sou · GWB348EN · 2009-01-01 00:00:00 — Under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) however, the resource conservation aspect and socioeconomic objectives cur- rently have equal priority. There has therefore arisen a conflict over resources, in which the conservation aspect has hitherto drawn the short straw. has also a national fisheries policy that applies in internal waters and to some extent in the territorial sea. In other respects, EU membership obliges to apply CFP regula- tions. The CFP is an instrument for the management of fisheries and aquaculture. Commission has formulated the objec- tive of this policy area as being primarily to bring about sustain- able exploitation of the fisheries resources, as well as to overcome the imbalance between natural resources and the capacity of the EU fishing fleet. The objective of the policy is stated as being to reinforce the competitive strength and profitability of the fisheries industry, to promote environmentally friendly fishing and envi- ronmentally friendly methods of production, to support those who work within the fishing industry and to promote sustainable devel- opment in fishing regions. There have been EU common meas- ures within the fisheries sector since 1983. In more recent times fisheries policy has been the object of strong criticism, both within , on the part of , and also Intergovernmental cooperation on the environment and a Swedish .. from Commission, as well as from NGOs. In a report by consultants commissioned by the Commission, about the functionality of this policy sector, attention is drawn to the very poor consideration for the environment shown within it.4 Further, the commissioned a consultants report examining the Swedish fisheries.5 In this report, too, the authors are critical towards the present structure of the CFP. It should be mentioned that has striven to highlight the resource conservation aspects during international negotiations, but has not made as much progress as desired. The Swedish view is also that greater heed should be taken of the scientific advice in this sector. The allocation system by means of fishing quotas is central to the CFP. Each is granted a certain quota and subse- quently has responsibility to manage it, as well as to carry out inspections of the quota up-take. Each must also draw up a national strategic plan for its fisheries. This plan must contain an overall strategy vision for the as regards the development of fisheries and aquaculture and must embrace all parts of the Common Fisheries Policy. has a total budget of approxi- billion for the period 2007–2013. The chief objec- tive of the Fund is to give financial support to fishing industry. Objectives for related policy areas within the EU, such as the environment and employment, are reported to be better inte- grated in the present fund period, compared to previously. Funding is available to all sectors within the fishing industry. Member States are allocated a certain sum and they decide themselves how they wish to share out these funds among the various main targets. A special form of support within the framework of the is devoted to measures to counter environmental pollution in the fishing regions. Since 1 January 2008, DG Affairs has been organised according to geographical areas. Regionalisation was introduced at the beginning of 2006 when (RACs) were established for each geographical 4Sissenwine , Symes (2007) Reflections on the common fisheries policy. Report to the General for Fisheries and Affairs of Commission. 5Brady , (2008) Att vända skutan – ett hållbart fiske inom räckhåll [Turning the ship around – sustainable fishing within reach] : Report to the on Environmental Studies 2008:1 SOU 2008:48 Intergovernmental cooperation on the environment and a Swedish .. The Councils consist of representatives of industry, environ- mental and consumer interests. Their task is to put forward pro- posals and standpoints about the management of the fish stocks to Commission. The objective of the reform is to bring about a better match between quota up-take and the specific regional conditions. The CFP runs for a 10-year period from 2002 onwards. In 2012 Commission is to submit to the Council a report on its functioning, based on assessments from the Member States. There is no present requirement that the policy should then be revised and that will depend on the outcome of the review No political analysis has been made of what attitude should adopt as regards the future direction of the CFP following the reforms carried out in 2002. Within the CFP, recovery plans are being drafted for the resto- ration of fish stocks in danger of extinction. Protected zones and temporary bans on certain types of fishing are another element of the policy. In the Baltic Sea, there are three no-take zones where fishing is banned during the period –. has recently put forward proposals for a further six no-take zones to be established in Swedish areas during 2010. The most important environmental measures in fisheries management, introduced in the 2002 reform of the CFP, were the limitation of the fishing effort, catch limitations and technical measures. The measures that have so far been taken to improve the environment are nevertheless judged by the majority of experts to be inadequate. The CFP has not been a sufficiently powerful instrument to protect dwindling fish stocks. While it is no longer permitted to provide financial aid that increases fishing pressure, fish stocks in several areas are impoverished and limitations have been imposed too late. As mentioned above, powerful opinion is beginning to highlight the problems of the CFP and to propose measures for improvements with regard to environmental concern. report to Commission mentions the need to operationalise the CFP better, to apply the ecosystem approach fully, to make the management process more transparent, to consider strategically the need for research and to reduce the Councils influence on practical issues within the fisheries policy. Intergovernmental cooperation on the environment and a Swedish .. 