joint follow-up effort for Mediterranean fisheries. 2. 5. In the mid-1990s the European Commission’s services presented a working document on guidelines for a common fisheries system for the Mediterranean, a first step in discussing the problems and solutions to them. At this stage, it became evident that a Community policy for the conservation and management of fishery resources in the region was needed , in order to maintain fisheries assets and encourage their exploitation for the benefit of the coastal population. A series of measures was introduced to achieve these objectives, establishing a timetable and the means by which a common fisheries policy for the Mediterranean would be set up. Seven years after publication of the document, an analysis can be made of how these guidelines have evolved in the legislative, political, technical, socio-economic and international cooperation spheres. 2. 5. 1. It was made clear in the legislative sphere that, although many of the provisions of the common fisheries policy were fully applicable to Mediterranean fisheries, they had to be introduced in stages and taking constant care to protect elements peculiar to Mediterranean fishing. To this end, it was proposed to: — establish a Community basis at the highest level, reflecting the general principles deriving from the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and existing laws on technical conservation and management standards; — introduce or strengthen cooperation between Mem- ber States in the field of scientific research; — organize systematic dissemination of basic scientific data and results of work. The adoption of Council Regulation (EC) 2. 5. 1. 1. No 1626/94 of 27 June 1994 represented a significant step forward, harmonizing a number of technical measures in force in the Mediterranean. The Committee issued an opinion on this regulation on 6 May 1993, making a number of general comments which were not, unfortu- nately, fully taken on board in the regulation as finally adopted. Appendix II provides a table of the derogations under Regulation 1626/94, drawn up by the Com- mission’s DG XIV. 2. 5. 1. 2. Despite the advances made in the legislative field, real and effective harmonization is far from being achieved in the Mediterranean. This will only be possible by gradually removing all current derogations, when not scientifically justified, and applying the same technical measures to all fleets. The aim is to ensure a minimum, non-discriminatory reference framework for all Member States. If the proposal in its current form should prove unacceptable to any country, the relevant aspects of the regulation should be revised so that it is the same for all the countries upon which it is binding. In this regard, it is not acceptable for draft regulations to be consolidated which, even if for a transitional and limited period, constitute a serious precedent which could jeopardize efforts to secure a more structured fisheries conservation policy in the Mediterranean, as argued in the ESC’s opinion (2). 2. 5. 1. 3. To summarize, progress is possible in terms of stricter legislation, based on a Community framework of minimum requirements which countries, regions or fishing communities can supplement. However, it will be equitable to Community fishermen, who are in constant competition with each other, only if the framework of minimum obligatory requirements is the same for all. Clearly, a prerequisite for the social acceptance of legislation is that it be seen as equitable: effective enforcement is impossible without social acceptance in such a highly dispersed, fluid and complex environment as the Mediterranean. (1) An intergovernmental organization set up in 1949 within the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The convention establishing the GFCM came into force on 20 February 1952. (2) OJ C 30, 30. 1. 1997. 27. 4. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 129/31 2. 5. 2. A series of indicators were laid down in the political sphere, which may be broadly described as follows: — concerted action between the Member States con- cerned with a view to establishing fishery jurisdiction zones beyond territorial waters; — contacts with other Mediterranean countries, also fostering scientific cooperation; 2. 5. 3. In the technical sphere, the need has been acknowledged for a specific Mediterranean model for resource conservation. For the reasons listed above, this model is based on supervising the fishing effort (placing restrictions on fishing gear, on the number of vessels, etc. ) rather than on limiting catches. Mediterranean fisheries are such that general application of supervisory arrangements based on fixing TACs are impracticable, on account of the multi-species nature of catches and dispersal of fleets. Special importance has therefore been given to technical regulations, focusing on the following: — technical research into selectivity of nets; — intensified international cooperation within existing organizations. — progressive reduction in the use of nets damaging to the marine environment, especially drifting gill nets; 2. 5. 2. 