Wednesday, 8th February 2012
CMO Report - Presentation to Seminar on CFP on 8th February 2012
This speech was presented at the European Parliament, Brussels at a high level seminar on Common Fisheries Policy Reform
Struan Stevenson, MEP
Commissioner Damanaki, Chairman, Ladies & Gentlemen,
There are 214 POs in the EU. They have an important role to play, not only as a counter-balance to the power of the retailers, but as a vehicle for coordinating day to day management of fishing activities to the benefit of their members. Some do this more effectively than others and the key objective of my report will be to achieve a streamlining of POs so that they can become even more effective and key participants in our objective to achieve a sustainable EU fishery. Criteria must be clearly defined on the minimum number of members a PO can have to be viable. Smaller POs should be merged. Trans-national POs should be encouraged in zones like the Irish Sea, the Mediterranean and the Baltic, so that everyone would benefit from common and binding market rules.
The internationalisation of POs or the creation of transnational associations will enable companies to become competitive at international level, to meet the 2020 strategy to create new markets outside the EU.
There is, of course, some overlap between my report and the other reports in the CFP Reform package. The absolute imperative for meaningful regionalisation is of equal importance to POs, who will have a role to play in the management of quotas and effort controls. For this to work properly, the Commission should offer a basket of options for day-to-day management, from which the Member States can choose the most appropriate for their own particular fishery.
POs will also have a key role to play in the management of TFCs, which, I believe, should be voluntary rather than mandatory and Member States must have the flexibility to allocate rights over only a 7/8-year period, rather than 15 years. Member States must also have the final decision on whether such rights are tradable at all. Great care will have to be taken to prevent the concentration of TFCs in the hands of a few large, wealthy fisheries companies. This would be counter-productive and would have serious implications for jobs in the sector.
On discards, POs will also play an important role. Long-term management plans should have measures for catch quotas, technical measures, and real-time closures, to eliminate by-catch. The Commission proposal to use POs to distribute fish that otherwise would have been discarded, to NGOs, charities or people on social welfare benefits, would be disastrous and have a direct impact on the market, depressing prices further. At best, such fish could be used for bait or for the fishmeal and fish oil industry, with sufficient compensation paid to fishermen to cover their costs in landing these otherwise surplus fish. There should also be financial assistance from the EMFF to get lower value and less familiar fish products onto the market.
We must also harness modern technology to work to the benefit of the sector. There are examples of electronic markets working successfully in various parts of the EU. There is also scope for using modern technology to improve market intelligence by rolling out the use of electronic markets across the EU and linking them to e-logs and VMS systems. This will enable POs to smooth out the market for certain species, avoiding gluts and shortages and improving prices for all the stakeholders. Again there will be a need for EMFF assistance to improve innovation in this field.
Turning to the question of market intervention, this has stirred up some considerable controversy during our extensive discussions on the Commission proposal for a reform of the CMO. Any system of interference with the free market, such as the proposed storage mechanism system, trigger prices and the minimum price system, must be handled with extreme care. I am aware of the fact that €45 million has been allocated in the EMFF over 5 years for freezing fish, where storage costs will be a co-responsibility between POs and the EU. However, some POs are adamant that the minimum price structure should remain because they claim it puts a stable foundation in the market. I anticipate some intensive negotiations on this issue when amendments are submitted to my report. Personally, I feel that abolishing the minimum price intervention mechanism will incentivise POs to ensure better market practices. I therefore concur with the Commission proposal in this respect.
The other area of controversy in the CMO reform proposal involves the whole question of labelling. Providing consumers with clear, easily understood information on fisheries and aquaculture products is absolutely essential. There is a need to sweep away the many differing and confusing eco-labels that have emerged over the years, all making competing claims about the sustainability of catches and the eco-friendliness of their products.
I have come to the conclusion that the Commission itself should establish minimum rules for a voluntary EU eco-label, setting the bar at a higher level than the mandatory rules and regulations that govern the sector just now. They could sub-contract the function of inspecting applicants for this voluntary label, perhaps to the MSC and ASC, which would become readily identifiable and sought-after by consumers throughout the EU. I would even suggest extending this voluntary EU eco-label to companies outside the EU who wish to export their fisheries and aquaculture products to our markets. This would enable us to achieve the level-playing field between EU and non-EU products that we have always sought. Imports bearing this label would have to comply with the same regulations as those imposed within the EU, not only on ecological grounds, but also embracing socio-economic issues.
As far as information on labels is concerned, I believe the date of landing should be mandatory and the date of catch should be voluntary. Quality should be the key factor for labelling, depending not only on the date of catch but also on technological aspects such as the control of environmental conditions like temperature and humidity, together with measures concerning processing, procedures management and packaging/packing materials. As far as canned fish products are concerned, mandatory information requires a date, whether or not the catch is sustainable, plus information about whether the item has been frozen and defrosted. A ‘Best before date’ would be better than a mandatory catch or first-landing date. In addition, there must be full traceability on the barcode.
On the question of trade in fisheries and aquaculture products, the Commission have confirmed that they intend to introduce a separate regulation in due course. Many people I have consulted in the sector have expressed surprise at this, pointing out that the current rules are working satisfactorily. They therefore urge that any new legal basis for trading in these products must reflect the status quo.
Finally, on the question of aquaculture, there is a global need to expand EU fish and shell-fish farming to meet growing consumer demand against a background of declining wild fish stocks. We are only 40% self-sufficient in fish and fish products within the EU and as Guido Milana’s report on aquaculture pointed out, there are therefore enormous opportunities for expansion. Professional organisations, including POs, inter-branch organisations and federations, should be given access to ‘toolbox’ measures to help promotion and communication actions at national and international levels and give added-value to their members.
The proposal to create a new Advisory Council for aquaculture should be supported. This should be a single EU entity, with headquarters and staff, like the existing Pelagic and Long Distance RACs. Indeed there is a general need to strengthen and consolidate the existing Regional Advisory Councils, ensuring that they become real advisory bodies for the European Commission.
