Communication from the Commission — Improving scientific and technical advice for Community fisheries management
Date: 2003-02-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Community fisheries, common fisheries policy, exchange of information, management, observation, scientific report

27.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 47/5

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION

Improving scientific and technical advice for Community fisheries management

(2003/C 47/06)

1. SUMMARY

The Community must base the common fisheries policy on
thereby affording a
improved and timely scientific advice,
firmer grounding in science than has been the case in the
past. This will place more demands on the scientists and the
existing scientific institutions than they can meet now and
urgent improvements to the science base and its organisation
are needed.

The Commission has two main targets for improvements.

Firstly, regional scientific organisations should maintain and
roles as forums for international science,
strengthen their
methodological development, organisation of
surveys and
long-term, strategic advice on the scale of one or more years.
To this end,
the Community should better coordinate the
contributions of Member States to regional scientific organi-
sations.

Secondly, the Community requires its own scientific advisory
capacity which can provide operational advice for fisheries
management within a short
to complement
existing resources at the national level.

time-frame,

the

efficiency

improvements

are presented

under
and coordination of

This Communication outlines the Commission's view of the
needs for and shortfalls in scientific advice in fisheries in
relation to the proposed new common fisheries policy. Plans
two headings:
for
improving
advisory
activities, and strengthening and supplementing the scientific
institutions that provide advice. The Commission proposes a
short-term solution to improve the provision of advice, and
outlines options for new institutional arrangements for a
more solid and permanent
framework for achieving this
objective in the longer term. After debate in the Council and
in the Parliament about this approach more detailed proposals
will be developed in 2003.

2. WHY IS SCIENTIFIC ADVICE A POLICY ISSUE?

Questions of sustainability and biological risk are now the most
important considerations in fisheries management. The chal-
lenges in European fisheries management have substantially
increased demand for up-to-date scientific assessments and
advice. Additionally, increased reliance on scientific advice as
the principal grounds for identifying and addressing problems
has highlighted areas where the advice should be made clearer,
more reliable and more credible. The main concerns about
scientific advice are in the following areas:

— Data: Concerns about data provision and particularly about
the accuracy of catch data have led to concerns about the
credibility of the advice based on such data, and so to a
lessening of the credibility of such advice.

— Transparency: The lack of review procedures in the public
domain has sometimes given the impression that provision
of advice is a ‘closed shop’ and that the lack of openness
may hide fundamental weaknesses in the science.

— Timing: Existing advisory systems were not designed to
provide a rapid response to urgent management questions
and are not very effective in this rôle. Because the conser-
vation measures which are needed are now urgent – and
therefore need to be implemented quickly — there is a
need for scientific advice which is more comprehensive
and detailed and can also respond quickly to management
questions.

— Inflexibility in advice: The adoption of standardised criteria
for provision of
fisheries advice has helped greatly in
providing advice in a consistent way across different
fisheries, but
concerning
circumstances
issues have not always been taken
specific
properly into account.

the particular

fisheries

Recent experience has been that the present advisory systems
are not able or have severe difficulties in delivering the advice
that is needed by managers, and there is a broad consensus on
the need for improvement. Reform of the advisory process is
therefore a key part of the reform of the common fisheries
is necessary to
policy. The Commission firmly believes it
identify the causes of shortcomings in the present system
and to take action to address them. Elements of an eventual
solution are to be found in:

— a greater commitment by Member States

to provide

accurate fisheries data;

— improvements in the priority setting and organisation of

fisheries scientific and advisory work;

— increasing the scientific and technical resources available.

The Commission has primary responsibility for the operation
the common fisheries policy in conformity with good
of
scientific information and good conservation practice but it
has almost no scientific expertise of its own. Instead, it relies
on the resources which Member States provide to scientific
advisory bodies. The mismatch between responsibility and
ownership of resources needs to be rectified.

C 47/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.2.2003

3. THE COMMUNITY'S NEEDS FOR ADVICE IN FISHERIES

Under the proposed new Framework Regulation governing the
operation of the common fisheries policy, the Commission will
continue to be responsible for proposals for Community
measures for the conservation and management of resources,
conditions of access to waters and resources, structural policy
the fleet, control and
and management of
the capacity of
enforcement,
the
markets, and international relations. In particular, there is an
obligation to put in place a decision-making process based on
sound scientific advice and delivering timely results. Because of
the Commission's pivotal rôle in proposing and overseeing the
execution of this policy, it is essential that it be supported by
the right expertise at the right time.

common organisation of

aquaculture,

The main features of
Commission are outlined below.

the required advice foreseen by the

3.1. Basic principles

Conservation and management measures should be based on
scientific advice of high quality. The scientific advice should
cover all relevant factors, and notably the interaction between
fisheries, the resources and the ecosystem and should include
biological,
technical, environmental, economical and social
factors. It should also respect the precision of the available
analyses (i.e., be robust to and take account of uncertainty).

should be objective

Advice
and impartial, prepared in
accordance with the most recent accepted scientific methods,
provided in a timely manner and be easily available and well
explained.
to
precautionary criteria.

formulated with

respect

should

be

It

Advice should identify a recommended course of action (but
also provide information on the consequences of taking other
courses of action).
It may be based on formal analysis, on
expert opinion or a combination of the two. However, the
advice should be transparent and clear about what are the
roles of expert opinion and of numerical analysis. It should
be accompanied by statements about the impact and risks of
alternative options.

scientific aspects

The procedures for the formulation of advice should be in the
public domain and relevant
should be
scientific and technical experts.
reviewed by independent
Advice should in general be prepared in a spirit of openness
to public
should be
scrutiny. Consultation mechanisms
developed with due attention to costs and benefits and in a
proportionate manner to the issues at stake.

