External dimension CFP

OCEAN2012 position on the elimination of discards in EU waters and for EU fishing activities in third countries waters

The main questionable fishing practices that result in discarding are:

  • Fishing with unselective gear, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, thereby catching a high amount of unwanted by-catch; 

  • Catching over quota or undersized fish, or catching protected species; and

  • High-grading (improving quality of landings by throwing out lower value catch before entering port).

A number of policy approaches have been listed by the fishing sector as encouraging the wasteful practice of discarding:

  • The setting of landing quota in a mixed fishery without the allocation of bycatch quota; 

  • The bycatch rules (limiting bycatch to a certain percentage of the catch of your target species); 

  • Minimum landing sizes; 

  • Effort (days at sea) management.

The CFP reform offers an excellent opportunity to establish new policies that will address the discard problem. What follows are policy recommendations of OCEAN2012 for the elimination of discards under a reformed CFP:

  1. It is vital that unwanted catches are avoided in the first place. OCEAN2012 insists that EU policy needs to effectively respond to the range of by-catch problems, including juveniles, endangered and protected species, as well as addressing the two main reasons for discarding: high-grading and the dumping of unwanted (over quota, illegal and uneconomic) catches.

  2. OCEAN2012 supports the principle of a discard ban, as it would move the focus of management measures from landings to catches and thereby to overall fishing mortality. By making "no discards" the norm, any discarding then requires adequate justification (e.g. high survival potential).

  3. The purpose of a discard ban is to avoid the unnecessary wastage of throwing marketable fish overboard due to lack of quota; not to provide opportunities for new markets that utilize discards of unwanted or unsustainable catches (e.g. undersized fish). Operators should receive compensation, equal to a small percentage of the value of the unmarketable landed catch, as is the case in Norway and New Zealand.

  4. In order to ensure that biomass is removed from the sea in a quality and quantity that ensures sustainable exploitation and good environmental status of the marine environment in the long term, fishing mortality rates have to be set according scientific advice, following the precautionary approach as defined by the UN Fish Stocks agreement, and the ecosystem-based approach.

  5. To avoid unsustainable biomass removal from the seas, quota management under a discard ban needs to transition from landing quotas to true catch quotas. All caught fish needs to be counted against quota. By-catch quota needs to be set according to biological parameters, in the same way as catch quota, and mixed fisheries management must be on the basis of protecting the weakest stock.

  6. To avoid unnecessary biomass removal, fishing should be regulated at the appropriate (e.g. regional) level, in line with fishing seasons, promoting the use of multiple gears during the year, restricting gears that impact both species biodiversity and habitat integrity and diversity, and applying zoning measures that address both inter-gear/inter-sector conflicts and overfishing (be it recruitment, non-target species, or growth overfishing).

  7. Under a discard ban, Minimum Landing Sizes (MLS) need to be replaced by Minimum Marketing Sizes (MMS). MMS need to be at least the same size as current MLS. However, any revision should respect biological constraints to avoid opening up new markets for undersized fish and should still provide a disincentive for the capture of small immature fish.

  8. Incentives should be provided to ensure compliance with a discard ban. These could be in the form of providing preferential access to fish resources to those fishing in the most sustainable way, i.e. those meeting certain environmental and social criteria.

  9. Enforcement will be equally crucial in the implementation of a discard ban. Onboard observer programmes will play an important role in the success of the policy. In cases where observer coverage may be impractical (i.e. small-scale vessels), the possibility to implement other observer techniques (such as cameras) to achieve fully documented fisheries should be fully investigated. Monitoring and enforcement measures must be imposed consistently across all Member States and fleets.

  10. Special attention should be given to how measures to counter by-catch can be "translated" to apply to EU fleets fishing in the waters of third countries. As a priority, the emphasis should be on the need to promote selective fishing and to ban destructive fishing practices. This is particularly important in the coastal zone of tropical countries, where wasteful and destructive practices directly affect local coastal communities, who depend on fishing for their livelihoods.

  11. In the case of the EU distant water fleet, OCEAN2012 advocates that the use of the most selective fishing gears should be a pre-requisite condition for participation in fishing under Fisheries Partnership Agreements (FPAs). The EU should initiate the inclusion of the issue of discarding in the negotiations for FPAs. Third countries also need to be convinced of the necessity to introduce measures to stop the waste of their resources.

Dowload the pdf version.

Letter to Mr. Barosso on elimination of environmentally harmful subsidies

Brussels, March 17, 2011 – 89 European and international organisations, including CFFA, have called on President Barroso to honour the Commission commitment to end environmentally harmful subsidies.

In 2006, the EU committed to defining a roadmap for the removal of environmentally damaging subsidies by 2008. The European Commission reiterated this commitment in 2007. And in 2010, the Europe 2020 Strategy stressed the need to phase out environmentally harmful subsidies. This is in addition to numerous calls by EU heads of state and the European Parliament for the phasing out of environmentally harmful subsidies.

