Intro from the Comitte de Peche Local Guilvenec web site:
The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is complex, often the documents are in English, the meetings are held away from the fishermen and powerful lobbies opposed to fishermen settled in Brussels. Fishermen at sea and their basic structures are often other solutions to respond and almost always too late.
An important meeting will be held October 12 in Brussels. This is a hearing on the future of sustainable fisheries and probably traditional. Many managers are scrambling to attend: Presidents of structures, politicians, NGOs, etc..
We know the key points of the CFP proposed by Mrs Damanaki: propulsion of individual transferable quotas as a management tool, limitation of fishing known as "craft" to less than 12 miles and less than 12 meters, institution of marine protected areas, targeting trawling and dredging, use of waste for aquaculture, aquaculture development, dismantling of management tools for fishermen, fishermen stigma overall responsible for all evil on the resource.
Faced with this onslaught of attacks, based on the myth discussed the catastrophic loss of species, anglers are disarmed. Often able to react (controls, onboard weighing, discharge, etc..), It is very difficult to develop areas of development for fishing in other tracks as those used by the Commission.
There is an urgent need for new conceptual tools and try to highlight them in this time of preparation of the new PCP to find acceptable compromises. Alain Le Sann of "Fishing & Development" it is tried in a long-term thinking which has the merit to ask about other axes all issues discussed at this time. It is still possible to shape the future tools for the management of European fisheries for 10 years to come, even if it is too late
The paper:
Damanaki against Elinor Ostrom
For a long time, with the Collective Fishing & Development, we are convinced that the crisis of fishing can not be resolved by treating not the fish but fishermen. More than a crisis of the resource itself, this is a crisis of fisheries governance and sharing of common resources. So by addressing this complex problem we can find ways to save both fish, fishermen and ecosystems. The other fundamental principle for an approach to fisheries management is to consider that it is a gathering activity, not a production activity, which calls into question the approaches of the industrial or consumption. This is not a fishery to adapt to the consumer but the consumer to adapt to the evolving realities and complex fishing. For a political approach to the sustainability One of the pioneers of sustainable development, the scientist and environmentalist Anil Agarwal India, described in the first issue of Down to Earth, a magazine he created during the Earth Summit in Rio in June 1992, his vision sustainability. ...
In addition to these pious definitions, it is important to understand the policy of sustainable development. Sustainability can never be absolute. A company that pulls quickly learn from its mistakes and changes in behavior will probably be more durable than other companies that will take longer to do so. The act of learning from mistakes is crucial in the process of sustainable development, because no society can claim to be whether the fact that it will always manage and use its resources in a manner perfectly healthy and environmentally friendly. .. Sustainable development is the result of a political order in which a society is structured so that it learned from its mistakes in how it uses its natural resources and quickly corrected his male-kind agreement with knowledge it has gained ... It is obvious that this will be the company or taking the decision will first prerogative of those who will be directly affected by the consequences of these decisions. If the decisions are made by a national bureaucracy remote or by a multinational company to use a given resource and that local communities living near the resource suffers from this process, it is unlikely that decision makers quickly return to their decisions . But if the resource is over-exploited or poorly exploited by a local community that depends for its survival and can not easily move to another environment, the decline in productivity of the resource requires the Community to change its practices. The durability does not depend on concepts like the hazy future generations, but rather political choices background as the first resource control model and then the level of democracy within the decision-making. Sustainability requires the creation of a political order in which, first, the control of natural resources depends, to the extent possible, the communities that depend on and, secondly, the decision-making within the community is also participatory, open and democratic as possible.
What a Maximum Sustainable Yield?