1. Here, progress has basically been made at national level. The case of Spain should be noted, with its recent Royal Decree 1315/97 setting up a protected fishery zone in the Mediterranean from the Cabo de Gata to the border with France. Within this zone, Spain retains sovereign rights for the purposes of conserving living marine resources and for fishery management and control (Article 2). All, of course, without prejudice to any past of future EU measures for the protection and conservation of resources. 2. 5. 2. 2. The Spanish government’s intention with this measure is basically to protect populations of large pelagic species (particularly tuna), and to keep a labour- intensive, non-industrial fleet in the zone, oriented towards high-quality fishery products. 2. 5. 2. 3. A significant increase in the fishing effort of non-Mediterranean industrial vessels has occurred over recent years (there are estimated to be more than 100 such vessels, some using flags of convenience). These vessels frequently operate without supervision and very close to the 12-mile coastal zones, flouting the recommendations of the International Convention for the conservation of Atlantic tunas (ICCAT). This uncontrolled exploitation over the last few years has reduced fish stocks to critical levels. 2. 5. 2. 4. Uncontrolled exploitation further highlights the need to establish effective arrangements for con- trolling the fishing effort in the Mediterranean. A key objective in this regard is to strengthen the position of the GFCM as a major regional fisheries organization. To this end a number of important decisions (a scientific committee, autonomous budget, etc. ) were taken at the GFCM’s meeting in Rome on 13-16 October 1997. At the same time it was decided to amend the GFCM’s statutes and rules of procedure so as to allow the Community to become a member which will help to increase the EU’s importance in the organization. — drawing up of Community legislation defining characteristics and conditions for the use of different types of net; — conversion of fleets in order to secure systematic use of selective nets. 2. 5. 3. 1. Results in this field have also been scarce. Progress has been made in certain secondary aspects (establishment of a Community fleet census), but the core of the problem has only been tackled by Regulation 1626. However, the adoption of this Council regulation on 27 June 1994, harmonizing a number of technical measures in force in the Mediterranean, did not represent a major advance on the points referred to above, since: — the regulation made no provision for prohibiting drifting gill nets; — comparative discrimination is created with respect to pelagic, semi-pelagic and pair trawling gear, since it is left to the Member States to establish restrictions involving technical characteristics (Article 5). 2. 5. 3. 2. Progress may, however, be made on the problem of drifting gill nets following the adoption of a Council Decision on a specific measure to encourage Italian fishermen to diversity out of certain fishery activities (1), at the Fisheries Ministers Council held in Luxembourg on 14 and 15 April 1997. 2. 5. 3. 3. Various scientific studies have been pro- duced, but although they have increased knowledge of the problem, they have not been taken into sufficient consideration so as to underpin the regulations so far adopted. They do however represent a considerable step forward in terms of research, which must be pursued (1) OJ L 121, 13. 5. 1997, p. 20-22. C 129/32 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 27. 4. 98 in every possible forum, particularly those bringing together countries whose fleets are active in the Mediter- ranean. icy, and the involvement of occupational organ- izations. A specific point was contacts with third country fishermen; 2. 5. 3. 4. The GFCM should be the primary body involved, without however underestimating the role of scientific cooperation between countries (such as the FAO’s COPEMED project, etc. ). — the First meeting of professional fishermen from the countries of the Mediterranean seaboard, organized by the Commission, was held in Naples, Italy, on 28 September 1996. In conclusion, progress is being made in the 2. 5. 3. 5. technical field, but it is extremely slow. This means it still has little practical impact in terms of effectively regulating Community fishing at a stable, non- conflictual level. 2. 5. 4. In the socio-economic sphere, it was necessary to involve the sector in implementing the common fisheries policy. In view of the nature of Mediterranean fisheries (dispersal, small size of vessels, etc. ), it was essential to secure the support of those working in the sector for the obligations inevitably involved in making the common fisheries policy viable. It was proposed, in this connection, to strengthen the sector’s structures so as to create an active centre of collective responsibility to be consulted on questions of resource and market management. 2. 5. 4. 