Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2022)263 - Authorisation of Poland to ratify the amendment to the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Pollock Resources in the Central Bering Sea - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2022)263 - Authorisation of Poland to ratify the amendment to the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Pollock Resources in ... |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2022)263  |
| date | 08-06-2022 |
1. CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL
• Reasons for and objectives of the proposal
Poland, China, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Russia and the United States signed the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Pollock Resources in the Central Bering Sea (‘CCBSP’ or ‘the Convention’) in 1994. The Convention has the following aims: (i) to establish an international regime for conservation, management and optimum utilisation of pollock resources in the Convention Area; (ii) to restore and maintain pollock resources in the Bering Sea at levels which will permit their maximum sustainable yield; (iii) to cooperate in the gathering and examining of factual information concerning pollock and other living marine resources in the Bering Sea; and (iv) to provide, if the Parties agree, a forum in which to consider the establishment of necessary conservation and management measures for living marine resources other than pollock in the Convention Area as may be required in the future.
The commercial fishing in the Convention Area, which peaked in 1989 with catches of up to 1 447 600 tonnes/year, has been closed since 1993 by way of a moratorium. The continuing moratorium is supported by scientific evidence, which has consistently pointed to an extremely slow recovery of pollock stocks. Nevertheless, the commercial fishery continues in the United States and Russia’s exclusive economic zones.
The European Union participation in the Convention
Poland has been a contracting party to this organisation since 1994. After Poland joined the EU in 2004, the conservation and management of pollock resources in the Central Bering Sea was set to be managed by the EU by virtue of Article 6 (9), paragraph 1 of the Accession Act. However, the Convention text currently only envisages the membership of States. It would therefore need to be amended to allow the EU to become a contracting party as a regional economic integration organisation. A Council Decision authorised the Republic of Poland to negotiate, in the interest of the European Union, an amendment to the Convention that would allow the participation of the European Union as a full party to the Convention. To that end, the Republic of Poland proposed an amendment to the Convention in order to allow participation of regional economic integration organisations and to allow for the European Union to become party to the Convention. The Republic of Poland proposed the amendment to the Convention to the Depositary of the Convention in October 2016. The Depositary sent the amendment in 2017 to the Contracting Parties.
The implications of the EU membership
There are limited implications for the EU joining the Convention given that membership does not require any budgetary contributions (the organisation does not have a Secretariat), and the moratorium is expected to continue in the near future. However, should the area be re-opened to fishing, the EU’s role would be to promote the principles and standards of the Common Fisheries Policy in this international organisation, in particular the adoption of management measures based on best science.
The EU’s interest in the Convention stems primarily from its responsibility to ensure the conservation and management of living marine resources within and outside the EU.
• Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area
Regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs) are: international organisations of countries, some of which are coastal states; regional economic integration organisations such as the EU; and fishing bodies with fishing interests in a given area. Some RFMOs manage all the fish stocks within a specific area, while others focus on particular highly migratory species, notably tuna, throughout vast geographical areas. While some are purely advisory, most have management powers to set catch limits and fishing effort limits, technical measures and control obligations.
In line with the Commission Communication ‘Participation in Regional Fisheries Organisations (RFOs)’ 1 , Articles 28 and 29 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy 2 and the Council conclusions of 19 March 2012 regarding the Commission Communication on the ‘External dimension of the Common Fisheries Policy’ 3 , the EU, represented by the Commission, plays an active role in six tuna organisations and 11 non-tuna organisations.
The Joint Communication by the High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the Commission on ‘International ocean governance: an agenda for the future of oceans’ 4 and the Council conclusions of 3 April 2017 on it promote measures to support and improve the effectiveness of RFMOs and, where relevant, improve their governance. This is a central feature of the EU’s action in these fora.
• Consistency with other Union policies
EU membership of the Convention is fully consistent with the Council conclusions of 23 October 2020 regarding the Commission Communication on the ‘EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030’ 5 .
2. LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY
• Legal basis
This proposal for a Council Decision is based on the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, particularly Article 43(2) in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a).
• Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)
Not applicable.
• Proportionality
Not applicable.
• Choice of the instrument
Article 218(6)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union requires a proposal from the Commission for the Council to adopt this Decision, with the consent of the European Parliament.
3. RESULTS OF EX-POST EVALUATIONS, STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
• Ex-post evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation
Not applicable.
• Stakeholder consultations
Not applicable.
• Collection and use of expertise
Not applicable.
• Impact assessment
Not applicable.
• Regulatory fitness and simplification
Not applicable.
• Fundamental rights
Not applicable.
4. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS
No
5. OTHER ELEMENTS
• Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements
Not applicable.
• Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal
Not applicable.