3.6.3Consideration for the environment within Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) The state of the environment is to a large extent dependent on activities that take place on land. Agriculture, which is regulated through Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), causes extensive water pollution through nitrogen and phosphorus run- off. The purpose of EU legislation on nitrates is to reduce these sources of water pollution and to prevent further pollution. Effec- tive methods nowadays exist for the reduction of nitrogen emis- sions, but for a number of reasons they are difficult to implement. The CAP has an impact on the conditions for achieving some of the Swedish environmental quality objectives, such as: A Varied Agricultural Landscape; Zero Eutrophication; A Non-Toxic Envi- ronment; A Balanced , Sustainable Areas and Archipelagos; Flourishing Lakes and Streams; and A of Plant and Animal Life. The CAP has undergone changes during the most recent programme periods, in which envi- ronmental improvements have been brought about, but the meas- ures are not adequate to improve the state of the environ- ment. In 2003, EU agriculture ministers reached agreement on a new reformed CAP. The reform came into force in January 2005, but in certain respects was not implemented by the Member States until 2007. In a number of countries it has still not been possible to implement the reform. This policy sector is renegotiated as neces- sary and has no specific time-frame. Since the reform, the CAP has been divided into a market regulation component and a structural and regional policy component for rural development. The com- mon market is the dominant component and entails free movement for agricultural products within the EU. The market is based on three principles: common prices, community preference and com- mon financing. Through common prices, the EU guarantees farm- ers a minimum price for their products independent of the market price. Community preference requires that EU products must have preference on the market over those produced in non-EU coun- tries. Common financing is carried out via the EU budget. A structural fund, managed by the Commission, provides support for agriculture. The fundamental part of the reform is the decoupling princi- ple. This principle means that the support for farmers is decoupled SOU 2008:48 Intergovernmental cooperation on the environment and a Swedish .. from the quantity they produce. From the EU point of view, the purpose is to adapt agriculture to the market by reducing overpro- duction. This CAP reform means, however, that the Member States themselves may decide whether to retain the link between the support and the production of beef and cereals (quotas), which is regarded as having negative environmental effects since it proba- bly results in higher beef production thereby increasing nitrogen load. Lower production of course means an environmental gain per se, but in time production will increasingly be set by the world market price – whereupon production is expected to rise once again. EU Member States have made an international declaration to cease export subsidies for agricultural products. EU agricultural production will therefore slowly approach the world market price during the period 2010–2013. Several countries have already noticed that adaptation to the world market price is driving the agricultural sector towards increased production, which is often identical with a negative environmental impact. Some of the reforms that were introduced in 2005 apply cross- compliance conditions. That means that producers have a right to support payments only if they satisfy a number of norms, including environmental norms. Expenditure on market support and the dis- posal of surplus production has fallen considerably, but expendi- ture on direct support in the form of, for example, environmental protection, animal protection, food security and food quality has increased. Member States must devote at least 25 per cent of their budgets for rural development to efforts to improve the environ- ment and the countryside. Rural support thus has a distinct envi- ronmental component. In , approximately 80 per cent of these support payments are allocated to measures to improve the environment. Expenditure under certain headings of the CAP (for example, rural development) is partly financed by the Member States since national and regional characteristics must be taken into considera- tion. The majority of the measures are nevertheless common to all Member States and are governed by common rules. Total expen- diture on the CAP (market measures, direct support and rural development) is approximately billion per year. That cor- responds to approximately 40 percent of the total EU budget, but the proportion is steadily reducing. Within the agricultural sector, the Member States have been permitted to develop many rules of their own. has often elected to adopt more far-reaching Intergovernmental cooperation on the environment and a Swedish .. regulations than other countries. The EU sets only the lowest acceptable level of regulation. has, for example, adopted more stringent rules for animal transport, animal health, run-off and nitrates. Local limitations are also permitted and have been introduced in, for example, the county of . In Commission issued a Com- munication about a CAP health check. Its purpose is to review the effects of the new support payments, in order to determine any adjustments that may need to be made. The next step after the health check will be a review of the EU budget, to take place in 2009. The CAP is mentioned as a sector that the EU Commission will then examine particularly closely. Swedish priorities are that the CAP should in future be gov- erned