The Common Fisheries Policy

Home , Common Fisheries Policy

European Commission

A USER’S GUIDE Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union.

Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.

Manuscript completed in December 2008.

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2009

ISBN 978-92-79-09874-1 DOI 10.2771/71141

Printed in Belgium

PRINTED ON WHITE CHLORINE-FREE PAPER The Common Fisheries Policy

A USER’S GUIDE Fishing areas in the EU

IIb There are seven Regional Advisory Councils under the CFP. Five are based on geographically and biologically coherent zones. The two IIa others are based on the exploitation of certain stocks: pelagic stocks in Community waters (except in the a XIV Mediterranean and Baltic Seas), a IIIb IIId and high-sea fisheries outside V IIIa IVa Community waters. Vb1

IIIc XIVb Vb2 IVb VIa VIb VIIa IVc

VIIb VIIf VIIc VIId VIIg VIIj VIIe XII VIIk VIIh VIIIa VIIIb

VIIId VIIIc Baltic Sea RAC (IIIb, c, d) VIIIe

IXa Mediterranean RAC

X IXb North Sea RAC (IV, IIIa)

North-western Waters RAC (Vb (Community waters), VI, VII)

South-western Waters RAC (VIII, IX, X, 34.1.1, 34.1.2, 34.2)

Pelagic Stocks RAC

High-sea RAC

I Barents Sea VIa West Scotland (Clyde stock) VIIIa South Brittany IIa Norwegian Sea VIb Rockall VIIIb South Biscay IIb Spitzbergen and Bear Island VIIa Irish Sea VIIIc North and North-west Spain IIIa Skagerrak and Kattegat VIIb West Ireland VIIId Central Biscay IIIb Sound VIIc Porcupine Bank VIIIe West Biscay IIIc Belt VIId Eastern English Channel IXa Portuguese coast IIId Baltic Sea VIIe Western English Channel IXb West Portugal IVa Northern North Sea VIIf Bristol Channel X Azores IVb Central North Sea VIIg South-east Ireland XII North Azores IVc Southern North Sea VIIh Little Sole XIVa East Greenland Va Iceland VIIj Great Sole XIVb South-east Greenland Vb Faroes VIIk West Great Sole Contents

G Preface by Commissioner Borg: Redefining the Common Fisheries Policy for the 21st century ...... 4

G 1. How we manage our fisheries ...... 6 G 2. Healthy seas for a thriving industry ...... 8 G 3. Partners in sustainability: stakeholders ...... 9 G 4. Partners in sustainability: Europe and its Member States ...... 11 G 5. Partners in sustainability: scientists ...... 13 G 6. Planning for the long term ...... 15 G 7. Technical measures, targeted regulations ...... 17 G 8. A fleet for the future ...... 19 G 9. Controlling fisheries for the common good ...... 21 G 10. Fishing in wider waters: the benefits of partnership ...... 24 G 11. Fishing in wider waters: leaders on the international stage ...... 26 G 12. Aquaculture in the EU ...... 28 G 13. Support for an industry in transition ...... 30 G 14. The final product: producers, processors, consumers ...... 32 G 15. Beyond the precautionary principle ...... 34

G The way forward ...... 36

3 Preface by Commissioner Borg: Redefining the Common Fisheries Policy for the

This is not a uniquely European phenomenon. The fishing industry is now a truly globalised business, and a similar pat- tern of events can be observed throughout the world. But it is also a European problem, and a European solution can help to meet the challenge of restoring the industry to sustainable profitability, while preserving the diversity and vitality of our fishing cultures and communities.

In doing so, we ought to remember one important character- istic of the Common Fisheries Policy. Its aim has never been to impose a one-size-fits-all model of how Europe’s fishing industries should be run. Instead, it seeks to establish the The story of the European Union is one of unity in diversity. basic framework within which diversity can be cultivated and The EU provides its Member States with the means to pool conflict forestalled, on the basis of a number of common prin- their influence, and present a united position in the world on ciples. Launched in the 1970s to prevent and resolve disputes matters of great importance to our peace, prosperity and eco- between the EU Member States over how to share resources, nomic well-being. But it does so without flattening out the it now functions as the forum to define a common baseline for differences between its Member States and its regions: sustainable fishing and for allocating funds to support the instead, it seeks to preserve the diversity of their cultures and goals the EU and its Member States have chosen. their traditions. The Common Fisheries Policy therefore does not represent The same is true of the Common Fisheries Policy. The EU a fixed body of rules. It is rather a work in progress that has fishing industry is one of the most varied in the world. The to adapt to changing biological and political circumstances. European fleet ranges from the factory trawler fishing for Arc- All major decisions in this context are taken by Member tic cod in a force nine gale to the 30-foot longliner catching States’ governments in Council after consultation with the sardines in calm waters a few miles from the Adriatic coast, Members of the European Parliament. Every measure pro- and the purse seiner chasing tuna through the tropical heat of posed is based on substantial input from independent experts the Indian Ocean. The Common Fisheries Policy has to get and stakeholders’ representatives. the measure of a sector which extends from the private recreational fisherman at one extreme, to multi-million-euro listed When I was appointed European Commissioner for Fisheries companies at the other, and which covers the entire market in 2004, the Common Fisheries Policy was in a state of chain, from the point of capture, through landing, transport, optimistic turmoil. A major reform had been undertaken in processing and distribution, to final sale. 2002, and many of its consequences were still being worked through. Since then, I have had the satisfaction of guiding to I believe that we have every reason to preserve this diversity as realisation a number of initiatives which I believe will make we move into the 21st century. Fishing is not only an economic European fisheries more sustainable in the future than they activity, it is also a way of life. Closely tied to the unique char- have been in the recent past. Today, we have more stocks that acteristics of different marine ecosystems, it is central to the are managed under long-term plans. We also have clearer identity and prosperity of many coastal communities. biological targets for sustainability. And, above all, we have involved stakeholders more closely than ever before in the Yet that prosperity now faces many challenges. While fish and policy-making process. fish products are today more widely consumed across Europe than ever before, the new techniques and commercial struc- Nevertheless, despite these advances, the majority of com- tures which have made it possible to meet that growth in mercial fish stocks in EU waters continue to give cause for demand have also led to a massive increase in fishing pressure concern. In 2007, independent fisheries scientists assessed the in European waters. As a result, many fish stocks are over- condition of 33 of Europe’s most important commercial fish exploited, and the ecosystems of which they are an integral stocks, and concluded that 29 (some 88% of them) were over- part are under threat. fished. This compares with the situation outside the EU as

4 21st century

reported by the FAO, where the global average is 25% of stocks loops and virtuous circles to be explored here. But we need to being overfished. Yet, despite these warning signs, decisions on keep an open mind when we engage with this more joined-up catch levels remain dominated by short-term thinking, and the approach to policy making. We also need to be aware of the catching capacity of the European fleet remains more than new obligations which come with it, and which will impact on twice what is needed to harvest our own fish stocks sustainably. our fisheries sector. I believe that fisheries have a positive role to play in realising the goals of the Marine Strategy Frame- This is bad news for the fish and for marine biodiversity. It is work Directive, which obliges Member States to ensure the also bad news for fishers, and for all the associated industries good environmental status of the seas under their jurisdiction which depend upon the wild capture sector. Shrinking catches, by 2021. And the benefits will not be all one way, either: the rising costs and the need to travel further and fish longer to catch healthier our seas, the more resilient our fish stocks should be, fewer and often less valuable fish mean that, in some sectors of and so the more profitable our fishing industry. the industry, many boats now operate at, or close to, a loss. Above all, the forthcoming reform of the Common Fisheries Promoting aquaculture is certainly an important alternative, Policy, which we are now preparing, will require the active which deserves our full support through appropriate regula- participation of all those who may be affected by its outcome. tory measures, awareness-building and market measures, as Fisheries management in Europe, at regional, national and well as with the help of targeted financial support. I welcome EU level, is increasingly driven by knowledge and advice gen- the increasingly important role that aquaculture is playing in erated from the bottom up. The review process we have the EU and beyond, but it will be a long time, if ever, until it launched will likewise require not only extensive consultation could make up the shortfall in supply. with stakeholders, but also broad-based public support, if it is to produce a fisheries management framework which is In view of the poor situation of many fish stocks it is both capable of putting the common good before narrower national justified and understandable that many people are calling and/or sectoral interests. for a decisive change in the way fisheries are managed, both at Member State and at European level. Against this background, I hope that this brochure will serve a double purpose. On the one hand, it spells out and explains In 2008 the European Commission announced its intention where we are today on the road to sustainable fisheries in to launch a new root-and-branch review of the Common Europe, and how the management framework of the Common Fisheries Policy. The Green Paper, which is currently being Fisheries Policy functions at present. But on the other hand, it prepared for publication later in 2009, will trigger a radical also presents an open and frank account of the problems we and wide-ranging debate with our stakeholders and citizens still face, and the distance that still remains to be travelled. on how Europe’s fisheries can best be managed to ensure the maximum return to society over the long run. The 2002 I would warmly invite you to join us in defining the path that reform gave the Common Fisheries Policy a new fundamental we will take in the future. For whether you work in the sector, orientation towards sustainability, but it did not foresee and campaign for its reform, or simply eat the wonderful and pre-empt all the obstacles that lay in the way of achieving this nourishing produce which it provides – your contribution and goal, both at the economic and the institutional level. If we support will be vital in defining the future of the Common want to remove these obstacles, and create the conditions for Fisheries Policy. a genuinely viable and sustainable EU fishing industry, then we need to be prepared to question every aspect of the way the current system operates.

We will also have to recognise that the fishing industry can no Joe Borg longer be viewed in isolation from the wider maritime European Commissioner seascape, in which it is one actor among many. The next reform for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries of the Common Fisheries Policy must set it in the context of the EU’s Integrated Maritime Policy, with its focus on sustainable growth in coastal regions. There are many positive feedback

5 6 CHAPTER 1 preservation ofvulnerable fishpopulations. preservation sive system ofrules for theprotection and also calledonto provide acomprehen-are for dividingupacommon resource. They cial speciesare nolongersimplyamechanism commer- and quotasfor themostimportant tions setting Total Allowable Catches (TACs) in theEU. As aresult, theannualEUregula- the international fisheriesagenda–including tainable fisheriesare now firmlyatthetop of but throughout theworld, hasgrown. Sus- facing fishstocks notonlyinEuropean waters, last decade, awareness oftheseriousthreat course,Of thisisnotanewproblem. the Over that isbothsustainableandprofitable. before, we needaEuropean fishing industry done to reverse thistrend: more thanever down withit.Clearly somethingneedsto be waters, whichisdragging thecapture sector the alarmingdeclineofstocks inEuropean tiation, notby war. ourfocus Instead ison Statesbetween are Member settledby nego- take itfor granted thatfisheriesdisputes later, ofacentury that,aquarter the fact we The canbemeasured success by ofthepolicy fishers depend. patterns of mutualaccess on whichEurope’s like itto dealwiththe complex, overlapping to invent much be necessary somethingvery result, iftheCFPdidnotexist,itwould a As fish farfrom home, yet withinEUwaters. today. Many ofEurope’s fleetscontinue to to resolve are, ifanything, even more relevant industry. Andtheproblems whichitsought thetraditionalfabricofEuropeanacterised attempt thediversity to whichchar- preserve cise insupra-nationalregulation, butasan The CFP, then,beganlife notasaradicalexer- grounds could bepreserved. andpractices waters, sothateachnation’s traditionalfishing grant free mutualaccess to eachother to States agreed dealunderwhichMember a emerging European institutionsbrokered new EEZregime could have caused, the To avoid theenormousdisruptionwhich fleets usedto fishingalongway from home. were already highly ‘international’, withmany chaotic anddisastrous. Europe’s fisheries the c path withoutsomeform ofcoordination, European Unionhadsimplyfollowed this from theirbaseline. thenationsof If Zones 200nauticalmiles (EEZs)extending until theyfinallycreated Exclusive Economic world were theirterritorial extending waters, timewhenmany countries around the a was to avoid betweennations, conflict at Ministers’ mainconcern inthoseearlydays oftheCommon Agriculturalnally part Policy. to theearly1970s, whenfisherieswere origi- T How we manageourfisheries created in1983,butitsorigins date back he Common Fisheries Policy wasformally onsequences could have beenboth date, whileproviding new tools more clearly can keepthebestachievements oftheCFP to A newapproach isclearlyneeded, onewhich recipe for overfishing. a as ‘normal’ operatingcosts, andyou have the rulesare so small theycanbetreated often systems inwhichthepenaltiesfor ignoring the sustainableyieldofourseas, andcontrol to catchwhich hasthecapacity farinexcess of whenever Add thetwo conflict. inafleet interest tends to trumpthecommon good rather thansharingit,andinwhichindividual by concealing information from theauthorities, gain advantage in whichoperators canoften incentives are thewrong way round. Asystem The result isasystem inwhichmany ways the power offishersto catch andmarketfish. ical advances have radicallyincreased the has multipliedmany times, whiletechnolog- of capitaldeployed throughout thesector haschanged, too.The industry The amount biological systems intimesofscarcity andcrisis. not to manage complex andunpredictable assumed to bebothreliable andplentiful, designed to divideuparesource thatwas differentdevised inavery context. They were thatthetools atourdisposalwerethe fact aligned with thoseofthefishare hampered by to ensureefforts thattheinterests offishersare many too much?In ways,Is thisasking our pose of relativepose stability term is,asthe on historic their based catches. Thepur- EUaccordingthe to allocation afixed key shared out Member the between States of Catches (TACs) for stockare fish each Under system,Total this Allowable with adoption the of CFPin1983. the ative stability wasfirst applied inpractice tion for inthird losses country waters. Rel- European Community), and compensa- land, which was then still amember of the inScotlandand Irelandfleets (and Green- (1973-78),preferencesperiod for certain reference the during catches were used ative stability in1980.Thekey criteria system the of of defined 1976,Council rel- in 1975.Following Hague the Declaration Atlantic Commission (NEAFC) Fisheries bylimits North the EUfleets affecting East sparked by setting the of first the catch tunities up into national quotas was question of how to divide oppor- fishing principlethe of ‘relativeis stability’. The One of oldest the elements of CFP the Relative stability four mainways: The 2002reform addressed theseissuesin clearly didwork. oftheCFPwhich successes ofthoseparts tors, whichseemedto overshadow even the of trustbetween stakeholdersandregula- there. At thecore ofallthesefailingslay alack will andmeansto enforce themwere not cult to enforce, inothers, simplybecausethe in somecases, because theywere too diffi- rules there were were notrespected – often term strategy. Andwhatregulations and were notbackedupby any coherent long- takenunderpoliticalpressure,often and national level were measures, short-term management decisionsatbothEUand ble ofcatching many timesover. Too many fish stocks inouroceans had grown fartoo large for thedwindling ber ofspecificproblems. The European fleet The 2002reform process diagnosed anum- reform oftheCommon Fisheries Policy. amajor when theEuropean Unionundertook step towards thisgoalwastakenin2002, oftheEuropeanability fishingindustry. Afirst focused onpromoting thelong-term sustain- of Member new States. over years the to accommodate rights the and allocation the adapted key hasbeen basis of quota allocation CFP, underthe principlethe of relative stability asthe upheld have constantly Ministers eries to market. asingle Nevertheless, EUFish- incompatible with EU’s the commitment goics even asfar asto declare that it is mon long-term interests, and some crit- on national share at of expense the com- short-term decision-making and afocus It iswidely considered toencourage asadvantages.has disadvantages aswell apply, principle the of relative stability straightforward to understand and to mula which is relatively simple and multi-factorial situation through afor- anyLike attempt to manage acomplex, of stock inquestion. the isstable relativewhich overall tothe state to provide with an environment fishers over how quotas should beallocated, and tosuggests, prevent repeated arguments channels, andthrough amajornew development, boththrough existing ofpolicy stakeholders inallaspects promoted greaterIt involvement of , whichitwas capa- exercise in permanent consultation – review the conservation and fleet elements the creation of the Regional Advisory of the CFP by 2012. But if we are really going Councils (RACs); to tackle the drivers which have brought our Subsidies were carefully redirected to fish stocks to such poor condition, and support the life of coastal communities undermined the profitability of the sector, while the industry restructures and fleet then we will need to look at every aspect of capacity is reduced: aid for the building the policy, and be prepared to question all of new capacity was discontinued, while our assumptions. responsibility for capacity management reverted to the Member States; The main aim of this brochure is to provide Regulations were simplified and stream- a snapshot of how European fisheries policy lined across the board, to reduce the worked at the beginning of the year 2009. burden on both fishers and administrators, But it also seeks to point out some of the and to ensure a ‘level playing field’ for unresolved problems and contradictions control and enforcement; which will need to be addressed by any Annual decisions on TACs and quotas future reform of the CFP. became increasingly subordinate to long- term strategic commitments, through the establishment of multi-annual plans.

