Press the Collective Fisheries and Development
1 Avenue de la Marne
56100 Lorient
Upon the passing of the Reform by the European Parliament, two examples of analysis have confirmed that which we constantly repeat since the launch of the project. One of the leaders of Pew says in the New York Times that takes policy reform implementation in the United States.
Maria Damanaki, for her part, came to praise blue growth policy for aquaculture, marine energy, extractions of all kinds, which are well known for their impact on the environment.
We know the results of American Politics: mass privatization of fishing rights, wilderness setting under the supervision of ENGOs and oil companies, such as California. If the majority of stocks are not overfished, this is due to a massive reduction in fishing effort more than privatization per se, there is no growth in landings where these policies are implemented, against by the number of fishermen has collapsed, ports have disappeared in New England especially, where this policy is totally unsuited to multispecies demersal fisheries of the same type as those on the Bretons (and many Cornish boats .ed).
This eco-liberal policy has been prepared by the Pew Oceans Commission.
Pew and various foundations from the large U.S. multinationals, the most powerful, Walmart, well known for his outrageous social practices, have decided to promote this type of policy in Europe. Why they created a fake nose, Ocean 2012, a coalition of ENGOs and some fishermen, entirely under the control of Pew. They baited the world of small-scale with the support of Greenpeace and WWF to give masking their social liberal and socially destructive projects. They hired a huge propaganda campaign hundreds of millions of dollars, creating from scratch NGOs, funding studies, public relations agencies, journalists, film. The goal was to create a sense of urgency and disaster to the oceans empty, looted by destructive fishing unable to manage. There is a part of reality, but it was mostly mobilize the general public with shock images and movies to put pressure on elected members of Parliament, subject them to intense lobbying, who are unable to resist because of their absolute ignorance of the subject and finally, glad to give a green cheaply at the expense of fishermen totally marginalized. It worked in the United States and it worked in Europe.
This victory gained at the cost of shameless manipulation of the public and elected officials is a step towards the generalization of more stringent policies of dispossession and put under supervision of fishermen. These policies are already operating in Northern Europe, Sweden (2/3 fishermen brutally eliminated) and Denmark. This country has the luxury of appearing as a model of virtue while practicing the most destructive industrial fishing which accounts for nearly 20% of European catches, fishing for fish meal. Elected officials have managed to completely forget this practice, it is true that there is no discharge!!!
In France, the report organizing the implementation of ITQs is ready. Cameras will be installed on ships, paid for by the fishermen, MCZ areas will be increased, the oceans delivered to new investors in the blue growth, without consultation or recognition of the rights of fishermen. We organize "humanely" massive elimination of fishers says project reporter Rodust,even if Parliament also promises that by 2020, the reform will land 15 million tonnes and create additional 30,000 jobs.
Next came the challenge of fuel tax rebates, research the maximum yield economic, beyond the maximum biological yield and therefore even fewer fishermen. We'll also research to the integrity of marine ecosystems with bans on trawling.
This reform comes as the stock situation improves in the Atlantic and Mediterranean - even for bluefin tuna. All fishermen say, the most endangered species is the fishermen burdened with a multitude of constraints more or less consistent. Fishermen have measured the impact of overfishing and proposed management measures effective when they are left in the possibility. There is still some way to go to match the fishing resources and new realities (energy, biodiversity), but a coherent reform should strengthen the adaptive capacity of fishing accompanied by scientific field and trust and respect ENGO rights of fishermen.
Instead, reform has cleared the way for all appetites mobilized for the conquest of the new maritime border and blue growth. The defense of a small fishing necessary, but confined within 12 miles, can only serve to hide a liquidation of artisanal fisheries on the rest of the EEZ.
Collective Fisheries and DevelopmentFebruary 8, 2013
Showing posts with label Damanaki. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Damanaki. Show all posts
Sunday 10 February 2013
Wednesday 6 February 2013
Last–ditch effort to save EU fisheries approved by Parliament - discards no more! - will this be enough save the fish stocks in Europe?
Today,the European Parliament voted for the largest overhaul of EU fisheries policy in decades, designed to cut fishing to sustainable levels and ending the practice of throwing away fish that is over quota.
Find more details in this press release @ http://eplinkedin.eu/CFP_Vote.
The new rules will set catch limits in line with maximum sustainable yields, meaning vessels won't harvest more fish than a stock can reproduce. They will also ban fishing discards and ensure better long–term planning based on reliable scientific data.
Find more details in this press release @ http://eplinkedin.eu/CFP_Vote.
The new rules will set catch limits in line with maximum sustainable yields, meaning vessels won't harvest more fish than a stock can reproduce. They will also ban fishing discards and ensure better long–term planning based on reliable scientific data.
 |
| A major reform of the EU's Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) which aims to cut fishing to sustainable stock levels, end dumping at sea, and base long-term planning on sound scientific data, was approved by Parliament on Wednesday. Overfishing is widely seen as the worst failure of the current CFP, dating from 2002. The new one is to take effect in 2014. |
For a more in–depth look into the new EU Common Fisheries Policy, check the EP Library briefings @
http://eplinkedin.eu/cfpreform_2.
Parliament now has to negotiate with member states – this time as full co–legislator – before the changes can become EU law.
This is the fourth round of fishery reform since 1983, aiming to close the growing gap between fishing capacity and resources. Check out what Members say about it on the EP Newshub @ http://eplinkedin.eu/cfpreform :
Parliament now has to negotiate with member states – this time as full co–legislator – before the changes can become EU law.
This is the fourth round of fishery reform since 1983, aiming to close the growing gap between fishing capacity and resources. Check out what Members say about it on the EP Newshub @ http://eplinkedin.eu/cfpreform :
will this be enough save the fish stocks in Europe?
All the latest news from the Press Service of the European Parliament: votes, resolutions, debates, parliamentary committees and the plenary.
Wednesday 30 January 2013
Artisanal Fishermen Congress Europe - a way forward
Over 60% of European fish stocks are over-exploited Now, small-scale fishermen from across Europe are joining forces to put sustainable, artisanal and low-impact fishing at the heart of the on-going reform of European Union (EU) Common Fisheries Policy (CFP).
