Memorandum by Oceana
INTRODUCTION
1. Founded in 2001, Oceana is an international
non governmental organisation dedicated to researching, protecting
and restoring the world's oceans. Teams of marine scientists,
economists, policy specialists and other experts work together
to campaign to tackle destructive fishing practices and marine
pollution. Current fisheries campaigns include eliminating illegal
driftnets from the Mediterranean Sea, advocating for a ban on
discards and reduction of by-catches in the EU, developing and
implementing effective measures for shark conservation and establishing
global rules on subsidies at the WTO.
2. Oceana is active in many European countries
and in the European institutions and has staff based in Brussels
and Madrid. The organisation also works on and under the ocean
with its research catamaran, the Oceana Ranger, where teams of
divers and scientists record and compile extensive field research
data to support its policy work.
THE 2002 REVIEW
OF THE
CFP
3. The so-called reviewed "CFP Framework
Regulation" (2371/2002), was the result of long negotiations
and compromises between the EU Member States. As a result, the
Regulation did not fully match the ambitions that the European
Commission set out to achieve when it launched the reform process.
However, the Regulation does set out commitments for Member States,
including finding a balance between fishing capacity and resources.
It also provided the European Union with potential legal tools
to develop a fisheries management framework capable of improving
the situation of fish stocks, the marine environment and fishing
communities in the European Union, such as the implementation
of management and recovery plans.
4. However, the Framework Regulation was
only the very beginning of a long process of making European fisheries
more sustainable. Much "daughter legislation" was going
to be needed to implement the good intentions agreed by the EU
Ministers in December 2002. It is in the implementation phase
of the reviewed CFP that the situation has floundered and where
much remains to be done.
5. The recent Court of Auditors Report on
the control, inspection and sanctions systems relating to the
rules on conservation of Community fisheries resources corroborates
what Oceana and other NGOs have been highlighting for a number
of years: that the CFP is failing to find the solutions to the
chronic problems in European fisheries. It is widely acknowledged
that over 80% of stocks evaluated by ICES are overexploited, that
the EU fleet is 40% too large for available resources, that subsidies
continue to fuel overfishing; that significant quantities of unwanted
or non quota fish continue to be discarded or illegally marketed;
that illegal fishing is still rife in the European Union.
6. Exhaustive answers to all the questions
raised by the Committee could fill many pages. Therefore the Oceana
comments will focus on those areas where we have active campaigns
and have conducted research and investigation work.
CONSERVATION AND
MANAGEMENT
Scientific Advice
7. The most recent advice from the International
Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) to the European
Commission pointed out that of the EU stocks it assessed only
13 are exploited in a sustainable manner while 28 are outside
safe biological limits and 18 were in such a bad state that the
advice was for zero catches. No reliable advice can be presented
for 56 stocks because of incomplete scientific evaluation due
to poor availability of data. This means that three quarters of
the stocks with enough scientific coverage are at least outside
safe biological limits and that scientific advice and data collection
should be reinforced. Moreover, Oceana analysis has discovered
that over the last 20 years ICES has provided more than 1,500
pieces of advice to the Commission and other governments in the
North East Atlantic, of which only 350 (22%) have been respected,
whilst over 1200 have been ignored.
Sharks
8. Several hundreds of marine species are
commercialized in the EU, but less than 50 are managed, scientifically
evaluated and their exploitation limited by quotas. In the group
of unmanaged species are sharks and their relatives (skates, rays
and chimeras). 150 species are common in European waters and there
is a large and well developed shark fishery (for valuable fins,
liver, cartilage and meat) by European Union vessels both in EU
waters, in the EEZs of third countries and on the high seas. But
despite this large fishery, only very few shark species have any
kind of catch limitation. In the few cases where scientific advice
has been available, this has been disregarded. A key example is
the spurdog (Squalus acanthias), otherwise known as the
spiny dogfish, which is heavily targeted for its meat to satisfy
the constant European demand, especially in the UK, Germany, Belgium,
France and Italy. Years of overfishing, particularly that of aggregations
of pregnant females, have made the Northeast Atlantic stock one
of the most depleted in the world. The UK, France, and Ireland
are the main countries targeting spurdog in the Northeast Atlantic
through various bottom trawl, line and gillnet fisheries; landings
are also common from the Scottish demersal trawl fleet. The IUCN
Red List classifies this species as Critically Endangered in the
Northeast Atlantic. Despite an ICES recommendation for a zero
TAC and a reduction of by-catch to the lowest possible levels
in all areas of the NE Atlantic, the recent by-catch TAC adopted
for 2008 was fixed at 2635 tons. Oceana is recommending that scientific
advice should be followed and a recovery plan established for
this and other threatened shark species as part of the current
development of an EU Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management
of Sharks, which is due to be published by the Commission before
the end of 2008.