Advice should also be formulated on the basis of a wide
scientific participation, and should allow that several alternative
interpretations of the available information may be equally
valid.

3.2. Conservation and management of capture fisheries

3.2.1. Advice of an operational or short-term nature

Advice will be needed in respect of setting appropriate catches
and fishing effort in the short term,
in order to match the
chosen objectives for the longer term. Such advice will need
to include considerations of:

— the state of

the fish stocks and the biological

risks

associated with fishing them,

— the state of populations of non-commercial species and
habitats and the effects of fishing activities on them,

— the long-term sustainable balance between the fishery and

the resources,

— how fish of different species are caught together,

— avoidance of waste and discarding.

3.2.2. Advice of strategic or long-term nature

The Commission has proposed that the Community should
fisheries (1).
develop multiannual management
These plans should assure recovery of stocks where this is
needed and define targets and operational rules for fisheries
management. To this end scientific advice is needed on the
consequences for the stocks and the fisheries of alternative
management strategies.

for various

link
In addition to this, studies determining the operational
between fishing vessel capacity and the fishing mortality
in determining the
developed by that capacity are crucial
capacity of a fishing fleet
is compatible with the
sustainable exploitation of the resources.

that

The common fisheries policy should move towards
the
adoption of an ecosystem-based approach to management.
This will require advice on the long-term effects of fishing
on the structure and functioning of marine ecosystems.

Allocation of fishing opportunities and access is a political
process and not a scientific one. However, where allocations
the boundaries of
concern stocks which migrate across
economic
are often asked to provide
information on the distribution of catches, biomass and the
extent and timing of fish migrations.

scientists

zones,

Within the constraints of good scientific practice, advice should
be practical, in that it can be implemented with a minimum of
subsequent interpretation or evaluation.

(1) Proposal by the Commission for a Council Regulation on the
conservation and sustainable exploitation of
fisheries resources
under the CFP, establishing the framework within which conser-
vation measures, measures to adjust fishing capacity and control
and enforcement measures may be
the CFP.
COM(2002) 185 final.

taken under

27.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 47/7

3.3. Control and enforcement

been

recently

adopted

concerning

Scientific and technical evaluations will continue to be needed
in order to develop control measures. For example, legislation
has
the maximum
permissible twine thickness for nets. Measurement of twine
issue that, while apparently simple,
thickness is a technical
requires
The
enforcement of sanitary and health rules may also require
fish stocks as
technical expertise on the distribution of
compared to the distribution of some contaminants such as
dioxins.

considerable methodological

development.

3.4. International negotiations

The Commission is responsible for the negotiation of fisheries
agreements covering access to the surplus of fish stocks of
third countries and the conditions under which Community
vessels may fish in areas where the conservation measures of
regional fisheries organisations apply. The Community's actions
should promote and strengthen international cooperation and
ensure sustainable and responsible fisheries outside Community
waters with the same commitment as in its own waters.

By adopting the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (1),
the European Community committed itself to ‘promote and
enhance the research capacities of developing countries,
inter
alia in the areas of data collection and analysis, information,
science and technology, human resource development and the
provision of research facilities, in order for them to participate
effectively in the conservation, management and sustainable
use of living aquatic resources’.

3.4.1. Regional and bilateral fisheries agreements

Fisheries agreements require a significant contribution from
scientific staff in respect of ensuring coherence and consistency
of conservation measures in different cases, coordinating the
contributions of Community scientists at
fishery
organisations,
developing
fisheries agreements and negotiating fishing opportunities.

support when

technical

regional

and

is

inadequate,

agreements in line with the Law of the Sea. There may also
be a reluctance to take into consideration the available
scientific information for political reasons. In cases where the
incumbent upon the
science
it becomes
jointly with
Community and its Member States to invest,
partner countries, in developing partner countries' capacity to
analyse their own resource systems, generating scientific
knowledge
them and strengthening management
structures to take up and be responsive to scientific advice.
fisheries management
Such measures are prerequisites
that will deliver sustainable use of aquatic ecosystems.

about

for

The ACP Vision for Sustainable Development (2) provides an
and
framework
up-dated
management
resources.
capacity
Increased Community
in relation to
ecosystem and resource analysis is important in this context.

strengthening
natural

for
for
scientific

renewable

research

capacity

3.5. Aquaculture

The Community does not have the same duties of regulation
and control
for aquaculture as it has for management of
capture fisheries but has responsibilities in respect of environ-
mental issues, human and animal health problems, economics
and animal welfare. Scientific and technical advice on these
aspects of aquaculture activities is often required.

committees

in
Such advice is usually obtained from external experts,
some issues,
particular
for ad hoc scientific advice. For
specific
the
Commission (in particular on sanitary and veterinary issues).
However, there is no existing scientific committee that deals
with the environmental impact and the economics of the aqua-
culture sector.

that may

already

assist

exist

Systematic collection of data on aquaculture production,
market and prices should also be assured. The information
provided by the existing Council Regulation on the submission
by Member States of statistics on aquaculture production is not
sufficient for that purpose.