These new principles led to a number of substantial changes in both the letter and the spirit of EU fisheries management. Many important stocks are now under long-term management plans. Some fisheries have seen significant improvements in control and enforcement, and some Member States have substantially resized their fleets to bring them more into line with the current condition of the resource.

Nevertheless, EU fisheries continue to be characterized by short-term decision-making and short-sighted behaviour. TACs continue to be set well above the levels which scientists advise are sustainable, overfishing and illegal fishing still take a substantial toll on many stocks, and many fleets are still too large for the available resources. As a result, the industry as a whole remains far less profitable than it should be. Indeed, in recent years, as the soaring price of fuel has put pressure on operators’ margins, it has become blatantly obvious that the practice of putting short-term economic and social interests before long-term ecological imperatives had only ended up undermining the very economic interests which it was meant to protect.

If the European fishing industry is to survive and prosper in the 21st century, we need a fisheries management system that can help bring the economic interests of the sector back into line with society’s long-term interest in healthy seas and thriving fish stocks. This may mean radical changes to the way Europe’s fisheries are managed – changes which will reverse economic and institutional incentives to overfishing and replace them with a system which positively encourages good stewardship of our oceans and seas by all those who live from them. That is why the Commission will be launching in 2009 a major consultation exercise on the future of the CFP. The Commission has a legal obligation to

© Lionel Flageul 7 8 CHAPTER 2 is to promote: then membersoftheEU, theaimofCFP ofthe15nationswhowereeries Ministers According agreed to thistext, by theFish- fisheries legislation atEUlevel. vided themain under theCommon Fisheries Policy sustainable exploitationoffisheriesresources No2371/2002ontheconservation and (EC) Since itsadoptionin2002, asthe commonly known ‘Basic Regulation’. T Healthy seasforathrivingindustry coastal communities. for employment andopportunities Economically viableindustry an support Healthy marineenvironment Sustainable fisheriesandaquaculture rently rests are clearlystated inthelegaltext he core principlesonwhichtheCFPcur- legal basisfor allsubsequent Council Regulation providing which can has pro- in a from thewell-meaning butmisguidedbelief or not.Many oftheproblems oftheCFPcome basedonitare sustainable human activities and r ofreproduction isthebiological cycle it ability is nec core goalsoftheCFP, ecological sustain- arewhile economic andsocialsustainability and space otherwords, to In doherwork. circle isto giveinto avirtuous nature thetime choices. theonlyway often, to Most getback profitability. The result canbesomehard to maintain needsoftheindustry short-term to restore theecological balance andthe medium- andlong-term measures required cle isbroken, emerge conflicts between the circle. Oncedepends uponavirtuous thatcir- well.working Butthissynergy between them each other–andtheydosowhenare all that thesethree goalsshouldcomplement The is intention oftheauthorsthistext enewal whichdetermines whetherthe essarily more fundamental:for future generations, year, butfor next too. choosing to leave something, notjustfor mate change. Byfishingsustainably, we are control,no direct ofcli- suchastheimpact shocksoverexternal whichwe have littleor and are resilient enough to withstandother draw onare ableto replenish themselves, sustainably,bounty sothattheresources we theseas’ we meanharvesting conservation, nature lovers and tourists are welcome. By oceans into awildlife where reserve only fishinaspic, orturningthe about preserving Common Fisheries Policy, we are nottalking When we talkabout ‘conservation’ inthe economic future rests. ofthefishingsector to theecological foundations onwhichthe imperatives, priority withoutgiving short-term immediate economic andenvironmental depleted, itshouldstillbepossibleto reconcile that, whenfishstocks have beenseverely

rust between stakeholders and fisheries Tmanagers has a vital role to play in the A long tradition of advice future of the CFP. Without active collaboration between them, even the best-drafted regulations founded on the best-researched The Advisory Committee on Fisheries The four working groups are: science, and supported by carefully targeted (and, now, also on Aquaculture – ACFA) subsidies can achieve little. Policy is only as was set up in 1971, to provide industry Group 1: Access to fisheries resources good as its implementation. And in the final advice to the Commission on fisheries and management of fishing analysis, it is the people who work in the fish- issues and promote an ongoing dialogue. activities ery who have to make that policy a reality, by Since then, its composition has changed Group 2: Aquaculture: fish, shellfish and adopting it fully in their daily practice. several times, reflecting the evolution of molluscs the sector and of the CFP itself. Today, Group 3: Markets and Trade Policy

Ensuring that these people’s voices are heard the Committee’s 21 members are drawn Group 4: General questions: economics CHAPTER 3 is an integral part of the management frame- from organisations representing not only and sector analysis. work of the CFP. Fisheries managers need to the production sector, the processing take full advantage of the expertise and industry and trade in fishery and aqua- ACFA currently adopts around 7-8 opin- experience which only stakeholders can culture products, but also the interests of ions a year, following consultations at the bring. And stakeholders need to be confident consumers, the environment and devel- request either of the Commission or of that the decisions taken by the European opment. Members are appointed by the one of its members. In recent years, these institutions respect their real long-term inter- Commission on proposal from the main opinions have dealt with almost every ests and reflect their needs. Everyone who is representative organisations at European area of the CFP – from rights-based man- involved in fishing has something to contribute level. agement tools to the European Fisheries – whether they crew on trawlers for a living or Fund, from the Green Paper on Maritime fish bass for pleasure at the weekend, whether ACFA works through the Committee Policy to the Commission’s proposals they are workers in a processing factory or itself, together with four working groups for management plans for eels. Alongside activists campaigning for the protection of made up of experts which prepare the the RACs, ACFA remains a crucial tool fragile ecosystems. They may not always Committee’s opinions. The working groups through which the Commission can agree with one another, but they all have also send representatives to attend ACFA engage in dialogue with the sector and a role to play in safeguarding living marine plenaries, as does the Sectoral Dialogue understand stakeholders’ points of view. resources and building a sustainable future Committee, which brings together the for our fishing industry. social partners.

From the beginning, the Commission has always listened to the concerns of the industry, not only through the Advisory Commit- The RACs do not manage fisheries, though our ability to put conflict and suspicion tee on Fisheries and Aquaculture (ACFA – see there have been calls from some quarters for behind us, and to identify and work together box) which was set up in the early 1970s, but them to become more directly involved in to realise our common interests. also through a range of ad hoc meetings and the way the CFP is run. But they nevertheless fora convened as necessary to address par- have a vital role to play, not only in creating In June 2007, the EU Council of Fisheries Min- ticular issues. And the creation in 2004 of a dialogue with the Commission, but also in isters recognised the great value of the work the Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) takes engaging directly with other parties. And being done by the RACs by turning the start-up this principle much further, giving a wide their regional structure, which prefigures funding which was set to be phased out after range of stakeholders a real opportunity to recent developments in both the CFP (tech- five years into a continuing annual allocation influence policy development on an ongoing nical measures – see chapter 7) and environ- to support their activities. basis. mental policy (Marine Strategy Directive – see chapter 15 and the fact sheet on the RACs are stakeholder-led organisations: it is ecosystem approach), may provide one clue as up to the stakeholders themselves to set to how Europe’s fisheries could be managed them up and to run them. They are organised more effectively in the future. geographically and/or by fishery: they are seven in number – five covering the different Today, the RACs provide fisheries managers maritime areas which surround Europe, one from the Member States with an insight into for the pelagic sector, whose boats range issues which may affect their fleets, but widely, and one for the long-distance fleet which also go far beyond their national bor- which fishes outside European waters. ders. They act as a forum in which fishers can start to work more closely with scientists, and Each RAC bring together representatives of overcome the barriers of mistrust which exist the fisheries sector with other interest groups, between them. And perhaps most impor- such as environmental organisations, con- tantly, they provide a real opportunity for sumers, sport fishers and aquaculture pro- stakeholders from different sectors and dif- ducers. Their role is to advise the Commission ferent countries to meet regularly to argue on strategic policy decisions, drawing on the out their differences and discuss their com- practical experience of their members in the mon interests and problems. For the future of waters and/or fisheries concerned. the European fishing industry depends upon

9 © Lionel Flageul

Taking the lead on control

The RACs are ‘advisory’ bodies, but they position on how this major problem could those involved in the future of Baltic sea are far from purely reactive. Indeed, they be resolved. fisheries to undertake real, concrete action provide a tool through which stakeholders to eliminate this major threat to the sur- can help to set the agenda under the CFP. The Conference concluded that unre- vival of Baltic cod as a commercially viable In addition to participating in consulta- ported landings of Baltic Sea cod had had fishery. This is tangible proof of the power tions launched by the Commission and a range of damaging effects both on the of the RACs to replace conflict and mistrust responding to EU and national policy pro- fisheries of the Baltic, and the way in with dialogue that leads to the identifica- posals, RACs may also act on their own which they were managed. Those present tion of common interests. It also augurs initiative to propose solutions to problems agreed that all parties should work together well for the future of fisheries in what is which they feel need to be addressed. to eliminate unreported landings through one of Europe’s most fragile ecosystems. specific concrete measures, including While it is too early to judge the full Thus, the Baltic RAC convened a major adjusting fishing capacity to a level more impact of this initiative, recent events sug- conference on control and compliance in in line with the available resource, more gest that illegal landings in the Baltic have the Baltic Sea in Copenhagen in March transparent systems of national quota util- since declined significantly. 2007. This came on the back of a very neg- isation, more harmonised and effective ative report by the Commission’s inspectors control, including market controls, and the The Baltic RAC’s example was subse- on unreported landings in the Baltic cod effective application of the regulations quently emulated by the North Sea RAC, fishery, which confirmed scientists’ suspi- intended to provide a system of traceability. which joined forces with the Scottish gov- cions that underreporting was running at ernment to convene a similar meeting on rates of up to 45%. However, it was the RAC While the debate did not eliminate all dif- control and enforcement in the North Sea which took the lead in bringing the differ- ferences of opinion among the groups rep- in February 2008. ent parties involved together around the resented, these conclusions in themselves same table to try and thrash out a common represent a powerful mandate from all

10 State experts in parallel with seeking advice inparallelwithseeking State experts mission alsoconsults withMember directly their nationalstakeholdergroups. The Com- the inputtheyhave inturnreceived from only ofgovernments’ positions, butalsoof way, too, theCommission isinformed not and possiblecompromises defined.this In discussed andcriticised, positionsoutlined Council’s groups, working are where drafts a continuous consultation through the as major ministerial meetings, butfunctions mission andCouncil isnotlimited to the development. The dialoguebetween Com- involved throughout theprocess ofpolicy Indeed, nationalauthoritiesare closely the European Parliament. representativessultation withtheelected in Council ofFisheries con- andafter Ministers Union, through theirrepresentatives inthe governmentsthe elected oftheEuropean takesisdecidedbyfinal form whichpolicy andthe tation withawiderangeofparties, basedonconsul- scientific advice andfurther als madeby theCommission are informed by © DEVI T Europe anditsMemberStates insustainability: Partners role in drafting EUlegislation.role All propos- indrafting he European Commission plays aleading a weakness. That iswhy, withinthecommon Diversity shouldbeasource ofstrength, not successful fisheriesmanagementregime. ofanymost complicated andcrucialaspects control andenforcementfor –oneofthe authorities whichhave soleresponsibility policy.implementation ofevery Anditis outthedetailed which decideandcarry is practice. It basic guidelinescanbestbetranslated into nation thenhasto determine how these to ensure alevel playing field, eachEU ed to bemet,andcriteria whichmustberespect- in Council, alongwithminimumconditions lished common targets through theirdecisions and control offisheriespolicy. Having estab- States are responsible for theimplementation Even more importantly, perhaps, theMember passed into law. governmentselected oftheEUcannever be not acceptable ofthe to aqualifiedmajority tion whichisproposed. Aproposal whichis States whomustfinallyapprove any legisla- views isessential, since itistheMember from stakeholders. This closeexchange of their fisheries administrations their sequent debates in plenary session. sequent debates inplenary beyond thefisheriesdomain), andthesub- when theissuesatstakewillhave animpact of theParliament (andofothercommittees, detailed scrutiny oftheFisheries Committee amending proposed legislation, through the bers play asignificant role inreviewing and vided by theEuropean Parliament. mem- Its level ofdemocraticcontrolA further ispro- toof onenationwithrespect others. petition andunfairlyadvantagethenationals com-this freedom isnotmisusedto distort ple closeto theground, butto ensure that far more effectively andtransparently bypeo- taskswhichcanbeperformed micro-manage to imposeauniform industrialmodel, orto theCommission, isnot tions, andparticularly traditions. The role oftheEuropean institu- choices, itssocialprioritiesandcultural age, inline with itsfundamentaleconomic itwantsto encour- national fishingindustry State of isfreeMember to choosethekind ecological standards setatEUlevel, each 11 CHAPTER 4 In addition to the Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Decision-making in an enlarged Europe the Regions also receive all legislative proposals tabled by the Commission, and have the opportunity to provide an opinion on Qualified majority voting (QMV) is a Today, 255 votes are required for a quali- them. Proposals are also communicated system which is intended to ensure that fied majority. This means that every deci- to national and regional parliaments in all the decisions taken by the Member States’ sion taken by QMV represents the choice 27 Member States, and there are strict mini- Ministers in Council are legitimate in the of both a majority of the Member States, mum time limits in the EU legislative process eyes of the citizens of Europe. This means and more than 62% of the population of which are specifically designed to allow time that instead of simply allocating one vote the EU as a whole. If there is any doubt, for the elected members of these bodies to to each state, irrespective of their size, the any Member State may request verifica- consult and provide guidelines to their gov- votes which each Member State holds are tion that the 62% threshold has indeed ernments on how they should negotiate on weighted to reflect their demographic sta- been met. If this is not the case, then the their behalf in Council. tus. As a result, following the most recent decision is not carried. enlargement of the Union on 1 January The CFP, then, is best conceived not as a rigid 2007, there are now a total of 345 votes. QMV replaced the earlier system of unan- bureaucratic straightjacket laid down by The Member States with the largest popu- imous decision-taking, which was used ‘Brussels’, but as a collaborative work in lations have 27-29 votes, the medium-sized during the early days of the EU, when progress, in which stakeholders, administra- countries have 7-14 votes and the small there were only a handful of Member tors and elected politicians from throughout countries 3 or 4 votes. States. Europe work together to lay down management measures which are both scientifi- cally defensible and politically feasible. The Commission is just one actor in this process. a level playing field in practice. The Commis- In the future, it is quite possible we will see sion thus has a vital role to play in ensuring further radical simplification of the fisheries that, once the Member States have agreed on management framework at EU level, and a policy, they all live up to that commitment even greater delegation of responsibility to equally. the regional and national levels. At present, the Commission has the power to However, the Commission does have one launch proceedings against the Member very specific role in which it acts on its own States before the European Court of Justice if initiative, and without consulting the other they fail to implement the CFP correctly. institutions. As guardian of the European Recent criticism of control and enforcement Treaties, the Commission is responsible for of the CFP by, among others, the EU Court ensuring that EU law is applied correctly and of Auditors, raises the question whether fairly across the European Union, and that the Commission’s powers in this particular failures to do so do not result in the citizens domain should not be increased, so that it is of one Member State being discriminated able to act in a more timely and effective against by having to comply with conditions manner to safeguard sustainable fisheries. which are not imposed on others. One of This will be one issue that is likely to be the the main complaints made by stakeholders subject of considerable debate during the against the CFP is that it does not result in preparation of the next reform of the CFP.

