Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

[**Avis juridique important**](../../../editorial/legal_notice.htm)

*|*

# 52003XC0227(02)

**Communication from the Commission — Improving scientific and technical advice for Community fisheries management** 
  
*Official Journal C 047 , 27/02/2003 P. 0005 - 0016*

  

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 improved and timely scientific advice, thereby affording a 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 strengthen their roles as forums for international science, 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 organisations.

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

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 for improvements are presented under two headings: improving the efficiency and coordination of 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 challenges 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 conservation 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 the particular circumstances concerning specific fisheries issues have not always been taken properly into account.

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 policy. The Commission firmly believes it is necessary to 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 of the common fisheries policy in conformity with good 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.

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 and management of the capacity of the fleet, control and enforcement, aquaculture, common organisation of 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.

The main features of the required advice foreseen by the Commission are outlined below.

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).

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

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.

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

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.

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 develop multiannual management for various fisheries(1). 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.

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

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 concern stocks which migrate across the boundaries of economic zones, scientists are often asked to provide information on the distribution of catches, biomass and the extent and timing of fish migrations.

3.3. Control and enforcement

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

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(2), 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 regional fishery organisations, and technical support when developing fisheries agreements and negotiating fishing opportunities.

3.4.2. Scientific cooperation concerning fisheries management advice in third countries

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 through scientists of the country concerned and relevant regional organisations. In developing countries (particularly ACP countries), however, there may be little scientific knowledge available to determine whether there are excess resources available which could become the basis of access 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 science is inadequate, it becomes incumbent upon the Community and its Member States to invest, jointly with partner countries, in developing partner countries' capacity to analyse their own resource systems, generating scientific knowledge about them and strengthening management structures to take up and be responsive to scientific advice. Such measures are prerequisites for fisheries management that will deliver sustainable use of aquatic ecosystems.

The ACP Vision for Sustainable Development(3) provides an up-dated framework for strengthening research and management capacity for natural renewable resources. Increased Community scientific capacity in relation to ecosystem and resource analysis is important in this context.

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 environmental issues, human and animal health problems, economics and animal welfare. Scientific and technical advice on these aspects of aquaculture activities is often required.

Such advice is usually obtained from external experts, in particular for ad hoc scientific advice. For some issues, specific committees already exist that may assist 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 aquaculture sector.

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.

3.6. The social and economic dimension of fisheries management and structural policy

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

The principal reason why no such advice is provided is that the data to support such an analysis on a standardised Community-wide basis do not exist.

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 concerned. Arrangements will have to be made for the routine long-term analysis and incorporation of such analyses into other advice that the Community receives on fisheries.

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.

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 the data needed to operate the common 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.

According to Council Regulation (EC) No 1543/2000(4), 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 coverage, scope and amount of survey and biological sampling data being collected, such improvements cannot compensate for the uncertainty caused by uncertainty in the catch data.

Because of widespread concerns about the accuracy of official statistics, fisheries scientists have often had resort to independent 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.

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 Regulation (EC) No 2792/99.

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).

The activities of these institutions, and the services they 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.

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.

In some regional fisheries organisations (e.g. in the Inter-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 laboratories.

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

National fisheries 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 administrations 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 Exploration 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 formulating the advice.

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 in promoting the concept of science-based management of fisheries. However, the demand for fisheries advice is now exceeding ICES' capacity to supply it(5). This can be gauged in part by the increase in the number of special requests (i.e. additional to the provision of routine advice) directed to ICES from the Commission, and ICES' response thereto(6).

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.

Exceptionally for a regional organisation concerned with fisheries, the Community is not a member of ICES. This situation appears anomalous in that it is the Community which has responsibility for fisheries conservation and 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.

4.2.4. Provision of advice concerning non-EU waters

In areas other than the north-east Atlantic, fisheries advice is generally provided through a similar mechanism: the development of scientific assessments and advice by participation of scientists of national laboratories in scientific working groups established for the purpose(7) by regional fisheries organisations (NAFO, ICCAT, CCAMLR, GFCM). However, there are generally two differences compared to the ICES case. Firstly, in these other forums, fisheries advice is provided from within organisations responsible for fisheries management. Secondly, according to the assignation of competencies between the Community and its Member States, it is the Community which is a member of the organisations, although in some cases and especially where mixed competence is concerned, the Member States of the Community may also be members.

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.

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 same pool of expertise as ICES: the staff of national fisheries laboratories.

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.

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.