3.4.2. Scientific cooperation concerning fisheries management advice

3.6. The social and economic dimension of

fisheries

in third countries

management and structural policy

Scientific advice on the fisheries resources and the effect of
fishing on the aquatic ecosystems of third countries where
the Community has an interest should be provided mainly
the country concerned and relevant
through scientists of
In developing countries (particularly
regional organisations.
ACP countries), however,
scientific
knowledge available to determine whether there are excess
resources available which could become the basis of access

there may be

little

and economic

Current advisory systems in fisheries focus on the biological
sciences and little quantitative advice is available about the
alternative management
impact of
social
strategies, despite the development of a thorough theoretical
grounding for assessing the economics of natural resource
management and the
to be
strong need for managers
the social and economic consequences of
informed about
their actions.

(1) Article 12.18 of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries
which was unanimously adopted on 31 October 1995 by the
FAO Conference.

(2) Decision No 2/LXXV/02 of the 75th Session of the ACP Council of
Ministers held in Punta Cana (Dominican Republic), 27 June 2002.
ACP/84/026/02 Rev 2.

C 47/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.2.2003

The principal reason why no such advice is provided is that the
data
standardised
Community-wide basis do not exist.

such an analysis on a

to support

sampling data being collected, such improvements cannot
compensate for the uncertainty caused by uncertainty in the
catch data.

The systematic collection of economic fisheries data on a
Community basis by Member States will begin in 2004 (see
4.1). Once this is established, the Commission's intentions are
to evaluate the quantity, quality and scope of
the data
the
concerned. Arrangements will have to be made for
routine long-term analysis and incorporation of such analyses
into other advice that the Community receives on fisheries.

Because of widespread concerns about the accuracy of official
to inde-
statistics,
fisheries scientists have often had resort
pendent methods of catch estimation. Whilst
inaccurate
reporting of catch statistics continues, there will continue to
be a need for such independent estimations to be made.

4. EXISTING PROCEDURES

FOR THE

PROVISION OF

SCIENTIFIC ADVICE

The following section reviews the ways in which information
and advice are provided by scientists to managers at present.
The advisory process consists of three elements: the collection
of data and information, the analysis forming the basis for the
advice and the formulation of advice. These are discussed in
turn.

Problems exist also in the collection of economic data on
aquaculture and processing; only the latter are included in
Regulation (EC) No 1543/2000 but
their collection is not
compulsory before 2006. Collection of aquaculture statistics
is limited to production data in the framework of Council
Regulation (EC) No 788/96. As a result of the present lack
of reliable data, the Commission cannot efficiently monitor
the state of the aquaculture and processing industries, nor
monitor any surplus production capacity as required in Regu-
lation (EC) No 2792/99.

4.1. Data collection

The conservation needs of stock management have led to lower
quotas, while improvements in the efficiency of the fishing
fleets have led to both a higher catching capacity and a
greater economic need to catch fish in order to repay the
investments. This has created an incentive for commercial
fishermen to catch much more fish than the amounts
permitted under the quota system. The sanctions applied by
Member States have generally not proven a sufficient deterrent
to prevent over-quota catches being commonplace. On account
of this, the precision and accuracy of the catch estimates has
deteriorated very much in recent years, which has reduced the
reliability and credibility of scientific advice.

The Community has accepted greater responsibility for the
collection of
common
the data needed to operate
fisheries policy. Whereas data collection had previously been
the responsibility of Member States with some ad hoc funding
by the Community, the Community is now putting in place
programmes to enhance cooperation and coordination of data
collection, with standardised procedures and criteria.

the

According to Council Regulation (EC) No 1543/2000 (1), the
Member States are responsible for collecting both the fishery-
dependent data and the fishery-independent data and they are
obliged to establish standard databases holding biological and
economic information.

Although the new procedures are expected to improve the
and biological
coverage,

and amount of

survey

scope

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1543/2000 of 29 June 2000 estab-
lishing a Community framework for the collection and management
of the fisheries data needed to conduct the common fisheries policy
(OJ L 176, 15.7.2000, p. 1).

4.2. Scientific and technical analysis and the formulation

of advice

The scientific analysis forming the basis for the advice is in
most cases carried out through cooperation between national
fisheries research institutes. This cooperation is one of the key
means for ensuring that
the advice is prepared to high
standards of integrity and impartiality and in accordance with
international scientific principles.

Some of the more important mechanisms for preparing advice
are outlined below.

4.2.1. Institutional arrangements at international level

Scientific and technical advice is most often provided by the
staff of national fisheries laboratories, which are usually funded
by national governments. Their activities may include research
in many areas of marine science (including chemical and
physical oceanography, ecosystem studies) monitoring activities
(food quality, contamination and pollution), as well as fisheries
assessment and advice. Advice is sometimes sought
from
non-governmental institutions (e.g. University departments).

these institutions, and the services

they
The activities of
provide to national administrations, have in recent years been
the subject of formal agreements. These formal agreements
recognise that scientific advice and research in fisheries is an
activity that must be paid for and managed within well-defined
guidelines.

27.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 47/9

The effect has been that when additional advice is required by
fisheries managers, the national laboratories have had either to
overextend their staff or to divert
them away from other
activities (which may be subject to contractual obligations) in
order to respond to the requests. This has often been the case
when,
for example, Community managers direct additional
requests to ICES.