12 Partners in sustainability: scientists

ny stock of wild seafish is just one part Aof a complex biological system, whose Independent advice behaviour is necessarily difficult to predict. So many factors come together to determine how a stock is distributed, and how success- The European Commission’s Scientific, targeted scientific opinion which goes fully it reproduces, that there can be few cer- Technical and Economic Committee well beyond the purely biological tainties about its future evolution. And the for Fisheries (STECF) was established dimension and can be made available factors involved are becoming more com- in 1993 (Commission Decision No 93/ at short notice. plex, not less, under the impact of techno- 619/EC) and renewed in 2005 (Com- logical progress – from the innovative gear mission Decision No 2005/629/EC). It also provides extensive economic and sophisticated fish-tracking equipment and social advice, not only on the used by some commercial fishers, to the The main objectives of the STEFC are impact of policy proposals, but also as

broader impacts of marine pollution, coastal a support for better management (for CHAPTER 5 development and even global warming. To improve the quality of policy instance, on the impact of discarding), Indeed, the pace and scale of such changes decisions and to speed up the or on fleet dynamics and economic is part of what makes it so hard for marine decision-making process; performance. science to track and model the living systems To provide rapid response which make up our oceans. mechanisms to urgent political The Committee reports to the Com- needs; and mission and its members are nomi- Fishers have a great deal of knowledge about To promote the participation of nated by the Commission from highly how fish stocks behave – a kind of knowledge researchers in the policy arena. qualified personnel in the scientific, which it is difficult to acquire in any other way. technological and economic fields. It is vital that fisheries managers draw on this STECF produces an annual report on In many cases, especially for biologi- experience when formulating conservation the current status of fisheries resources cal scientists and gear technologists, policy. But while they know many things and their future potential, which is used the members of STECF are also mem- which escape other observers, fishers see as the basis for setting annual TACs and bers of working groups and other only one part of what is going on in the quotas. It can also be called on at any groups within ICES (see box p. 14). oceans. The full meaning of their experience time to comment on fisheries proposals STECF cannot, therefore, act as a body only emerges when it is placed in a broader and data and advise the Commission completely independent of the ICES context – not only that of other boats and on the best course of action in specific system. But it does provide a genuine other fisheries, but also that provided by the cases. Thus STECF plays a leading role second opinion on advice received scientific disciplines which study the dynamic in helping the Commission to formu- from ICES, and often gives a dissent- ecosystems hidden beneath the surface of late policies ranging from long-term ing opinion on either the analysis pro- our seas. plans to emergency closures, by posed by ICES, or the conclusions providing an authoritative and highly drawn from them.

© SPL 13 Until recently, fishers and scientists tended to inhabit two different worlds, and often Exploring the sea viewed each other with suspicion. But recent years have seen these barriers begin to break down. This is a crucial step towards more sus- Founded in 1902, the International Coun- are then fed into the deliberations of tainable fisheries in Europe. There are far cil for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) the Advisory Committee (ACOM), which more fishers spending far more time at sea brings together more than 1600 marine meets regularly throughout the year, virtu- than there will ever be marine biologists. Sci- scientists from 20 countries to coordinate ally or in the flesh, in order to review and entists need to leverage the wealth of insight and promote research into the ecosystems approve the final recommendations. which fishers’ experience can provide; fishers of the North Atlantic. As such, it is the need to understand how scientists reach their main provider of scientific advice to the ACOM provides regular advice on the conclusions. Only then will both sides feel governments and regional organisations harvesting of around 135 species of fish able to trust both the results of this research, responsible for managing fisheries in the and shellfish in the North Atlantic area. and the fisheries policies which rest on it. North Atlantic and adjacent areas (includ- To do so, it draws on a wide range of ing the North Sea and the Baltic Sea). data – including, increasingly, information The Commission receives scientific advice on provided by fishers themselves. EU fisheries from its Scientific, Technical and With its permanent secretariat in Copen- Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF – hagen, Denmark, the bulk of ICES’s work is All ICES advice, along with the studies on see box p. 13). STECF is composed of inde- carried out through more than 100 working which it is based, is published, and can be pendent scientists and experts representing groups, each dedicated to a specific topic accessed easily via the Council’s internet a broad range of opinion, and is systemati- of research. The conclusions of the working site at www.ices.dk. cally consulted before any proposals are groups which work on stock assessment drafted. Nor is STECF’s role limited to the strictly scientific – its membership includes experts on economic and social issues, as well. sustainably. Nor does ICES restrict itself to place to evaluate catches and landings On biological issues, STECF depends to a simply analysing the condition of specific specifically for research purposes. And the EU great extent on advice from the International fish stocks; increasingly, it provides a great directly supports these programmes through Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES – deal of integrated advice at ecosystem level, its Data Collection Regulation. see box) for the North-East Atlantic, North in support of the shift towards a more holis- Sea and Baltic Sea. (STECF also provides tic approach to managing Europe’s seas (see STECF’s work is essential to ensure that all the advice, where necessary in association with further chapter 15 below). Commission’s proposals are based on sound national researchers and ad hoc consultation data and sound reasoning. But while scientific groups, for fisheries in the Mediterranean ICES works by comparing and cross-refer- and technical knowledge must guard its and the Black Sea, which ICES does not cov- encing data acquired in different ways from independence, it cannot be isolated from er.) The advice provided by ICES includes the a range of sources. Some of the information broader issues. That is why advice from ICES stock assessments and deeper analysis on is provided by fishers, some comes from dedi- and/or STECF is systematically shared with which the Commission bases both its annual cated research cruises, and some is provided the RACs and ACFA for them to discuss and recommendations for setting TACs and quotas, by the fisheries authorities in the ICES member comment on. and more long-term proposals on how fish- states. All the European states have major eries in European waters can be managed sampling and data collection programmes in

Funding data

The EU is not simply a user of fisheries Since 2001, the EU also provides substan- Moreover, the new Regulation provides science, but a major facilitator and funder tial financial support for national data support not just for the physical collection of research in all domains connected with collection programmes. Under the first of data, but for the whole process from fisheries and the seas. This funding is pro- Data Collection framework, which ran collection through to processing, analysis vided through two main channels: support from 2000 to 2008, the EU provided about and advice. Previously, access for scientists for national fisheries data collection EUR 30 million per year in financial sup- was limited to aggregate data, which was programmes, along with associated stud- port. A new framework covering the peri- a severe obstacle to their studies. The new ies; and financing for advanced EU-level od 2009 to 2013 has now raised the total Regulation establishes clear rules for the research projects managed under the EU spend to around EUR 50 million a year. transmission of data, and thus ensures that Research Framework Programme (see fact scientists now have much broader access sheet on fisheries research). The new Regulation extends the range of to the data collected both under this regu- the national programmes supported in lation and through other instruments (for Data collection may sound like a fairly line with the new requirements created by example, VMS data). Detailed data can basic task, but in fisheries it can be both a the reform of the CFP. This means, specif- now be made available, on certain condi- complex and an expensive business. As ically, launching work in the following tions, not only for the purpose of elaborat- part of the core functioning of the CFP, the fields: ing scientific advice to fisheries managers, EU defines the biological and economic but also to inform debate with stakehold- data which the Member States must pro- Fleet-based management; ers and for use in scientific publications. vide to support the scientific advice process. The ecosystem approach; The rules also ensure that proper meas- (Scientific data is collected entirely inde- Regional approaches to fisheries ures are in place to protect the privacy of pendently of the catch data which Member management; and all the parties concerned. By making this States must supply to the Commission for Improving access to data. basic data more widely available, the EU the management of TACs and quotas). has taken an important step towards improving the level of debate on fisheries management, and opening it to a wider range of actors and opinions.

14 Planning for the long term

n the past, the lynch pin of the CFP was the Iannual exercise of setting TACs and quotas. Going over the top Fisheries Ministers from the Member States would meet in Council in late December, just before the Christmas break, and argue long In its 2007 annual Policy Statement on In the Commission’s own words, short- into the night over how many tons of had- fishing opportunities, the Commission term decision-making has led to ‘very dock or sand eel each of them would be able reviewed the evolution of both scientific small decreases in the impact of fishing. to take away. advice, and the catch limits adopted by Only three stocks under TACs (North Sea Council, since 2002. The conclusions haddock, North Sea saithe and megrims in While this system worked well when it was were clear: the number of stocks ‘at risk’ the Bay of Biscay) are exploited consistent- simply a way of allocating fishing possibilities showed little sign of improvement, with ly with the commitments made at the UN between the Member States, it is not the best around four fifths of stocks outside safe World Summit on Sustainable Develop-

way to tackle the major conservation chal- biological limits. This is hardly surpris- ment in Johannesburg in 2002 about CHAPTER 6 lenges which increasingly face the EU. The ing, since the TACs set each year have Maximum Sustainable Yield. Continuing industry complains that the annual ‘horse- remained consistently well above the lev- to set TACs at much higher levels than trading’ simply adds another layer of uncer- els advised by scientists (in excess of 40%, advised means that fisheries have been tainty to an already highly unpredictable on average) throughout the same period. taking a high risk. And all the more so as trade, as quotas are shrunk or expanded in As a result, all attempts to bring stocks many of these TACs are substantially over- the light of the latest scientific advice; while back to optimal health and productivity shot due to insufficient enforcement.’ scientists and environmentalists argue that were being severely hampered, if not sustainability will never be achieved without made impossible. Communication from the Commission to the Council. setting long-term goals and sticking to them. Fishing Opportunities for 2008. Policy Statement from the European Commission, COM(2007) 295 final. A first step away from short-term decision- making has already been made with the shift towards management by multi-annual plan, based on coherent long-term targets. These plans are designed to ensure sustainable exploitation and, where necessary, to assist recovery from near-collapse. They that will help provide fishers with the mini- approach these tasks in a graduated way, so mum visibility they need for forward planning. Long-term principles as to avoid excessive economic and social disruption where the state of the stock is not Instead of constantly revisiting the political critical. Building on its earlier experience of argument over how to respond to scientific The detail of the multi-annual plans long-term management arrangements for advice, multi-annual plans provide simple proposed by the Commission vary stocks shared with Norway and in the Baltic rules defining how scientists’ stock estimates from one stock to another, but they all Sea, the EU adopted its own first long-term are to be translated into fishing possibilities share certain core principles: plans in 2003, for the recovery of northern for the coming year. This not only provides hake and of certain major commercial cod a strong element of predictability from year they set harvest control rules stocks. These include the symbolic North Sea to year, but also means there is more time for for the stock, based on clear cod stock, which was until recently highly in-depth consultation and debate on under- quantifiable biological targets, popular with consumers in northern Europe, lying principles while the plan is being set up. and a graduated approach to and which scientists feared may be close to The result is a process which is both more trans- achieving them over time; collapse. parent and more likely to lead in time towards they usually limit the maximum the emergence of a genuine consensus on how year-on-year variation in TACs Since then, the principle of long-term man- to manage Europe’s fisheries sustainably. to 15% in either direction, unless agement based on clearly defined biological there is an imminent risk of the targets and accompanying measures has Long-term plans have also strengthened the stock collapsing, so as to provide been extended to cover a number of major role which effort limitation plays in EU fish- a minimum stability for the commercial fish stocks, and the Commission eries. Limiting the days which vessels can industry; and regularly schedules new proposals. The aim spend at sea is now a systematic element TACs and quotas are accompanied is to see all the most important EU stocks in all long-term plans, and provides an addi- by a scheme to limit effort in line under multi-annual management arrange- tional form of leverage through which to with annual changes in fishing ments. This includes species which spend reduce fishing pressure on sensitive stocks. possibilities. part of their life cycle in freshwater, such as However, a number of studies show that the eel and salmon, and short-lived species, such impact of the current days-at-sea system may Following recent advice from STECF, as anchovy, whose abundance is highly itself be limited (see box p. 16). The Com- the Commission now proposes that dependent on the number of young fish mission is therefore looking at alternative the limits on year-on-year variation in entering the stock each spring. It may seem ways to measure and reduce fishing pressure TAC be made more flexible in 2009, to paradoxical to talk about long-term planning during times of overcapacity in the fleet. allow both for more effective action for stocks made up of individuals that live for for stocks at risk of collapse, and for only a few years. But even fisheries where the The long-term approach to stock manage- fishers to reap greater benefits in the number of fish in the stock can and do vary ment is also in line with the commitment case where a stock is clearly thriving. so dramatically from year to year will benefit made by the European Member States at from stable parameters for decision-making, the 2002 Johannesburg World Summit on

15 Sustainable Development to bring all Euro- Other avenues need to be explored in paral- pean fish stocks to a state where they can lel, including shifting more responsibility for produce at Maximum Sustainable Yield ensuring sustainable use of resources away (MSY) by 2015. In 2006 the Commission from the public authorities, and on to the launched a debate on how this commitment industry itself. One example of such ‘results- could best be implemented within the Com- based’ management is the EU’s new policy to mon Fisheries Policy. Multi-annual plans eliminate discarding in EU fisheries which was already incorporate two features which are launched in 2007 (see fact sheet on discards). essential to any MSY-type approach: targets which are set in terms of fishing mortality rates (i.e. the rate at which fish are being removed from the stock by fishing), and a truly long-term perspective which respects Wasted effort? the right of future generations to benefit from the bounty of the sea as much as we do. Under the CFP, fishing effort limitations vessels may put to sea. The decreases Multi-annual plans are not a panacea, though are currently set for western waters, deep began well before these limits were intro- they can work when they are properly imple- sea stocks and stocks under long-term duced and no significant change in the mented. Witness the northern hake stock, and multi-annual management plans. rate of decline was noticed when the which was in need of recovery in 2003. The restrictions were introduced. Indeed, stock is now in such good condition, that 2008 According to national data provided to according to national data, only 72% of saw the Commission propose a long-term the STECF, the overall fishing effort the fishing effort allowed was actually management plan to replace the present deployed in 2005, compared to 2000, had deployed in 2006, indicating that in gen- recovery plan. fallen by 15% in the Kattegat, by about eral, reductions in fleet activity are largely 20% in the North Sea, Skagerrak and due to non-regulatory factors. However, critics still point to a contradiction eastern Channel, by about 35% to the between the long-term perspective of such West of Scotland and by a similar amount This suggests that the contribution of plans, and other features of the institutional in the Irish Sea. days-at-sea limits to stock recovery framework which continue to encourage remains limited. The system has proved short-term thinking and decision-making by At the same time changes in fishing gear, difficult to manage for both Member both politicians and stakeholders. In particu- such as greater recourse to large-mesh States and the Commission. It has been lar, questions of principle and operational trawls (over 100 mm), have also reduced criticised as overcomplicated, non-trans- details are still too often lumped together in overall fishing effort. To some extent, how- parent and difficult to monitor. There is a single decision-making procedure, in which ever, this has been offset by an increase in also a problem of overlap between different the latter can easily come to dominate the the effort deployed using smaller-mesh effort regimes. former. That is why the Commission contin- gear (70-89 mm) which may have caused ues to reflect on how institutional incentives more small cod to be caught. Despite these reservations, the effort can be best aligned with the long-term sus- management system has at least led to tainable development of the fishing industry. However, the Commission believes that a much a better understanding of the way the declining effort which has been wit- the fishing fleet operates, and may serve nessed may not be entirely linked to the as a basis for devising more effective policy of reducing the number of days management tools in the future. © Lionel Flageul