by free trade and the market, with support being directed to collective benefits. wishes to see the complete abolition of quotas, which can currently be bought and sold within the Member States. The national standpoint is in general that environmental concern should be better integrated within the CAP. There is nev- ertheless at present strong political opposition from a number of EU Member States to making further changes in the CAP, because of their far-reaching economic consequences. A number of the new EU Member States in the Baltic Sea area are at present undergoing a structural conversion process, through which agriculture is being rationalised, but the changes are being undertaken over a very long time. There is no region-specific forum within the CAP in which Member States can discuss issues about geographically related problems and possibilities. Representatives meet in other interna- tional organisations and in informal groupings, for example within the framework of informal Nordic-Baltic cooperation. Such meet- ings present an opportunity to put forward proposals for subjects to be dealt with at Council meetings. 3.6.4Other areas for cooperation Intergovernmental regional cooperation in the environment sector is in progress in a number of small fora and organisations relating to the Baltic and the North Sea, e.g. /Baltic 21 (see below) and the . At local and regional level, there are also several bodies working independently, in a policy-oriented and practical way, on environmental issues among regions and munici- SOU 2008:48 Intergovernmental cooperation on the environment and a Swedish .. palities in various countries. Cooperation at the local and regional level will become more and more important in the implementation of e.g. the BSAP. As regards international organisations and proc- esses, it is primarily HELCOM, and the EU Baltic Strategy that are of strategic relevance for future environment work, and they should thus also be included in the combined strategic development work via the action plan for environment issues. The is an overarching political forum for international coop- eration in the Baltic Sea region. Eleven countries in the Baltic Sea area (plus and ) are members, as is Commission. The sets up common political targets within specific sector areas and produces action plans for them. Coopera- tion is undertaken in the economic, democratic, core security, traf- ficking and energy sectors, etc. The organisation also initiates pro- jects and serves as a forum for the exchange of ideas on regional development. Chairmanship of the rotates among Member States on a six-monthly basis. The Council consists of the foreign ministers of the member countries. The organisation a number of working groups and a secretariat. The organisation has only a small budget, chiefly to cover the cost of the secretariat. Common activities by the are instead financed by the mem- ber countries. Individual contributions to projects are sometimes given by member countries. The environment is currently not a priority area within the . In the present situation only the Baltic 21 network, which forms part of the , directly handles environmental issues. Baltic 21 can be described as a promotional organisation for sustainable development within a number of sector areas in the Baltic countries. The areas in focus are agriculture, energy, fishing, forestry, industry, tourism, transport, education and physical plan- ning. Several of these sectors have links with the environ- ment, but do not promote a specific environment perspec- tive. Activity comprises sector-specific work that is undertaken in working groups, and meetings between representatives of various ministries from all the Baltic countries. No special funds are avail- able. The activity aims instead to promote, stimulate and persuade Intergovernmental cooperation on the environment and a Swedish .. different actors in the various countries to initiate common pro- jects of an intersectoral nature. The is undergoing organisa- tional changes in the period up to mid-2008, in which the direction and structure of the sector areas, as well as their organisation, are to be determined at a meeting of heads of state and government. The proposed new organisation is that it should serve to provide political support for five sector areas, including the environment. It seems probable that the will remain as a political organ since that is what the majority of member countries want. has, however, expressed the view that it should be given a more practi- cal and less politically directed function. The issue of a con- tribution to the implementation of the BSAP is being discussed in connection with the reform. The subject areas covered by Baltic 21 will probably be more tightly defined, as it currently has a rather broad approach. EU strategy for the Baltic Sea region An EU strategy for the Baltic region is now being produced by Commission and is to be presented at the latest by 2009. It is foreseen to be adopted during Presidency of the EU in the autumn of 2009. The Swedish Government is driving the work forward and has contributed background material for the strategy. The strategy aims primarily to put greater focus on region-specific Baltic issues within the EU. has formulated two main aims for it: To meet the acute ecological challenges to the Baltic and to promote deeper integration and increase com- petitiveness in the Baltic region. The strategy aims also to illumi- nate the way in which ecological challenges can be handled through EU policies and measures and will constitute a basis for prioritising possible projects. The strategy is further envisaged to contribute to the adoption of strong measures at the EU level to implement the BSAP. In this chapter several areas have been mentioned, within which should work actively to influence and change policy areas and organisations. should work in the long-term for SOU 2008:48 Intergovernmental