Applying this conception of the CFP reform proposed by Maria Damanaki, we see that we are far from such an approach to sustainability. This vision of Anil Agarwal, based on the analysis of the management of common by the Indian community is supported by the study of the "governance of the commons", developed by Elinor Ostrom, Nobel Prize in Economics in 20092, which based in particular on case studies of fisheries management by fishing communities. On the contrary, Damanaki committed to deepening the privatization and liberalization of the fishery as well as a policy based on building an approach called "scientific" sustainability defined as an absolute respect and achieve a whatever the social cost: MSY, maximum sustainable yield. Who would not agree to such a goal? Still need to know what it is, when and how to achieve it. Set a deadline of RMD, 2015, is simply absurd. It can take decades to restore overfished stocks. One can also question the relevance of an RMD defined by stock or species. There is an extreme natural variability of many stocks, the complex interactions between different species in an ecosystem. For example, what is the RMD of a herring fishery off Newfoundland knowing that this species has proliferated since the collapse of the cod and the cod stock recovery is slowed by the predation on herring fry cod? Also seals hyperproteges have also proliferated to the point of nearly 10 million people who consume large quantities of cod and other fish. Predation on cetaceans is well above the fishing, but the total liability of the state of resources is always blamed on fishermen. What meaning has an RMD in a context of generalized coastal pollution from land-based environments that change the point of the lead up to anoxia, ie, the total absence of life? If sin and sinners have their share of responsibility for the state of resources, there are many other factors that influence the mortality of fish such as pollution, climate change and mismanagement of scientists and fisheries managers .
Quotas and privatization
For Damanaki, it is to achieve this mythical RMD forced marches, based primarily on management by TACs and quotas transferable, as determined by scientists. The approach to the management by quota is far from the only possible and it does not guarantee more than other sound management. It may be wise to stock very specific, well known and followed, which are the subject of targeted fishing. By cons, for multi-species fisheries, it is not the most appropriate management and control of the fishing effort and Evolutionary various measures allow for greater flexibility. Some scientists consider also that the management by quotas is a virtual fish management that leads almost inevitably to the privatization and increased cost of capture encouraging overfishing. The example of the management of cod quotas in Iceland and their privatization, seems to agree. 40 years of so-called scientific management of cod led to the inexorable decline of the fishing, of 400 000 t per year is less than 150 000 t in 2010. Paradoxically fishing and stocks fared better in the absence of management!
Gradually the quota management and privatization reinforce the power of financial institutions on the fishing, the capital is concentrated, the number of vessels is reduced, the cost of entry into the fishery increases. With quotas more expensive, must be intensified fishing. According to Norwegian and Canadian researchers who have observed the evolution of fishing in their country: "The virtual population analysis, the product of fisheries science, turned it into something manageable through quotas. The result is the assertion of financial logic which reduce the sustainability of the system, which was yet to create a sustainable fishery, "" The action of all stakeholders is oriented in a certain direction that companies are more producers benefits than producers of fish, work and social benefits
ITQs: a social impact destructuring
The social impact of this policy is very negative, indeed, to pay for investments, we must lower the cost of labor, or the widespread use of underpaid immigrants (in Canada, Iceland, New Zealand, etc.). The aim of the QIT is not primarily the management of the resource but the search of maximum profitability. We may as well seek to preserve the maximum number of jobs and preserving the resource by focusing on artisanal fisheries in their diversity. Sociologists, such as Dutch Rob van Ginkel have shown that the artisans have much more resilience than industrial-type companies because, beyond the money to live, their activity is a way of life they s' hang with fierte.4 Instead, privatization led to the dismantling of all structures and institutions phased in by fishermen for the operation of their business and its sustainability. With ITQs, no need to OP, local committees, there are only business owners of quotas, led by financial and monitored by scientists that determine the quotas.