Read one highly sceptical fisherman's road to Damascus conversion account of the trip!
Wednesday 4 July 2012
No messing with Maria
Maria Damanki, the European Union’s fisheries commissioner intends to ban industrial trawlers that devastate the sea bed in the deep-sea fisheries off Britain.
Conservation groups warn that bottom trawling in the northeast Atlantic threatens deep-sea fish species such as blue ling and orange roughy, and destroys coral reef and other ecosystems. In an interview with The Sunday Times, Maria Damanaki said proposed new regulations would stop the fleet plundering the fish stocks. They would set out a timetable under which bottom trawling in the deep-sea fisheries would be phased out. Damanaki admitted that misguided EU policies had contributed to the fish crisis. She said legislators and regulators had been too easily swayed by the fishing industry despite the mounting evidence of dwindling stocks. In what will be seen as a broadside against the industry, Damanaki wants to phase out deep-sea trawling in the northeast Atlantic.
Most fish are caught in relatively shallow waters on the continental shelf, but the deep-sea trawlers operate at depths of more than 1,300ft. Recent research has found the catches are up to eight times higher than the limits recommended by marine scientists. Conservationists say the bottom trawlers with chain nets weighing several tons wreck the deep-sea marine ecosystems.
The French, Spanish and Portuguese fleets account for about 90% of the deep-sea fisheries quota. UK fishing vessels account for only a small proportion of the catch. Under the proposed rules, trawlers will have to acquire special licences for deep-water fishing in the region and will be allowed to land their catch only in designated ports that will have strict controls on the fish caught.
Damanaki’s tough proposals come after a Sunday Times campaign has highlighted how fishing fleets funded with EU subsidies have contributed to this fishing crisis. Damanaki has devised the rules as part of a campaign to reform an EU fishing policy that has led to the depletion of many fish stocks. She faces fierce resistance from the fishing lobby. EU ministers and the European parliament will both have to adopt the new legislation. Damanaki believes she would be able to secure a majority vote in both because of the increased public pressure on national governments to stop the destruction of sea life before it becomes irreversible.
Other changes being drafted by Damanaki’s cabinet include the compulsory labelling of fish by fishermen and a requirement on retailers to state the origin and date of catches, as well as whether the fish are fresh or defrosted. Damanaki admitted that in past decades the fisheries policy of the EU has been “unreasonable” and devoid of “logic”.
She said the industry influenced regulators too easily. “We were not good managers, this was our problem,” Damanaki said. “We were pushed by the interest [groups] as politicians and we could not resist.” She also conceded that the EU subsidies for fisheries, worth about €1 billion a year, offered no “value for money” to the European taxpayer and large, profitable corporations were able to extract more funds than working fishermen. “We have two problems: one is that the taxpayers’ money is spent in a way that doesn’t give enough in return and the other is that it is spent in a way which is rather unfair since the biggest vessels can get more,” she said.
Damanaki’s department has drafted detailed proposals for reforming the fisheries policy that include banning the so-called discards or throwing fish overboard. Other key changes in the proposals include the non-payment of subsidies to fishermen found guilty of illegal fishing and setting fishing quotas according to scientific data, not political decisions. Her proposals are being keenly fought.
It has long been known that France and Spain, among others, have a vested interest in maintaining a status quo because of their vast fishing fleets, including factory vessels — 450ft ships that catch, package and freeze fish in massive quantities.
Damanaki refuses to identify those hampering her reform agenda, but spoke of a group of “Mediterranean countries”. She is ready for the battle. “We have to change the rules. We need a radical reform. Of course, it takes time,” Damanaki said.
A shark biting from the start Maria Damanaki, the commissioner confronting Europe’s powerful fishing industry, signalled her agenda from the outset — by banning endangered bluefin tuna from the European commission’s restaurants. She was shocked that the threatened fish were being consumed by the bureaucrats while they tried to devise policies to protect the marine environment.
Damanaki, 59, a former engineer who was appointed fisheries commissioner in 2010, is steeled for a radical reform of the European Union’s fishing policy. Despite a gentle demeanour, she will relish the battle. A former left-wing activist who was born in Crete, she endured imprisonment and torture at the hands of the military dictatorship in Greece during the 1970s before embarking on a career as a socialist MP. She is an astute and determined operator and has already removed officials in her department felt to be too close to the fishing industry.
Wednesday 6 June 2012
Q&A: Eat that fish! When overfishing is also sustainable
Many of us think that if a fish species is overfished we probably should be wary about choosing it at the supermarket or on the restaurant menu. But the opposite may be true. Our boycotting of some overfished species may be hurting us and the American fish industry, not the fish. This counterintuitive opinion is laid out by Ray Hilborn, professor of aquatic and fishery sciences at the University of Washington, and co-author of Overfishing: What Everyone Needs to Know. Hilborn holds that the public, food retailers, NGOs and congress have misunderstood what defines a sustainable fishery. In fact overfishing and sustainable can, oddly enough, go together. SmartPlanet caught up with Hilborn in Seattle, WA to get a better understanding of this paradox and why he thinks a fish boycott doesn’t make sense.
SmartPlanet: What are red listed fish? Ray Hilborn: Red lists are advice that a number of NGOs provide on what species of fish one should avoid eating.
SP: And Whole Foods stopped selling such fish based on these red lists? RH: Yes Whole Foods made a commitment to not sell any food that’s on the red list of the Monterey Bay Aquarium and the Blue Oceans Institute.
SP: And other stores and restaurants have done similar things? RH: Yes red lists are widely used.
SP: What are the criteria for red-listed fish? RH: The three criteria that most NGOs use. One is status with respect to overfishing. The second is concerns about bycatch. So if you have a fishery that is catching a significant number of turtles, or sharks, or other species they’ll often get red-listed. Finally there are concerns about the environmental impacts of fishing, particularly concerns about trawl nets, or nets that touch the bottom and change bottom habitat.