“We are really concerned that the European Commission is failing to develop a roadmap for the abolishment of environmentally harmful subsidies. It is ignoring its own commitment and the requests of both the Parliament and Council.” said the letter. “It is nonsensical that in this day and age public funds are still being used to subsidise activities that are damaging the environment on which we all depend.”

Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy and Common Agricultural Policy are advancing without any obvious analysis of the environmental effects of the massive subsidies handed out in these sectors.

“The EU is reforming both the Common Fisheries Policy and the Common Agricultural Policy. How can we know these two policies will be supporting sustainable sectors if there is no assessment of the potential environmental harm of these subsidies?”

Policy Coherence for Development and Fisheries

The principle of coherence was introduced by the 1992 Maastricht Treaty. It introduced an obligation on the EC to consider the impact of all its policies (including fisheries) on the stated objectives of its development policy.

This notion has been mentionned several times during the parliamentary hearing on Fisheries Partnership Agreement, on November 17 in Brussels. We feel it is necessary to remind what is meant by policy coherence for development and how it is currently being applied in fisheries.

Read our briefing:

Policy Coherence for Development and Fisheries

The benefits and limits of transparency

The European Union is currently reforming its Common Fisheries Policy. Initial discussions suggest the issue of improving transparency and accountability in EU fisheries will be taken seriously, with specific recommendations being made on introducing transparency and anti-corruption clauses in EU Fisheries Partnership Agreements signed with third countries. Such recommendations come at a time when calls for improving transparency and accountability in fisheries are gaining momentum, not only from civil society, but also from the fishing industry. The CFP therefore represents an opportunity to advance the notion of access to information and accountability in international fisheries, not only within the EU. Yet this call for improving transparency that has accompanied the CFP reform process has yet to be elaborated on, and recommendations remain vague. This paper aims at deepening the debates on how transparency can be achieved through the CFP reforms, considering both the benefits and the limitations to transparency reforms. The paper puts forward some key discussion points that could be used as the basis for the development of a coherent and thorough strategy on transparency in fisheries, driven by the EU in collaboration with partner organisations, including the fishing authorities of developing countries.

Read our publication:

The benefits and limits of transparency

Hearing: CFP reform, the external dimension

CFFA was in the European Parliament on June 22, for the public hearing held by the Fisheries Committee on the external dimension of the CFP reform, where it presented a paper “The Future of Fisheries Partnership Agreements in the context of the Common Fisheries Policy reform”. Dr. Ahmed Mahmoud Cherif, from the Mauritanian organisation PECHECOPS also gave a presentation on how the SFPAs can be improved.

More information:

Trade: CFFA’s contribution to the Green Paper

In a global context of decreasing fish resources, the way fish trade is conducted can play an important role for supporting the transition towards sustainable fisheries in European waters and beyond.

We feel there are three important aspects to be looked into in the process of reform:

  • Promoting sustainable fisheries through EU trade (imports) policy; 

  • Ensuring a fair price for the producers;

  • Promoting a change of the consumer’s attitude and adapt labelling accordingly.

Read our contribution:

Trade: CFFA’s contribution to the Green Paper

The future of Fisheries Partnership Agreements in the context of the Common Fisheries Policy reform

Presentation to the European Parliament Development Committee, September 2d 2009 - Béatrice Gorez, Coalition for Fair Fisheries Arrangements (CFFA), Coordinator

Almost since their inception, at the end of the 70‟s, fisheries “cash for access”1 agreements, and later on, fisheries partnership agreements (FPAs), have attracted criticism. If some attempts have been made to address such criticisms through the Fisheries Partnership Agreements (FPAs), the basis for the agreements have remained the same for the EU: the need to secure long term access to third countries fish resources and to maintain its fleet presence in third countries and international waters, paving the way to the failure of this policy to contribute to sustainable fisheries.

However, it needs to be recognised that FPAs have been a unique experience at the global level, to try and reconcile often conflicting interests. In our view, there is however a need for a fundamental change of the guiding principles and framework for EU fisheries relations with developing countries, which would give priority to good governance, environmental sustainability whilst providing an enabling environment for developing countries‟ fishing sectors, particularly the small scale fishing communities. In doing so, there needs to be a careful assessment of the past experience to see how to organise concretely, and for the benefit of developing countries fisheries, the transition towards this new, more sustainable model.

Read the position paper:

The future of FPAs in the context of the CFP reform

Preliminary comments on the Commission proposal for a Council regulation establishing a community control system

“If the political authorities want the CFP to achieve its objective of sustainable exploitation of the fisheries resources, the present control, inspection and sanction systems must be strengthened considerably.”

“If this situation continues, it will bring grave consequences not only for the natural resource, but also for the future of the fishing industry and the areas associated with it.”

