 |
|
| |
| The
Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) |
CFG
11/02 rev
What is
the CFP?
Reviews and appraisal of the CFP
The proposed reform
Foodaware’s comments and recommendations
1. What is the CFP?
The common fisheries policy (CFP) is the European Union's instrument
for the management of fisheries and aquaculture. It was created
in 1983.
The CFP has to take into account the biological, economic and social
dimension of fishing. Main areas of interest to consumers include
the conservation of fish stocks, structures (such as vessels, port
facilities and fish processing plants), the external fisheries policy,
which includes fishing agreements with non-Community members and negotiations
in international organisations, and enforcement.
- Conservation
Each year, the Council of Ministers decides, on the basis of the
Commission's proposal and the result of scientific studies on
the main stocks, on the maximum quantities of fish that can be
caught the following year. These maximum quantities, called total
allowable catches (TACs), are divided among Member States into
national quotas.
To limit the capture of small fish so that they can grow up, a
number of technical measures and tools are provided for by Regulation
3760/92 (OJ L 389/1, 31.12.92). Minimum mesh sizes can be fixed.
Certain areas can be closed to protect fish stocks. Some fishing
gears may be banned and more 'selective' techniques, which facilitate
the escape of young fish and limit the capture of other species,
may be made compulsory. Minimum fish sizes are set, below which
it is illegal to land fish. Catches and landing have to be recorded
in special logbooks.
- Structures
The EU's structural policy helps the fishing sector adapt to today's
needs. Funding is available for projects in all branches of fishing
and aquaculture and for market and development research. Funding
is available for modernisation of the fishing fleets as well as
for getting rid of excess fishing capacity. For each Member State,
fleet restructuring is planned within multi-annual guidance programmes
(MAGPs) setting out objectives and the means to achieve them.
- Relations with third countries
Fisheries agreements became necessary when distant-fishing vessels
from the Community lost access to their traditional grounds following
the extension of fisheries zones. They also aimed at avoiding
an increase of the EU trade deficit for fisheries.
Fishing rights for such vessels have been negotiated with many
non-Community countries, mostly the ACP (Africa, Pacific and Caribbean)
region, in return for various forms of compensation whose nature
depends on the interest of the third country concerned. Initially
this was mostly financial compensation. For example, the 1990-1992
agreement between the EU and Senegal was negotiated on the basis
of a financial compensation of 30.5 million euro, plus 15.25 million
euro paid by the boat owners for fishing licences. The total represented
about 5% of the total value of exports from Senegal.
- Enforcement
The authorities in the Member States have to ensure that CFP rules
are respected. There is also a Community inspectorate with a staff
of 25 inspectors. Their role is to ensure that all national enforcement
authorities apply the same standards of quality and fairness in
their enforcement.
- Aquaculture
CFP has supported the development of aquaculture, mainly by capital
grants for the investment of companies. Aquaculture has positively
contributed to the supply of fish at reasonable prices, but is
also associated with environmental and health problems that have
not been properly addressed to date (see separate Foodaware paper).
2. Reviews and appraisal of the CFP
A first review of the CFP took place in 1992. The current Community
legislation (Council Regulation 3760/92) foresees the review of the
CFP in the course of 2002. In March 2001, the Commission published
a Green Paper on the Future of the CFP, presenting a number of options
for its reform. This was the basis for a wide consultation and many
discussions, which resulted with the publication, on 28 May 2002,
of a Communication of the Commission on the reform of the CFP (COM
(2002) 181 final).
The EU Commission itself recognises the failures and shortcomings
of the CFP. In the first place, the policy has not delivered sustainable
exploitation of fisheries resources. Many stocks are at present outside
safe biological limits. They are too heavily exploited or have low
quantities of mature fish, or both. The situation is particularly
serious for demersal fish stocks such as cod, hake and whiting. If
current trends continue, many stocks will collapse. At the same time
the available fishing capacity of the Community fleets far exceeds
that required to harvest fish in a sustainable manner.
The current situation of resources depletion results, to a large extent,
from setting annual catch limits in excess of those proposed by the
Commission on the basis of scientific advice, and from fleet management
plans short of those required. Poor enforcement of decisions actually
taken also contributed to over-fishing.
Despite the injection of 1.1 billion euro each year into the fisheries
sector, there is a steady decline of fisheries employment and the
sector is less and less sustainable and economically viable.
- TACs can only play a limited role in the management of fisheries
when many species of fish are taken simultaneously by each operation
of the fishing gear. Under the TAC regime, a fisherman may have
quotas of, say, cod, haddock and whiting that he is allowed to
land. These fish swim together in mixed schools and are, naturally,
caught together. If he has used up his quota of cod before he
has landed his quota of haddock, then he may throw the excess
cod that he continues to catch back in the sea, dead, as he goes
on fishing, legally, for haddock. Up to about 50%, by weight,
of white fish caught may be wasted by being discarded dead into
the sea in this way. Many of them are small, and so the loss of
fish to be harvested for the future is even more severe.