SP: But you have made the point recently that if a species is overfished it doesn’t necessarily mean that it can’t be sustainable. And this seems counterintuitive. People might say well red lists sound more like the right thing to do. RH: There’s an enormous lack of understanding about what sustainability really is. Essentially sustainability has nothing to do with the abundance of the fish and much more about the management system. So if you’re managing it in a way where if it gets to low abundance you’ll reduce catches and let it rebuild. That’s clearly sustainable. You can have fish that are overfished for decades but still be sustainable. As long as their numbers are not going down they are sustainable. Some of it is “overfished” with reference to the production of long-term maximum yield. It doesn’t imply declining and it doesn’t imply threat of extinction.
SP: And even if it falls into this latter category that you just described it should be safe for consumers to eat? RH: So long as it’s in a management system like the U.S. where when stocks get to low abundance we dramatically reduce catches, and the evidence is they then rebuild. Then yes, those stocks are perfectly sustainable.
SP: What about this issue of bycatch? RH: OK, so the NGOs will say, “Oh this stock is not sustainable because there is bycatch of sharks.” Well the stock is sustainable. Every form of food production has negative impacts on other species. And that’s where there’s an enormous double standard applied to fish. For instance, I guarantee you there’s a big environmental impact of buying soybeans that come from cutting down rainforest. There’s a much higher standard applied to fisheries than almost anything else we eat.
SP: What goes into creating a sustainable fishery? RH: The first thing is you have to monitor the trend in the stock. You have to have a system based in good science, that says this stock is going down. Then your management actions have to respond to the trend.
SP: What about foreign fish? Which ones can we eat? RH: Much of the fish of the world do not qualify as sustainable because we just don’t know what’s happening in other countries like Africa or Asia. Now, very few fish from those markets makes their way to the U.S. market. But some of the Atlantic cod populations in Europe are still fished much too hard. But the big propulsions in Europe are actually quite sustainable. Much of the cod that make it to the U.S. are coming from Iceland or Norway where the stocks are in good shape.
SP: But how do you tell the difference if it’s cod coming from an overfished area? RH: Well, that is a major problem. But if it’s Marine Stewardship Council certified you can be pretty sure that it’s what it claims to be. Personally, I tend to buy a pretty narrow range of fish that come from my region, like salmon, halibut, and black cod. And pretty much all of those are MSC certified.
SP: You mention that the boycott on sustainably caught fish does nothing for conservation. RH: You can boycott this all you want, it’s not going to affect what’s caught. Because for these overfished stocks enormous effort is being taken to catch as little as possible and it’s not the consumer market that drives the amount of catch. Those fish are going to be caught and they’re going to be sold because there are a lot of markets in the world that don’t care about classification and red lists, essentially all of Asia, which is the world’s biggest seafood consuming market. The places that consumer boycotts might have an effect is for fish like bluefin tuna or swordfish.
SP: Well if boycotting makes no difference, is there a negative side to boycotting? RH: My real target is to tell retailers and the NGOs, “Look, let’s get more reasonable about what we mean by sustainability.”
SP: And we need to get more reasonable about the definition of “sustainability” because there are real economic dangers to the fishing industry? Or is it because of something else? RH: Yes, that’s certainly one of the issues. Let’s not punish these fishermen who have paid a very high price to rebuild these stocks. Let’s let them sell what they’re currently catching.
SP: So it seems the word “overfished” is also more nuanced? RH: Well I think Congress had this very naïve view that somehow you could manage every stock separately and if cod is depleted, at low abundance well we stop fishing it, but they don’t appreciate the cost of all the other species that we could not catch because we can’t catch those species without also catching some cod as bycatch. Now, there’s a lot of work going on to try to solve that problem. But I it’s important to convince people that we will always have some overfished stocks. And if we continue with our current U.S. statement that ‘no stock shall be overfished’ we’re going to have to give up a lot of food production. We’re certainly doing that now.
SP: You’ve also argued that fish is a food we need? RH: If we don’t catch certain fish with trawl nets, and let’s say it’s twenty million tons, then that food is going to be made up some other way. And what’s the environmental cost of the other ways of producing the food? My initial calculations suggest that it is quite a bit higher. We should always be saying, “Well if we don’t eat this, where else is the food going to come from, and what’s the environmental cost of that?”
SP: So you ultimately feel that the marketing of these red lists has gotten to the point where it’s lost rational sense? RH: Yes. I’m pretty convinced that seafood production is more sustainable than growing corn in Iowa or wheat in Kansas. Because growing corn in Iowa forces us to lose topsoil every year. In another 200 years the topsoil will be be largely gone. Is that sustainable?
By Christie Nicholson | May 30, 2012, 7:17 AM PDT
Tuesday 13 March 2012
Dumped cod - what a waste! - a united UK front is needed say MPs
 |
| Dumped dead cod |
The picture as it is today:
Four dead cod float away from the boat. Each cod is around 5Kg.
Four times 5 = 20Kg.
That scene is repeated daily for the net boats and trawlers working in Area VIIg - see below......
Cod quota for ICES Area VIIg which is where the Ajax and other Newlyn boats will be fishing this tide is currently 300Kg per month per boat.
20Kg is 20/300X100 = 6.6% of a month's quota caught and then dumped, dead, back into the sea - at least the crabs get a meal out of the waste.
And a timely article appeared on the BBC's web site today:
The whole of the UK needs to present a "united front" to the European Union to protect the future of fishing fleets, MPs have said. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee accused Brussels of "micro-management" in setting catch quotas. It said EU member states should decide them "as locally as possible". The MPs urged ministers in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to work together to ensure UK views are heard when new EU rules are introduced.
The European Commission says the existing system of fishing quotas - which often leads to tonnes of good fish being dumped at sea - will be changed over the next couple of years.
The major headache for the boats fishing in Area VII today is that the quota was introduced way back in 1983. At that time, the TAC (Total Allowable Catch) was set based on catch returns from the late 1970s. Unsurprisingly, the fishing fleet of Cornwall had changed significantly in that time. Most of the bigger boats in Newlyn caught very little cod - they were long lining for ling and skate at the time and there were very few trawlers working the grounds where cod habited. As a result, when the quotas were set the UK ended up with around 1200 tonnes and the French around 14000 tonnes - simply because they had a growing fleet of trawlers catching whitefish including cod. Even if the UK's quota was doubled today it would still not reflect the catching capacity of the fleet. Cod do not move far - a fact proved by tagging fish - not one cod tagged in Area VII has been recoverd in any other ICES area suggesting that the stock of cod is entirely located here in and around the Western approaches.