The situation is highly unsatisfactory for both sides. National
institutes have to attempt to meet requests for experts issuing
from a process over which they have little influence yet derive
no payment for doing so. Meanwhile, the Commission has no
resources of its own to address the urgent issues which are its
direct responsibility.

fisheries organisations (e.g.

in the Inter-
In some regional
American Tropical Tuna Commission) data collection, scientific
research and assessment are undertaken by a scientific staff
belonging to the organisation itself. Other institutions have
recruited permanent staff to a scientific secretariat in order to
provide support for the activities of scientists of national labo-
ratories.

Within the various Regional Fisheries Organisations a number
of common problems have been reported:

— a proliferation of meetings and committees,

— a lack of sufficient scientists from the Community to attend

and to contribute effectively,

— a dependence on the goodwill of Member States to provide

scientific expertise

and in some cases,

— an inability of other countries to contribute to some

regional fisheries organisations.

4.2.2. Provision of advice to national administrations

fisheries

National
laboratories are responsible for original
research, contributions to international advisory and scientific
agencies as well as some monitoring tasks. They also provide
advice to national administrations in respect of issues affecting
the interests of their domestic fishing fleets.

National laboratories are largely funded by national adminis-
trations and there is a clear link between the laboratories and

the institution asking for advice. This is not the case for the
other mechanisms described below.

4.2.3. Collaboration through the International Council for the Explo-

ration of the Sea (ICES)

Scientists from Member States collaborate to assess the state of
many fish stocks in the north-east Atlantic and to provide
fisheries advice through ICES. This organisation was constituted
in 1902 to promote, coordinate and disseminate the results of
research activities associated with the sea and its
living
resources. Following a number of international conventions,
the rôle of ICES was extended to include the provision of
advice on fish stocks and fisheries to three international
fisheries commissions as well as to the European Community.

ICES is a forum for the national fishery laboratories of Member
States and other States in the area to pool their resources when
addressing common problems and to reach a consensus view
on fisheries management advice. ICES has established a system
of Working Groups and Advisory Committees, whose members
are scientists of member countries. The Working Groups report
to the Advisory Committees, which are responsible for formu-
lating the advice.

in promoting

ICES is an organisation of proven effectiveness and credibility
in the development of the science and the provision of annual
advice on appropriate catch levels by stocks. It has been highly
successful
science-based
the
management of fisheries. However, the demand for fisheries
advice is now exceeding ICES' capacity to supply it (1). This
can be gauged in part by the increase in the number of
to the provision of routine
special requests (i.e. additional
advice) directed to ICES from the Commission, and ICES'
response thereto (2).

concept of

The capacity to supply advice through ICES is controlled by the
fisheries laboratories of Member States. However, the demand
for advice is channelled by the Commission on behalf of the
Community, who are the users of the advice. The institution
requesting the advice has very few resources to contribute to
the process, whereas a fisheries laboratory does not necessarily
have a common interest with the Community in allocating
scientific staff to address a question raised by the Community.
The outcome can be that fisheries advisory activities are given
a relatively low priority within ICES.

(1) Report of the 11th meeting of directors of fisheries research organi-
the European Union, 28 May-1 June, 2001, Lysekil,

sation of
Sweden. National Board of Fisheries, Sweden.

(2) In 2000 there were eight such requests, covering Rockall haddock,
sea bass, deep-sea species, cold water corals, measures to reduce the
impact of
fishing on non-target species, harvest strategies for
anchovy, timely provision of warnings about high-risk situations
and measures to reduce catches of small cetaceans. In 2001 there
were requests on five additional topics (relating to cod and hake
recovery measures, advice that takes into account the mixed nature
of fisheries, the effect of assessment bias on advice, multiannual
TAC advice
industrial
by-catches). The recent average time to respond to requests has
been 15 months.

and over-forecasting of

flatfish,

for

C 47/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.2.2003

Exceptionally for a regional organisation concerned with
ICES. This
fisheries,
the Community is not a member of
is the Community
situation appears anomalous in that
which has
conservation and
for
responsibility
management, but is not represented nor involved in the ICES
planning and decision-making process that creates the support
for fisheries advice and fish stock assessment.

it
fisheries

The work of STECF is mainly that of carrying out desk studies,
reviews or compilation of work previously carried out, often by
ICES. Little original scientific work emerges from STECF per se.
However, on a number of occasions,
the Commission has
arranged for sub-groups to be convened under the umbrella
of STECF. The members of a group are often not members of
STECF and have, on some occasions,
included participants
from Norway. These groups produce innovative work, usually
in response to specific requests of the Commission. The reports
of these groups are reviewed by STECF.

4.2.4. Provision of advice concerning non-EU waters

(NAFO,

In areas other than the north-east Atlantic, fisheries advice is
generally provided through a similar mechanism: the devel-
opment of scientific assessments and advice by participation
laboratories in scientific working
of scientists of national
groups established for the purpose (1) by regional
fisheries
ICCAT, CCAMLR, GFCM). However,
organisations
there are generally two differences compared to the ICES
case. Firstly,
is
provided from within organisations responsible for fisheries
management. Secondly,
assignation of
competencies between the Community and its Member
States, it is the Community which is a member of the organi-
sations, although in some cases and especially where mixed
competence
the
Community may also be members.

according to the

in these other

the Member

concerned,

States of

fisheries

forums,

advice

is

With respect to advice concerning fisheries in third country
waters, the Community relies where possible on assessments
made within regional fisheries organisations.
In many cases
however, this information is not available and the Commission
has to have recourse to expertise either from STECF, from
individual experts, or else to rely on its in-house expertise.