An industrial model that is not 3 J. P JOHNSEN, P. HOLM, PR SINCLAIR, D Bavington, Fish-cyborg, or how to manage the unmanageable, look at our planet in 2011, ed Armand Colin, Paris 2011, p 209-218. 4 R. Van Ginkel, Braving Troubled Waters, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, 2009, 340p. adapts to an activity of picking a subject of natural hazards and must adapt constantly, and has very different scales, as shown by the latest research on biologistes.5 The diversity of resources and ecosystems requires a diversity in organization of the fishery itself, as evidenced by the history and culture of fishing communities. When an NGO as NAMA in the United States undertook a comprehensive survey of fishermen and fishing communities of Maine on their vision of the demersal fishery, the first aspect that is emphasized is the need to preserve the diversity of boats and fishing gear ensure the future .6
Overfishing
The reform proposed by Maria Damanaki is founded on the conviction, the crisis of European fisheries is mainly due to overfishing. Consequently the stated objective of the reform is to eliminate the two-thirds and half of the fishermen and boats to quickly reach the mythical RMD. Setting up ITQs, coupled with a severe restriction of the TAC can do it cheaper. The sale or lease their quotas by the lowest (the craftsmen with only one boat) to the more powerful groups will enable the sector to finance the elimination of fishermen without public funding. The free allocation of quotas profit on the operation for groups with the prospect of a good future pension. No one can deny that there was overinvestment in fishing with massive subsidies, in particular after the establishment of EEZs in the years 70-80. This policy continued in France until the early 2000s in some areas, but since the year 90, the number of boats collapsed, ports were empty, some have even disappeared. At Lorient, in 1972 there were over 500 boats including many industrial trawlers and semi-industrial over 30 meters. There are now hundreds, mostly artisans under 20 m, non-trawlers for the majority. Even considering their ability to catch improved, we can consider that the problem is no longer over-investment, especially if there are plans in the future, given the age of ships and bosses, but probably under-investment that longer allows adaptation to new demands of fishing. There may be over-investment in sectors in Europe, it is also difficult to adjust capacity to continuously fluctuating stocks (anchovies), but there is a trend towards improvement of resources in several fishing areas and for several stocks, a sign the generalized state of overfishing is now outdated. Adaptations of the effort should help to further improvements. The urgency seems rather to preserve existing capacity in capital am for the survival of the activity. United States, scientists agree that overfishing is virtually over but we continue, on behalf of the "Conservation" has impose so drastic that the landings are sometimes far below the possibilities to the point that some consider the United States are rather in a situation of under-fishing. At the same time, fishermen have disappeared from the dock, replaced with big arms, second homes and recreational fishermen. The supermarket shelves are full of fish and shrimp imports while the latter was struggling fishermen sell their products at a decent price. The weight of the anglers in the United States, Canada, Ireland, Great Britain, is such that they are lobbying to book some fisheries and the need to buy additional allowances. The concern for conservation to extremes with the generalization of the wilderness helps accelerate the elimination of artisanal fishermen in the North and South. End overfishing is a Pyrrhic victory. Is this what we want in Europe too?
The obstacles of reform proposals
Profoundly liberal orientation of the proposed reform leads to various gaps in the proposals. Never are mentioned social issues or problems related to market liberalization. The reform is totally silent on the various aspects of social issues in fisheries. First, there is a bias in favor of a reduction in the number of fishermen, a goal shared with many environmental NGOs (in Sweden, considered a model by many environmentalists, the number of fishermen has been sharply divided by 3, their pressure). Such a choice is displayed when there are concerns in all countries on the renewal of fishermen. It necessarily involves the choice to promote the immigration of fishermen in the South to provide labor for industrial vessels, a process already well underway in several countries (Scotland, Spain) even with illegal immigrants. No reflection in the reform on this issue when there are major human and economic consequences. This helps to destabilize the market to the benefit of weapons that use this cheap labor, often overexploited. The women of fishermen organized themselves to make their voices heard but their status is far from being recognized everywhere, and reform is silent on this issue. The only proposal with a social aspect for the small fishing could escape to ITQs, but no clear guarantee to preserve and develop this sector. The protection of small fishing need to control the pressure on coastal areas from operations of fishermen themselves but also because of the growth of non-commercial fisheries. A narrow view of the small fishing (less than 12 m and fixed gears), the only cottage industries according Damanaki, leads to deliver the bulk of activities beyond 12 miles of arms was considered as industrial, then For centuries, artisans operate the entire EEZ. Deny the artisanal fisheries of coastal and offshore is a challenge to the traditional culture of communities. The second major impasse is on market liberalization. This certainly meets the companies importing seafood products that control a dynamic and profitable industry. But how do you implement resource management measures without considering the question of the stairs? There are many cases where resources are abundant and well managed but the products are struggling to find their markets to satisfactory prices because of competition within the EU or import competition from third countries. Hake, Norway lobster, coquillles Saint Jacques, anchovies, these are important resources that regularly experience problems in marketing. The influx of shrimp or pangas can destabilize markets for fresh fish in many countries. In the name of liberalization, no safeguard is intended to protect local production. It is difficult to mobilize fishermen to establish binding management measures if there is any economic benefit or worse, if the proper management of the stock leads to a collapse in prices. Eco-labels are not guarantees fair prices. It is therefore out of a vision of the crisis has limited resources to integrate the various dimensions of a complex emergency.