1. The producers’ organizations targeted in the common organization of the market have not been strengthened in the Mediterranean because of the exist- ing socio-economic structure and the way in which products are marketed. Regulation of the fishing effort could be strengthened by introducing mechanisms for the territorialization of the coastal waters. Official recognition of fishermen’s organizations in countries such as France and Spain, where they are firmly established, could be put on a qualitatively higher level. The effective supervision exercised by fishing communities in certain parts of the Mediterranean could be studied, and should lead to legal recognition and the delegation of powers by the state, allowing them a degree of participation in managing the resources of their local waters. Such recognition already exists for the coastal fisheries of Japan and the coastal lagoon of Valencia. The restrictive character of such a scheme could result in stronger safeguards for resources. 2. 5. 4. 2. Action in this sphere has so far been restricted to consultation initiatives, including two in which the sector participated: — the seminar held by the Commission and the Euro- pean Parliament in Ancona, Italy, on 22 and 23 June 1995 discussed Mediterranean resource conservation policy. Following the seminar, a meeting was held on 24 June attended by representatives of fishermen’s organizations. The meeting tackled questions con- cerning harmonization, Community-level technical measures, international cooperation, structural pol- Lastly, the international cooperation sphere 2. 5. 5. was considered to constitute the second stage in con- structing a comprehensive policy for the conservation and rational management of resources. After Com- munity harmonization, fishing in the Mediterranean as a whole would need to be tackled: measures agreed with the coastal states should be binding upon all. 2. 5. 5. 1. The most appropriate way proposed was to hold a diplomatic conference charged with laying the foundations for an international coordinating structure. The assumption was that such coordination should safeguard the common policy’s successes in resource management and conservation, secured during the first stage, and should be underpinned by an independent scientific body which would do the groundwork for an evaluation of the state of stocks. 2. 5. 5. 2. Matters have not yet moved beyond consul- tation in this area. Two diplomatic conferences have been held (Crete, Greece, 1994 and Venice, Italy, 1996) but no operational measures have yet been adopted to provide a practical solution to the problems. 2. 5. 5. 3. A further major issue raised since 1990 has been the revitalization of the GFCM as an institutional framework which brings together all the Mediterranean countries. No substantial progress has been made here either. The GFCM’s work has not been significantly stepped up (this may be assumed to be due to lack of resources, which should basically be provided by the EU). The EU’s membership has been approved (although it awaits Council ratification in order to take legal effect). The CGPM’s activity may change in view of the results obtained at its most recent meeting, held in Rome in October 1997. 2. 5. 5. 4. Many EU and non-EU countries — such as Spain, Greece, Morocco, Algeria, etc. — are generally involved in small-scale, non-industrial fishing. In con- trast, an industrial-type fleet, flying the Japanese or Korean flag, or flags of convenience (Panama, Honduras, Belize, etc. ), continues to operate, unsupervised, outside the 12-mile limit. This fleet consists of over 100 large vessels, fishing industrially with large-scale gear, concen- trating on massive catches of bluefin tuna and swordfish. 27. 4. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 129/33 2. 5. 5. 5. The state of stocks is such that they cannot withstand pressure of this kind indefinitely. The situ- ation must be regulated and brought under control in the near future. Small-scale fishing should, in any event, always have priority over industrial fishing, and the interests of Mediterranean countries over those of outside countries. 3. Conclusions The Mediterranean displays a number of specific 3. 1. features to which management systems must be geared if they are to be effective. 3. 2. The efficacy of management systems will also depend on their fairness, thus preventing discrimination. 3. 3. Scientific research funding must be stepped up still further, giving greater dynamism to the GFCM and making it the leading body, but without neglecting scientific cooperation through joint studies by Mediter- ranean countries. justified, with the same technical measures applying to all fleets. The Committee would urge that fishermen be 3. 5. consulted on the proposed legislation, thereby involving them in its application. This would give greater force to the proposal made by the EU within the GFCM concerning the creation of a committee on which fishermen would be directly represented. 3. 6. Appropriate steps must be taken against pro- ducers who infringe resource conservation rules. Responsible trade must be encouraged so as to prevent the current unfair competition, particularly with regard to third country fleets. 3. 7. The establishment of protected fishery zones in the Mediterranean is the type of measure capable of ensuring that resource protection and conservation measures are effective. 3. 8. The diplomatic conferences must do more than issue declarations of intent. There must be closer cooperation between all the countries, working together at an early stage to prepare conclusions which can be put into practice immediately. Situations clearly differ, requiring real and com- 3. 