9. Oceana's shark campaign is also working
to strengthen the EU Shark Finning Regulation (1185/2003), which
aimed to stop the process of removing sharks fins and discarding
the less valuable carcasses. This Regulation is worth highlighting
here as it is a good example of where an agreed legislation, following
much compromise, leads to complicated Regulations that are almost
impossible to control and enforce. The removal of shark fins on
board vessels is allowed in some cases and a "fin to carcass"
ratio is used to prevent the discarding of the carcass. The ratio
implies that the amount of shark fins removed on board and landed
cannot exceed 5% of the weight of the whole sharks landed. This
already complicated ratio system is further complicated by another
loophole which allows fishermen to land shark fins and carcasses
in different ports, making the current regulation over-complicated,
unenforceable and unworkable. A simple solution would be to remove
the derogation allowing fins to be removed on board and requiring
sharks to be landed with their fins attached.
Discards
10. Discards are the portion of the animal
catch that is thrown away at sea. Although data on discards are
hard to come by, it is estimated that at least 1.3 million tons
of marine organisms are discarded in European waters every year,
12% of the catch. In some fisheries discards rates of up to 90%
have been recorded.
11. As well as being a waste of fisheries
resources, discards also hinder the implementation of effective
management measures for sustainable fisheries since discards volumes
are rarely reported and thus represent an unknown portion of biomass
which is extracted from the sea. As scientists do not receive
information about what is really being taken, the models used
for evaluating the state of fishing grounds become dubious or
even erroneous.
12. The reasons for discarding are various,
but can be the result of legal constraints under the current Common
Fisheries Policy. For example, the fish caught may be below the
legal minimum size or the allocated fishing quota may have been
reached. However, other discards are economic in nature: organisms
may be thrown back because they have no commercial value or also
because they have commercial value but less than that of other
specimens caught (high grading).
13. This issue of discarding fish has been
a highly criticized element of the CFP for many years. An earlier
attempt to tackle the issue taken by the Commission in 2002 was
not developed and now the Commission has published its plans for
a radical overhaul of the system and aims to gradually implement
a ban on discards in the EU, supported by other complementary
measures.
14. Oceana supports the implementation of
a discards ban on a fishery by fishery basis, accompanied by supplementary
measures relevant to the fishery concerned such as the improvement
of gear selectivity, real-time closures, and an obligation to
change fishing grounds. Such a radical change of policy would
have considerable short term consequences on the sector, but it
is an essential measure to achieve long term sustainability of
fisheries. It should be remembered that the key aim of a ban on
discards is to eventually reduce by-catches to as close to zero
as possible, meaning that a vessel targeting a species would on
the whole only be landing the target species.
CONTROL AND
ENFORCEMENT
15. Oceana agrees with the recommendations
in the Court of Auditors Report on the control, inspection and
sanctions systems relating to the rules on conservation of Community
fisheries resources. The lack of effective control and enforcement
mechanisms means that rules can be and are often flouted and this
often undermines the effectiveness of other measures taken to
implement sustainable fisheries in the EU.
Illegal Use of Driftnets by EU vessels
16. Oceana has been campaigning to eliminate
illegal driftnets from the European Union for a number of years.
Its research and observations have highlighted a number of issues
of relevance to the issues of illegal fisheries, control and enforcement.
17. Since Regulation 894/97, amended by
Regulation 1239/98, came into effect in 2002 the use of driftnets
of more than 2.5km length or for the capture of certain pelagic
species is banned in EU waters and for any EU flagged vessel.
More than five years later this destructive fishing gear is still
used in the Mediterranean. During its 2007 driftnet campaign in
ports and on the water Oceana found 69 French driftnet vessels
using the illegal driftnets locally called thonaille and 84 Italian
driftnet vessels. These vessels were targeting bluefin tuna and
swordfish. Moreover, among the vessels observed in 2007 with illegal
driftnets on board, 18 of them had already been denounced by Oceana
to the authorities for using driftnets in 2006.
18. Apart from the fact that the observed
vessels were using illegal fishing gear, further findings include:
swordfish and bluefin tuna catches and landings of both the Italian
and French fleets were apparently not all declared to ICCAT and
the EU, although this is a legal requirement; moreover in the
case of a number of Italian driftnet vessels, landings and sales
take place illegally and completely outside any formal management
structure. Also a large number of Italian vessels using illegal
driftnets had received European fishing subsidies to assist in
the reconversion away from driftnet fishing during the FIFG funding
period 2000-06 and continue to fish with this gear.
19. In order to eliminate this illegal activity
Oceana has recommended:
— Improving the cross checking of information
between relevant administrations and Regional Fisheries Management
Organisations—transparency in information between actors
involved must be put in place and is an essential measure for
control improvement.
— Development of an effective and deterrent
sanction system.
— Implementation of a system of reimbursement
of subsidies received in the event of infringement of the rules.
— Adequate control in ports is a key
issue, both in terms of fishing gears and landings.