16 Technical measures, targeted regulations

fishing expedition is a complex opera- destruction without benefit of any kind of minimum mesh sizes for nets; Ation, which involves a whole chain of the very resources on which the fishery closed areas and seasons; choices by skipper and crew. Which fishing depends for its future. If, on the other hand, minimum landing sizes; ground should be targeted today? What will they catch lots of marketable fish, but do so limits on by-catches as a percentage of the sea conditions and the weather be like? only by dragging nets weighed down by total catch; and Which stocks are likely to be met with at this heavy metal bars through fragile ecosystems, incentives to adopt specific kinds of season? And which of these offer the best such as coral reefs or thermal vents, then fishing gear which have been shown to potential catch? they may unwittingly destroy the irreplace- reduce by-catch of unwanted organisms. able environment which nurtures the fish The decisions which the skipper makes will stocks on which they themselves depend. What they all have in common, however, is determine whether his boat returns home that they oblige, or encourage, fishers to be on time, safely, with a profitable catch and In both ways, careless and crude fishing more selective in the way they go about trying

a contented crew. At the core of these deci- methods can jeopardise the livelihoods of to catch fish. In other words, they guide and CHAPTER 7 sions is the need to target the vessel’s fishing other fishers, and compromise the future of channel fishing effort, so that it is applied in activities so as to maximise returns and min- the industry. That is why the CFP does not ways which both maximise the economic imise costs. This is not a simple decision, but simply lay down rules which limit the quantity return to fishers, and minimise unwanted it is implicit at every stage, from charting the of what fishers can catch to what the underly- damage to the common resource on which course to be taken as the boat leaves port, to ing biological systems can sustainably provide. all fishers depend. deciding which kind of gear to use, how to It also provides a qualitative framework set it, and when to haul the nets. to protect fish stocks and the ecosystems Fishing selectively is a complex task, which is in which they live, by encouraging certain very dependent for success on the particular The choices which fishers make also have kinds of fishing practice, and discouraging, or conditions that prevail in any given fishing important consequences beyond the suc- banning, others. ground. As fishers and scientists know all too cess or failure of any particular fishing trip. well, developing effective and commercially- If they catch lots of fish belonging to species These qualitative rules are collectively known viable selective gear is a long process, fraught for which they have no quota, or which are as technical measures. This term embraces with disappointments and false hopes. Nev- too small to be landed and marketed, they a wide and varied range of measures many of ertheless, such gear does exist, and given the will have to throw them back into the sea, which may at first sight appear to have little right incentives for fishers to adopt it, could even though they know that many of them to do with one another. Some of the main be more widely used. will not survive. The result is pure waste – the types of measure used include:

Discards: an economic and ecological calamity

One of the greatest scandals of contempo- catches. The estimated total discards for In 2007, the Commission published a rary fishing is the number of fish which are the North Sea alone ranged from 500000 Communication on reducing by-catch discarded – that is, which are simply thrown to 880000 tonnes. To the west of Ireland and eliminating discards in EU fisheries. back overboard, without being landed. and Scotland, discards ranged from 31 to The policy outlined in this proposal repre- 90% of catches depending on the fleets, sents a radical innovation for the CFP, for This may happen for a number of reasons target species and depth. In other areas, it would manage the discard problem on – because the fish are below the minimum the figures are much lower: in the Mediter- the basis of the results to be achieved, not landing size, because they are of a species ranean and Black Seas, the FAO put dis- the means to be used. So, instead of speci- for which the vessel has no quota, because cards at 18000 tonnes or 4.9% of the fying what gear fishers should use, or they are not the species which the skipper catches. In the Baltic, the rate was only which areas they should not fish in, the had chosen to target, or because, although 1.4% on average. However, all these figures EU would simply lay down the goal of large enough to land, they are rejected to should be treated with caution, as they are a phased reduction in discards to the min- make space in the hold for other, more liable to understate the true extent of the imum feasible level, and leave fishers and valuable fish (‘high grading’). problem. national authorities to determine how that should be achieved. The full extent of the discarding phe- Whatever the true situation, however, it nomenon is unclear, and varies widely is clear that the discarding on this scale of At the time of going to press, the Commis- from one fishery to another. However, one unwanted fish, many of which will not sion intended to introduce its first proposals 2005 study published by the Food and survive the experience, is both an eco- for ‘discard bans’ of this type on a fishery- Agriculture Organisation estimated the logical and an economic disaster, and by-fishery basis during 2009. amount of discards in the North Atlantic is undermining the future of the fishing at 1332000 tonnes per year – 13% of the industry.

17 Other technical measures, too, can make a real difference to a stock’s reproductive Selectivity saves the fishery chances and to the integrity of its environment. In all cases, though, it is crucial that these measures should be as well-adapted Selective gear which can go to commer- The Fisheries Laboratory at Lysekil start- as possible to the conditions which obtain cial scale is difficult to devise, but when it ed looking for ways to avoid taking cod as in different seas, and in different fisheries. works, it can have a major impact both on a by-catch so as to allow the inshore lan- This means taking account of what stake- the economics of a fishery, and on its goustines fishery to continue. The solu- holders tell us about regional variations and environmental impact. The Skagerrak tion they came up was a square mesh net the specific nature of given ecosystems. coast of Sweden is famous for its lan- which incorporated a selective 35-mm It also means making only the most essen- goustines. By-catch of cod used to repre- ‘grid’. The grid filters out any larger tial decisions at European level, and leaving sent 50% of the catches. The cod stock in organisms, including almost all cod, while those who know by experience what works this area is so fragile, that it is the subject the square mesh enables the smallest fish and does not work in practice to adopt the of an EU recovery plan. to escape unharmed. methods which are best suited to a particular fishery, subject to them meeting certain In an effort to save the cod, the use of These grids are now compulsory for all minimum conservation and environmental trawls was banned inside a 4-nautical- the boats fishing close to the Swedish performance standards. mile exclusion zone. As a result, fishers coast. Since they were introduced, by- no longer had access to a large part of catch has been reduced from 50% to 5% In the past, the EU has adopted many techni- their traditional langoustine grounds. of the total catch – and the inshore fishery cal measures, often on an ad hoc basis. The has been saved. introduction of multi-annual management plans since 2002 only made this situation more complex, as each of them brought its own new set of accompanying measures As a result, we now have three Council regu- with it. The result was a legislative labyrinth – lations covering technical measures for the a mass of overlapping, and sometimes contra- Baltic Sea, the Mediterranean and the North- dictory provisions, allowing multiple deroga- East Atlantic (including the North Sea). The tions and exceptions, scattered throughout Baltic and Mediterranean regulations were a range of very different legal texts. adopted in 2005 and 2006 respectively.

One of the Commission’s priorities over the The existing North-East Atlantic Regulation, past few years has, therefore, been to simplify meanwhile, covers a large and diverse area of these rules, and make them easier for fishers ocean. The Commission has now introduced to apply and for inspectors and managers to a proposal to simplify this by dividing it into enforce. This has meant: a general regulation containing the core provisions which apply across the whole of this recognising the specificity of Europe’s dif- area, accompanied by four ‘regional’ regula- ferent seas and oceans, by grouping tech- tions, which can lay down more detailed, nical measures into regional regulations; fishery-specific rules. The four subsidiary reg- ensuring that all the rules that apply ulations will divide these waters up into the in any given region can all be found in areas covered by the relevant Regional Advi- a single regulation, and are coherent sory Councils – North Sea, North West Waters, with each other; and South West Waters, and the fisheries dealt distinguishing clearly between a few with by the Pelagic RAC. general overarching rules which need to be established at EU level (e.g. minimum This division will simplify the existing rules for landing sizes, or banning destructive these areas, and facilitate the development of fishing practices), and the more detailed new rules based on first-hand knowledge of and context-specific rules which should the fisheries concerned through a bottom-up be set at regional level. process driven by the RACs themselves.

18 A fleet for the future

ne of the main problems facing the fish- Oing industry globally is that there are too Keeping within limits? many boats chasing too few fish. This is not just a European problem. As long ago as 1992, the FAO estimated that the total fishing Every year, the Commission produces This cap on fleet capacity in nominal capacity of the world fleet was approximately a report analysing the progress made by terms is complemented by an obligation twice what was needed to harvest the oceans the Member States in ‘achieving a sus- for Member States to adapt the capacity at the highest rate that was sustainable in tainable balance between fishing capacity of their fleets to the resources made avail- the long run. And analogous studies at EU and fishing opportunities’. This report able to them. This adaptation should ide- level have concluded that many European is based on the reports provided by ally take into account technological creep, fleets can exert a fishing pressure which is the Member States, together with data through which the same tonnage comes two to three times the sustainable level. gleaned from the EU fishing fleet register. to mean more fishing power over time. CHAPTER 8 As with every other aspect of fishing, ecolog- The EU fleet is managed through what In its recent reports, the Commission has ical, social and economic sustainability are is known as the ‘entry/exit’ scheme. This concluded that while EU fishing capacity inextricably intertwined. Overcapacity is not lays down a few simple principles, which overall is declining, the reduction is com- just a problem for fish stocks, it is also a prob- are designed to ensure that the capacity of ing too slowly (on average, an annual lem for fishers. It exacerbates competition in the fleet in tonnage cannot rise above the reduction of 2-3% over the last 15 years) a number of fisheries, to the point where it level of 1 January 2003 (or, for the Member for it to have any substantial impact on becomes almost impossible to make a living. States which joined the EU on 1 May 2004, fishing pressure and thus alleviate the As long as there is no permanent reduction above its level on that date). poor state of many EU fish stocks, in par- of the fleet to more sustainable levels, there ticular demersal stocks. It is estimated will always be a powerful temptation for that technological creep runs at around some fishers to bend rules, exceed quotas 2-4% annually, thus effectively cancelling and under-declare catches, just in order to out any nominal reduction. survive.

© Lionel Flageul 19 Subsidies and other forms of aid have too These changes were immediately incorporat- However it is achieved, though, bringing often played a perverse role, maintaining ed into the financial instruments available to about a meaningful reduction in the size of fishing capacity in excess of what is economi- support EU fisheries policy. The Financial the EU fleet will require strong, pro-active cally and ecologically justified. Under cover of Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG), decisions from the EU Member States. A more assisting communities in need, ill-designed which ran till the end of 2006, was amended sustainable European fishing industry cannot programmes can lead to the creation of accordingly. And the European Fisheries Fund, simply be legislated into existence: it requires enterprises which may never be able to oper- which became operational as of 1 January a true culture shift in the way we think about ate viably, or simply shift fishing pressure 2007, has been designed from the bottom European fisheries. from one fishery to another, thus displacing up to support the shift towards a fleet that is the problem without resolving it. actually in line with the present level of (*) The EFF allows for aid for engine renewal, though resources. In July 2008, the Council adopted with a requirement to reduce the size of the new engine The European fleet needs to be brought into a number of temporary derogations to the compared to the old one, and the July 2008 emergency line with the resources of our seas. Such EFF rules, to make it easier for the Member restructuring measures to address the fuel crisis in the restructuring has been a priority for the CFP States to accompany the process of fleet sector included a derogation to allow for ‘partial for many years, and the recent and dramatic restructuring in response to the ‘fuel crisis’ decommissioning’ as part of the Fleet Adaptation rise in the price of fuel – by as much as 240% that was sweeping through the industry. Schemes. since 2002 in some Member States – has only These included the creation of Fleet Adap- underlined the urgent need for action. How- tation Schemes, which provide additional ever, any restructuring that takes place under support to encourage substantial capacity the CFP is now the responsibility of the Mem- reductions in those fleet segments which are ber States, and of the operators concerned: it the most fuel-intensive. These derogations is up to the Member States to set up decom- will last for two years, and will be subject to missioning schemes, and it is up to the oper- ongoing monitoring and assessment. ators to apply for decommissioning under them. The EU institutions have no unilateral Clearly, the incentives for capacity reduction power to reduce the size of the national fleets. need to be reinforced. At present there are For there to be real progress towards more two main incentives provided at EU level sustainable fisheries for the long term will – a carrot, and a stick. The stick is the negative therefore require a real commitment by both incentive provided by the effort limitation national authorities and stakeholders to cre- schemes associated with long-term manage- ating a more economically profitable and ment plans. The carrot is the funding made more ecologically sustainable European fleet. available for capacity removal under the EFF. But it is up to the Member States both to The 2002 Basic Regulation introduced a num- choose their priorities for EFF funding, and to ber of important new rules intended to ensure that effort limitations are properly produce a better match between fleet capac- implemented and respected. ity and resources, and more specifically to prevent any further expansion of the EU fleet: It should be noted that in certain Member States, effective fleet consolidation has been Member States shall put in place achieved through the creation of property measures to adjust the fishing capacity of rights in fishing opportunities, without the their fleets in order to achieve a balance need to spend public money. Such property between this capacity and their fishing rights, if properly conceived, can be a powerful opportunities; tool for aligning the interests of the industry no public money can be used to build with those of long-term conservation, though new capacity or to ‘modernise’ boats, in they remain controversial as they might seem the sense of making them more efficient to effectively privatise a public resource. fishing machines; At present, decisions on whether to use such nor can public money be used to ‘export’ tools remain the prerogative of the individual overcapacity to third countries; Member States. The Commission conducted no new capacity can be introduced into a public debate on the arguments for and the fleet using private money unless at against emulating such an approach during least an equal amount of capacity is with- 2007, and this discussion is likely to continue drawn, also using private money; and in the context of the consultations leading up capacity withdrawn using public money to the next reform of the CFP. (decommissioning programmes) can not be replaced(*).

20 Controlling fisheries for the common good

n the early days of the CFP, the main con- Icern for Europe’s governments was pre- Controlling the controllers venting conflict, not conserving fish stocks. And this was true of fisheries policy not only in Europe, but throughout the world. As The Commission employs 25 inspectors The Commission inspectors are a small a result, control and enforcement was fairly on a full-time basis. Between them they body, compared to the national inspec- low down most fisheries managers’ agenda. make around 130 inspection trips in any tion systems they control, and therefore The purpose of fisheries policy was to protect one year. Their role is to test national have to target their missions carefully the continuity of national industries in a period inspection systems for flaws and loop- to ensure they have maximum impact. of rapid change, not to burden them with holes. Their work requires as much care By choosing their targets wisely, they additional ‘constraints’. and precision as the work of national can have a major influence on improving inspectors, especially in cases where control and enforcement of the CFP.

