The EU Fisheries Council meeting on Monday will direct Europe’s fishing
fleets to confine their trawling off the coast of developing countries
exclusively to “surplus resources” of fish, according to draft council
conclusions seen by EurActiv. This would give priority access to local fishermen, who depend on the seas
for their communities’ dietary needs.
“Due account should be taken of the coastal states' priorities in favour of
its own fishing sector, while the Union should seek an appropriate share of the
surplus resources,” the document says. But the conclusions stop short of measures that
would reduce Europe’s fleet capacity, a politically contested safeguard against
further depletion of the
world’s rapidly dwindling fish stocks.
“This is the root of the problem,” Saskia Richartz, a Greenpeace spokeswoman
told EurActiv. “There are just too many boats, and not enough fish - and that
encourages illegal fishing and overfishing, including by large EU trawlers in
the developing world.” Greenpeace claims that in just 10 hours on 14 March, their ship the Arctic
Sunrise took action to stop seven “EU mega-trawlers” - which can each catch up
to 250 tonnes of fish a day - from hoovering up marine life off the West African
coast.
The change on Monday would establish guidelines for making such practices
illegal.
Marine biodiversity
Protecting marine biodiversity is an
EU policy goal, with implications for the continent’s fish-eaters and
fishing communities alike. An EU communication
last July instructed member states to “put in place measures to adjust the
fishing capacity of their fleets in order to achieve an effective balance
between such fishing capacity and their fishing opportunities”. But no deadline was attached, and the EU’s reformed
Common Fisheries Policy last year also called for the issue to be addressed
globally, perhaps with one eye on the gathering storm over the EU’s inclusion of
foreign airlines in the Emissions Trading System.
“A high-level [international] conference to discuss ways of reducing capacity
will be called for by the EU by 2013 to pave the way for a process aimed at
addressing overcapacity at a global level,” the document said.
Discarding declaration
Environmentalists’ fears that the issue is being
sidelined may be heightened if, as reported, France and Spain issue
a declaration at today’s EU Fisheries Council aimed at blocking EU plans to
ban the practice of discarding less profitable – but still edible – fish in the
sea.
The
Guardian newspaper reported last week that an EU compromise allowing
fishermen to land all the fish they catch in exchange for compensation has met
with strong opposition, centred around companies with industrial-scale
vessels.
At least a million tonnes of fish and other sea
animals caught in the North Sea alone are discarded every year, according to a recent World Wildlife
Fund report.
The discards amount to about one-third of the entire North Sea catch, the
report said.
Article courtesy of Euractiv.
 |
| In context - A selection of tweets following today's EU Discards debate |
Does this not capture the mood in the UK too?
Some comments and observations from Yan Giron, fishing consultant:
I am very concerned by the way NGOs have demonised the French position on discards , making this simplest and childish link : if you refuse an overall discard ban, it means you want to keep discard. This is a send-the-mob strategy
Which is untrue,( France promotes the tackling of discard by tackling bycatches). And we all have to be aware that without a discard ban, EU can not implement ITQs. A discard ban is so an opengate to ITQ.
The style of following is duefrom a group of Twitter message
- Today will be discussed several measures including a ban on discards in the UK, this problem has become very important:
- The cause of the problem of discards is essentially twofold: a problem of gear selectivity and highgrading due to low quotas -
- For selectivity, we capture several species in addition to those we target. There are difficulties to tackle them through Technical research research techniques -
- The French position is that we need more research on these aspects. position also supported by professionals -
- Highgrading due to poor quota are of most concern in countries that have established fishing quotas merchants (salable or praiseworthy) -
- In the EU, countries are free to monetize their quotas, or not. England has done since the late 1990s. -
- Because of the monetization of quotas, the English fishermen now spend more than half of their expenditure to rent their quotas -
- Because of this monetization, the discard rate in the North Sea rose to 50%. This is not the case elsewhere -
- France rejects the monetization that creates speculation. She prefers to act on the selectivity.
- The English and the board simply want to ban the dumping at sea, for all Europe. Because they might need it
- The English need it because they are already in a system of monetization of the quota.The Commission wants to impose on all the monetization
- These quotas are called moneyables ITQ, FQA, or TFC, transferable fishing concessions. They are the death of the small scale fishery -
- The French position was demonized last week in an article in The Guardian - Because the French position is not for the discard ban, pressure groups make us look like pirates
- The shortcut is childish: opposed to the discard ban = want to keep discard. this is false and very serious -
- This means that professional fishermen can not define the best solutions for each case -
- The consequences are that by adopting a discard ban, the EU greatly facilitates its second goal : to privatize the resource [for all EU] - Refusing a discard ban on the contrary will give careful thought on the selectivity, which is to be close to the field -
- The Discard ban will immediately penalize fishermen and create a strong economic conditions which may cause bad impacts on vessel -
- Initiate a thorough examination of the selectivity is to begin a more difficult road, but more long-lasting as appropriated by fisherman -
- Moreover the discard ban will carry a right to market the undersize fish, anti ecological -
- This is the professional point of view. agree or not, you now have the keys to understanding the bottom of the case -
- And for the English, if they really want to solve their discard problem in the North Sea, they are free to choose their solution -
But it makes no sense to apply them to all EU mechanically. European fisheries are rich in their diversity.
- An easy way to cut the discard: cut FQA, ITQ (suppress : gold) or CFT because they CREATES the problem of 50% Highgrading