— Improved mechanisms should be put
in place to oblige Member States to ensure coherence of national
legislation with the EU Regulations. For example recent French
decrees allowing the use of thonaille—considered an illegal
gear at the EU level—highlight the lack coherence that can
arise between national and European level rules.
STRUCTURAL POLICY
20. Finding a balance between fleet capacity
and available resources would be a major step forward to achieving
sustainable fisheries in Europe. Many of the problems that arise
in our waters result from overcapacity of the European fleet.
Unfortunately to date, a solution has not been found. Despite
some measures in place to help Member States reduce capacity in
their fleets (eg, public funding, capacity ceilings), if capacity
is reducing at all, it is reducing at such a low rate that this
is being "overtaken" by so-called technological creep—ie
reductions are more than compensated for by the improvements in
technology which make it possible to catch more fish per unit
of effort.
European Fisheries Fund
21. The European Fisheries Fund (EFF) contains
measures that are an improvement on the previous instrument, the
Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG). As well as
no longer supporting subsidies for construction and export of
capacity overseas, it also places more value on sustainability
and environmental measures. However, the EFF contains elements
that could encourage an increase in fishing capacity.
22. Fleet modernisation is still supported
under the EFF, in the guise of public funding for replacing engines.
At a time of chronic overcapacity in the EU fleet and considering
the increased fishing potential (technological creep) associated
with vessel modernization, this measure is likely to increase
pressure on fish stocks and is unacceptable. Subsidies under the
EFF should be targeted at adapting the EU fleet to resources,
with the phasing out of unselective fishing techniques (ie certain
trawling methods) as a priority.
23. It is also essential that other environmentally
damaging subsidies are eliminated, such as fuel subsidies provided
by Member States. These subsidies increase the fishing sectors
dependence on state assistance rather than assisting in the long
term restructuring of the sector.
WTO- level discussions on subsidies
24. According to a report by the University
of British Columbia (Sumaila and Pauly, 2006), global fisheries
subsidies amount to an estimated US$30 to US$34 billion annually.
Of these they estimate that about US$2.5 billion is received by
the European fisheries sector. However, it is difficult to provide
more than an estimate as subsidies can take many forms such as
assistance with social security, tax exemptions, grants and are
also provided by many different authorities. Not all subsidies
can be considered as "harmful" and fuel overfishing,
but the vast majority drive increased and intensified fishing.
25. Concerns about the decline in world
fish populations and the relationship of subsidies to overcapacity
and overfishing led to the inclusion of fisheries subsidies in
the current WTO Doha trade round. The Doha round negotiations
represent a good opportunity to address the fisheries subsidies
issue on a global scale. The draft text currently being negotiated
contains a strong prohibition on subsidies that increase overcapacity
and overfishing, including subsidies for vessel construction and
operating costs.
26. A broad prohibition of fisheries subsidies
is the only approach that will effectively help curtail global
overfishing. To the extent that some subsidies are not prohibited,
they should remain subject to WTO review and disciplines to check
against risks that they might cause unforeseen increases in capacity
or fishing effort. In addition, stronger provisions on notification
and review of subsidies would increase transparency and help ensure
that subsidies are consistent with resource sustainability objectives.
27. Since there would be a transition period
for the implementation of any potential agreement once it came
into effect, the current EFF would not be affected until 2011
or 2012 at the earliest. The text, as it currently stands, would
affect a number of areas covered by Community legislation, notably
engine modernisation, fishing infrastructure, support for the
fish processing industry (including fuel, income and price subsidies)
and, to a certain extent, the indirect subsidies provided to the
fisheries sector via the conclusion of Fisheries Partnership Agreements
with third countries. Therefore any WTO agreement would "tie
in" the European Union to eliminate those subsidies that
contribute to increase fishing pressure and would ensure that
other capacity enhancing subsidies could not be introduced either.
GOVERNANCE
28. Over the past years, the awareness and
knowledge of the crisis facing European fisheries has increased
greatly. However, this increased awareness has not adequately
been translated into policy changes to lead European Fisheries
on the road to recovery. The momentum that surrounded the CFP
reform in 2002 has somewhat diminished. The reasons are numerous
and varied, but a few observations should be noted here. Vested
interests in the fisheries sector continue to lobby hard for a
maintenance of the status quo; Member State governments are reluctant
to take decisions that will have a short term effect on fisheries
dependent communities despite any long term benefits that could
be achieved; the European institutional bodies and national governments
continue to consider this issue of "fisheries" as not
in their domain which has the effect leaving policy and decision-making
in the hands of a restricted group of people.
29. Regional Advisory Councils (RACs), established
by Regulation 2371/2002 are at various stages of development,
with some up and running effectively and others still being developed.
Although Oceana does not sit on any RACs, one clear issue does
arise that would need to be resolved if any decision-making power
was given to these bodies. Environmental organisations only hold
very few seats on RACs, hence environmental views will always
be in a minority, with the fishing sector's opinion always being
in the majority. This lack of balance is inevitably reflected
in opinions published by the RACs.
28 February 2008
| 
