The North Sea Advisory Council
Report of the General Assembly 2015
Husa President Park Hotel
Brussels
23rd September 2015
Rapporteur: Tony Hawkins
Draft (1)
1
Welcome & Introduction
1.1
The Chairman, Guus Pastoor, welcomed participants to the General Assembly of the
NSAC. He thanked the Belgian Government for hosting the meeting and for providing
an excellent dinner the previous evening at a restaurant overlooking the Grand Place.
1.2
Apologies had been received from Stella Nemecky and Marc Ghiglia.
2
Adoption of Agenda
2.1
The agenda of the meeting was adopted with the insertion of an update on the
proposed Technical Measures Regulation from Dominic Rihan of the Commission.
3
Report of the Previous General Assembly
3.1
The report of the General Assembly held at the Swedish Government Offices in
Stockholm on 24th September 2014 was reviewed. There were no comments. All the
actions had been achieved.
4
New Framework Regulation on Technical Measures
4.1
Dominic Rihan reported that the new regulation attempted to do 3 things: optimise the
contribution of technical measures; make those measures more dynamic; and achieve
simplification by making the rules easier to understand. A proposal is to come forward
from the Commission before the end of the year. It was currently going through an
impact assessment. DG Mare would then consult with the other Directorate Generals
and then the proposal would be ready.
4.2
The proposal has 4 sections:
Page 1
NSAC




General provisions, objectives, definitions, common provisions, prohibited
gears and nature conservation measures
Baseline measures. A range of simple rules pending regionalisation
Closures – removing closed areas where they are unnecessary
Regionalisation, the derogations from the baseline measures to be decided at
a regional level
It was hoped that there would be very few restrictive rules. The regulation would cover
all regions and it would be for co-legislators to decide what to retain and what to reject.
The legal architecture would have to align with multi-annual plans.
4.3
Michael Andersen was curious about the reasons for retaining any closed areas. On
mesh sizes, would it be possible for regional authorities to set their own mesh sizes?
Dominic Rihan replied that STECF had done an assessment of the Commission’s rules
on closed areas. In some cases the original objectives no longer held. Other measures
might do things more effectively. Decisions should be based on science. On mesh
sizes, the baseline rules were intended to be very simple. It would be for regional
authorities to decide on mesh sizes – but they would be held accountable for their
decisions. Emile Brouckaert wondered whether decisions would be restricted to groups
of Member States. Dominic replied that where a Member State was the only player –
in its own waters – it would be able to decide.
4.4
Barrie Deas remarked that there would be many points of detail that the NSAC would
wish to discuss and comment upon. The regulation has been a long time in coming,
but the focus is now on achieving results. Regional decision-taking on technical
measures was most appropriate. Dominic said that consultation with the NSAC had
already been very useful. Industry comments had been valuable.
4.5
Kenn Skau Fischer asked whether we really needed a regulation on technical
measures. Also, wouldn’t this regulation take some time to go through the co-decision
process? Dominic said that one of the original options had been total deregulation, but
there had been problems in the past when there had been no rules on technical
measures. Some Member States and Environmental NGOs were nervous about what
would happen if there were no rules in place. He agreed that the political process for
agreeing the regulation would take some time. Discussions were focusing on
governance issues rather than the detailed provisions. Euan Dunn asked whether the
regulation would link with Natura 2000. Dominic replied that it would.
4.6
Michael Park asked whether the regulation would be subject to review, as many
modifications had been necessary to regulations in the past to make them workable.
Dominic replied that the regulation could be amended, but regional bodies would be
able to review points of detail through the multi-annual plans. It would not need
constant amendment.
4.7
Samuel Stone understood the wish to move away from a prescriptive approach but
there were risks in doing this. There had to be some trust in the system. Were there
any checks and balances to ensure that the overall objectives were being met?
Dominic assured Sam that there would be checks and balances put in place. The
baseline provisions would set out the overall objectives. Pim Visser asked how we
Page 2
NSAC
could prevent Member States from adding excessive detail through the regional
process? Dominic said that it could not be guaranteed that this would not happen.
Barrie Deas added that there was also a very real risk that the co-legislators would
introduce excessive add-ons. Too many details within the regulations would cause
problems. We must send out the message that governance was the core issue.
4.8
Guus Pastoor thanked Dominic Rihan for his important contribution to the meeting.
5
Review of the Year
5.1
The rapporteur, Tony Hawkins, presented a review of the year. Full details were
available within the Annual Report (Paper 5.1). The First General Assembly of the
NSAC had been held in Edinburgh in November 2004. This was the Twelfth General
Assembly. A large number of NSAC meetings had been held throughout the past year,
and the NSAC had also been represented at a large number of external meetings. This
had strained our financial resources.