In many cases, especially for biological scientists and gear tech-
nologists, the members of STECF are also members of working
groups and other groups within ICES. STECF cannot, therefore,
act as a body completely independent of the ICES system and
participation within STECF imposes additional and sometimes
repetitious workload on its members. There is nevertheless a
tendency for Member States to request reviews of the work of
ICES by STECF, especially if the topic to be reviewed is of a
contentious nature.

STECF is the only regular provider of economic advice to the
Commission. So far, the major contribution of the STECF in
this area has been derived from a research project on the
economic assessment of EU fisheries,
for which the corre-
the end of
sponding financial support will only last until
2004. A way must be found to continue and to develop this
valuable economic tool.

4.2.5. Provision of advice by the Scientific, Technical and Economic

Committee for Fisheries (STECF)

STECF is a body created to advise the Commission on scientific
technical and economic issues in fisheries. It draws on largely
the staff of national
the same pool of expertise as ICES:
fisheries laboratories.

Community funds are only used to pay STECF members for
travel and per diem expenses during their assistance at meetings.
During this time they remain employed by their institutes but
not available to them. This arrangement prevents expansion of
STECF work above a relatively low level that can be supported
by the goodwill of national fisheries institutes and it has not
always been possible for STECF to complete its work in a
timely manner. STECF is at
the limit of what can be
achieved by relying on this goodwill.

The Committee reports to the Commission and its members
are nominated by the Commission from highly qualified
personnel in the scientific, technological and economic fields.
Members of STECF are usually employed by governmental
agencies but sometimes belong to the academic field.

(1) The Scientific Council of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organi-
sation (NAFO); the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics
(SCRS) within the International Commission for the Conservation of
Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT); Scientific Council of the Commission for
the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR)
has established a scientific council for the coordination of science
and the provision of assessments and advice; the Scientific Advisory
Committee (SAC) of the General Fisheries Council for the Medi-
terranean (GFCM).

4.2.6. Ad hoc expert meetings

The Commission occasionally convenes ad hoc international
meetings of scientists to address specific issues. Meetings of
this kind have been called, for instance, when there has been
a need to agree joint management measures with Norway.
Regional
fisheries organisations such as IBSFC and NEAFC
have also convened such meetings. Such meetings do not
represent an adequate procedure to deal with recurrent issues
or for routine assessments. They also draw on the resource
base of the national fisheries laboratories.

27.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 47/11

4.2.7. Synergy with Community research policy

from research conducted under

Over the medium and long term, Community fisheries policy
benefits
the Community
framework programme. Efforts are being made in the context
the European Research Area initiative to improve the
of
responsiveness of research under the framework programme
to the needs of Community policies,
including fisheries
policy, to ensure better prioritisation of research requirements
and to create more coherence and synergy between national
and Community research activities. These improvements are
fully in line with the objectives of this Communication, and
should work in favour of them.

4.3. Scientific expertise in the Commission

In the absence of a reserve list of candidates selected by open
competition, Commission recruitment procedures generally
preclude the recruitment of scientific staff on a permanent
basis. Consequently, DG FISH internal specialist expertise is
presently met by either
secondment of national experts
(numbering two as of April 2002) or through temporary
employment contracts (seven as of April 2002). This number
of specialist staff within the Commission services is insufficient
to meet
for the entire
Community and many management proposals and decisions
have suffered from shortcomings in quality and delays in
consequence.

fisheries management

the needs of

4.4. Synopsis of problems and possible remedial measures

The following principal problems have been identified in the
foregoing sections:

social and economic aspects will require an increase in
resources compared to the traditional
fisheries aspects
dealt with at present.

— It

is only possible to obtain more and better scientific
advice by employing more scientific staff and supporting
new science.

The Commission considers that there are two main ways of
improving the present situation.

The first is to reorganise the provision of advice in a way
that makes it more efficient at delivering what is needed. This
will involve improving the links between science and industry
and better coordinating the Community's efforts in fisheries
science,
in particular by identifying priority tasks and needs
and focussing scarce human resources on them. In parallel it
will be necessary to use working methods that are more
responsive to management needs than the existing procedures.

The second is to devote more resources to obtaining better
and more rapid scientific advice. This will entail collection of
more extensive and reliable data and the recruitment of more
specialist staff to analyse data and provide advice. While in the
short term it may be possible to build on existing institutional
structures, in the longer term new structures will have to be
responsibility and
developed which provide clear
ownership for the resources and obligations concerned.

lines of

— There is a growing need for scientific advice, which is over-
whelming the advisory systems — be these ICES, STECF or
other organisations — that rely on already overstretched
manpower in national fisheries laboratories.

5. BETTER ORGANISING THE PROVISION OF ADVICE

The provision of scientific advice needs to be better organised
in order to meet the requirements of fisheries managers. The
following sections explore what gains might be achieved by
altering present arrangements.

— The priorities of the Community (as users of the advice)
and the national fisheries laboratories (where the expertise
resides) are not necessarily the same. Indeed, there are only
indirect links between the two.

— Scientific expertise is becoming subject

to more formal
contractual arrangements between the fisheries laboratories
and their funding agencies. A place has yet to be found in
these arrangements for the provision of advice to the
Community.