See the rest of the story here.
Thursday 25 August 2011
Damanaki against Elinor Ostrom
Always good to see what other fishing communities make of the changes to those policies that affect all EU fishermen. In this case, the Committe de Peche Locale for Guilvenec commenting on a paper acknowledging the disparity between Damanki and Elinor Ostrom from Indianna University who has much experience of commentary on the industry. The following three texts (including a response to the paper) are all Google translations - hence the disjointed text in places - you will get the gist.
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-Ã -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:
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-Ã -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-Ã -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-Ã -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.
Wednesday 10 August 2011
After the fight.
The response to Hugh Fearnely-Whittingstall's latest TV programme, the fight sequel has highlighted the need for more education amongst both the media and the public. Seafish's Phil MacMullen gives a more balanced view than some of the press who, yet again, took much of HFW's programme at face value without appreciating the highly complex nature of managing fish stocks - after all, if it was that simple we would not be in the position we are today.
The Mirror
 |
| At the moment, as you are reading this fishing boats off the Cornish coast are in the process of dumping perfectly good haddock back over the side - dead. |
Some of the media reports are linked here:
Tuesday 19 July 2011
From Boulogne -Fishermen strongly opposed the principle of transferable quotas.
(Translated from the original)
"Fishermen and Boulogne Etaploise consider unacceptable the proposals (see below) of the European Commissioner for Fisheries, the Greek Damanaki. For the latter, fish stocks are overexploited because of "overcapacity of the fleet" in the clear there are too many boats chasing too few fish.
The annual contribution of artisanal fisheries currently Boulogne is about 35000t. Fewer boats will also mean a drop in tonnage landed and affect the entire sector and processing companies in the tidal zone Capécure who need a fresh fish sold in auction. The economic and social reform in Brussels seems to have overlooked."
Big difference tomorrow, with this system, "quotas belong to the boat," says Marc Perrault, head of St. Catherine Laboure, a trawler of 24.50 m. The commission tries to reassure by saying that these quotas "would not be between boats of the same country and even between vessels of similar size." Pierre-Georges Dachicourt is "dressing to the final liberalization while. We know that situations between fishermen of the same port are not the same. Those who do better have the money to buy the quotas of the most fragile.
But what will become of them? Everyone can not be pizzaïolo (sic) "The resale of quotas could lead to speculation (sale to the highest bidder) and a takeover by industrial fisheries, which are themselves responsible for the exploitation of the sea with more quota concentrated in the same hands, this phenomenon will only increase and it will lead ultimately to the opposite effect to that intended, that is to say less pressure on the resource.To reduce their number, Damanaki calls with the Committee on Fisheries, which was in the air for a few months time, the introduction of transferable fishing rights or fishing concessions exchanged between boats. A fisherman who wants to stop because it is close to retirement or because its activity is no longer economically viable could transfer all of its right to fish. "We do get large-scale capitalism and over time, we will remove small-scale fisheries for the benefit of owners or large pension funds who buy fishing rights, denounces Pierre-Georges Dachicourt, Berckois and Chairman of National Fisheries. There will be financial abuse detrimental to the profession.
All the Icelandic fishing owned by U.S. pension funds and it did not improve its situation, far from it. "Currently, quotas are managed by producer organizations as cooperative maritime Etaploise (CME) at Etaples or Boulogne From North.
Article courtesy of La Voix du Nord.
"Fishermen and Boulogne Etaploise consider unacceptable the proposals (see below) of the European Commissioner for Fisheries, the Greek Damanaki. For the latter, fish stocks are overexploited because of "overcapacity of the fleet" in the clear there are too many boats chasing too few fish.
The annual contribution of artisanal fisheries currently Boulogne is about 35000t. Fewer boats will also mean a drop in tonnage landed and affect the entire sector and processing companies in the tidal zone Capécure who need a fresh fish sold in auction. The economic and social reform in Brussels seems to have overlooked."
Big difference tomorrow, with this system, "quotas belong to the boat," says Marc Perrault, head of St. Catherine Laboure, a trawler of 24.50 m. The commission tries to reassure by saying that these quotas "would not be between boats of the same country and even between vessels of similar size." Pierre-Georges Dachicourt is "dressing to the final liberalization while. We know that situations between fishermen of the same port are not the same. Those who do better have the money to buy the quotas of the most fragile.
But what will become of them? Everyone can not be pizzaïolo (sic) "The resale of quotas could lead to speculation (sale to the highest bidder) and a takeover by industrial fisheries, which are themselves responsible for the exploitation of the sea with more quota concentrated in the same hands, this phenomenon will only increase and it will lead ultimately to the opposite effect to that intended, that is to say less pressure on the resource.To reduce their number, Damanaki calls with the Committee on Fisheries, which was in the air for a few months time, the introduction of transferable fishing rights or fishing concessions exchanged between boats. A fisherman who wants to stop because it is close to retirement or because its activity is no longer economically viable could transfer all of its right to fish. "We do get large-scale capitalism and over time, we will remove small-scale fisheries for the benefit of owners or large pension funds who buy fishing rights, denounces Pierre-Georges Dachicourt, Berckois and Chairman of National Fisheries. There will be financial abuse detrimental to the profession.
All the Icelandic fishing owned by U.S. pension funds and it did not improve its situation, far from it. "Currently, quotas are managed by producer organizations as cooperative maritime Etaploise (CME) at Etaples or Boulogne From North.
Article courtesy of La Voix du Nord.
CFPO - EARLY OPPORTUNITY FOR DAMANAKI AND THE EU COMMISSION TO DEMONSTRATE THEIR COMMITMENT TO REDUCING DISCARDS.
For the last few years fishermen around Cornwall have been seeing a significant
increase in cod on the ground and in their catches but until now this has not been
reflected in the annual quotas set by Europe.
The Cornish Fish Producers Organisation (CFPO) has been working to resolve
this issue and following a series of trans-national meetings with French and
Irish fishermen’s organisations and the recent publication of this years scientific
advice from ICES (the independent international scientific body that advises
the EU Commission on fish stocks and quota levels) the CFPO is hopeful of an
increase this years Cod quota in the South West.