This perception has long since changed. As major failings are detected. The results Thus, in 2003-2005, one of their targets CHAPTER 9 the mismatch between fish stocks and fishing they bring back are crucial in providing was the weighing system for landings of capacity has become more and more blatant, the Commission with a solid basis for pelagic fish, which is governed by com- and its impact has begun to show up in the action against Member States where nec- plex rules which could easily be misun- deteriorating profitability of the industry, the essary, and must be able to withstand the derstood – whether deliberately, or not. incentive to bend and break rules has grown. highest levels of legal questioning. By the end of this three-year programme, For the vast majority of honest fishers, the a marked improvement in reporting actions of the small minority who breaks the Thus, in 2007 when the Commission sus- had been seen, especially in the case of law represent a form of unfair competition pected that the level of cod landings in Ireland and the UK, where the national and an additional obstacle to the survival of the Baltic Sea was being severely under- authorities were able to identify and put their increasingly fragile businesses. declared, it was the Commission inspec- an end to a systematic misdeclaration of tors who visited ports along the coast and catches which had blighted the industry double-checked the results of the national for many years. declaration and inspection systems. And it was their analysis and estimates of the Thanks in part to the inspectors’ tenacity true weight of uninspected landings which and focus, the Commission was also able formed the basis for the Commission’s to persuade Norway and the Faroe Islands, decision to close the fishery and for the with whom these stocks are shared, to subsequent arrangements for payback of adopt similar control measures as the EU overfished quota by one Member State. for this fishery. This represents a signifi- In the same year, they also played a major cant step towards ensuring a level playing role in demonstrating that several Member field in these fisheries between EU fishers States had not taken proper measures to and those from non-EU countries. keep catches within limits in the bluefin tuna fishery in the Mediterranean.

© Lionel Flageul 21 And the recently-adopted Regulation on Elec- The full force of the law tronic Reporting Systems and Remote Sens- ing technologies means that, once again, the EU will lead the world in making real-time The Commission’s power to take the can wield. Such cases bring a heavy work- reporting and monitoring a practical reality. Member States to court is one of the most load, and a very high burden of proof, so significant weapons in its arsenal. And they cannot be launched lightly. But they Most importantly, the creation of the Com- the costs to those who do not take it seri- are a vital last resort, when reasoned dia- munity Agency for Fisheries Control in 2006 ously can be substantial. The most strik- logue and administrative procedures fail. is destined to radically change the way in ing example is the decision delivered In 2007, the Commission opened three which the national inspection services of the against France by the ECJ in July 2005 for new and important infringement pro- EU work together, by coordinating cross- failing to put an end to the systematic ceedings for failures of control leading to border collaboration with the help of Com- capture and landing of undersized hake. under-declaration of landings and over- munity inspectors drawn from the Member The Court imposed a EUR 20 million fishing: against Italy and France in con- States (see box p. 23). fine on France, along with a periodic nection with the bluefin tuna fishery, and penalty of EUR 57 million every six against Poland in relation to the Baltic Nevertheless, the results remain disappoint- months, until the failings were remedied. cod fishery. ing, as recent reports by the Commission and the Court of Auditors have pointed out in This case may be exceptional – by far the The Commission has a duty to act to see some detail. National catch registration sys- largest penalty ever imposed by the ECJ the CFP properly enforced – especially tems have numerous shortcomings. Basic in a fisheries case – but it illustrates the when the survival of historic European data are incomplete and unreliable. The dissuasive power which such proceedings fisheries is endangered. existing legal framework is inadequate and not properly applied by Member States. As a result, the Commission is unable to identify errors and anomalies and take necessary decisions in due time.

The need for effective compliance with regu- another comparing the sanctions imposed As the Commission noted at the time: ‘Ins- lations is now universally accepted. And it is by different Member States for offences pection systems do not guarantee efficient not only fisheries ministers and managers against the CFP rules which are categorised prevention or detection and there is an who are asking for better control and as ‘serious infringements’. absence of general control standards. Member enforcement of the CFP. Fishers, too, are States do not make optimal use of inspection aware that their long-term livelihoods And of course, in cases where a Member activities, dedicating too many resources to depend upon keeping fishing effort within State is gravely endangering the sustainable controls at time of harvest at sea and not sustainable limits. Indeed, what the industry management of resources by not imple- enough resources to controlling the landing wants is to be sure that fisheries rules are menting rules agreed at EU level, the Com- and marketing of the catch. What controls being applied with equal rigour throughout mission can bring proceedings against the are carried out are too often ineffective and the EU – that the same constraints are Member States before the European Court of insufficient. Follow-up procedures do not applied equitably to all. Justice. This is a very serious step, and one guarantee that sanctions are imposed. Sanc- which makes heavy demands on the Com- tions are either non-existent or not dissua- This is where the European Commission mission’s limited resources. However, when it sive. [The result is] an ‘infringement culture’ comes in. Ensuring that the CFP rules are is used, the consequences can be highly dis- in the sector and administrations which puts enforced on a day-to-day basis, and that suasive if the Commission’s complaint is the whole CFP into question.’ those who break them are sanctioned effec- upheld, and thus have real power to bring tively, is the work of the Member States. It is about a change for the better. No small wonder then that ICES has declared up to the national inspectorates to monitor the biological condition of 57% of European what gear is being used, or how many tonnes Much has been done in recent years to commercial fish stocks to be ‘unknown’, largely of fish are caught and then landed. The Com- improve the CFP control framework. The EU due to the unreliability of basic catch data. mission has its own inspectors, but they do has also played a leading role in pioneering not police the fishers. Rather, their role is to new technologies which have made control That is why in late 2008 the Commission pro- inspect the control systems put in place by and monitoring both more efficient and posed a thorough overhaul of the CFP control the Member States, and make sure that the more cost-effective. Satellite vessel monitor- framework. If adopted, the new Regulation CFP rules are enforced effectively and fairly ing systems (VMS) are now a standard tool will bring added value in a number of areas: across the whole of the EU. of fisheries inspection worldwide, but it was the EU which led the way, becoming the first Simplification of the legal framework: In addition to on-the-ground monitoring of fisheries authority to implement compulsory The Regulation will bring together the the effectiveness of national inspection sys- VMS tracking for all the larger boats in its control standards for all the rules of the tems, the Commission is active in a number fleet. Here, the Commission plays a dual role, CFP. It puts the principles in place, while of other ways to ensure a level playing field helping to establish the legal framework nec- leaving the task of defining the details for all European fishers. It processes catch essary and ensure that it is consistent from to a single implementing regulation. and effort data reported by the Member one Member State to another, and also chan- Enlarging the scope of control: States, and has the power to close fisheries nelling funding to ensure that all the Member The Regulation covers fields that were when quota is exhausted. It publishes two States have the means to acquire state-of- until now neglected (transport, markets, regular reports, one summarising the con- the-art equipment, and train their people to introduction of a comprehensive clusions of its own inspectors’ missions, and use it. traceability system, surveillance),

22 and addresses new control needs that More effective application If fishers see EU regulations as tools to serve have arisen (such as discards, recreational of the CFP rules: their own best interests, rather than con- fisheries, or marine protected areas). The new tools at the disposal of the straints to be avoided wherever possible, Creating a level playing field: Commission and of the Agency will then the task of the authorities in enforcing The introduction not only of harmonised ensure a quicker and stronger reaction them will be greatly simplified. Associating inspection procedures, but also of where infringements are detected, and stakeholders, and especially fishers, with harmonised and deterrent penalty both bodies will be able to carry out their every stage of the policy development systems (including the introduction of missions more effectively. The Commission process, will not only ensure that the deci- a penalty point system) will ensure fair will develop a macro-management sions taken at EU level are transparent, but treatment for fishermen wherever they approach, and re-orient its tasks towards can also help to forge a genuine consensus operate, and give confidence in the the control of the control systems of the as to what is best for the fishing industry, as system to all players. Member States. well as for the fish in the sea. Rationalisation of the approach: The systematic use of risk management These measures should make real and effec- For the seas are vast, and the boats that sail and of modern technologies, to ensure tive control possible. There are examples of them in search of a living so small in compar- that all data received is routinely cross- fisheries in which major improvements in con- ison. The only way to ensure that the CFP is checked, will allow the Member States trol and enforcement have been achieved in consistently respected in practice is to make and the Commission to concentrate their very short periods of time. The Commission sure that fishers see it as truly fulfilling its control resources on those areas where now wants to achieve a similar improvement function – a guarantor of equity between the risk of infringement is highest. It will not just in individual fisheries, but across the nations, fleets and individuals, and a warrant also make the system more cost-effective. board at European level. of a sustainable living for them, now and in Reduction of the administrative burden: the future. The new system will be quicker, more At the same time, the Commission is also com- accurate, less expensive and will allow mitted to attacking the problem at its root – in automated processing of data. the culture of overfishing and irresponsible The effectiveness and efficiency of behaviour which is driven by broader sys- validation systems for catch data will be temic incentives, and not just by poor control greatly improved. For the fishermen, systems. Truly effective implementation of the the use of modern technologies will lower CFP rules will best be achieved if we can create the administrative burden and save time. a culture of compliance, rather than coercion.

Pooling our resources

In April 2005, the Council of Ministers selves. The role of the CFCA is to encour- agreed to set up a Community Fisheries age cooperation and coordination between Control Agency (CFCA) as a key part of national inspectorates – not to replace the drive to improve compliance with the them with a pan-European control agency. rules of the Common Fisheries Policy In this way, it contributes to the EU’s (CFP). The main purpose of the Agency mandate in terms of control and enforce- is to tackle the shortcomings in enforcement – to ensure a level playing field for ment resulting from disparities in the European citizens, and to foster a culture means and priorities of the control systems of compliance. The creation of the Agency in the different Member States. does not change the obligations of the Member States in enforcing CFP measures Through the CFCA, Member States are or those of the European Commission in able to pool their control and monitoring ensuring that Member States fulfil these resources – both human resources (inspec- obligations. tors) and physical means (vessels, airplanes, infrastructure, etc.). These means are then In July 2007, the CFCA launched its first mobilised through Joint Deployment Joint Deployment Plan in the North Sea, Plans, targeting specific fisheries which targeting the implementation of the cod involve more than one Member State. recovery plan. This exercise brought The CFCA acts as adviser and coordina- together resources from seven EU Mem- tor, working with the Member States con- ber States: Belgium, Denmark, France, cerned to select the fisheries to be targeted, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and draw up an operational plan, and over- the United Kingdom. Each of the Mem- see its implementation. However, all the ber States took turns to steer one of seven inspection and control work is done by inspection campaigns, supported by the personnel from the Member States them- Agency.

23 24 CHAPTER 10 whom theyare then shared outonthebasis States,tas onbehalfoftheMember between has negotiated theannualexchange ofquo- ation oftheCommon Fisheries Policy, theEU fisheries withthesenations. Since thecre- ofmutuallyoverlappinghave alonghistory Norway, Iceland andtheFaroe Islands. We inparticular with itsneighboursto theNorth, opportunities Agreements basedon eries inthepartner’s territorial waters. financial andtechnical –for sustainablefish- –both country,from orsupport thepartner access to EUwaters andstocks for operators reciprocity, whetherthattakestheform of agreements are basedontheprincipleof Nor are thebenefitsalloneway. Bilateral boats. tunities for around 3000 EUworkers, andfishingoppor- some 40000 ments aloneprovide employment direct for isestimated thatbilateralhigh seas. agree- It iscaughtonthe countries, andanother20% (by weight) underagreements withpartner ofitscatch the EUfleettakesaround 40% T the benefitsofpartnership Fishing inwiderwaters: fishing outsideEuropean waters. Today, of he European fleethasalonghistory dominate theEU’s relations exchange offishing managed stocks aspossible. agement principlesto asmany ofthesejointly- long-term man- ofextending the possibility ners, theCommission continues to explore yield. For themutualbenefitofbothpart- successful inensuringahighsustainable saithe, thisapproach hasbeenremarkably ments. thecaseofbothhaddockand In management underlong-term arrange- to fleetsare joint andNorwegian subject EU erel andherring)whichare fishedby both (cod, saithe, whiting, haddock, plaice, mack- ing nationsintheworld. Seven ofthestocks with Norway, whichisoneoftheleadingfish- closerelationship The EUhasaparticularly ing to thetimeofyear. accord-EU waters andthoseofourpartners backandforward between and whichshift stocks whichstraddleterritorial boundaries, negotiations isto enablemutualaccess to Indeed, oneofthemainpurposesthese continue to fishintheotherparties’ waters. of 200-mileEEZs. They enable eachfleetto eries for bothsides, following thedeclaration oftraditional fish- thecontinuity preserving itself, theseagreements play avitalrole in of relative (seebox). stability LiketheCFP whiting (1250000 tonnes). whiting (1250000 tonnes) and blue mackerel (385366 tonnes), Spawning) (1266000 herring stocks: Atlanto-Scandianfish (Spring- agreements cover three major pelagic ‘coastal states’ agreements. These arrangements inplace so-called –the ments, there are multilateral also In addition bilateral to these agree- excess of EUR2billion. tonnes of worth well in fish, 750000 around to access shared for provides way back goes to 1981,and currently agreement EUand the between Nor- Policy with –especially Norway. The dimension of Common Fisheries the are neighbours amajor northern The EU’s relations fishery with its Partners intheNorth Partners