- For many stocks, the authorised mesh-sizes remain too small
for the effective protection of juveniles.
- The current fleet is much too large. It is estimated that the
necessary reductions of fishing mortality for the prudent management
of stocks should be about 40% and in many cases much higher. Fishing
capacity is currently defined in terms of tonnage and engine power,
but there are many other factors that determine the fishing mortality
generated by the fleet. Advances in technology and design mean
that new vessels exert much more fishing effort than old vessels
of equivalent tonnage and power.
The problem of excess capacity has been addressed by multi-annual
guidance programmes (MAGPs). Due to resistance from some Member States,
the objectives have not always been very ambitious and, in addition,
some governments failed to implement them and take up the aid available.
Subsidies for decommissioning vessels are to be welcomed, but subsidies
for construction, modernisation and running costs may have aggravated
the situation since they have not been accompanied by a sufficient
decrease in capacity.
- The external fisheries policy, as expressed in the Community's
bilateral agreements, faces also a number of weaknesses.
- The fisheries agreements are not always flexible enough
to respond quickly to emergency circumstances, such as stocks
decreasing.
- The fishing possibilities offered to European vessels are
not always based on the real evolution of the resource.
- The fishing mortality generated by the European fleet is
not always known.
- Some fisheries agreements do not offer enough guarantees
for the protection of small-scale coastal fisheries.
- There is a lot of controversy about the scientific advice on
the basis of which resource management decisions are taken. The
Commission itself recognises that there are weaknesses in scientific
advice and information. The number of competent scientists and
economists in Member States is limited. The scientists are often,
but inevitably, too involved in the year-to-year routine of providing
advice on TACs and quotas to allow time for innovative thought
and alternative possibilities for management measures. In
addition, scientists have to rely on data, some of which can be
biased by fraud or non-reporting from small vessels.
3. The proposed reform
The Commission proposes to do away with the annual setting of fishing
quotas at too high levels. In future, TACs would be fixed within a
multi-annual management plan, on the basis of the most recent scientific
advice to ensure that enough fish stay in the sea to replenish the
stocks. The Commission intends to tackle excess fleet capacity by
ending public aid for introducing new fishing vessels. More EU money
would be available to help fishermen to find alternative work and
for the restructuring of the sector. The Commission also advocates
uniform and tougher sanctions across the EU. Controls would be reinforced
by setting up a joint EU inspection structure. To bring the CFP closer
to fishermen, the industry, NGOs, regions and other stakeholders,
the Commission is proposing the creation of regional advisory councils.
To achieve sustainable fisheries beyond EU waters on the basis of
stronger international co-operation, the reform package includes an
action plan against illegal fishing and strategy for EU fisheries’
development with other countries.
4. Foodaware’s comments and recommendations
Foodaware very much welcomes the Commission's proposal, supports its
objectives and a great majority of the measures proposed. It is in
the interest of the European institutions to build and develop a CFP
that responds to consumers' expectations. The CFP should draw on the
experience of the Common Agricultural Policy. For too long, economic
interests have been the priority, rather than market considerations
and consumer demand. This has resulted in serious food crises and
a loss of consumer confidence in production methods.
Consumers are directly affected by the CFP and want to be involved
in its future design and management. They want to have access to a
regular supply of safe, quality and healthy fish, at reasonable price.
They are concerned about the environment and want to see environmental
considerations fully taken into account in all aspects of the fisheries
policy. They are concerned, as citizens and taxpayers, by the economic
and social viability of the fisheries sector and it is in their interest
to maintain a fisheries sector that is dynamic and viable for those
involved, with particular attention to remote rural areas where fishing
is the main local resource.
As confirmed by a large body of scientific literature and promoted
by public health messages, fish provides consumers with health-promoting
food. It is rich in high biological value protein, 1/3-3 fatty acid,
taurine and other valuable nutrients. Cardiovascular disease is the
largest contributor to premature death. Its causation is multi-factorial,
but poor diet probably accounts for around 40%. Recent evidence shows
a positive correlation between higher levels of fish consumption and
lower incidence of several cancers, mainly of the digestive tract.
Also, fish populations are common and renewable resources that do
not require feeding by people, and so could, with proper management,
be cheaper than meat.
Consumers want the EU to build on these strengths.
With regard to the environment, it is important to safeguard the water
quality of our seas and preserve them from all the sources of pollution
they face today (industrial, black tides, waste disposal to the sea,
etc.). They constitute an important resource for us and for future
generations and, more specifically, in the context of fisheries the
pollution of the seawaters considerably affects the quality of fish.
There needs to be a major reduction in the amounts of pollutants released
into the environment. Once they reach the natural environment organo-chlorines
will inevitably get into the fats of foods of every kind, including
fish. The same goes for heavy metals. The hygiene and safety of fish
must be a priority.