Read the NGOs comments on EC proposal

 

Common Fisheries Policy Reform 2012: Priorities for CFFA

Some elements of the Common fisheries policy, the conservation and fleet policy pillars, are subject to mandatory review by 2012 at the latest. But reforms are already underway in relation to control and IUU fishing. In a working document recently published, the European Commission recognises that it is also essential to address the external dimension of a reformed CFP. The option of the Commission is to go for a broad-based review so as to be able to undertake a holistic assessment of the Common Fisheries Policy.

Read CFFA’s policy paper:

Common Fisheries Policy Reform 2012: Priorities for CFFA

EU proposed regulation to combat IUU fishing: Issues for Developing countries

CFFA generally welcomes the comprehensive package of measures proposed by the European Commission to combat IUU fishing. The proposal foresees actions to be taken by or against flag States, port States and market States as well as actors in the fishing sector all along the chain of custody and will go a long way toward curtailing IUU fishing, both within and outside EU waters, both by EU-flagged and/or owned fleets as well as foreign fleets.

However, although the proposal acknowledges the need to help developing countries to fight IUU fishing, it fails to propose concrete measures to that effect. Without such concrete support, the measures proposed, such as the trade related measures, will constitute new trade barriers for legally-caught fish from developing countries, especially those fish products from the artisanal fishing sector.

Read CFFA’s input at DFID meeting

Court of Auditors report: EU Common Fisheries Policy falls short on IUU

On December 4th 2007, the European Court of Auditors published a Special Report, exposing the failure by Member States to effectively control fishing activities by their fleets and demonstrates the urgent need to seriously strengthen EU control and inspection systems. Despite claims that existing rules are sufficient to prevent or seriously limit Illegal, Unreported, unregulated (IUU) fishing by EU fleets, the Court of Auditor‟s report states that “despite recent improvements, the control, inspection and sanction mechanisms in place are not capable of ensuring that the rules on managing the fisheries resources, … are effectively applied.” adding that “If the political authorities want the CFP to achieve its objective of sustainable exploitation of the fisheries resources, the present control, inspection and sanction mechanisms must be strengthened considerably.”

In that context, Development NGOs reiterate their support to the proposal for a Council Regulation establishing a system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. In addition, the Commission tabled a proposal on the management of „Authorisations for fishing activities of Community fishing vessels outside Community waters and the access of third country vessels to Community waters” which, we feel, contains effective control measures and sanctions complementing those in the proposal on IUU fishing. In particular, we welcome the fact that the Commission recognises that the Community has a responsibility, as flag state, in the correct application of the fisheries agreements with third countries. Therefore, we fully support the proposal that fishing authorisations for vessels that have not complied with their obligations during the preceding year, or that have been blacklisted as “IUU vessel”, should be refused.

More information:

Court of Auditors report: EU Common Fisheries Policy falls short on IUU

CFFA position on IUU control for ACFA

Proposal by the European Commission for measures to combat IUU fishing: CFFA preliminary comments

CFFA welcomes the comprehensive package of measures proposed by the European Commission to combat IUU fishing. The proposal foresees actions to be taken by or against flag States, port States and market States as well as actors in the fishing sector all along the chain of custody and will go a long way toward curtailing IUU fishing, both within and outside EU waters, both by EU-flagged and/or owned fleets as well as foreign fleets. However, although the proposal acknowledges the need to help developing countries to fight IUU fishing, it fails to propose concrete measures to that effect. Without such concrete support, the measures proposed, such as the trade related measures, will constitute new trade barriers for legally-caught fish from developing countries, especially those fish products from the artisanal fishing sector.

More information:

Commission Consultation on Rights-Based Management tools in fisheries

For NGOs (see list), the objective of this debate is to determine, by using rights based tools for fisheries management, how to promote environmentally sustainable fisheries that are economically viable, generating quality jobs, which redistribute the benefits generated equitably, and which protect the social fabric of coastal communities.

Given the large variety of management systems currently applied, we think that a first necessary step is to document the best practices that, in the various Member States and elsewhere, promote fisheries that respect both ecosystems and coastal communities, and are economically viable.

On this issue, we would like to highlight that, in order for appropriate management systems to be applied to the particular situations existing in the various regions, “the large variety of management systems currently applied in the European Community and its member states” is a strength. In our view, concerns over transparency and efficiency (which the Commission attributes to the diversity of systems) result more from the way these systems are implemented (opacity of procedures, lack of control, etc) than from their diversity.

Read the NGO position on RBM

EU Coherence debate: Common Fisheries Policy and Fisheries Development in ACP countries

In the context of the debate on coherence between the various EU policies, it needs to be examined how the Cotonou Convention objectives are taken into account in the various aspects of the Common Fisheries Policy that have an impact on ACP countries fisheries.

EU Coherence debate: Common Fisheries Policy and Fisheries Development in ACP countries