5.2
Major Topics discussed in 2014/15 had included:














5.3
North Sea Cod; TACs for 2015; Cod Management Issues
Implementation of the Landing Obligation – the discard ban – a major issue
Engagement with the Scheveningen Group of North Sea Fishery Directors –
as part of the developing process of regionalisation
The Commission’s proposal for a Mixed Fishery Plan for the Demersal
Fisheries of the North Sea
Presentation to the Commission of the NSAC Long Term Management Plan for
Nephrops and the development of advice for the Farne Deeps
North Sea Natura 2000 sites & the management of fisheries within them
Implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive
Development of a new Framework for Technical Measures
A Prohibition on Drift Net Fisheries
Electrical Pulse Fishing
Management of the North Sea Brown Shrimp Fisheries
Management of Sea Bass
Changing ICES advice; the management of mixed fisheries taking account of
multi-species interactions
Fishing Opportunities for 2016
Advice submitted during the year had included:




Page 3
Phasing the Implementation of the EU Landings Obligation for the Demersal
Fisheries of the North Sea. 12th December 2014
A Long Term Management Plan for North Sea Nephrops. 16th February 2015
Development of a New Framework for Technical Measures in the Reformed
CFP. 11th March 2015
The Implementation of the EU Landings Obligation for the Demersal Fisheries
of the North Sea: Exemptions and Other Issues. 31st March 2015
NSAC

Advice on a Mixed Fishery Plan for the North Sea. 30th April 2015
Advice still under development included:









Use of Pulse Fishing in the North Sea
Advice on the Brown Shrimp Roadmap provided by ICES
Quota Uplift Conditions
Dealing with Choke Species
Monitoring, Control and Enforcement under the Landing Obligation
Revision of the Nephrops Management Plan
Management Advice on the Farne Deeps Nephrops Fishery
Management of Sea Bass
Response to Fishing Opportunities 2016
6
Applications for Membership of the Executive Committee
6.1
There were three new applications for membership of the Executive Committee. All
three organisations were already members of the General Assembly. However there
were currently only vacancies within the “other interests” (40%) sector.
6.2
The chairman clarified the procedure. He proposed that the three organizations would
present themselves to the General Assembly and after that answer any questions
coming from the meeting. Members of the General Assembly elect the ExCom
members. There is no need to discuss with the Commission or Member States.
6.3
Irene Kingma, the Director of the Dutch Elasmobranch Society, presented its case for
membership. The Society had been active within the NSAC in recent years.
Elasmobranchs were vulnerable to over-fishing and habitat destruction. Many of them
were top predators and they were important within ecosystems. The Society has as its
primary purpose: to carry out, facilitate and encourage scientific research on sharks
and rays, and in this way add to the knowledge base necessary for (inter) national
policy, management and conservation of cartilaginous fish. The main focus is on
elasmobranch species in Dutch waters (including the Dutch Overseas Countries and
municipalities) and the species caught by the Dutch fishing fleet. The Society carries
out its own research; engages in advocacy; undertakes advisory work; and runs public
campaigns.
6.4
Henrike Le Semmler presented the case for Oceana, which is an international
organisation focused on ocean conservation. It has European offices in Madrid,
Brussels and Copenhagen. It carries out research, organises expeditions, works with
Universities and has 300,000 followers. It is funded by private and public donors. Its
main goals are to bring the oceans back to their former abundance levels, to achieve
sustainable fishing and to reduce bycatches. Oceana would like to contribute to the
work of the NSAC and the development of stakeholder advice to achieve sustainable
exploitation and reduce damage to the marine environment.
6.5
Nicolas Teisseire introduced the work of Blue Fish. The organisation was formed in
France but it is an international organisation. Its missions are to:
Page 4
NSAC





Pool the scientific, technical and economic data for sustainable and responsible
fishing
Promote best practices, improvements and achievements
Give the ability to act through national or international initiatives
Lead or participate in communication activities
Inform decision makers at local and national levels
Blue Fish participates in a number of projects, many of them local, aimed at selective
fishing, sustainable development, and accreditation of fisheries. Blue Fish invites
scientists and training centres to provide information to assist with decision-taking. It
brings together experts, including fishers, to promote the three pillars of sustainability:
environmental, economic and social. Blue Fish wants to form partnerships with existing
Environmental NGOs and also to represent consumer groups. The French
Government has advised the Commission that it recognizes Blue Fish as an NGO not
representative of professional groups.