5.1. Incorporating knowledge from the fishing industry

The Commission values the knowledge and practical experience
of the fishing sector, and will seek technical contributions from
experienced stakeholders in the context of the regional advisory
committees. These Committees should have an important rôle
in assisting the scientific advisory process, both by providing
additional information about fisheries activities and fish stocks,
and by explaining which areas are of pressing concern.

— Unlike the Member States, the Commission has very little

scientific or technical expertise at its direct disposal.

— The challenge of developing integrated and coherent advice
that takes account of ecosystem issues and environmental,

The Commission wishes to encourage the fishing sector to
provide relevant information directly to the scientific organi-
sations and to participate in collaborative scientific and data-
collecting activities. This would also apply to the data necessary
for the assessment of the economic performance of EU fishing
fleets. Furthermore,
in
suggesting areas for research and for scientific advice.

the fishing sector might also assist

C 47/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.2.2003

Activities which could be developed in this context include:

— consultation between scientists and the fishing industry, at
a sectoral or regional level, and particularly in the Regional
Advisory Councils already proposed by the Commission,

— external review of fisheries assessments,

— collaboration

of multiannual
management plans and rules for setting TACs or fishing
effort régimes.

formulation

the

in

5.2. Improving coordination of

fisheries research and

advice

Better coordination of Community scientific action in support
of management needs should help create a scientific advisory
system that responds better to those needs. This in itself should
provide a gain in efficiency that will help reduce the workload.

considers

Commission

efficiency
The
improvements should be achievable by closer coordination of
Community participation in ICES for subjects relevant to the
operation of the common fisheries policy. In particular, the
Commission proposes:

further

that

level. Within the Community,
the international and regional
the framework programmes provide for the coordination and
partial
research
funding from the Community budget of
programmes of Member States.

5.3. Prioritising scientific tasks

Scientific advice might be provided more efficiently by concen-
trating resources on those topics of greatest management
interest, although there is a corresponding risk that scientific
effort could be directed into unproductive areas because of
sectoral
interests. Some areas in which the demands placed
on the system could be reduced may include:

— allocating more research and data collection effort

to

high-risk situations and less effort to low-risk situations,

— using simplified procedures to provide advice in a context
where multiannual management plans have been agreed,

— providing advice on a less frequent basis for stocks where
annual changes in stock size are difficult to measure, as is
the
done at present
application of this approach be restricted to cases where
stock dynamics are relatively stable in relation to the
precision of the assessments),

for Nephrops (it

is important

that

— Regular coordination between the Commission services,
national
fisheries administrators and the directors of
fisheries research institutes in the Member States in order
to identify priority management needs and to coordinate
and commit the use of resources to address those needs in
advance of contributions to be made through ICES;

— Coordination meetings for the Community delegates to
in respect of

ICES and other regional scientific bodies,
topics of Community responsibility;

— developing

procedures

and methods

for

addressing

questions of urgent management interest as they arise.

In a situation where fisheries are sustainable, and where as a
consequence, fishing effort is well matched to the available
for management advice
fishing possibilities,
the common
would be reduced. To reach this situation,
fisheries policy will address, among others, the following issues:

the demands

— multiannual plans with precautionary long-term strategies,

— Consideration of full membership of the Community in all
organisations relevant to fisheries advice, including ICES.

— effort management systems,

Overall it is important in the context of regional fishery organi-
sations that the Community scientific contribution should be
well coordinated in order to facilitate efficient working and the
provision of clear advice with a consensual basis. The
Commission services have provided the coordination rôle in
many RFOs, and should continue to do so. Furthermore, as
the main institution implementing the advice, the Commission
needs to to be informed in detail about the substantive issues
underlying the advice.

The regional scientific organisations are the main forums for
the coordination and planning of research in marine science at

— management of

fleet
productive potential of the exploited stocks.

capacity

in balance with the

Despite the possibilities for reducing some demands on the
system, however,
the overall need for scientific advice is
likely to continue growing. This is not only because of the
need to base management decisions on scientific advice, but
also because the scientific basis is likely to be enlarged to cope
with environmental, economic and social aspects. Public health
considerations as well as ecosystem and fleet-based measures
will add further to the demands on the fisheries monitoring
and advisory systems.

27.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 47/13

5.4. Clarifying the rôles of scientific adviser and manager

6. IMPROVING THE RESOURCE BASE FOR ADVICE

the division of

One of the difficulties with much current scientific advice is
that
labour between the scientist and the
manager is sometimes confused. Some scientific advice may
be based on assumptions about policy objectives that are the
responsibility of the manager, with the result that the advice
becomes open to question because of its policy assumptions.

It is therefore important that requests for scientific advice be
formulated in a way that
to what
assumptions the scientists are being asked to make. At least
two approaches are possible.

leaves no doubt as

The first is for the management authority to state clearly what
its management objectives are and to ‘impose’ those constraints
on the scientists. This approach might be followed by the
Community in the
agreement on multi-annual
management plans, where targets in terms as, for example,
biomass, fishing mortality rate, yield or catch stability could
be fixed.

case of

The second is for the management authority to request advice
on different management options before deciding on which
one to choose.
In this case those giving advice would be
required to identify the assumptions underlying such options
and to indicate the alternative strategies to be followed.