© Lionel Flageul These partnerships based on quota exchange play a vital role in providing fishing opportu- Undermining food security? nities for many EU fleets. Equally important are the partnership agreements we enter into with nations which have no interest in Over the last few years, articles have reg- In many West African fisheries, the fishing in EU waters, but which can benefit ularly appeared in the European and overfishing is a response to economic from our financial and technical support as international press charging the EU fleet migration, not its cause, as governments they seek to develop their own national with having overfished certain coastal have chosen to build up the local fisheries sector on a sustainable basis. Many, waters in West Africa to such an extent, inshore sector, often in an uncontrolled though not all, of these Fisheries Partnership that the local fishing industry is now fac- way, in order to absorb large scale Agreements (FPAs) are with countries in the ing collapse, thus driving yet more people labour movements from the country- developing world. to become illegal migrants undertaking side to the coastal urban strip. perilous sea crossings to try and enter The fishing pressure exerted by these A Fisheries Partnership Agreement (FPA) Europe via the Canary Islands. so-called ‘artisanal’ fleets can be many comprises two main components: carefully times that of the EU fleet in the regulated access for the EU fleet to resources These articles are often moving, but do region. which the partner country’s national indus- nothing to help the plight of the people The vast majority of the people who try is not in a position to exploit to the full, who are driven to such desperate action, undertake the illegal and often tragic and a financial contribution from the EU of as they are based on a number of miscon- journey by sea to the Canary Islands which a large proportion (sometimes, 100%) ceptions: are not fishermen or other locals, is earmarked to support the partner country’s but people who have already travelled national fisheries policy, fight pirate fishing There is overfishing in some areas and hundreds, if not thousands of miles operations, and reinforce sustainable fishing on some species in West Africa, but to reach the coast before embarking. practices within its EEZ. Whether this means this is not caused by EU fleets, which helping install new monitoring and control represent less than 20% of total Overcoming poverty and ensuring food systems, advising on scientific research, or sup- fishing pressure in the area. EU boats security in West Africa are major chal- porting the modernisation of the local fleet, fishing under FPAs are generally not lenges, both for the governments of the FPAs can make a meaningful contribution not permitted to fish within the 12-mile region, and for international donors, just to the country’s fisheries sector, but more zone, which is reserved for the local such as the EU. But the EU’s FPAs are not generally, to its overall development goals. artisanal fleets. part of that problem. Indeed, they may be part of its solution. At the same time, there are also obligations for EU boats to take on local fishers, or to land a certain part of their catch for processing in the partner country. Exclusivity clauses eignty is always paramount. However, the EU European fishing vessels would not leave – which forbid EU operators from making pri- does retain the right to walk away from an West Africa – they would simply be left to vate arrangements with third-country author- agreement when our criteria are not met. their own devices, and the EU would have no ities with whom the EU has an FPA – ensure And that means not only fair financial terms, easy way of controlling what they do there, that this responsible approach is taken by all but also appropriate guarantees that fisheries or of ensuring that our presence contributes European boats fishing in our partners’ waters. are sustainable, biodiversity is not at risk, and to local development priorities. The challenge, And the EU is the only fishing power in the funds will be used in ways that genuinely con- then, in a global context that is itself rapidly world which conducts its relations with third tribute to local economic development and evolving, is to ensure that we are constantly countries in total transparency, by making all thus strengthen national food security. adapting and improving our partnership their details publically available. approach, so that the CFP continues to make Still, the FPAs are not perfect, and the EU a real contribution to the development of In the past, the EU’s agreements with countries encourages open and frank debate on how sustainable fisheries, not just in Europe, but in the developing world have been criticised they might be improved, particularly in the around the world. from a number of angles. Some NGOs describe context of the next reform of the CFP. Fish- them as ‘exporting’ overfishing, while certain eries data are sometimes only patchily avail- politicians charge the EU with ‘overpaying’ for able once the initial evaluation study has opportunities which are not taken up in full been completed, certain provisions and con- by the European fleet. The current generation ditions remain ‘aspirational’ when compared of Fisheries Partnership Agreements seeks to to the current level of infrastructure and answer those criticisms, so as to ensure both resources available on the ground, and there value for money for the EU taxpayer, and are inconsistencies in practice as well as syn- a positive contribution to our partners’ own ergies in theory. All these problems need to development goals. While much progress has be looked at, and solutions found. been made, there is certainly still room for improvement. The EU remains committed to creating a genuinely level playing field between all fishing Some of the expectations placed on FPAs are nations, and to assisting the developing unreasonable: they are there to support and nations as they establish robust and sustain- assist, but they are not a tool for imposing able fisheries policies which find the right what we think are the ‘right’ policies or gov- balance between local food security and ernance systems on our partners. Their sover- trade for revenue. In the absence of the FPAs,

25 26 CHAPTER 11 ment (UNFSA), whichestablishedthepre- the tions (RFMOs). wasfollowed It in1995by Regional Fisheries Organisa- Management for translatingthisgoalinto UNCLOS effect, entrusted responsibility In management ofthefishstocks concerned. states andgood to ensure theconservation state’s willingness to cooperate withother fish inthehighseasconditional oneach from thebaseline, andmadethefreedom to theirEEZsupto 200nauticalmiles extend UNCLOS enshrinedtherightofnationsto entered into force in1994. was formally adopted in1982andwhich tion ontheLaw (UNCLOS), oftheSea which associated withtheUnited NationsConven- the Law driven oftheSea, by theprocess seen arapidandfar-reaching evolution of of none. However, years have thelastthirty held to befree to allnations, andtheproperty the ‘freedom oftheseas’ –namely, theywere waters hadbeengoverned by theconcept of Since atleastthe17thcentury, international seas’. the ‘high waters, orwhatare commonly referred to as meanwhilemajority remained international area oftheworld’s oceans. The vast surface concerned ofthe onlyatinyactually portion change from afisheriespointofview, it over theglobe. Yet, whilethiswasamajor onfishingpatterns all had amajorimpact T leaders ontheinternationalstage Fishing inwiderwaters: diction overdiction fishinggrounds in the1980s he widespread ofnationaljuris- extension adoption oftheUNFish Stocks Agree- practice to the practice well aspro agement offisheriesinthehighseas, as principleasthebasisfor the cautionary through negotiationsbetween the direct diate oftheSecond aftermath World War, which were establishedintheimme- infact UNCLOS didnotcreate theRFMOs, mostof ing nations. coral; cold the hydrocarbon of north seeps unique colony of white the Lophelia a to Maria Italy, diLeuca, which are home coral reefs Ionian inthe off Capo Santa Sea areas inquestions are: deepwater the threat to habitats the contain. they The a fishing activity which could represent arecerned now kindsof to closed those measures, areas the Thanks to these con- beyond national jurisdiction. sensitive habitats deep-sea which lie in January 2005to protect three highly mission for Mediterranean the (GFCM) imously Com- by Fisheries General the provided by measures the adopted unan- examplemanagement. is of Agood this aswelltection, asfor sustainable fisheries tool for powerful environmental pro- a thatThe EUbelieves RFMOs can be Protecting sensitive habitats visions for mutualcontrol by fish- man- high seas where none seas yet exist. high age creation the of RFMOs inareas of the strengthen existing RFMOs, and to encour- willcontinue to work actively to EU The ronments against damage by fishing. through RFMOs to protect sensitive envi- holders and civil society, can work together inter national community, including stake- Thisshows how the Committee. Advisory approvedbeen by GFCM’s the Scientific proposition from had WWFwhich the Union,pean on basisof the an initial This proposal wastabled by Euro- the rare of types coral. south of Cyprus, hostsanumber which of Eratosthenesthe seamount located tothe and on chemo-synthesis; based ecosystem Nilethe Delta, which constitute aunique regulation have begunto emerge. The EU and shared standards for governance and RFMOs are alike. However, ashared culture which theyoperate, even today, notwo in made onthem,andthenewlegalcontext they have evolved to fitthenewdemands advance ofbothUNCLOS andUNFSA. While and procedures were laiddown well in states concerned. As aresult, theirmissions

© VGA has been a major player in this process. The a global turnover of EUR 10 billion, making extremely slow rates of growth and reproduc- broad geographical range of the European it one of the largest fish producers in the tion associated with many of the key popula- long-distance fleet means that the EU is one world. And IUU is a big problem for the EU, as tions living at such great depths. A cold water of the few parties which is a member of the largest market for fish in the world. IUU coral reef can take many decades, if not cen- almost every major RFMO around the world. imports into the EU have been conservatively turies, to form, yet it can be destroyed in only estimated at EUR 1.1 billion. All this is money a few hours. RFMOs have many critics. For some they are lost to honest fishers who abide by the rules. authoritarian bodies which infringe on the And IUU is not just an economic problem, it is In December 2006, the UN General Assembly freedom of non-coastal states to exercise also an ecological disaster. Operating outside adopted a resolution calling on all states to the traditional freedom of the seas; for others any rules, and often without any ethics, IUU act, individually, in collaboration with one they are weak, ineffective organisations, vessels deliberately target overexploited another, and through the Regional Fisheries whose consensual decision-making process stocks (which are often the most valuable), Management Organisations of which they leaves them open to political manipulation and commonly employ destructive fishing are members, to promote a truly precaution- and blocking manoeuvres which prevent methods without fear of retribution. The ary approach to destructive fishing practices them from taking adequate steps to manage profits can be so large, that the biggest IUU in the high seas. The key to this approach is to the fisheries in their charge. operations constitute criminal organisations require a prior environmental impact assess- comparable in scale and ruthlessness to the ment before licensing any deep sea fishing While the Commission recognises that RFMOs narcotics trade. activity, as well an obligation for vessels in their current state may be imperfect, it also encountering a vulnerable ecosystem where believes that they can and should be Recent years have seen moves in many none had previously been detected to move improved. Moreover, they are the only bod- RFMOs to come to grips with the problem of on immediately, and to notify the location to ies which have the legal authority to regulate IUU fishing. The EU has played a leading role the relevant authorities. In areas where no and control high seas fisheries for the com- in this work. And in 2007, we adopted a new RFMO exists or is planned in the near future, mon good. The EU’s approach is therefore and comprehensive approach to eradicating the UN also called on flag states to take to work with them and through them, so as IUU operations. The aim of this package of appropriate measures to implement proce- to empower them as effective tools for sus- measures is to close the EU market to pirate dures for their own vessels to see that the tainable fisheries management, founded on fishers, by implementing systems which precautionary approach is respected. The EU the precautionary approach. Much has been focus not just on inspections at sea and in played a key role in seeing this resolution done in this direction in recent years, with fishing ports, but which provide real control through the UNGA, and in 2008 the Council several RFMOs in which the EU is a key player throughout the supply chain, from net to of Fisheries Ministers adopted measures in line adopting state-of-the-art provisions for both plate. If we can shut the pirates out of our with the UN guidelines to govern the activities conservation and control. markets, we can hit them where it hurts them of EU vessels fishing in international waters most: in their purse. which are not covered by an RFMO, or an One of the major challenges facing fisheries appropriate multilateral interim arrangement. in the high seas is illegal, unreported and IUU fishing is a threat not just to fish stocks, unregulated (IUU) fishing. Since RFMOs are but more broadly to biodiversity. Much of At the RFMO level, the EU is now playing voluntary organisations, while their rules are the high seas consist of deep waters which a leading role in developing measures and binding, they are only binding on those par- until recently were largely unexplored. How- systems to address this problem. Recently it ties which have become members. Fishing ever, scientists have now begun to piece has promoted measures in the Northwest operations in open waters many thousands together a better picture of what life may be Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO) and of miles from shore are very difficult, and like several thousand metres below the sea the South-East Atlantic Fisheries Organisa- exceedingly expensive, to control. The situa- surface. While much still remains to be done, tion (SEAFO) to close deep water vulnerable tion is made more complex by the fact that one thing is already clear: there is far more marine ecosystems to fishing, in particular only the flag state has the authority to insti- life, and far more variety of life, at the bottom those associated with seamounts. It has also tute proceedings against a vessel found of the sea than was previously suspected. recently proposed further measures in NAFO breaking fisheries rules, and some states to prevent damage when undertaking new have made a lucrative business out of provid- One consequence of this discovery has been fisheries in areas that have not yet been ing illegal operators with safe havens from mounting concern about the impact of exploited. international law. destructive fishing practices on vulnerable marine habitats in the high seas. It is also Our recent actions to close our doors to IUU The 17 RFMOs which exist today, or are in the clear from recent research that deep sea fish products and ensure that destructive process of being created, jointly manage biodiversity is not evenly distributed. Rather, fishing practices are stopped before they can some of the richest deep sea fishing grounds it is concentrated in specific ‘biodiversity hot do irreparable damage demonstrate the EU’s in the world. But not all international waters spots’, where local conditions are especially commitment to be a leader in sustainability have fisheries rules and regulations to be favourable to the multiplication of varied in international fisheries. For the Common broken. And even in those areas which do life forms. Features such as cold water corals, Fisheries Policy is not just concerned with have RFMOs, not all fish stocks are regulated: seamounts and deep sea vents function as protecting fish stocks in EU waters. It aims to some RFMOs specialise in certain species concentrators of nutrients and provide the ensure that European fishers are among the (tunas, salmon), and others lack the resources, basis for complex, highly localised ecosystems. most responsible in the world – wherever both scientific and administrative, to issue they fish, and whatever flag they fly. regulations covering any but the most com- We know that such hot spots exist. What we mercially valuable of their stocks. do not know is where they are. And often, we only find out too late – after much of the IUU fishing is a huge business. Recent esti- life which they support has been destroyed. mates suggest that the IUU industry has This is a true tragedy, especially given the

27 28 CHAPTER 12 in Asia America. andSouth one third –largely growth dueto spectacular world aquaculture increased production by this increased supply. Between 2000and2005 to cultivation,have beenthemainsources of luscs andcrustaceans, whichlendthemselves sumption doubled. Freshwater fish,andmol- yet between 1973and2003,world fishcon- Catches ofwildfishlevelled offinthe1980s, consumption now comes from aquaculture. ofallfishforto FAO human estimates, 47% ing andprocessing technologies. According al fishsupply, thanksto developments inrear- Today, aquaculture plays amajorrole inglob- a trend whichcontinued untilthe19thcentury. fish were rare andexpensive ininlandareas – Ages,during theMiddle whenwild-caught ponds becameacommon source offood Europe,as far2500BC.In fishraisedin F Aquaculture intheEU liest known examples,liest known inChina,date back ish farmingisanancientpractice. The ear- and research, we have astrong andhighly aquaculture. We are leadersintechnology Europe hasanumberofkeystrengths in annum in2005). per (around 1.3milliontonnes of thecentury remained more orlessconstant since theturn um boomintheindustry, asEUproduction jobs. Yet ithasfailedto share inthemillenni- 2.9 billion,whichgenerates some65000 player, withaturnover today ofroughly EUR The EUaquaculture isasignificant sector sustainable. that ouraquaculture isitselfgenuinely sector culture. At thesametime, we needto ensure new demandwillhave to bemetfrom aqua- fisheries already fullyexploited, muchofthat to keepongrowing. With mostwildcapture al livingstandards rise, demandfor fishisset increase over thecoming decades, andglob- As theworld’s populationcontinues to ed, continue from to prevent theindustry ed, sional residential housing andtourism. Andocca- for space including withotheractivities, ronments leadto increasing competition demands onbothcoastal andinlandenvi- kets bothathomeandabroad. Increasing cult for ourfishfarmersto compete inmar- mean highercosts, andmakeitmore diffi- challenges. standards High inevitably Yet thesestrengths alsobringwiththem themselves. ofthehealthanimals respectful ronment inwhichthey human consumption, goodfor theenvi- that aquaculture are products goodfor quality Perhaps ourgreatest assetistherigorous mostindemandby consumers. currently is appropriate for manymate ofthespecies trained entrepreneurial base, andourcli- image problems, even ifun found- standards we have set,toensure are raised, and reaping the full benefit of the rigorous stan- area, following on from the EUR 80 million many of the drivers for the growth of aqua- dards it has established for both public and which went to support aquaculture research culture are necessarily found at regional or animal health. under its predecessor. Spatial planning national level, the Commission remains per- methods, such as integrated coastal zone suaded that more joined-up policy making at While many of the drivers of aquaculture management, are among the priority initia- EU level can help unlock the sector’s potential, development are to be found at national or tives being explored as part of the new while continuing to uphold the highest stan- local level, the EU still has a significant role to European Maritime Policy. And a number of dards of environmental sustainability, public play in establishing a framework for the sus- specific proposals for legislation, on organic health, and animal welfare. tainable development of the industry which labelling of aquaculture products, for instance, will ensure a level playing field for entrepre- or the conditions for introducing alien species neurs and provide a solid basis for consumer into the EU, have recently been adopted or are confidence. currently being finalised.