In many cases, especially for biological scientists and gear technologists, 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 corresponding financial support will only last until the end of 2004. A way must be found to continue and to develop this valuable economic tool.

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.

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.

4.2.7. Synergy with Community research policy

Over the medium and long term, Community fisheries policy benefits from research conducted under the Community framework programme. Efforts are being made in the context of the European Research Area initiative to improve the 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 the needs of fisheries management for the entire Community and many management proposals and decisions have suffered from shortcomings in quality and delays in consequence.

4.4. Synopsis of problems and possible remedial measures

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

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

- 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.

- 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, 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 developed which provide clear lines of responsibility and ownership for the resources and obligations concerned.

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.

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.

The Commission wishes to encourage the fishing sector to provide relevant information directly to the scientific organisations 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, the fishing sector might also assist in suggesting areas for research and for scientific advice.

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

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.

The Commission considers that further efficiency 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:

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

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

Overall it is important in the context of regional fishery organisations 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 the international and regional level. Within the Community, the framework programmes provide for the coordination and partial funding from the Community budget of research programmes of Member States.

5.3. Prioritising scientific tasks

Scientific advice might be provided more efficiently by concentrating 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 done at present for Nephrops (it is important that the application of this approach be restricted to cases where stock dynamics are relatively stable in relation to the precision of the assessments),

- 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 fishing possibilities, the demands for management advice would be reduced. To reach this situation, the common fisheries policy will address, among others, the following issues:

- multiannual plans with precautionary long-term strategies,

- effort management systems,

- management of fleet capacity in balance with the productive potential of the exploited stocks.

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.

5.4. Clarifying the rôles of scientific adviser and manager

One of the difficulties with much current scientific advice is that the division of 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 leaves no doubt as to what assumptions the scientists are being asked to make. At least two approaches are possible.

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 case of agreement on multi-annual management plans, where targets in terms as, for example, biomass, fishing mortality rate, yield or catch stability could be fixed.

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 funding if 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.

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.

6. IMPROVING THE RESOURCE BASE FOR ADVICE

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

6.1. Improving data collection and catch statistics

Large-scale misreporting of landings in certain fisheries is causing serious problems for the provision of scientific advice. Because of this, as well as for quota management purposes, the accuracy with which landings information is reported must be improved. Meanwhile, it is necessary that scientists should critically examine such information.

The Community framework for the collection and management of data needed to conduct the common fisheries policy established 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 Regulation (EC) No 1543/2000 and under the 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 establishment 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".

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

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.

The challenge is to increase the overall resource base of fisheries science and to assure a long-term allocation of 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.

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:

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 international 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 to solving problems in fisheries science. Members of scientific advisory bodies should be chosen on the basis of their record and should have sufficient opportunity to continue their involvement in scientific developments.

Visibly free of political influence: Scientists in most national administrations are generally placed at a distance from administrative and political pressures by the national fisheries laboratories. 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:

- 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;

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 consultations 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.

6.2.3. The tasks to be addressed

The additional resources would be used primarily for:

- preparing ad hoc studies of urgent interest,

- technical support for preparation of conservation regulations,

- 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

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

- 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,

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

- 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.

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 scientific and technical support of the common fisheries policy in the long term.

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,

- ICES would be requested to provide advice on a wider range of issues than it does today, including more 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:

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

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

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

- ICES would require some time to establish expertise and credibility with respect to fisheries in other areas,

- 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 institution, such as a European Agency, an office of the Commission or a technical unit within the Joint Research Centre (a Directorate of the Commission services).

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 establishment 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.

8. CONCLUSIONS

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.

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 financially 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.

For the longer term, the Commission wishes to open a debate on the establishment of new institutional arrangements and structures to deliver additional net resources to fisheries science and to improve the provision of advice relevant to the management of the European Common Fisheries Policy.

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,

- a strong capability by scientists in the Community to advise managers on fisheries issues as they happen.

(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 conservation measures, measures to adjust fishing capacity and control and enforcement measures may be taken under the CFP. COM(2002) 185 final.

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

(3) 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.

(4) Council Regulation (EC) No 1543/2000 of 29 June 2000 establishing 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).

(5) Report of the 11th meeting of directors of fisheries research organisation of the European Union, 28 May-1 June, 2001, Lysekil, Sweden. National Board of Fisheries, Sweden.

(6) 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 for flatfish, and over-forecasting of industrial by-catches). The recent average time to respond to requests has been 15 months.

(7) The Scientific Council of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (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 Mediterranean (GFCM).

[Top](#document1)