Multi-annual Plan for the Baltic

Decisions
on multi-annual plans for other fisheries are imminent. They are a legal
requirement under the new CFP and the Commission is currently running a formal
consultation on a mixed fishery plan for the North Sea; to be followed by a
consultation in May for North West Waters. Commission proposals will follow
shortly thereafter. It is important therefore to pay attention to what is
agreed for the Baltic.

Key Features of
the Baltic Plan

The
most significant features of the Baltic Plans are:

• It
  allows for ranges of fishing
  mortality values to be used in setting the plans and therefore the harvest
  rates. This is important because the use of ranges
  as opposed to point values provides some flexibility to set
  TACs in mixed fisheries in combination, where stocks might be moving in
  opposite directions.
• The
  plans can be set for either single species or for mixed fisheries, whichever is
  deemed most appropriate given the circumstances.
• The
  plan gives the option to set TACs in relation to maximum sustainable yield between 2015 and 2020 (i.e. not at the
  most stringent date) to avoid chaotic outcomes
• Safeguards
  are put in place for circumstances where there is uncertainty about a stock’s
  conservation status, with minimum safeguard trigger levels
• A
  review of the plan is required after 3 years (rather than the proposed 6 years)
• If
  the F ranges don’t deliver the plan’s
  objective, the Commission is mandated to come forward with a co-decision
  proposal for a revised plan.
• A
  biomass trigger point is included, which means that if the biomass falls below
  a certain point, remedial measures will be taken to rebuild the stock. A number
  of options for the specific measures are included

Politics

The
April Council agreed a full general approach to establishing a multi-annual
plan for the Baltic. This left France and Spain isolated and outvoted. As part
of the wider dispute between the Council and the Parliament, they wanted to
block the adoption of fishing mortality-ranges (potentially tying the hands of
the December Council when setting individual TACs) isolated. A court case on
the legal aspects of the dispute between the Council and the Parliament is due
to be heard in the Autumn but most member states now seem to think the work of
a joint EP/Council Task Force provides the basis for a pragmatic accommodation
on who has jurisdiction to set TACs within the context of management plans.

It
is not insignificant that both Germany and Sweden who in the past have tended
to take quite strong, not to say purist, positions on environmental issues and
fisheries generally, have been noticeably more reluctant to apply an unduly
rigid approach when they have to face the consequences themselves.

The
nub of the issue lies in how tight or slack to set the fishing mortality ranges
(F ranges in the jargon) within the management plan. Too tight and they will
subvert the whole point of providing space to treat groups of TACs caught
together in a mixed fishery in a coherent way. Too slack and the whole idea of
managing fishing mortality on a group basis is eroded.

Predictably
some NGOs have argued for the most rigid interpretation possible, seeing
flexibility as synonymous with backsliding. Their arguments however seem more
like theology than science and by taking such a purist view they have tended to
marginalise themselves in the views of the member states.

Multi-management
plans are however decided by co-decision, so the Council’s adoption of a general approach is not the end of the story. Negotiations now begin in
trialogue (Commission, Council and European Parliament) and the Fisheries
Committee in the Parliament has already favoured a more rigid approach than the
Council. The Parliament remains fruitful territory for the NGOs’ Brussels based
lobbying machine and so nothing can be taken for granted.

In
some respects this is a trial of strength between those who know that will have
to face the practical consequences of managing their fisheries within the
context of a new management plan, and those who have the luxury of having no
such concern or responsibilities. The EP, having voted will turn their
attention from fisheries to light bulbs or whatever, whilst the member states
know that the repercussions of getting things wrong will fall on them and their
fishing sectors. It is possible of course that the EP as a whole will not take
on the Fisheries Committee’s views, heavily influenced as they are by the NGO
lobby. We will know shortly as the vote in Parliament is on 28th April.

Summary

In
general multi-annual management plans are a good thing. They mean a move away
from ad-hoc decisions and crisis
management, potentially increasing stability for the industry. Of course, we
have had experience of some very poorly thought through plans, not least the EU
Cod Management Plan, that managed to cripple an industry; set up all kinds of perverse
outcomes; and result in a huge increase in regulatory discards.

So
although plans are desirable, bad plans can be a nightmare. And if we have
learned anything over the last 20 years it is that top-down prescriptive approaches
to fisheries management rarely succeed. The ideal is that management plans
would set realisable targets and objectives and leave detailed rules to
regional groups of member states working closely with the relevant advisory
councils. There should be scope to learn lessons as we go and adapt the plans
to meet the new circumstances as they arise. We are some way away from that at
present. Too much detail is still decided at EU co-decision level. The review
clauses should help to avoid the worst aspects of the cod plan but it is very
significant that the science on which some aspects of the mixed fishery plans
will be based is in evolution, with more scope for uncertainty than even now.

And
then there is the EU/Norway dimension to take into account especially in the
North Sea. Not to mention the implementation of the landings obligation….