Regionalisation of the CFP Taking stock

One size fits all

The NFFO was amongst the first to argue that one central
reason why the CFP had repeatedly failed to deliver effective management
measures was fundamentally down to its reliance
on top-down, over- centralised, decision making. We argued, persuasively as it
turned out, that the Council of Ministers, and the Commission, were too remote
from the many complex and diverse fisheries under the CFP, to have any hope of
designing management measures that could be implemented effectively. The law of
unintended consequences seemed to be particularly active in fisheries managed
from the centre in Europe. Initially rejected by many as the renationalisation of the CFP by the back
door, the idea of decentralising the
CFP gradually gained currency as the only politically realistic route away from
blunt, one-size-fits-all measures
with an unacceptable failure rate.

Co-decision

In one sense, the Commission’s hand was called, as the
Lisbon Treaty introduced co-decision which meant that the European Parliament would
in future have direct jurisdiction in policy decisions for European fisheries.
In an unguarded moment one Commission official reflected that this meant that
CFP decisions had shifted from 28 people who don’t know what they’re talking
about to 751 people who don’t know what they’re talking about. Under co-decision
a new regulation could be expected to take two years to pass through the
legislative process. Regionalisation was a conscious step away from this type
of cumbersome centralised decision-making, albeit in a heavily circumscribed and
limited way.

Regional Advisory
Councils

The recognition that management decisions within the CFP
were too remote from the people that they affected, breaching all the rules of
good governance, was actually evident in the 2002 reform of the CFP . The
regional advisory councils were introduced as a tentative way of addressing mounting
criticism of the way that the CFP went about its business. Few at the time anticipated
however that fishermen from the different member states could sit down with
each other and thrash out meaningful, well founded, advice; much less that in most cases it would be
possible to agree compromise positions with other stakeholders such as the
environmental NGOs. But in all of the regional advisory councils this has been
the experience, to a greater or lesser degree. It is widely agreed that the
RACs were the most successful aspect of the 2012 reform.

Reform

It was the 2002 reform however, that saw the regionalisation
agenda shift from the advisory directly into the area of policy formulation. The lawyers ensured
that the EU Treaties were respected and that there was no question that member
states would have direct legislative powers; but the intention was that member
states would be given explicit authority to work collaboratively at regional
seas level to produce joint recommendations and that those joint
recommendations would have privileged status as they are fast tracked by the
Commission through delegated act into legislation.

Taking Stock

It is reasonable to ask the question: after two years, how
is regionalisation working?

It would be too glib to say that it’s too early to say. But
it is also true that it will be over time that the effectiveness of regional policy
formulation will be assessed. We should probably not rush to intemperate and
premature judgements. Regionalisation has been a long time coming. It is in its
infancy and we can expect it to take a few tumbles as it take its first baby
steps.

And it hasn’t helped that in its first outing,
regionalisation has been tasked to deliver joint recommendations on the most
far-reaching, most indigestible, piece of European fisheries legislation yet to
emerge: implementation of the EU landings obligation.

What we can say is that member states are working
collaboratively (not to say feverishly) at regional seas level to deliver
regional discard plans by June. Member states with direct fisheries interests
in the North Sea and in North West Waters have been meeting regularly at
fisheries director level and at technical level in an intense programme of
work. They have to make joint recommendations on questions of critical
importance, such as phasing the
introduction of the landings obligation and the exemptions that should apply – or hand the whole matter back to the
Commission, which would then come forward with its own plan by default.

A rational approach to a discard ban would have been to build
up the knowledge base on actual discard rates in the different fisheries, and
to do the science on high survival to
underpin decisions on exemptions – before implementation decisions are made. The basic CFP Regulation however precludes
that and forces a timetable that is bound to lead to casualties. These are the
less-than-optimal conditions in which the member states are working.

Advisory Councils

Under the CFP reform RACs became ACs but despite
regionalisation, their essential
function remains the same: to provide advice. The difference is in who that
advice is delivered to. The regionally cooperating member states rather than
the Commission are the main recipients
of the ACs’ advice on the discard ban. The ACs have been invited to participate in parts of the High Level
(Fisheries Directors) and Technical meetings to explain their respective
positions on phasing, definition of fisheries, high survival and de minimis
exemptions.

But this is not co-management or anything like it. The
decisions made within the joint recommendations may or may not reflect elements
of AC advice. The signs are that to a large extent their advice on the big
ticket items will not be followed.

Member States

It is well to remember how new all this is to member states,
who are used to dealing more or less individually with the Commission; and are now
obliged to forge joint recommendations.
It is possible to see national characteristics as well as different fleet
interests, personalities and politics all at work within the groups. Some
member states insist on focusing on a workable and practical approach, whilst
others argue for the most rigid interpretation of the (deeply ambiguous)
legislation.

Joint Recommendations

We will soon learn the contents of the joint recommendations
for regional discard plans. The signs seem to be that what will emerge will be
a landings obligation that for the demersal fisheries will require vessels to
land one or perhaps two species in the first year. Fisheries will be defined in
relation to area of operation, gear used or target species. There will be some
high survival and de minimis exemptions. Later, we will learn about quota
uplift and quota flexibilities. The ACs will have a brief opportunity to
comment on the joint recommendations before they go to the Commission, and
STECF for evaluation.

Regionalisation.

So, what conclusions can we arrive at? Is regionalisation a
damp squib, or the path to a more rational and effective CFP?

In our judgement, it is both. The jointly agreed discard
plans will not offer the best way to implement the landings obligation; we can
expect many of the characteristic of the old CFP to emerge during their
implementation: Unintended consequences by the bucket load, conflicting,
contradictory rules; confusion; and mistrust can all be expected to be part of
the mix, as well as vessel operators trying their best to comply with the new
and confusing rules and keep their fishing businesses viable.

The fault for all of this
will not primarily lie with regionalisation
or the member states, rather the problem is the same old story. The CFP basic
regulation, and in particular Article 15 is overly-prescriptive and ties member
states’ hands to an unacceptable degree. More than anything else, the content of the discard plans will reflect
the views, not of the member states, or the advisory councils but the “28
people who don’t know what they are talking about and the 751 who know even
less.”

Regionalisation is the first step in decentralising the CFP
and it is more important than ever that it is developed and nurtured. But it is
clear from Article 15, and from the Commission’s bizarre proposal to ban
small-scale drift nets, that the discredited command-and-control way of
thinking has not gone away. Top down is far from dead.

The challenge is not to throw the regionalisation baby out
with the bathwater because the landings obligation is a car crash but to work,
stepwise, towards a form of co-management that provides a solid basis for a
collaborative approach to fisheries management; only that that will relegate top-down decision-making to
history because it isn’t needed. This will take time; but there will be a
proposal for a new technical measures framework later this year and that will provide
a good place to start in making the shift from prescriptive top-down
micromanagement to a more flexible approach that decentralised a real measure
of authority to regional level.

Decentralising the CFP was never going to be a simple or
straightforward process but we have little choice but to work hard to make it
work. We already know that the alternative is far worse.