Scientists failed to pick-up the strong recruitment of fish coming into the fishery
in last year’s assessment but have now recognised the strength of this stock.
Furthermore they have said that with out immediate action discards will increase.
Paul Trebilcock Chief Executive of the CFPO said:
“The recent publication of ICES advice revising estimates of cod in the Celtic Sea
has highlighted a major anomaly for management in 2011 which requires urgent
attention. We and others around Europe feel that the EU Commission and the
Council of Ministers need to address this issue as a matter of extreme urgency.
The ICES advice published in June 2011 is explicit:
“Because of the large 2009 year class is now entering the fishery, which was
not anticipated in last years advice or TAC, there will be a large inconsistency
between the TAC set for 2011 (4023 t) and the predicted landings for that year,
assuming the current fishing mortality (10 500 t). Therefore, in the absence of
any effort limitation and/or TAC revision, high discarding will occur.”
In terms of the immediate action required the scientific advice is clear; if there
is not an in-year increase in the TAC there will be a significant, increase in
unnecessary and widespread discarding.
The scientific evidence fully supports industry perceptions that the fishing fleets
of all Member States involved in fisheries that operate in VIIe-k have observed
high levels of cod in their catches during 2009, 2010 and the early part of 2011.
This steady improvement in the stock has been observed since 2006 following
the implementation of the industry led annual Trevose Closure since 2004.
Given that Commissioner Damanaki has made much of her desire to reduce
discards in European fisheries, this represents an opportunity to demonstrate
her commitment by taking immediate and urgent action to amend the 2011 TAC based on the latest ICES advice.
It is essential that the Commission and Council of Ministers show the resolve
to deal with the in-year adjustment required in the exceptional circumstances
which the recent ICES advice gives rise to. This would secure the confidence
of the fishing sector that sacrifices made can actually produce positive benefits
in economic, discard-reduction and overall conservation terms which must be
objectives shared by all.”
This issue is now being pursed through the North Western Waters Regional
Advisory Council and it is hoped an in-year increase in the cod quota can be
secured as soon as possible.
increase in cod on the ground and in their catches but until now this has not been
reflected in the annual quotas set by Europe.
The Cornish Fish Producers Organisation (CFPO) has been working to resolve
this issue and following a series of trans-national meetings with French and
Irish fishermen’s organisations and the recent publication of this years scientific
advice from ICES (the independent international scientific body that advises
the EU Commission on fish stocks and quota levels) the CFPO is hopeful of an
increase this years Cod quota in the South West.
Scientists failed to pick-up the strong recruitment of fish coming into the fishery
in last year’s assessment but have now recognised the strength of this stock.
Furthermore they have said that with out immediate action discards will increase.
Paul Trebilcock Chief Executive of the CFPO said:
“The recent publication of ICES advice revising estimates of cod in the Celtic Sea
has highlighted a major anomaly for management in 2011 which requires urgent
attention. We and others around Europe feel that the EU Commission and the
Council of Ministers need to address this issue as a matter of extreme urgency.
The ICES advice published in June 2011 is explicit:
“Because of the large 2009 year class is now entering the fishery, which was
not anticipated in last years advice or TAC, there will be a large inconsistency
between the TAC set for 2011 (4023 t) and the predicted landings for that year,
assuming the current fishing mortality (10 500 t). Therefore, in the absence of
any effort limitation and/or TAC revision, high discarding will occur.”
In terms of the immediate action required the scientific advice is clear; if there
is not an in-year increase in the TAC there will be a significant, increase in
unnecessary and widespread discarding.
The scientific evidence fully supports industry perceptions that the fishing fleets
of all Member States involved in fisheries that operate in VIIe-k have observed
high levels of cod in their catches during 2009, 2010 and the early part of 2011.
This steady improvement in the stock has been observed since 2006 following
the implementation of the industry led annual Trevose Closure since 2004.
Given that Commissioner Damanaki has made much of her desire to reduce
discards in European fisheries, this represents an opportunity to demonstrate
her commitment by taking immediate and urgent action to amend the 2011 TAC based on the latest ICES advice.
It is essential that the Commission and Council of Ministers show the resolve
to deal with the in-year adjustment required in the exceptional circumstances
which the recent ICES advice gives rise to. This would secure the confidence
of the fishing sector that sacrifices made can actually produce positive benefits
in economic, discard-reduction and overall conservation terms which must be
objectives shared by all.”
This issue is now being pursed through the North Western Waters Regional
Advisory Council and it is hoped an in-year increase in the cod quota can be
secured as soon as possible.
For more information contact the CFPO office in Newlyn.
Thursday 14 July 2011
CFP reform - response form aroundthe fishing globe.
CFP - Reform watch has gleaned and summarised a set of quotes from around the world of fishing and interested bodies with a say in how the future might look after the CFP reforms announced yesterday in Brussels.
Wednesday 13 July 2011
Questions and Answers on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy
The overall objective of the Commission's proposals for a modern and simpler Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is to make fishing sustainable - environmentally, economically and socially. The new policy will bring fish stocks back to sustainable levels by ending overfishing and setting fishing opportunities based on scientific advice. It will provide EU citizens with a stable, secure and healthy food supply for the long term; it seeks to bring new prosperity to the fishing sector, end dependence on subsidies and create new opportunities for jobs and growth in coastal areas.
Why is a new policy necessary?
Europe’s fisheries policy is in urgent need of reform. Vessels are catching more fish than can be safely reproduced, thus exhausting individual fish stocks and threatening the marine ecosystem. Today, three out of four stocks are overfished: 82% of Mediterranean stocks and 63% of Atlantic stocks. The fishing industry is experiencing smaller catches and facing an uncertain future.
Against this background, the Commission is proposing an ambitious reform of the policy. This reform is about putting in place the conditions for a better future for fish and fisheries alike, as well as the marine environment that supports them. The reform will contribute to the Europe 2020 Strategy and the policy will be developed as part of the broader maritime economy to ensure more coherent policies for the EU's seas and coastal areas by working towards robust economic performance of the industry, inclusive growth and enhanced cohesion in coastal regions.