For Elinor Ostrom, the commons can be pooled
In contrast to the liberal approach Damanaki and all supporters of the Tragedy of the Commons, Elinor Ostrom, the first woman "Nobel Prize for Economics 2009" proposes to strengthen the self-organization of fishing communities. This self-organization is the best way for her to manage resources in a complex and uncertain environment. It does not claim that this approach can be applied everywhere or that guarantee success, but it summarizes the results of his research by defining seven principles for strong institutions to manage common resources, for the eighth most cases the most complex. The interest of this approach is confirmed by various studies on community management of fisheries. Evelyn Pinkerton and Martin Weinstein has published a 1995 study on examples of good management by communautes7. More recently, the journal Nature published the results of a survey of 130 fisheries in 44 countries8. This shows that in 65% of cases, community management is efficient and very effective in 40% of the cases studied. These studies cover all types of fisheries. One of the co-author Ray Hilborn had previously shown in another study of 2009 that the process of improvement of fisheries management and practices of fishing was engaged across the globe. All these recent investigations contradict the doom broadcasts by many scientists and NGOs that rely on localized examples or situations of date, to get their goals and ideas on the inability of sinners to be resource managers. Philippe Cury and considers that "in order to avoid the resource is destroyed, the common property to be privatized or the development should be supported by the State" 9.
The principles for management institutions of shared resources.
The seven principles developed by Elinor Ostrom are: 10
1 - Individuals or households with claims, and the limits of the resource common, must be clearly defined.
2 - The rules that limit in terms of time, space, technology and / or amount, ownership of resources, are related to local conditions and obligations in terms of manpower, equipment and money.
3 - Most individuals affected by operational rules can participate in modifications.
4 - Supervisors are accountable to the appropriators or are the appropriators themselves same.
5 - appropriators who violate the rules face sanctions gradual.
6 - The appropriators have fast access to local arenas for Cheap resolve conflicts.
7 - The rights of appropriators to devise their own institutions are not challenged challenged by external governmental authorities.
8 - For the common resources that belong to systems larger and more complex, the business of ownership, monitoring, enforcement, conflict resolution and governance are organized by multiple levels of business nested.
One can easily recognize in these principles, the operation of management systems implemented in France, as prud'homies MEDITERRANEAN fishery Coquille St Jacques in the Bay of Saint Brieuc, etc.. Newer systems are approaching as the management of anchovy in the Bay of Biscay by the JRC-SO or management of the lobster in the same Gulf. They show that we can implement these systems in times of crises, for all types of fisheries, even in a very confrontational. At the end of year 1960, facing the first signs of exhaustion of resources in the Bay of Biscay, fishermen, with the support of scientists had already proposed measures as a cantonment. Lack of cohesion and sufficient consensus, the project was abandoned and fishermen subject to decisions external constraints, without any involvement on their part. But there were a surge of their own in a serious crisis, when they propose to engage in processes of selectivity. The crisis situations are favorable to the emergence of solutions initiated by the fishermen, but we need catalysts and facilitators. The steps are not always successful, but if the collective dynamics is preserved and sustained, new solutions may emerge, but these processes are slow, chaotic and often require time and a strong mobilization. We are far from MSY to be reached in 3 years. We should also remember that it is the fishermen themselves who have supported the project and the Iroise Marine Park that the process has lasted almost 20 years. In the Mediterranean, the fishermen have set up prud'homies wilderness, but they are not heard when the Ministry of the Environment imposes an immense coastal reserves which removes fishing areas essential to their business. In France, Europe and worldwide, there are so many examples of good practices, positive changes in insider fishing communities THEMSELVES.