Greater
clarity concerning the assumptions about policy
objectives will be needed, both when the Community
requests scientific advice, as well as when scientific agencies
provide the advice.

In both cases the fishing industry and other interested parties
should be associated with the formulation of the management
authority requests, as indicated in Section 5.1.

5.5. Creating a more responsive institutional framework

Fisheries managers are becoming concerned at
the long
response time in answering requests for scientific advice. A
need for a ‘fast-track’ method for obtaining rapid answers to
urgent management questions is needed. Such a method might
include the rapid constitution of ad-hoc groups to address
specific problems — with additional
required.
Regional scientific organisations are at present not well suited
to providing this fast-track advice. A major limiting factor is
the lack of spare scientific resources to address such questions:
scientific priorities are scheduled a long time in advance and
cannot be easily rescheduled. Obtaining such fast-track advice
is a priority for the Commission.

funding if

scientific
Even assuming a more focused organisation of
activities on problems of management
there will
remain a significant shortfall between the amount of advice
which is needed and that which staff of national laboratories
can
other
commitments. The Community must explore possibilities for
better supporting the science base.

constraints

budgetary

provide,

interest,

given

and

6.1. Improving data collection and catch statistics

Large-scale misreporting of
causing serious problems
advice. Because of
purposes,
reported must be improved. Meanwhile,
scientists should critically examine such information.

landings in certain fisheries is
scientific
for
this, as well as for quota management
the accuracy with which landings information is
it is necessary that

the provision of

The Community framework for the collection and management
of data needed to conduct the common fisheries policy estab-
lished in Council Regulation (EC) No 1543/2000 is expected to
result in a significant improvement in the quality of fishery-
independent biological and economic data and should be an
important contribution to enhancing scientific advice. It should
become possible to combine the data collected under Regu-
lation (EC) No 1543/2000 and under
forthcoming
Community Framework Regulation with other data collection
initiatives measuring the state of and pressures on the marine
environment. For this purpose, coordination of data collection
initiatives is needed so that they can contribute to the estab-
lishment of a common information infrastructure that will
remove the obstacles for accessing and using publicly funded
data for assessments and scientific and technical advice. Such a
coordination could take place in the context of the common
monitoring and assessment
strategy referred to in the
Communication ‘Towards a strategy to protect and conserve
the marine environment’.

the

It is, however, unlikely that these programmes will significantly
affect the quality and reliability of the catch statistics because
these are collected through different systems designed for
control purposes. This issue should be addressed urgently as
part of
is a common
perception that scientific advice must be flawed because the
assessments are based on official statistics which are widely
believed to be unreliable.

the CFP because it

the reform of

However, reorganisation alone will not be able to deliver both
an increase in the quality and scope of the advice as well as
faster delivery of this advice.

The Commission has proposed measures aimed at improving
the quality control of national catch statistics in its proposal for
a new Framework Regulation.

C 47/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.2.2003

6.2. Strengthening the science base and improving the

focus on management problems

The core of the problem is that there are simply not enough
scientists
to provide the analysis and advice which the
Community needs to operate the common fisheries policy.

— remuneration to national laboratories for the inputs of their
staff to STECF, in order that they may further develop their
scientific manpower base,

— short-term contracts for experts in certain specialist areas

where advice is needed urgently;

The challenge is to increase the overall resource base of
science and to assure a long-term allocation of
fisheries
resources to advising the Community. There is a need to
secure improved funding for fisheries science and advice and
also to develop administrative structures that recognise that the
Community is a principal user of the fisheries science and
advice and has justified claims on the resource base.

A budgetary envelope of EUR 2,3 million for these activities
has been included in the Community budget for 2003. The
Commission will use this envelope to pursue pilot actions in
this area. Based on experiences so gained and after consul-
tations with the relevant parties and Member States,
the
Commission will,
later this year, propose detailed methods
for financial support for improved scientific advice for the
period 2004 to 2006.

6.2.1. Main requirements for developing fisheries advice

It is essential that advice be provided to the Commission by
scientists who are well-informed, of good standing, and visibly
free of political influence. This implies:

6.2.3. The tasks to be addressed

The additional resources would be used primarily for:

— preparing ad hoc studies of urgent interest,

Well-informed: members of scientific advisory bodies should
have close contact with the groups charged with receiving
and analysing data. They should be integrated into inter-
national structures charged with analysing information and
should attend working groups. Scientists both contribute to
science and provide advice to national administrations. There
should not in principle be an objection to scientists funded by
the Commission contributing to ICES (for example) and also
advising the Commission services.

Of good standing: Scientists gain their standing through a
record of original contributions
in
fisheries science. Members of scientific advisory bodies should
their record and should have
be chosen on the basis of
in
sufficient opportunity to continue
scientific developments.

to solving problems

involvement

their

influence: Scientists in most national
Visibly free of political
administrations are generally placed at a distance from adminis-
trative and political pressures by the national fisheries labora-
tories. Those who are not so distanced quickly lose credibility
and influence.

6.2.2. Remedial measures

In order to develop the resource base in fisheries science and
advice, the Commission has come to the conclusion that there
needs to be more staff employed to provide scientific and
technical advice in fisheries to the Community.

The Commission is still considering practical options for
funding and deploying such additional staff. There are two
main lines of development:

— technical support

for preparation of conservation regu-

lations,

— preparation of STECF meetings and sub-group reports,

— technical support for negotiations with third parties,

— improving the scientific and technical dialogue with the

fishing sector and interested sectors,

— participation in scientific developments,

— review and evaluation of scientific reports,

— planning and support

for

research and development

projects.