* Conservation and sustainability
- Foodaware supports the approach taken by the Commission and
asks for the emphasis to be placed on limitation of the fishing
effort and measures to protect young fish or non-target species.
Management should essentially be based on limiting the effort
put into catching fish rather than on regulating the catch of
each species of fish that is allowed to be landed.
- The best answer is to license vessels and limit the number
of licences so that the fishing fleet's ability to catch fish
roughly matches the production rate of the fish stocks. Vessels
would be given an allowance of fishing time, with gear, that would
depend on the state of the stocks each season.
- This should be balanced with improvements made to the design
of the gear available. Fishers need even more encouragement to
adopt nets with square mesh panels that allow small fish to escape
more easily than they can through the diamond-shaped mesh of traditional
nets. In use, diamond shaped holes close up, whereas square holes
remain open to give undersize fish a better chance to swim free.
Good progress has been made but more help is also needed to develop
horizontally divided nets that should allow some big whiting to
be caught by a net that lets most young haddock escape.
- Non-migratory fish and sessile invertebrates could reproduce
more if areas were set aside seasonally or permanently for them
to do so. It would be easy and cheap to police these sanctuaries.
- For many species stability will be better if several year classes
contribute to the breeding stock. For instance, one year's better
recruitment to the cod stocks in the North Sea was grounds for
a larger TAC. This was not biologically wise. The better reproduction
seems likely to have been due to a happy set of environmental
circumstances, rather to a stable improvement in the breeding
stock of cod.
* Adjustment of fishing
capacity
Foodaware welcomes the Commission's proposal to:
- stop granting public aid for the modernisation of the fleet,
thus the enhancement of its capacity;
- restrict aid to measures which improve safety on board and
do not involve capacity in terms of tonnage or power;
- use public money to eliminate the excess fishing capacity and
help fishermen who leave the sector find alternative employment
or retire.
The Commission's proposal provides for the possibility of setting
new parameters for fleet capacity, based on the type of fishing gear
rather than tonnage and power of fishing vessels. This possibility
must be strongly encouraged and fully used. Tonnage and power are
no more sufficient indicators of the 'fishing' efficiency of vessels
and their catching capacity. It is imperative to introduce new parameters.
With regard to licences, Foodaware advocates for a system of individual
licences that use the common resource for public as well as private
ends. Most boats are now owned by the people who work in them. This
maximises individual initiative, and also competition. It means that
the money from fishing tends to be spent within the fishing community.
We believe that, to enable this system to flourish, licences should
be issued by, and revert to, decentralised licensing bodies. Consumers
should be represented on these bodies, to ensure, for instance, that
no cartel is permitted. These bodies would give preference to applicants
for licences from fishing communities with the fewest economic alternatives
to fishing. This would favour remote areas without expense to the
taxpayer. It could be achieved most efficiently by licensed fishers
from a given community having first, but not sole, priority in the
allocation of the quotas in marines near to them. The special requirements
of fishers depending on more mobile pelagic species could be accommodated
by arrangements to swap quota allocations.
* Access to waters and
resources
The Commission proposes that current restrictions on the right to
fish within the 12-mile limit, which is limited to access for vessels
from adjacent ports or to vessels from other Member States should
continue beyond 31 December 2002. These provisions have reduced fishing
pressure in the most biologically-sensitive areas of the sea and provided
economic stability for small-scale fishing activity.
* Community control and
enforcement system
There is a serious weakness in controls and a high level of fraud
and disrespect of the legislation in the area of fisheries. This is
sometimes due to Member States’ own policy of poor implementation
of the legislation. In addition, sanctions are unequally applied throughout
the EU.
The Commission's proposal to create a Joint Inspection Structure to
pool the EU and national means and resources for control purposes
is strongly welcomed. The EU must make sure that such a structure
will benefit from appropriate resources and political support to function
effectively and efficiently. The result of the controls must be transparent
and made available to the public.
Any measures contributing the reduction of opportunities to commit
infringements, such as extending the use of new technologies to smaller
vessels are welcomed.
Finally, Foodaware supports the proposal to sanction Member States
which fail to comply with their obligations. The failure of some Member
States to apply the Community regulations have contributed to the
problem we face today; this can no longer be tolerated. Foodaware
calls on the EU Council and the EU Member States to adopt a responsible
attitude and privilege long-term, global and sustainability interests,
rather than locally-oriented, short-sighted positions.
* Decision-making and
consultation
Consumers must be seen as important stakeholders in the decision-making
and management processes. They want to have their voice heard at all
stages of the CFP. The way they are consulted today and the possibilities
they are offered to contribute in the development of the CFP are largely
insufficient. More consumers should sit in bodies such as the EU advisory
committee on fisheries, or the UK regional advisory councils. At EU
level, one consumer representative sits among a committee made up
of representatives of the fisheries sector and fishing trade. His
participation unfortunately can to often only be symbolic.
October 2002
|
|