Sustainability is at the heart of the proposed reform. Fishing sustainably means fishing at levels that do not endanger the reproduction of stocks and that provide high long-term yields. This requires managing the volume of fish taken out of the sea through fishing. The Commission proposes that by 2015, stocks must be exploited at sustainable levels, defined as the highest catch that can be safely taken year after year and which maintains the fish population size at maximum productivity. This level is known as the ‘maximum sustainable yield’ (MSY). This objective is set out in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas, and was adopted at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development as a target the world should reach by 2015.
Estimates1 show that if stocks were exploited in this way, stock sizes would increase by about 70%. Overall catches would increase by around 17%, profit margins could be multiplied by a factor of three, return on investments would be six times higher, and the gross value-added for the catching industry would rise by almost 90%, equal to € 2.7 billion over the next decade.
Fishing sustainably would also free the catching sector from depending on public support. It would make it easier to achieve stable prices under transparent conditions, bringing clear benefits for consumers. A strong, efficient and economically viable industry operating under market conditions would play a more important, active role in managing stocks.
What are the main elements of the new proposals?
The multi-annual ecosystem-based management
To rebuild a vibrant fishing economy in Europe, the marine environment must be protected more effectively. From now on, EU fisheries will be managed by multi-annual plans and governed by the ecosystem approach and the precautionary principle to ensure that the impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are limited. The fishing industry will have a better and more stable basis for long-term planning and investment. This will safeguard resources and maximise long-term yields.
Multi-annual management plans should move from the current single-stock plans to fisheries-based plans – covering more fish stocks in fewer plans, with the aim of reaching sustainable levels by 2015. Stocks not under plans will be managed through fixing fishing opportunities by Council, and other conservation and technical measures which are part of the toolbox of instruments proposed.
Banning discards
Discarding, ie the practice of throwing unwanted fish overboard, is estimated at 23% of total catches (substantially more in some fisheries!). This unacceptable practice will be phased out with a precise timeline for implementation and in combination with some flanking measures. Fishermen will be obliged to land all the commercial species that they catch. Under-sized fish cannot be sold for human consumption.
Member States shall make sure that their fishing vessels are equipped to ensure full documentation of all fishing and processing activities so as to monitor compliance with the obligation to land all catches.
This approach will lead to more reliable data on fish stocks, support better management and improve resource efficiency. It is also an incentive for fishermen to avoid unwanted catches by means of technical solutions such as more selective fishing gear.
Making fishing profitable
A system of transferable catch shares, known as 'concessions', will be introduced as from 2014 for vessels over 12 metres long and all vessels using towed gear. Based on agreed principles at EU level the concessions will be distributed by Member States in a transparent way, and will grant their owner an entitlement to a share of the national fishing opportunity for each year. Operators will be able to lease or trade their concessions within their Member state, not between Member states. The concessions will have a minimum validity of 15 years but can be recalled before expiry in case of serious infringement by the holder. Member States may create a reserve and introduce a fee for the concessions.
This new system will give the fishing industry a long-term perspective, more flexibility and greater accountability, while at the same time reducing overcapacity. Operators will have an incentive to increase their concessions while others may decide to leave the industry. It is predicted that incomes could raise by over 20% and crew wages by between 50% and over 100% by 2022 under this system2.
Support for small-scale fisheries
In the EU, the small-scale fleet accounts for 77% of the total EU fleet in vessel numbers but only for 8% in tonnage (vessel size) and 32% in terms of engine power. Small-scale coastal fisheries often play an important role in the social fabric and the cultural identity of many of Europe's coastal regions. They therefore require specific support. The reformed CFP extends to 2022 the right for Member States to restrict fishing in a zone within 12 nautical miles of the coastline. Small-scale fisheries may also be exempted from the transferable fishing concessions scheme. The future financial instrument for fisheries will include measures beneficial to small-scale fisheries and will help local economies adapt to the changes.
Developing sustainable aquaculture
A better framework for aquaculture will increase production and supply of seafood in the EU, reduce dependence on imported fish and boost growth in coastal and rural areas. By 2014, Member States will draft national strategic plans to remove administrative barriers and uphold environmental, social and economic standards for the farmed-fish industry. A new Aquaculture Advisory Council will be established to give advice on industry-related issues. There is a clear EU dimension in aquaculture development: strategic choices made at national level can have a bearing on such development in neighbouring Member States.
Improving scientific knowledge
Reliable and up-to-date information about the state of marine resources is essential to support sound management decisions as well as effective implementation of the reformed CFP. The proposal establishes the basic rules and obligations for Member States on data collection, management, data availability and access provisions for the Commission. Member states will be entrusted with collecting, maintaining and sharing scientific data about fish stocks and the impact of fishing at sea-basin level. National research programmes will be established to coordinate this activity
Decentralised governance
The Commission proposal is clarifying roles and obligations of each actor and will bring decisions closer to the fishing grounds. It will end micro-management from Brussels so that EU legislators will only define the general framework, the basic principles, the overall targets, the performance indicators and the timeframes. Member States will then decide the actual implementing measures, and will cooperate at regional level. The proposal includes provisions to ensure that the Member States concerned adopt measures which are compatible and effective. A fall-back mechanism is established for Commission action in cases where Member States cannot agree, or where the targets are not being reached.
New market policy - empowerment of the sector and better informed consumers
A proposal for a new Market Policy is part of the package proposed to ensure that the organization of the common markets for fisheries products contributes to achieving the objectives of the new CFP. It aims to strengthen the competitiveness of the EU industry, improve the transparency of the markets, and ensure a level playing field for all products marketed in the Union.
It also includes a modernisation of the intervention regime as the current system of spending public money to destroy fish is no longer justifiable. It will be replaced by a simplified storage mechanism, which will allow producer organisations to buy up fisheries products when prices fall under a certain level, and store the products for placing on the market at a later stage. This system will foster market stability.
Producer organisations will also play a greater role in collective management, monitoring and control. Better marketing of EU fisheries and aquaculture products will help to reduce waste and provide market feedback to producers.
New marketing standards on labelling, quality and traceability will give consumers clearer information and help them support sustainable fisheries. Certain labelling information will be compulsory, for example to differentiate fisheries and aquaculture products; other claims may be supplied on a voluntary basis.