6.6
Guus Pastoor thanked the three organisations for their presentations. Evangelia
Georgitsi from the Commission confirmed that it had received a letter from the French
Government confirming that Blue Fish is an entity of public interest, but the
Commission did not have a view on whether it represented the fishing sector (60% of
membership) or other interest groups (40% of membership). It is for members of the
NSAC General Assembly to decide which groups should be elected to membership of
the Executive Committee.
6.7
Peter Breckling asked for more details of the membership of the first two organisations.
Who did they represent? Who were their members? And where did they get their
funding from? Did they represent stakeholders? Irene Kingma replied that the Dutch
Elasmobranch Society worked in the North Sea and other areas. Funding sources were
listed on their website and included the Dutch Government, other NGOs and the Dutch
Postcode Lottery. Henrike Le Semmler said that Oceana had both public and private
donors but did not have to represent their interests. There were more details on their
website.
6.8
Pim Visser said that the 40% representing other interests was intended to include
organisations that took a European view. It would be a change if we welcomed specific
national NGOs. Irene Kingma relied that it was not stated in the statutes that only
European-wide organisations were eligible. Her Society worked inside and outside
Europe. It was just based in the Netherlands. Pim Visser suggested that the Society
was focussing on Dutch elasmobranch issues. Christine Absil later reminded
participants that the European rule had been introduced to prevent national members
of an eNGO from different countries all becoming members. Sam Stone added that the
MCS was a member of the ExCom, although it was an English organisation.
6.9
Nicolas Teisseire said that although Blue Fish was based in France it was an
international organisation with members from other countries. Funding came from the
members, local communities, and also private interests supporting sustainable
development projects. Sam Stone asked which Environmental NGOs were members
of Blue Fish; a sustainable eel group had been mentioned. He agreed that Blue Fish
did work on environmental sustainability but it also promoted and defended coastal
Page 5
NSAC
communities and essentially represented fishing interests. He would be reluctant to
accept Blue Fish as an Environmental NGO. Nicolas Teisseire replied that he was
unable to give the names of eNGOs that were members as that was confidential. Blue
Fish was supporting all three pillars of sustainability: environmental, economic and
social. It did not focus on the environment; nor did it focus solely on sector
development. It was providing tools for local authorities to aid investment by them.
Euan Dunn pointed out that the Blue Fish website emphasised “giving a voice to those
that know our oceans the best – the fishermen”. It would seem most appropriate for
Blue Fish to join the 60%. That was the basis for their membership of the General
Assembly. Why seek membership of the 40% category? This decision was a defining
moment for the NSAC. We could not blur the edges too much. It would be a risk to the
NSAC being taken seriously.
6.10
Nicolas Teisseire replied that if you took an isolated statement from the website then
Blue Fish might appear narrow in its interests. But in fact it represented lots of people
in coastal communities. It existed to bridge gaps between different members of those
communities.
6.11
Björn Stockhausen said that under French law it was not possible for an organisation
representing many wide interests to be a fishermen’s organisation. That was the basis
of the French letter. The regional directors of Blue Fish for Spain, Portugal, France and
the UK were all fishermen’s representatives. Nicolas Teisseire replied that to take it
along the right tracks Blue Fish needed the expertise of fishermen. However, Blue Fish
was a very diverse organisation.
6.12
Guus Pastoor said there were essentially two questions we had to answer. Should the
40% only be made up of European organisations? Did Blue Fish fall within the 60% or
40%? Barrie Deas said that the NSAC had tried to be inclusive. He disagreed with the
views of some of the member organisations within the NSAC but it was better for them
to be members than to remain outside the NSAC. He thought that while Blue Fish was
not an eNGO it had wider aims. The 40% is not just made up of eNGOs. It is better
that we embrace diversity and be inclusive. We had three vacancies in the 40%, and
three applicants. We should accept them all. Sam Stone disagreed. For the 40% our
rules of procedure said: “representatives of other interest groups (including
environmental organisations and groups, aquaculture producers, consumers and
recreational or sport fishermen) affected by the Common Fisheries Policy”. Erik
Lindebo said that while he wanted Blue Fish to be involved in the NSAC they should
not be part of the 40%. Björn Stockhausen said that as Blue Fish had been accepted
as a member of the 60% in joining the General Assembly why did they now want to
join the 40%?