4. prehensive harmonization of Mediterranean fisheries. Harmonization will only be possible following the gradual removal of all the derogations contained in Regulation (EC) No 1626/94, when not scientifically Small-scale fishing must have priority over its 3. 9. industrial counterpart in the transition to sustainable fishing in the Mediterranean. The interests of the Mediterranean countries should come before those of other countries. Brussels, 25 February 1998. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Tom JENKINS C 129/34 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 27. 4. 98 APPENDIX I to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee Characteristics of the EU Mediterranean fishing fleet The EU Mediterranean fishing fleet may be described in general terms as follows: — it comprises a large number of vessels (some 47 000), which are small in size and underpowered; — both the vessels and their on-board fishing, conservation and processing equipment are out-dated; — on-board health and safety standards are often low. Following an analysis of the socio-economics models for the exploitation of fishery resources, the situation in the four Member States concerned may be summarized as follows: — Non-industrial coastalfishing is carried out using vessels with no superstructure, less than nine metres in length between perpendiculars and usually with no engine. Most vessels are family-operated and fishing provides many but low-paid jobs. Moreover, given its traditional social structures, the sector is somewhat resistant to outside obligations (legislation, supervision) and technological progress. This is compounded by socio-economic structures encouraging individualism. — The medium-sized non-industrial fishing fleet comprises vessels of between 9 and 18 metres in length between perpendiculars, which are generally out-dated and obsolete. Their activities are easier to supervise as there are fewer of them than of the above type, and because their size obliges them to land their catches in port. Some of the activities of this part of the Mediterranean fleet are subject to strict regulation, such as bans on fishing or building new vessels, aimed at controlling access to resources (advance authorization for construction, commissioning permits, licences, etc. ). — Deep-sea fishing is carried out by relatively modern and efficient vessels, operating in zones generally lying outside territorial waters. Of particular note here is the fleet specializing in tuna and other large migratory species, which competes directly the fleets of non-Mediterranean countries. Source: COM(90) 1136 fin — Annex I — pp. 13-14 27. 4. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 129/35 APPENDIX II to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee Exceptions under Regulation (EC) No 1626/94 Country Fishery Accepted exceptions Trawling for restocking fish Exceptions to 40 mm mesh size (Gobiidae, Atherinidae) for human consumption (Upper Adriatic) (Article 6, Annex III) Trawling (Mugilidae, Spari- Exceptions to 40 mm mesh size dae) for aquaculture (Upper Adriatic) (Article 6, Annex III) Time limit and conditions 31. 12. 1998 Authorized 2 months per annum 31. 12. 1998 Restocking fish for consump- Exceptions to 14 mm mesh size for encircling nets (Article 6, tion or aquaculture (Tyrrhen- Annex III) ian Sea) 31. 12. 1998 Italy Italy Italy Italy Trawls and seines for Atherini- Use within 3 nautical miles or dae in the coastal zone the 50 m isobath 31. 12. 1998 Italy Dredges for shellfish Dredging within 3 nautical miles or the 50 m isobath France Pair trawls (above the Posidon- Exceptions to 40 mm mesh size ian beds) (Article 6, Annex III) Permanent, if > 90 % shellfish 31. 12. 1998 France Shore seines Greece Shore seines Use tolerated (with minimum mesh size) Use tolerated (with minimum mesh size) 1. 1. 2002 1. 1. 2002 Greece Seines and trawls in the coastal Use within 3 nautical miles or zone the 50 m isobath 31. 12. 1998 Comments in Exceptions granted for meshes used accordance with national law at 1. 1. 1994. Possible extension after 1998 if scientifically justified in Exceptions granted for meshes used accordance with national law at 1. 1. 1994. Possible extension after 1998 if scientifically justified in Exceptions granted for meshes used accordance with national law at 1. 1. 1994. Possible extension after 1998 if scientifically justified in Exceptions granted for meshes used accordance with national law at 1. 1. 1994. Possible extension after 1998 if scientifically justified in Exceptions granted for meshes used accordance with national law at 1. 1. 1994. Possible extension after 1998 if scientifically justified Possible extension after 2002, if scientifically justified Possible extension after 2002, if scientifically justified in Exceptions granted for meshes used accordance with national law at 1. 1. 1994. Possible extension after 1998 if scientifically justified Source: table prepared by the Commission for the ‘Mediterranean’ working party of the Advisory Committee on Fisheries, 1 March 1995 (agenda item 2. 2)