It is on these initiatives, recognizing the ability to analyze situations, we can hope to build a sustainable fishery. It is also to consumers to support these efforts other than a submitting catalogs or edicts of NGOs that rely primarily on distribution groups. We must learn to listen to fishermen. They can be clear about their mistakes, but we recognize their ability to adjust their practices. The history of fisheries is a history of repeated crises that fishermen were able to find answers. Today, with powerful technology tools errors result from disasters more quickly, but it is able to react as pollution have destroyed the capacities of plankton production, even if the ecosystem rebuilt n ' is not exactly the same as in the past. The sea, like land, is a territory operates and transformed by human activity. There is no simple answer, ready, universal or absolute in time. Elinor Ostrom and Anil Agarwal, in two different worlds, drawing on examples of varied communication resource management have reached the same conclusions totally contradict the proposed Damanaki. A We now take advantage of. Alain Le Sann August 2011 Congratulations to Alain and CLPM Guilvinec for this initiative.I always amazes me how the principles of co-management combined with local management have been violated by the Commission. Even as the co-management to scale fishery is the only virtuous process recognized by all resource managers.The new CFP should have relied heavily on this, by proposing a strengthening and development of RCC, and transform tools in real consultations tools co. And regionalization proposed by the Commission through the end of the member states and not the CCR is a step backwards unbearable.The real reform would change the way decision-making, diagnosis and management of the fishery, not the proposed global technical measures. A charge then each zone depending on the specific fisheries management measures to decide.Maintaining the blurring between "management" and "management measures", it drowns again the fisherman and the general public that does not distinguish between the two.As for the infamous process of demonization, misinformation and oversimplification used intentionally by some NGOs, most related to multinationals who make their daily bread of their brand, it is hard to oppose it supposed reasoning and technically supported. While our industry is driven to react rather than act in anticipation, but the real challenge is educating the general public. It's a real site, and a real job. Some NGOs show their media clout, and it is unfortunate that this knowledge is so little devoted to unbiased education of the public. The handling of the term of overfishing is the most glaring example. In fisheries, overfishing means a situation or the effort is greater than the RMD. But if the management objective is more social than volume, we may well have a sustainable fishing, within the limits of care. So yes, with the objective of social value can have a sustainable fishing. But it is a godsend for unscrupulous manipulator the term "overfishing", which is always associated with something negative.Finally, these NGOs that attack the fisherman are very poorly represented on other real combat environment, such as coastal water quality, the piling of dredging and gravel extraction. But here they face other economic forces and pressure groups. Fortunately other smaller NGOs support the fishermen, but only to carry out these environmental battles. For if we can discuss some of the impacts of gear, fishing has never destroyed or altered nearly irreversible environments as does an extraction granulats.La fishing has become a media of these unscrupulous NGOs. Employees even WWF France no longer satisfied of this, judging their direction complacent vis-à-vis large companies such as Lafarge, the largest aggregates used marine group with which WWF partnership to reduce CO2. Besides the excessive dramatization is convenient to believe that these large NGOs are seen as saviors in making their own solutions designed and developed long ago by others. It is also a form of dishonesty.
Response from a blog reader:
Congratulations to Alain and CLPM Guilvinec for this initiative!
It always amazes me how the principles of co-management combined with local management have been violated by the Commission. Even as the co-management to scale fishery is the only virtuous process recognized by all resource managers.
The new CFP should have relied heavily on this, by proposing a strengthening and development of RCC, and transform tools in real consultations tools co. And regionalization proposed by the Commission through the end of the member states and not the CCR is a step backwards unbearable.