6.13
On the question of whether organisations within the 40% should be European, Pim
Visser pointed out that within the 60% there are places specifically allocated to national
organisations. All other members have to be European in scope. We have to keep that
position. Michael Park thought that we should not be too strict in our definitions. Kenn
Skau Fischer agreed with Michael; whether an organisation was national or European
was not for us to decide.
Page 6
NSAC
6.14
Guus Pastoor said that since we could not agree on these definitions we should simply
take a vote on each organisation becoming a member of the 40% grouping. Every
member should indicate for each applicant yes or no. The General Assembly agreed
with this procedure.
6.15
A secret ballot of General Assembly members was then taken, with Blue Fish receiving
14 votes, the Dutch Elasmobranch Society 20 votes and Oceana 20 votes. As a
minimum of 15 votes was required for election it was ruled that the Dutch
Elasmobranch Society and Oceana were elected as members of the Executive
Committee. Blue Fish was not elected as a member.
7
NSAC Accounts and Work Plan
7.1
The NSAC accounts were reviewed. Two further instalments were required to clear the
deficit repayments. The deficit would end in November 2016. The accounts were
approved by the General Assembly.
7.2
The Work Plan had been discussed at the ExCom. We would be adding more specific
details on the advice that would be required through the year. The Work Plan was
agreed.
7.3
On membership fees, it was currently 500€ to be a member of the General Assembly
and 1,000€ to be a member of the ExCom (some members had a lower rate as they
had not been members when the deficit had been incurred). The General Assembly
decided that Member States would be asked to double their contributions to the funding
of the NSAC (currently 2,500€) to pay for the increased number of meetings. We
should also consider whether to increase membership fees. Proposals would be
presented to a meeting of NSAC Directors on the 10th November. It would then be for
the ExCom to take a decision on future fees. Doubling the fees would look good to the
Member States.
7.4
The existing budget was approved, pending increases in Member State funding
contributions and increases in membership fees to be agreed by the ExCom. It was
noted that other advisory councils receive larger funding contributions from the
Member States.
8
Next Meeting
8.1
The next meeting of the General Assembly will take place in the Netherlands on the
28th September 2016
Page 7
NSAC
9
Action Points
Actions
Responsible
1. The Dutch Elasmobranch Society and Oceana were Secretariat
elected as members of the Executive Committee
(40% group) (6.13).
2. The NSAC accounts were approved (7.1).
Secretariat
3. The Work Plan was approved subject to the addition Secretariat
of more specific details on the advice required (7.2)
4. Proposals to increase membership fees will be Secretariat
discussed at a NSAC Director’s meeting on the 10th
November and then forwarded to the Executive Directors
Committee for a decision. The budget was approved
subject to these pending changes in income (7.3).
10
Attendance
Page 8
Family Name
Given Name
Organisation
Absil
Christine
Seas at Risk
Andersen
Michael
Danish Fishermen’s PO
Andersen
Svend Erik
Danish Fishermen’s PO
Anderson
David
AFPO
Anderson
John
SFO
Birnie
Anne
NESFO
Breckling
Peter
Deutscher FischereiVerband
NSAC
Breuer
Marcus
Brouckaert
Emiel
Rederscentrale
Charlot
Kevin
CNPMEM
De Moncuit
Gonzague
Deas
Barrie
Ministère de l'Ecologie, du
Développement Durable et
de la Mer
NFFO
Duguid
Lorna
NSAC
Dunn
Euan
RSPB/BirdLife
Fischer
Kenn Skau
Danish Fishermen’s PO
Evangelia
European Commission
Grigorjeva
Joanna
NSAC
Hamilton
Heather
Client Earth
Hawkins
Tony
Hermansen
Carl Jesper
Kokosis
Konstantinos
Kingma
Irene
Lindberg
Fredrik
Georgitsi
Page 9
European Parliament, DG
IPOL
NSAC
Danish Fishermen’s PO
EBCD
Dutch Elasmobranch Society
Swedish Fishermen's
Federation
Lindebo
Erik
EDF
Lisik
Agnes
Oceana
Meun
Geert
VisNed
NSAC
Page 10
Mitchell
David
EAA
Olsson
Peter
Swedish Fishermen's
Federation
Park
Michael
SFF
Pastoor
Guus
AIPCE/CEP
Remisz
Emil
North Atlantic Producers
Organization (NAPO)
Rihan
Dominic
DG Mare
Semmler Le
Henrike
Oceana
Stockhausen
Björn
Stone
Samuel
MCS
Teisseire
Nicolas
Blue Fish
Visser
Pim
VisNed
Wichmann
Niels
Danish Fishermen’s PO
Seas At Risk
NSAC