cooperation on the environment and a Swedish .. changes in the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy, to ensure that environment aspects are taken into account in the fundamental mechanisms of these policy sectors. As regards the CAP, environmental concern is reactive rather than proactive because the support mechanisms only affect the environmental aspect indirectly and through rural programmes. Furthermore, the impact of agriculture on the environment is altogether too lowly prioritised in discussions on the future of the CAP. Therefore a national action plan to develop and reform this policy area should be produced. It should be a suitable point of departure also for seeking increased regional consensus within the Baltic Sea area as regards the impact of agriculture on the environment and what the consequences should be for the future shape of this policy. The advocates therefore that should work to reshape the CAP in line with the ecosystem approach, and that the policy area, as a stage in this process, should be given a regionally based port systems. Account can then also be taken of the different envi- ronmental conditions in the regions. At present, eutrophi- cation has a particularly negative impact on the Baltic Sea, but it should be possible to alleviate it through a new arrangement for support systems, in which specific needs can be taken into consid- eration. There should be a similar process as regards the CFP. The focus should be, in time to achieve regionalisation of the policy, to match the division into regions specified in the MSD. As regards the new EU Policy, there are today certain gaps that perhaps can be filled in future, depending on political will and growing consensus on what a policy should include. Since development of this policy is at an introductory stage, there are at present good opportunities to influence its future direction. Fishing is an area that is completely omitted because there is a common policy, and the environmental aspect is in general likewise played down. can the fact that the MSD is to constitute the environmental pillar of policy be regarded as of much help in this context because these sectors then remain separated. Issues that directly affect , which must be regarded as the most important industry in this context, are also played down. are regional dimensions included in the policy. should work for a much clearer integration of the environmental aspect into the policy that is now being developed. Intergovernmental cooperation on the environment and a Swedish .. work too should be undertaken on a broad basis and should con- stitute the object of a national action plan. Most indications are that the will continue in future to function as a political strategic forum for a number of sector areas. Therefore the possibility of coordinating its political environment work with that undertaken in HELCOM should be considered, with a view to giving environment work and the HELCOM arena greater political weight. The alternative might be for the to give the political mandate on these matters to HELCOM. The result of such an arrangement ought to be that the political leadership is brought closer to practical environment work. The most important processes within which must act to influence the development of the sectors and the integration of the sector areas in the international context are listed below. Processes, organisations and policy areas in which to act A budget review for all areas of activity within the EU is being carried out in the period up to 2009. This entails a form of mid- way assessment that also opens the way to discussion about future EU policy. The CAP is a priority area in the review. Swedish preparations for the budget review have been started and are being coordinated by the Prime Ministers Office. When opportunity arises, should initiate discussions on regionalisation of the CAP and CFP, as well as the possibility of channelling parts of the support mechanisms in these policy areas to an international environment fund in the Baltic Sea area. The final text of the MSD will be negotiated in the run-up to the vote in Parliament during 2007–2008. The programme of measures for the regions is to be con- cluded by 2016 and implemented at the latest by 2018. The time–frame for its introduction is 2008–2020. A ministerial meeting will be held in 2013 to assess the effectiveness of national programmes. The Directive contains no timeframes for the possible of pilot projects. During this period, should work for the earliest possible designation of the Baltic Sea as a pilot project, with sector integration as the point of departure, as well as for the most rapid possible implementa- tion of the MSD. should also work to ensure that the SOU 2008:48 Intergovernmental cooperation on the environment and a Swedish .. pilot project work is accorded financial and other support from Commission. will hold the Presidency of the EU during the autumn of 2009. should then work to push the environ- ment issue and the complex of problems in the Baltic Sea higher up agenda. During the Presidency, should particularly highlight the need for a change of direction and organisation in the CAP and CFP as a central element to ensure greater consideration for the environment. During 2009 Commission is to put forward a pro- posal for an EU strategy for the Baltic Sea region. is currently working to ensure adoption of the strategy during the Swedish Presidency of the EU in the autumn of 2009. This ini- tiative is expected to improve the possibilities of cooperation on environment issues as well as of support from EU institutions. OSPAR: The organisation is undergoing a review during 2008. The HELCOM BSAP: National action plans for the reduction of phosphorus and nitrogen are to be complete by 2010. All measures must be implemented by 2016, and some of them before that. The target is to achieve good ecological status by 2020.