7. THE LONGER TERM

of

short

The short-term improvements proposed in Section 6 would fall
far
fisheries
a
management system under Community responsibility. Some
of the more obvious shortfalls and problem areas envisaged
are:

scientifically-based

delivering

— scientific experts working within DG FISH could find their
effectiveness reduced because it would be difficult for them
to maintain their active participation in science,

— short-term contracts may not increase the expert resource
base (any additional resources provided by the Commission
would most
likely be used to substitute for existing
resources rather than to add to them),

— for

some Member States, direct payments

from the
Community to a national fisheries laboratory in support
of a particular work area is institutionally impossible,

27.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 47/15

— the best experts usually commit their time for extended
periods in the future and are not available for ad hoc
studies at short notice,

— ICES might not accept responsibilities outside the ICES area
such as the Mediterranean, where some interested Member
States are not members of ICES,

— establishing short-term contracts with scientists

from
Member States to advise the Commission on issues for
the benefit of the Community may on occasion expose
such scientists to conflicts of interest.

— ICES would require some time to establish expertise and

credibility with respect to fisheries in other areas,

More substantial changes are required. The Community should
begin to look at the options, even if these changes will take
some time to prepare. It may not be possible to implement
these options within the present financial perspectives. The
Commission considers that a stable institutional structure is
needed for
the
and technical
common fisheries policy in the long term.

support of

scientific

the

The Commission is considering various alternative models and
suggests that two be discussed at the political level. The first is
to reinforce the rôle of ICES to include the provision of advice
of special interest to the Community, including fisheries issues
outside its normal geographical scope. The second would be to
develop a Community capacity for analysis and advice.

7.1. An enhanced rôle for ICES

ICES might be able to expand its rôle to adopt the functions of
an advisory agency to the Community across the whole range
of management activity, rather than only a part of it. This
could provide an easier institutional route to improving the
resource base than creating a new agency. The main differences
with present arrangements would be that:

— ICES would directly employ a team of fisheries scientists
whose responsibilities would include most of
the tasks
identified in Section 6.2.3, assisted as appropriate by
specialist staff from Member States,

issues

today,

than it does

— ICES would be requested to provide advice on a wider
including more
range of
evaluation and advice on technical measures
such as
closed areas and gear restrictions and the development of
a fast-track facility for the provision of advice. To cover the
whole range of Community issues in fisheries, ICES would
need to expand its remit to cover some fisheries issues
outside the ICES fishing area.

Some shortcomings to this approach can be envisaged:

— the respective rôles of ‘ICES acting for the Community’, and
other scientific bodies such as the scientific committees of
GFCM and NAFO would need careful definition.

Under this scheme, the scope of activity of STECF would be
reduced to two main areas: the provision of economic advice
and information, and a monitoring and supervisory rôle for the
activities of ICES. Advice on Mediterranean issues may need
also to be retained within STECF.

7.2. Alternative Community solutions

One possibility is to increase the scientific resources available
by creating a new scientific body whose principal remit would
be to provide the science required by the Commission in order
to ensure that its proposals and negotiations are soundly based.
There are a number of institutional models for such an insti-
tution,
the
a European Agency,
Commission or a technical unit within the Joint Research
Centre (a Directorate of the Commission services).

an office of

such as

Such an organisation could assure independence of scientific
advice, provide the Community with technical advice in
support of its policies, using resources from the Community
budget and provide additional long-term staffing positions. It
could act as a technical and scientific secretariat for STECF.

The organisation need not be an institution situated in a single
location. Its staff could be distributed among a number of small
offices located close to (or within) the national laboratories of
member states. An intermediate option could be the estab-
lishment of a network of regional centres covering sea areas
of common interest.

The Commission considers that these options require wider
debate among industry and Member States. It will take steps
to develop this debate while the short-term measures are being
put in place.

— closer coordination and monitoring of the advisory process
by the Commission and Member States would be required,

8. CONCLUSIONS

— ICES includes important non-Community members and the
internal allocation of ICES resources might be difficult to
agree,

There are too few scientists available to provide the advice
needed by fisheries managers in the Community. For the
near future, new challenges to deal with ecosystem, social
and economic issues in fisheries advice will have to be met.

C 47/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.2.2003

Some gains in efficiency can be achieved by better coordinating
scientific activities and focussing these more on management
needs. These will be pursued by the Commission, notably in
better coordinating and planning the Community contribution
to fisheries science and advice, but they will not be enough to
make good the shortfall.

As a further step, the Commission will propose to improve
support for existing arrangements, and STECF in particular,
by seeking to compensate national fisheries institutes finan-
cially for the manpower allocated to this Committee. The
Commission will also seek to establish a list of experts who
can be contracted at short notice to advise on specific issues.

to deliver additional net

to fisheries
structures
science and to improve the provision of advice relevant to
the management of the European Common Fisheries Policy.

resources

The Community's task is to achieve:

— a firm basis for the new common fisheries policy in science

and analysis,

— a strong Community scientific contribution to international

fisheries science,

For the longer term, the Commission wishes to open a debate
on the establishment of new institutional arrangements and

— a strong capability by scientists in the Community to advise

managers on fisheries issues as they happen.