A modern and adapted financial instrument
EU financial assistance will be granted to support the sustainability objectives of the new CFP. Financial assistance will become conditional upon compliance with the rules, and this principle will apply to both Member States and operators.
For Member States, non-compliance may result in interruption, suspension or financial correction to the Union financial assistance. For operators, serious infringements may lead to banning of access to financial assistance or financial reductions. In addition, the proposal introduces the obligation for Member States, when granting financial assistance, to take into account the behaviour (in particular the absence of serious infringements) of operators in the recent past.
A proposal for a new financial instrument, the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) for the period 2014-2020 will be made later in 2011. In the framework of the Multi-annual financial framework, the Commission proposed a budget of € 6.7 billion for the EMFF.
Taking international responsibility
Almost 85% of the world fish stocks for which information is available are reported as being either fully exploited or overexploited, according to the FAO. The EU, being the world's largest importer of fisheries products in terms of value, must act abroad as at home. The external fisheries policy must be an integrated part of the CFP. In international and regional organisations, the EU will therefore advocate the principles of sustainability and conservation of fish stocks and marine biodiversity. It will establish alliances and undertake actions with key partners to combat illegal fishing and reduce overcapacity.
In bilateral fishing agreements with non-EU countries, the EU will promote sustainability, good governance and the principles of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Sustainable Fisheries Agreements (SFAs) will replace the existing Fisheries Partnership Agreements (FPAs) and they will ensure that the exploitation of fishery resources takes place on the basis of sound scientific advice only targeting surplus resources that the partner country cannot or does not want to fish itself. Under SFAs, partner countries shall be compensated for granting access to their fishing resources and financial assistance shall be provided to the partner countries for the implementation of a sustainable fisheries policy.
Will there by new rules on Control and Enforcement?
The proposal is consistent with the EU's new control regime from 20103 and integrates the basic elements of the control and enforcement regime for compliance with the rules of the CFP. In light of the introduction of the landing obligation to avoid discards the Commission proposes monitoring and control obligations in particular in relation to fully documented fishery, as well as pilot projects on new fisheries control technologies that contribute to sustainable fishing.
When will the reform come into effect?
The new rules will come into effect once the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament have voted on the proposals. Implementation will be progressive because there is a need for the sector to adapt and to be able to deliver results. But the reform sets clear deadlines. The aim for adoption and entry into force of the new legislation is 1.1.2013.
See also: IP/11/873
1 : Impact Assessment Accompanying Commission proposal for a Regulation on the Common Fisheries Policy
2 : Impact Assessment Accompanying Commission proposal for a Regulation on the Common Fisheries Policy
3 : Council Regulations No 1005/2008 and No 1224/2009
Why is a new policy necessary?
Europe’s fisheries policy is in urgent need of reform. Vessels are catching more fish than can be safely reproduced, thus exhausting individual fish stocks and threatening the marine ecosystem. Today, three out of four stocks are overfished: 82% of Mediterranean stocks and 63% of Atlantic stocks. The fishing industry is experiencing smaller catches and facing an uncertain future.
Against this background, the Commission is proposing an ambitious reform of the policy. This reform is about putting in place the conditions for a better future for fish and fisheries alike, as well as the marine environment that supports them. The reform will contribute to the Europe 2020 Strategy and the policy will be developed as part of the broader maritime economy to ensure more coherent policies for the EU's seas and coastal areas by working towards robust economic performance of the industry, inclusive growth and enhanced cohesion in coastal regions.
Sustainability is at the heart of the proposed reform. Fishing sustainably means fishing at levels that do not endanger the reproduction of stocks and that provide high long-term yields. This requires managing the volume of fish taken out of the sea through fishing. The Commission proposes that by 2015, stocks must be exploited at sustainable levels, defined as the highest catch that can be safely taken year after year and which maintains the fish population size at maximum productivity. This level is known as the ‘maximum sustainable yield’ (MSY). This objective is set out in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas, and was adopted at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development as a target the world should reach by 2015.
Estimates1 show that if stocks were exploited in this way, stock sizes would increase by about 70%. Overall catches would increase by around 17%, profit margins could be multiplied by a factor of three, return on investments would be six times higher, and the gross value-added for the catching industry would rise by almost 90%, equal to € 2.7 billion over the next decade.
Fishing sustainably would also free the catching sector from depending on public support. It would make it easier to achieve stable prices under transparent conditions, bringing clear benefits for consumers. A strong, efficient and economically viable industry operating under market conditions would play a more important, active role in managing stocks.
What are the main elements of the new proposals?
The multi-annual ecosystem-based management
To rebuild a vibrant fishing economy in Europe, the marine environment must be protected more effectively. From now on, EU fisheries will be managed by multi-annual plans and governed by the ecosystem approach and the precautionary principle to ensure that the impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are limited. The fishing industry will have a better and more stable basis for long-term planning and investment. This will safeguard resources and maximise long-term yields.
Multi-annual management plans should move from the current single-stock plans to fisheries-based plans – covering more fish stocks in fewer plans, with the aim of reaching sustainable levels by 2015. Stocks not under plans will be managed through fixing fishing opportunities by Council, and other conservation and technical measures which are part of the toolbox of instruments proposed.
Banning discards
Discarding, ie the practice of throwing unwanted fish overboard, is estimated at 23% of total catches (substantially more in some fisheries!). This unacceptable practice will be phased out with a precise timeline for implementation and in combination with some flanking measures. Fishermen will be obliged to land all the commercial species that they catch. Under-sized fish cannot be sold for human consumption.
Member States shall make sure that their fishing vessels are equipped to ensure full documentation of all fishing and processing activities so as to monitor compliance with the obligation to land all catches.
This approach will lead to more reliable data on fish stocks, support better management and improve resource efficiency. It is also an incentive for fishermen to avoid unwanted catches by means of technical solutions such as more selective fishing gear.
Making fishing profitable
A system of transferable catch shares, known as 'concessions', will be introduced as from 2014 for vessels over 12 metres long and all vessels using towed gear. Based on agreed principles at EU level the concessions will be distributed by Member States in a transparent way, and will grant their owner an entitlement to a share of the national fishing opportunity for each year. Operators will be able to lease or trade their concessions within their Member state, not between Member states. The concessions will have a minimum validity of 15 years but can be recalled before expiry in case of serious infringement by the holder. Member States may create a reserve and introduce a fee for the concessions.