Much has happened since the Commission Yet none of these initiatives have been able adopted its strategy for the sustainable to avert the stagnation that has beset the development of European aquaculture in sector. Indeed, a number of the challenges 2002, with most of the actions set out then identified in 2002 are still very much with us, now well underway. The European Fisheries and the market situation continues to evolve Fund specifies sustainable aquaculture as rapidly. That is why, as this brochure went to one of its priority axes. The EU’s 7th Research press, the Commission was preparing a new Framework Programme will continue to allo- strategy for EU aquaculture based on a year- cate substantial support to research in this long consultation with stakeholders. While

Enhancing water quality in EU aquaculture

As the European aquaculture sector has in addition to space and cost advantages, experienced increasing competition from lies in the fact that it would operate with- non-EU countries, especially Asia and out interruption for maintenance, and South America, the role of research and should also be less prone to system failure. development has become ever more crucial in adding value. Freshwater fish Through the 6th Framework Programme, farming depends on high quality water the EU contributed more than EUR control, if it is to reach its full productive 650000 to this two-year research project capacity. which involved not just technical innovation, but also basic research into the The Fishtankrecirc project brings together aquaculture environment and the electro - 8 partners in Austria and Belgium to chemical processes involved in electro- develop a water treatment system based coagulation. This made it possible to on the technique of ‘electro-coagulation’ build a full-scale pilot system, which was technique to enhance the performance of installed and tested in two very different water recirculation. Electro-coagulation contexts in Norway and Greece. Work is a cost-effective method of water purifi- now continues on the next stage of devel- cation which is capable of removing opment, which will hopefully lead to organic particles, phosphates, nitrates, a market-ready system. ammonia as well as soluble organics in such a way as to make more intensive Research such as this, which is not close recirculation possible, while maximising enough to market to attract commercial the growth rates of the fish. The result funding, but which can have very real will be a treatment system geared to consequences for the competitivity of the meet the specific challenges of European sector if it succeeds, illustrates the important aquaculture, including scarcity of water role which EU Framework Programme resources, environmental degradation and funding can play in promoting the future customer demand for health and quality of the aquaculture sector.

29 30 CHAPTER 13 pressed almost to thepointofbreaking. fisheries,of theindustry, are certain already hardship.may betemporary Yet someparts the price ofasustainable andprofitable future adaptation isinevitable. Andinsomecases, isorganised. Aperiodof which theindustry areas willrequire majorchangesto theway in that dependonfishing–success inallthese ing theeconomies ofcoastal communities andreinvigorat- thesocialfabric preserving to helpmeetgrowthactivities indemand; chain; developing sustainableaquaculture to addvaluethroughout the keting industry up thepotential oftheprocessing andmar- more sustainablefishingmethods;building ing thefleet’s onlessfuel-intensive, activities with thereal potential yieldofstocks; refocus- into line andeffort Bringing fishingcapacity in theprice offuelover thelastfew years. highlighted by thedramaticrise been further itself for thefuture –challengeswhichhave ing great challengesasitseeksto redefine T intransition foranindustry Support opportunities before it.Butitisalsofac- opportunities hasgreathe European fishingindustry will soon be sunk in the sea facing the sea sunkinthe be will soon preparation, reefs the are now ready and ofreefs. along research After period and creation of of aseries inshore artificial through the depends fishery the which to enhance natural the habitat on ect Aquaculture (CRPMEM),launched aproj- Committee for Maritime Fishing and industry, represented by Regional the To and remedy try situation, this local the industry. important for fishing species local the ularly true of langoustine, the single most to decline. hadbegun Thisispartic- fishery many emblematic stocks of fish the of this industry.local However, inrecent years, in turn hadformed basisfor the athriving exceptional conditions for spawning, which by only sea the anarrow lido, provides long stretch of salty water, separated from forlong afocus This11-km- fishers. been has Lagoon Biguglia In Corsica, the Eastern Getting fishersinvolved inmanagingtheirown coastline the Regionalthe of Council Upper Corsica. Corsican Environmentalthe Agency and by funded FIFG,andbeen other the halfby of which halfhas is EUR300000, project ofThe total phase costof first the this on.’ depend they coastline the to get involved with really managing try reefs first willencourage indus- the ‘These among Aspokespersonsaid: fishers. local bringwill also about achange inattitude of the Biguglia ecosystem, but that they only restore many stocks fish of key the CRPMEM hopes that reefs the willnot ers, form but of navigation. to every The each reef will be closed around mile nautical one of area an cess, not only to fish- To of suc- chance possible best ensure the can grow on to maturity. young fish still their carrying eggsacks) ive environment (very fry inwhich alevin lagoon. Theaim isto provide asupport-

© Lionel Flageul Solidarity between peoples and communities has been at the heart of the European Fisheries co-management in a unique environment project ever since the Treaty of Rome was signed in 1957. To meet challenges such as those facing the European fishing industry, In 2004, the Swedish Board of Fisheries which is sustainable in both environmental the EU has developed a series of programmes invited groups to take part in a pilot study and economic terms. The proposal for known as ‘structural funds’. ‘Structures’ here concerning locally based co-manage- the national marine park now explicitly refers to the basic equipment or ‘plant’ ment of fisheries. Among the initiatives states that the fishery in the park is a sus- required to produce, process and market that were selected to take part was the tainable activity. The future of the fishery goods. All four existing funds are used to local branch of the Swedish Fishermen’s has been secured. assist the implementation of specific Euro- Federation in Northern Bohuslän. pean policies, in particular through help with Several projects launched by the branch capital investment to fit operators to face The Northern Bohuslän area is a unique have since received funding from the new challenges. By doing so, they aim to marine environment in Sweden. It is cen- FIFG. Thus, a number of fishers have stimulate the development of regions which tered on the Koster Fiord whose biodiver- been enabled to take a course in basic are lagging behind, and support the mod- sity is unmatched anywhere else along the marine ecology at the Tjärnö Marine ernisation of sectors of the economy which coast. Local fishers, however, were worried Research Lab. In turn, the fishers have are facing the need for radical change. about plans to create a national marine developed their own courses for local park around the fiord, and the impact decision-makers and other interested par- Since 1995, there has been a specific structural which this might have on their livelihood. ties, to explain in detail the different types fund dedicated to fisheries. The Financial of fishery being practiced in the area. Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) ran In the context of the co-management ini- Other projects include piloting new types until the end of 2006, and while it was undeni- tiative, they were able to work out a man- of fishing gear and developing a system ably successful in some areas, in others the agement plan for the area, which seeks to for self-management and easy compliance results were more ambivalent. Certain priorities balance interests so as to create a fishery with catch reporting requirements. for funding, such as aquaculture or economic diversification for coastal communities, saw only a low take-up rate; while others seemed to be in conflict with one another, such as support for the reduction of fishing effort aid for organisations which represent channelled through a single national EFF and capacity on the one hand, and aid to the collective interest of the sector; programme, rather than the many different modernise and renew the older segments of sustainable development of fisheries- programmes which often existed in the past. the European fleet on the other. While many dependent areas; and billions of euros were spent to make the technical assistance to Member States As noted above (chapter 8), in July 2008 the industry more competitive and more sustain- to facilitate the delivery of aid. Council adopted a number of temporary able, complex procedures and conflicting derogations to the EFF rules proposed by the political priorities made that investment less It will be up to Member States to decide how Commission which were designed to rein- effective than it should have been. they allocate funds between these different force and facilitate the much-needed restruc- priorities, on the basis of a national strategic turing of the EU fleet in response to the ‘fuel It was therefore decided that, rather than sim- plan. These plans have been drawn up in crisis’. Both through this temporary regime ply extending the FIFG again, an entirely new close collaboration with the Commission, to and beyond, the EFF will provide targeted, funding instrument should be introduced. The ensure that they are in line with the Fund’s transparent and flexible support for the result is the European Fisheries Fund (EFF), priorities. They are then translated into opera- fishing industry and fishing communities to which became operational on 1 January 2007. tional programmes which are approved by the help them meet our common goal of truly The EFF has been designed to be far simpler to Commission before they are implemented. sustainable fisheries. manage and to implement than the FIFG. It is structured to meet the needs of the enlarged Many of the measures found in the FIFG will EU, which now numbers 27 members. Above continue under the EFF. But the new Fund all, it has been tailor-made to support the core also introduces a range of innovative mecha- principles which underpin the CFP in line with nisms in response to the changing needs of the Basic Regulation of 2002. It will thus pro- the industry. These include measures to vide a real and effective tool for achieving envi- accompany the implementation of recovery ronmental, social and economic sustainability. plans and to encourage more selective fishing methods alongside funding for local strate- The EFF will run for seven years initially, with gies for sustainable development in fisheries a total budget of EUR 3.8 billion. The main areas. The new Fund provides enhanced aid priorities for action laid down are: for inland fisheries and environmentally- friendly aquaculture. In addition, the Member helping the fleet adapt fishing capacity States will benefit from simpler implementa- and effort to available fish resources; tion rules and greater flexibility in the appli- support to aquaculture, inland fishing, cation of eligibility criteria, so that they can processing and marketing of fisheries adjust them more easily to the needs of their and aquaculture products; national industries. All assistance will be

31 32 CHAPTER 14 the Market (CMO)the Market in1970. establishment oftheCommon Organisation of ofwhatwasto become the CFPwasthe as part keted. firstmeasure enacted Indeed,thevery but withhow theyare processed andmar- been concerned notjustwithcatching fish, tion. From beginning, thevery theCFPhas This omission,however, isanerror ofpercep- EU anditscitizens. source ofwealth andemployment for the a only into nourishingfood, butalsointo avitalrole inturningrawperforms fishnot ofthevaluechain,andwhich the majority represents whichinfact oftheindustry part What ismissingfrom isthatlarge thispicture in order to sellthemto consumers. whichtakesfishoutofthewater is ofasector basic imageoftheEuropean fishingindustry coastal communities. case, their Butinevery the environmental issues. willfocus Some on withbroader willmaketheconnection Some catching sector, orpossiblyaquaculture. W producers, processors, consumers The finalproduct: social andeconomic challengesfacing Fisheries Policy, theywillthinkofthe hen mostpeoplethinkoftheCommon on activities those which are likely to avoid to year the gluts, and by targeting members’ efforts throughout evenly effort catch by both taken, spreading fishing catch plan value the isto maximise of the of marketing the pose and strategy the weeks of year. fishing the Themain pur- national authorities within first the seven The programmes must be notified to the a marketing and strategy acatch plan. ofprised anumber of elements, including Such operational programmes are com- members work in. tional programmes for their fisheries the up and implement comprehensive opera- mainthe of task POs nowadays isto draw below reference certain levels. However, ing product market off the prices when fall nisms, compensate which for fishers tak- associated with intervention the mecha- Producers’ organisations are commonly Organising tomaximisevalue

© Lionel Flageul Fund during initial the set-up phase. support from European the Fisheries operational programmes are eligiblefor qualityBoth improvement plans and and landing. arefish heldonboard capture between production chain, or by reducing time the by reducing handling throughout the of members’ their products, for example involved inactions to improve quality the Producers’ organisations are actively also comply with programme. the be used to ensure that membersto sell, and internal penalties which can actually of which are species traditionally difficult measures to supportcific marketing the tional programmes can include also spe- catch limits and minimum sizes.Opera- can include provisions such asseasonal bring greatest the return. Acatch plan unpredic when work recognise thespecialconditions whichhold The keymeasures establishedby theCMO season,andeven from month to month. to widelyfromthe years, season butcanvary overabundance doesnotsimplyfluctuate finite yet renewable naturalresource whose a other industries, since theyare basedon Fisheries are essentiallydifferent from most CMO are: The main instrumentsestablishedby the processing industry. well ascausing significant disruptionfor the penalise bothproducers andconsumers, as the industry’s control, andwhichwould price andsupply causedby beyond factors designed to helpsmoothoutvariationsin facilitate theavailability ofraw material Autonomous Tariff Quotas(ATQs), which and supply; todespite manage theirbestefforts level,POs whenprices fallbelow acertain vene to compensate fisherswhowork in funds, whichcaninter- support Market first-sale prices; course oftheseasonsoasto stabilise offishingpossibilities over the take-up bring together fishersto managethe Producers’ organisations (POs),which fisheries products; the EU’s internal marketinfishand facilitate thecreation andoperationof Common marketingstandards, which table naturalresour ing witha ‘wild’ andinherently ce. They were ce. They Trading fish in a globalised world

what fishing techniques were used. Where In the early days of the CFP, EU trade globalisation is making it more and more there are specific environmental concerns policy on fish was decided by the EU difficult to say where exactly any given around particular fishing techniques, they alone. However, since the launch of the product comes from. want to be satisfied that the fish they eat WTO process, trade policy and tariffs in meets their own personal ecological and all economic sectors are now dealt with The debate on subsidies, which was so ethical standards. multilaterally at the highest international prominent during the Doha Round, is only level. one part of a larger context. While it is too There are many kinds of labelling which early yet to prejudge what may emerge could be used to provide this kind of infor- The EU is fully committed to the WTO from the collapse of the Doha Round, mation. The new regulation on fighting IUU process, which can bring many advan- it is clear that it opens broad perspectives fishing provides for one kind of traceability, tages beyond those associated with the for future negotiations. The Commission which will ensure that all fish on sale in the extension of free trade. An international remains committed to working for an EU has been caught legally by vessels with consensus on rules of origin, for instance, outcome which is positive for the EU the appropriate fishing permits and quotas. could greatly facilitate trade in fish for fishing industry, and for the promotion of Another, very different approach is ‘ecola- the EU and its partners, at a time when sustainable fishing worldwide. belling’, on which the Commission completed a major public consultation in 2007. However, while the EU is convinced of the value of ecolabelling for specific (‘niche’) market segments, there is also a need for greater trans- from third countries for the processing The CMO therefore also includes measures to parency in the way that the fishing industry industry when EU production threatens try and ensure a more stable and predictable presents and delivers all its products to the to fall short. supply of this vital raw material. One of the consumer. For consumers are, quite rightly, main tools which the EU can use to this end concerned about the sustainability of the Initially, the focus of the Common Organisa- are the so-called Autonomous Tariff Quotas fishing industry in general. They want to tion of the Market was on ensuring a bal- (ATQs). The aim of ATQs is to enhance access know not just that there is a special sub-set of anced price for fish, which would give both for EU processors to fish from third countries fish products which they can eat with a clear fishers and consumers a fair deal. However, by granting reduced tariff rates on the conscience, but that all the fish they see in over the years, balancing supply and demand import of specific products for which domes- the supermarket has, so to speak, a right to has come to be seen as an ecological, as tic production is in deficit. These tariff rates be there. much as an economic, issue. In this sense, are intended to provide balanced incentives, the CMO was arguably ahead of its time, which give priority to EU production where it It is the consumer who is the final judge of since a fair price for fish is inherently a force exists, while ensuring that the European pro- the success or failure of the Common Fish- for sustainability. Low prices, particularly at a cessing industry is not unfairly penalised eries Policy. If people do not want to eat fish time of high costs, are one of the principle when it has to compete on the world market caught by European fleets or farmed in the factors driving overfishing in the short term. for its inputs. EU, then it does not matter how good our fishers are at catching them, or our farmers at The CMO has been reformed regularly since The CMO seeks to support producers and raising them, or our processors at turning 1977, to adapt it to each successive step processors as they face up to the vicissitudes them into mouthwatering products. towards the enlargement of the European inherent in any industry which is so com- Union, and to refine its use of market measures pletely dependent on the evolution of com- A major part of the challenge that faces the so as to support a genuinely sustainable Euro- plex natural systems. But it does not ignore CFP in the coming years, therefore, will be to pean fishing industry. Thus the intervention the needs of the consumer, either. This is true support the sector not only in the difficult mechanisms established more than 30 years not only in its attempt to ensure a balanced transition to sustainability, but also in restor- ago are increasingly used to store fish, rather price, which is fair for all parties, but also ing the image of fish as a food which is not than to simply withdraw them from the market. when it comes to laying down standards and only healthy and good for you, but is also The percentage of fish stored for release back market norms. harvested in a genuinely responsible way. on to the market when prices increase has risen from 30% in the 1980s to 70%, and is One of the earliest historic tasks of the CMO The last major reform of the CMO dates back destined to rise further. This is a shift which was to create common marketing standards to 1998, and further substantial changes makes both economic and ecological sense. for the emerging single market in European should be anticipated in the coming years. At the same time, the main focus of the fish products. This meant ensuring that In particular, the Commission believes that producers’ organisations is no longer simply descriptions of products – in terms of qual- producers’ organisations can play a crucial on delivering intervention aid to members, ity, grades, packaging and labelling – were role in meeting many of the main challenges but rather on designing and implementing equivalent across all Member States. facing the European fishing industry. Rising full-scale operational programmes for their fuel costs, stagnant or falling first-sale prices, fisheries so as to maximise responsible Today, traceability represents one of the increasing reliance on imports and aquacul- management of their resources. Once again, most important contributions which the CFP ture, the increasing power of the major retail financial and environmental responsibility can make so that consumers know what they chains, and the increasingly complex demands go hand in hand. are buying, and can be sure they are paying of consumers – faced with challenges in all a fair price for it. People want to know that these areas, POs can strengthen the bargain- Producers’ organisations also play an impor- the fish they are eating is healthy, and has ing position of individual fishers and con- tant role in facilitating the work of the pro- reached them through a chain which respects tribute to a more viable, and thus more cessing industry, by providing a more regular real standards of hygiene and freshness. They sustainable, industry. Following a series of source of domestic supply. However, with the want to know that the fish was caught fairly evaluation exercises in 2008, and a broad- best will in the world, they cannot make up within quota – that it has not contributed based consultation with stakeholders, the the shortfall in supply to the processing to the possible collapse of a fragile stock, and Commission will be proposing a major reform sector. Today, 60% of the raw fish used by is not the result of black market trade or ille- of the CMO in the course of 2009. EU processing firms are imported from third gal fishing. Many times, they want to know countries. And for certain species, at certain exactly where it comes from, whether it was periods, that figure can reach 100%. caught wild or farmed, and if wild-caught,