The real reform would change the way decision-making, diagnosis and management of the fishery, not the proposed global technical measures. A charge then each zone depending on the specific fisheries management measures to decide.
Maintaining the blurring between "management" and "management measures", it drowns again the fisherman and the general public that does not distinguish between the two.
As for the infamous process of demonization, misinformation and oversimplification used intentionally by some NGOs, most related to multinationals who make their daily bread of their brand, it is hard to oppose it supposed reasoning and technically supported. While our industry is driven to react rather than act in anticipation, but the real challenge is educating the general public. It's a real site, and a real job. Some NGOs show their media clout, and it is unfortunate that this knowledge is so little devoted to unbiased education of the public. The handling of the term of overfishing is the most glaring example. In fisheries, overfishing means a situation or the effort is greater than the RMD. But if the management objective is more social than volume, we may well have a sustainable fishing, within the limits of care. So yes, with the objective of social value can have a sustainable fishing. But it is a godsend for unscrupulous manipulator the term "overfishing", which is always associated with something negative.
Finally, these NGOs that attack the fisherman are very poorly represented on other real combat environment, such as coastal water quality, the piling of dredging and gravel extraction. But here they face other economic forces and pressure groups. Fortunately other smaller NGOs support the fishermen, but only to carry out these environmental battles. For if we can discuss some of the impacts of gear, fishing has never destroyed or altered nearly irreversible environments as does an extraction granulats. Fishing has become a media of these unscrupulous NGOs. Employees, even WWF France no longer satisfied of this, judging their direction complacent vis-à-vis large companies such as Lafarge, the largest aggregates used marine group with which WWF partnership to reduce CO2. Besides the excessive dramatization is convenient to believe that these large NGOs are seen as saviors in making their own solutions designed and developed long ago by others. It is also a form of dishonesty.
It always amazes me how the principles of co-management combined with local management have been violated by the Commission. Even as the co-management to scale fishery is the only virtuous process recognized by all resource managers.
The new CFP should have relied heavily on this, by proposing a strengthening and development of RCC, and transform tools in real consultations tools co. And regionalization proposed by the Commission through the end of the member states and not the CCR is a step backwards unbearable.
The real reform would change the way decision-making, diagnosis and management of the fishery, not the proposed global technical measures. A charge then each zone depending on the specific fisheries management measures to decide.
Maintaining the blurring between "management" and "management measures", it drowns again the fisherman and the general public that does not distinguish between the two.
As for the infamous process of demonization, misinformation and oversimplification used intentionally by some NGOs, most related to multinationals who make their daily bread of their brand, it is hard to oppose it supposed reasoning and technically supported. While our industry is driven to react rather than act in anticipation, but the real challenge is educating the general public. It's a real site, and a real job. Some NGOs show their media clout, and it is unfortunate that this knowledge is so little devoted to unbiased education of the public. The handling of the term of overfishing is the most glaring example. In fisheries, overfishing means a situation or the effort is greater than the RMD. But if the management objective is more social than volume, we may well have a sustainable fishing, within the limits of care. So yes, with the objective of social value can have a sustainable fishing. But it is a godsend for unscrupulous manipulator the term "overfishing", which is always associated with something negative.
Finally, these NGOs that attack the fisherman are very poorly represented on other real combat environment, such as coastal water quality, the piling of dredging and gravel extraction. But here they face other economic forces and pressure groups. Fortunately other smaller NGOs support the fishermen, but only to carry out these environmental battles. For if we can discuss some of the impacts of gear, fishing has never destroyed or altered nearly irreversible environments as does an extraction granulats. Fishing has become a media of these unscrupulous NGOs. Employees, even WWF France no longer satisfied of this, judging their direction complacent vis-à-vis large companies such as Lafarge, the largest aggregates used marine group with which WWF partnership to reduce CO2. Besides the excessive dramatization is convenient to believe that these large NGOs are seen as saviors in making their own solutions designed and developed long ago by others. It is also a form of dishonesty.