This new system will give the fishing industry a long-term perspective, more flexibility and greater accountability, while at the same time reducing overcapacity. Operators will have an incentive to increase their concessions while others may decide to leave the industry. It is predicted that incomes could raise by over 20% and crew wages by between 50% and over 100% by 2022 under this system2.
Support for small-scale fisheries
In the EU, the small-scale fleet accounts for 77% of the total EU fleet in vessel numbers but only for 8% in tonnage (vessel size) and 32% in terms of engine power. Small-scale coastal fisheries often play an important role in the social fabric and the cultural identity of many of Europe's coastal regions. They therefore require specific support. The reformed CFP extends to 2022 the right for Member States to restrict fishing in a zone within 12 nautical miles of the coastline. Small-scale fisheries may also be exempted from the transferable fishing concessions scheme. The future financial instrument for fisheries will include measures beneficial to small-scale fisheries and will help local economies adapt to the changes.
Developing sustainable aquaculture
A better framework for aquaculture will increase production and supply of seafood in the EU, reduce dependence on imported fish and boost growth in coastal and rural areas. By 2014, Member States will draft national strategic plans to remove administrative barriers and uphold environmental, social and economic standards for the farmed-fish industry. A new Aquaculture Advisory Council will be established to give advice on industry-related issues. There is a clear EU dimension in aquaculture development: strategic choices made at national level can have a bearing on such development in neighbouring Member States.
Improving scientific knowledge
Reliable and up-to-date information about the state of marine resources is essential to support sound management decisions as well as effective implementation of the reformed CFP. The proposal establishes the basic rules and obligations for Member States on data collection, management, data availability and access provisions for the Commission. Member states will be entrusted with collecting, maintaining and sharing scientific data about fish stocks and the impact of fishing at sea-basin level. National research programmes will be established to coordinate this activity
Decentralised governance
The Commission proposal is clarifying roles and obligations of each actor and will bring decisions closer to the fishing grounds. It will end micro-management from Brussels so that EU legislators will only define the general framework, the basic principles, the overall targets, the performance indicators and the timeframes. Member States will then decide the actual implementing measures, and will cooperate at regional level. The proposal includes provisions to ensure that the Member States concerned adopt measures which are compatible and effective. A fall-back mechanism is established for Commission action in cases where Member States cannot agree, or where the targets are not being reached.
New market policy - empowerment of the sector and better informed consumers
A proposal for a new Market Policy is part of the package proposed to ensure that the organization of the common markets for fisheries products contributes to achieving the objectives of the new CFP. It aims to strengthen the competitiveness of the EU industry, improve the transparency of the markets, and ensure a level playing field for all products marketed in the Union.
It also includes a modernisation of the intervention regime as the current system of spending public money to destroy fish is no longer justifiable. It will be replaced by a simplified storage mechanism, which will allow producer organisations to buy up fisheries products when prices fall under a certain level, and store the products for placing on the market at a later stage. This system will foster market stability.
Producer organisations will also play a greater role in collective management, monitoring and control. Better marketing of EU fisheries and aquaculture products will help to reduce waste and provide market feedback to producers.
New marketing standards on labelling, quality and traceability will give consumers clearer information and help them support sustainable fisheries. Certain labelling information will be compulsory, for example to differentiate fisheries and aquaculture products; other claims may be supplied on a voluntary basis.
A modern and adapted financial instrument
EU financial assistance will be granted to support the sustainability objectives of the new CFP. Financial assistance will become conditional upon compliance with the rules, and this principle will apply to both Member States and operators.
For Member States, non-compliance may result in interruption, suspension or financial correction to the Union financial assistance. For operators, serious infringements may lead to banning of access to financial assistance or financial reductions. In addition, the proposal introduces the obligation for Member States, when granting financial assistance, to take into account the behaviour (in particular the absence of serious infringements) of operators in the recent past.
A proposal for a new financial instrument, the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) for the period 2014-2020 will be made later in 2011. In the framework of the Multi-annual financial framework, the Commission proposed a budget of € 6.7 billion for the EMFF.
Taking international responsibility
Almost 85% of the world fish stocks for which information is available are reported as being either fully exploited or overexploited, according to the FAO. The EU, being the world's largest importer of fisheries products in terms of value, must act abroad as at home. The external fisheries policy must be an integrated part of the CFP. In international and regional organisations, the EU will therefore advocate the principles of sustainability and conservation of fish stocks and marine biodiversity. It will establish alliances and undertake actions with key partners to combat illegal fishing and reduce overcapacity.
In bilateral fishing agreements with non-EU countries, the EU will promote sustainability, good governance and the principles of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Sustainable Fisheries Agreements (SFAs) will replace the existing Fisheries Partnership Agreements (FPAs) and they will ensure that the exploitation of fishery resources takes place on the basis of sound scientific advice only targeting surplus resources that the partner country cannot or does not want to fish itself. Under SFAs, partner countries shall be compensated for granting access to their fishing resources and financial assistance shall be provided to the partner countries for the implementation of a sustainable fisheries policy.
Will there by new rules on Control and Enforcement?
The proposal is consistent with the EU's new control regime from 20103 and integrates the basic elements of the control and enforcement regime for compliance with the rules of the CFP. In light of the introduction of the landing obligation to avoid discards the Commission proposes monitoring and control obligations in particular in relation to fully documented fishery, as well as pilot projects on new fisheries control technologies that contribute to sustainable fishing.
When will the reform come into effect?
The new rules will come into effect once the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament have voted on the proposals. Implementation will be progressive because there is a need for the sector to adapt and to be able to deliver results. But the reform sets clear deadlines. The aim for adoption and entry into force of the new legislation is 1.1.2013.
See also: IP/11/873
1 : Impact Assessment Accompanying Commission proposal for a Regulation on the Common Fisheries Policy
2 : Impact Assessment Accompanying Commission proposal for a Regulation on the Common Fisheries Policy
3 : Council Regulations No 1005/2008 and No 1224/2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)