33 34 CHAPTER 15 set offafar-reaching chainofcauseandeffect. whole, anddisturbingonesingleelementcan depends uponthe pendencies. part Every web andinterde- ofconnections extraordinary oceans. As such,theyare caughtupinan plex ecosystems thelife whichstructure ofour tion. Eachisonlyonecomponent inthecom- about ‘systems’. Fish stocks donotexistinisola- When we talkaboutecology, we have to talk more sustainablefishingpractices. isonewhichhasanaturalinterest in industry lead to aprofitable industry. Andaprofitable them to work together. Healthy fishstocks circle, ifonlywe virtuous canget a powerfully term, inthemediumandlongterm theyform may intheshort conflict sustainability ical money. While theprofit motive andecolog- healthy cannotmake fishstocks, theindustry sions offisheriesare inseparable. Without A Beyond principle theprecautionary another. All and to of one coexist inevitably affect seek them have anaquaculture, impact marine research, tourism, all on tional and alternative energies, fisheries, industries, off-shore,port-based tradi- and coastal trade, shipping, transport, isvast,andsector enormously varied: domestic product (GDP). Themaritime of EU’s the aroundgenerate gross 40% of EU. the Europe’s maritime regions initiatives policy new recent inthe history ambitious most the of one is result The Actionthe Plan. Policy by pursuing objectives the out set in work to establish an Integrated Maritime on futureand called EUpresidencies to vision this withoutendorsed reservation, In European 2007,the December Council continuouslyoceans hadbeen growing. approach Europe’s tomanaging and seas for acoordinatedsupport cross-sectoral groundswell the ofwhich stakeholder during work, of years two of conclusion the for years the documents were These ahead. setting out an ambitious work programme EU,the together with adetailed action plan vision for an Integrated Maritime Policy for published aCommunication describing its consultation, European the Commission In 2007,after ayear-long October public oceanAn ofopportunity the environmental andeconomic dimen- s we have seenthroughout thisbrochure, and integrity ofnaturallivingsystems,and integrity andfor for withrespect human society thediversity whichnaturalresourcesservices provide to ofthosegoodsand monise theextraction An ecosystem-based approach shouldhar- from theCommission publishedinApril2008. wasoutlinedinaCommunicationpractice approach theEUfollows inputtingthisinto only inEuropean waters, butworldwide. The of pursuinganecosystem-based approach not shares withmany othernationstheobjective Under theseinternational agreements, theEU World SummitonSustainableDevelopment. and theJohannesburg Declarationofthe2002 the Convention onBiological Diversity (CBD) echoes ourinternational commitments under islaiddown intheBasicRegulation,and This but alsoto an ‘ecosystem-based approach’. principleto fisheriesmanagement, cautionary andtoonly to applyingthepre- sustainability The Common Fisheries Policy iscommitted not for Integrated Policy Making. are: These Particularly important are three the tools the marine environment. ic research, and protection the fisheries of businesses,employment,maritime scientif- itime transport to competitiveness the of of issuesrangingwide spectrum from mar- coverof Commission. Barroso These the a actions launched to be during mandate the The Action Plan out sets arange of concrete inasustainable manner.seas are to tap potential the of our oceans and a coherent and coordinated approach ifwe sustainability.energy goals require Allthese change and adapt to its impacts, and achieve mostofthe globalisation, climate fight main priorities. It willhelp EUto the make 21stcentury,the and inaddressing Europe’s in able development and competitiveness tool inmeeting challenges the of sustain- An Integrated Maritime Policy willbeakey help sustain. our oceans and quality the of life the they up by Commission; and planning, assisted by aroad map drawn developmentthe of maritime spatial lance systems for European waters; a more integrated network of surveil- health ofourmarineresources. onthe whichimpact all humanactivities approach to managing notjustfisheries, but fully committed to anecosystem-based is The EU’s newIntegrated Policy Maritime approach canbeproperly implemented. Policy Maritime thatanecosystem-sectoral they not provided themwiththeprotection that drilling orcablelaying, thenwe willhave of fishing, ofoil butnotfrom theimpact and ourseamountsfrom thenegative effects seas around us. we protect If ourcoral reefs whichaffectthe all theotherhumanactivities approach cannotexclude from consideration ecosystem-based approach. Butsuchan eries whichhave themostto gainfrom an our marineecosystems. istherefore It fish- dependentonthehealthof is mostdirectly fishingisprobablyitime activities, thatwhich the needsoffuture allmar- generations. Of become areality.become have just –it nolonger an will idea be will EUMaritime new ning, the then Policy areas.of these When are these up and run- ing preparatory/pilot projects inallthree launch-The Commission be willshortly integrated approach. activities, ultimately leading to amore betweenfertilisation allMaritime Policy bring about willitself facilitate cross- actionsoceans and which these will seas the monitoring and surveillance of our data and information, inplanning, and in sustainable manner. Theimprovement in and spaceinan environmentally coastal ities and of marine use the optimise the join up interlink policies, their activ- their economic and environmental actors to cutting makers tools to help and policy work for maritime affairs requires cross- integratedThe new governance frame- on and oceans seas. fragmented initiatives that gather data bring coherence to current the and optimise to (EMODNET) Network an EUMarine and Observation Data need. It is only in the context ofa isonlyinthecontext need. It cr oss- At the core of the integrated ecosystem- It can protect sensitive marine habitats and approach lie two major instruments: the species, sometimes more rapidly than other Marine Strategy Directive adopted in Decem- more integrated instruments allow. The CFP ber 2007, and the Habitats Directive of 1992. has often been used in recent years to pro- The Marine Strategy Directive officially forms vide immediate protection from destructive the environmental pillar of the EU’s Maritime fishing practices for ecosystems for which Policy. It deals with ecosystems at the bio- broader protection has been sought under regional level, and calls on the Member the Habitats Directive, without having to wait States which share a given maritime region for this lengthy procedure to conclude. Such to establish jointly their standards for ‘good measures can also be taken independently of environmental status’ and a roadmap of how the Natura 2000 process, as for example in the they intend to get there. The concept of measures to protect the Darwin sea mounds ‘good environmental status’ includes biodi- north of Scotland, or the coral reefs around versity conservation, as well as broader ideas the Azores, the Canaries and Madeira. of ecosystem integrity and health. The Habi- tats Directive, on the other hand, deals with It can also take account of the environmental specific habitats which have their own spe- drivers which impact on fish populations, and cific characteristics and are clearly delimited which in turn can lead to major disruptions in space. In order to ensure the protection of for the fishing industry. We should not organ- vulnerable environments and living struc- ise our fisheries in such a way that they risk tures both on land and at sea, the Directive exposing both fish stocks and fishers to major provides the legal basis for establishing a negative impacts in the case of sudden Europe-wide network of representative pro- changes elsewhere in the ecosystem, such tected areas. as climate change. This means, above all, not over-exploiting fish stocks to the point It is above all through the implementation where the least change in their environmental of these two Directives that the EU will be conditions could provoke their collapse. Long- able to ensure that Europe’s fish stocks have term management for MSY is thus key to a healthy environment in which to grow and ensuring an integrated ecosystem approach. thrive (see fact sheet on ecosystem approach). Of course, the ecosystem approach is, at This is not to say that the CFP can simply heart, just shorthand for something we have continue to focus on conserving fish stocks, always known, and which the industry has and leave the environment in which they often practiced instinctively. Fishers tend to swim to other policies and other actors. On be highly aware of the interlinked nature of the contrary, as part of an increasingly holis- marine life in all its forms. And they know tic approach to the maritime sector and that it is in their own long-term interest to the marine environment, the integration of keep the seas healthy, so that they will pro- ecosystem factors into the CFP rules has vide them with the plentiful fish stocks which already begun, and will become increasingly make their job a pleasure, not a burden. important over the coming years. We need to increase research on interactions between The task for the Commission now is to work fisheries and marine ecosystems, and we with fishers, and with all maritime stakehold- need to make sure this research is included in ers, to build not just a policy, but a culture all the decisions which are made under the of integrated ocean management based on CFP. And we need to ensure that the impacts a deep understanding of the potential and of fisheries operations are in line with and the constraints of our natural environment. A support the policies being implemented culture in which ecological limits are respect- under the broader instruments of the Marine ed, and the power of the seas works for us, Strategy and the Habitats Directive. not against us, for the greater benefit of both the present generation, and generations yet In concrete terms, there are three main ways to come. in which fisheries management can contribute to protecting marine ecosystems and ensuring a healthy and robust marine environment for all its users.

It can reduce the overall fishing pressure exerted. The less time boats spend at sea, and the less they need to fish in order to make a decent living, the fewer organisms will be killed, deliberately or incidentally, and the less disturbance there will be to the environments that protect and support the target species.

35 The way forward

he Common Fisheries Policy has come Ta long way since 1982 – or indeed, since Timetable for reform the first instruments of European fisheries policy were established in the early 1970s. What began as a set of tools to preserve tra- On 29 September 2008, the Council of tation results will be published in early ditional fishing patterns and defuse tension Fisheries Ministers unanimously endorsed 2010, and the Commission will aim to between a handful of nations is now a com- European Commissioner for Maritime table reform proposals later in the same plex legal-scientific framework which seeks Affairs and Fisheries Joe Borg’s call to year, with a view to their coming into to harmonise the interests of 27 Member kick-start preparations for the next force in 2012. States, while protecting a natural resource reform of the Common Fisheries Policy whose finite, though renewable, nature can by launching a a truly open, no-holds- Commissioner Borg commented: ‘An no longer be ignored. barred debate with stakeholders, Member economically, socially and environmen- States and the general public. tally healthy fishing industry depends on Recent years have seen many improvements. healthy fish stocks and on the fishing Long-term planning and fishing for maximum The Commission intends to table a Green fleets being in balance with their fishing sustainable yield now go hand in hand with Paper in the first half of 2009 which will opportunities. Ecological sustainability the growing role of aquaculture and the recog- provide the basis for a broad-based public will therefore be fundamental to any nition that value should be fairly distributed consultation. A summary of the consul- future reform of the CFP.’ throughout the market chain. Funding has been re-directed to support the industry through a period of transition, and to help coastal communities keep their character as they diversify their economic base. Stakeholder We also face the challenge, and the opportu- would like to have. For in the final analysis, participation has been reinforced, as have con- nity, of integrating the CFP fully into the the only ultimate constraints are those of trol and enforcement. And our international broader perspective of a truly cross-sectoral biological sustainability – and they are set not role gives us the opportunity, and the respon- Maritime Policy. We need to ensure that it is by any political institution, but by Mother sibility, to uphold the banner of responsible coherent with the EU’s Marine Strategy Direc- Nature herself. fisheries wherever EU boats may roam. tive, and with the IMP’s focus on sustainable growth in coastal areas. The search for better Yet these achievements have to be balanced ecological and environmental status for our against the many areas in which substantial seas and oceans will go hand in hand with improvement is still urgently needed. The more, not less, support at EU level for coastal institutional framework of the CFP still tends communities affected by this new approach to confuse the definition of long-term princi- to fisheries management. ples with their concrete day-to-day implementation, and provides not only scope, but Both the EU’s emerging Maritime Policy, and even incentives for short-sighted and irre- the CFP which has just celebrated its 25th sponsible decision-making. Fleet capacity birthday, are rooted in consultation and par- remains so far in excess of the potential sus- ticipation with the people of Europe. And tainable harvest, that it is a direct incitement both of them are, by their very nature, works to a culture of overfishing, under-reporting, in progress. Throughout this brochure we and various kinds of rule-bending and illegal have tried not only to explain the basic prin- activity. We need to create a framework for ciples which now guide the CFP, but to show the industry in which it pays to be responsi- how the CFP is not a body of regulations ble, rather than one where people can profit which are set in stone, but an unfolding by ignoring the rules and putting themselves process, which stakeholders and citizens can first, whatever the cost to others. actively criticise and shape.

This may require a number of radical and The goal of the CFP is to ensure that we have innovative changes to the way the CFP healthy fish stocks in a healthy marine envi- works, and the Commission aims to organise ronment, for without that there can never a truly open public debate to define the be a profitable fishing industry. To bring this terms of the next reform. Market-based man- about, the European Commission is ready to agement tools to reduce fleet size, greater do whatever is required to ensure that stake- powers for the Commission to discipline holders, consumers, scientists and managers Member States, a substantial simplification can work together, and replace the vicious of regulation at EU level, and the delegation circle encouraged by past policies with a gen- of many implementing decisions to national uinely virtuous cycle – a true win-win situation. and/or regional level: none of them represent a panacea, and some of them are deeply The CFP is not a set of rigid constraints, but controversial, but all of them need to be on a dynamic framework within which Member the table as we explore the way forward for States and stakeholders can identify and work the CFP over the coming years. towards the kind of fishing industry they

36 European Commission

The Common Fisheries Policy – A user’s guide

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

2009 — 36 pp. — 21 x 29.7 cm

ISBN 978-92-79-09874-1 KL-30-08-704-EN-C ec.europa.eu/fisheries