Transcript Industrial Fisheries

Progress towards an Ecosystem
Approach to Fisheries in Europe
Simon Jennings
Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science, Lowestoft
&
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
Source: ‘The Times’ 23 April 2009
European fisheries
Source: © Nations online
European fisheries
© Andy Revill
© FNI
Common Fisheries Policy
The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is the European
Union's instrument for fisheries management
The first common measures were introduced in 1970 when
it was agreed that EU fishermen should, in theory, have
equal access to Member States' waters.
Towards an EAF in Europe
Two processes
The CFP has been modified to incorporate and
deliver aspects of an EAF
The CFP has been placed in a wider policy framework
where it is expected to deliver sectoral support for an EA
Modification:
2002 reforms of the Common Fisheries Policy
Process paralleled preparatory work for WSSD and the
Reykjavik declaration
Several changes to policy consistent with an EAF were
proposed
- Increase participation of stakeholders
- Adopt a long term approach to management
- Balance resource productivity and fleet capacity
- Reduce adverse impacts on the marine ecosystem
- Achieve economic and social viability
Modification:
2002 reforms of the Common Fisheries Policy
Article 2 of the Council Regulation Nr 2371/2002
“ The CFP shall ensure exploitation of aquatic living resources
that provides sustainable economic, environmental and social
conditions ”
“ to provide for …. sustainable exploitation and to minimise the
impact of fishing activities on marine eco-systems ”
“ aim at a progressive implementation of an eco-system based
approach to fisheries management ”
Policy framework:
CFP as a contributor to the Marine Strategy
Directive and Maritime Policy
Work towards a Marine Strategy Directive also began to
gather pace in 2002- culminating in agreement on the
Marine Strategy Directive (MSD) of 2008
The Marine Strategy Directive was seen as the
environmental pillar of an overriding Maritime Policy- and
applied to all sectors
It established the framework within which member states
would aim to achieve ‘good environmental status’ of the
marine environment
Policy framework:
CFP as a contributor to the Marine Strategy
Directive and Maritime Policy
Aim of the MSD: to apply the ecosystem approach to ensure
that collective effects of human pressures were kept within
levels that achieved good environmental status
The Ecosystem Approach was central ‘Marine strategies shall
apply an ecosystem-based approach to the management of
human activities’
Policy framework:
Marine Strategy Directive
11 descriptors of Good Environmental Status
4 impacted by fisheries
Biodiversity (1)
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish (3)
Food webs (4)
Benthic habitats (6)
Policy framework:
Marine Strategy Directive
Timetable to achieve Good Environmental Status
2010 Define criteria for GES
2012 Assess current status in relation to GES
2014 Monitoring in place
2015 Measures to achieve GES in place
2020 Aim to achieve GES
Policy framework:
Marine Strategy Directive
Timetable to achieve Good Environmental Status
The EC have expressed a view about how the CFP
might contribute to the Ecosystem Approach as outlined
in the Marine Strategy Directive
Progress towards EAF
Measured in terms of whether an EAF has enabled
managers to meet the CFP objectives
Measured in terms of changes in structures, working
practices and the effectiveness of management
Progress in relation to objectives
The objectives of the CFP can be paraphrased as:
(1)
To maintain fishing mortality at or below levels that are
necessary to achieve maximum sustainable yield for all targeted
stocks
(2)
To maintain or reduce fishing impact on the ecosystem at or
below sustainable levels
(3)
To develop a viable, economically efficient and globally
competitive European fisheries and aquaculture industry
Progress in relation to objectives
e.g. objective (2) in the Mediterranean RAC
RAC area: Mediterranean
components
fish
populations
fish
communities
cephalopod
populations
cephalopod
communities
phytoplankton
populations
phytoplankton
communities
zooplankton
populations
zooplankton
communities
benthic invertebrate
populations
benthic invertebrate
communities
macrophyte
habitat
seabird
populations
mammal
populations
reptile
benthic
populations
habitat
structure
attributes
abundance
production
other functions
(specify)
Source: Analysis by Indicators for Fisheries Management in Europe project
Progress in relation to objectives
NSRAC
SWW
RAC
BSRAC
MRAC
Ecological (1, 2)
No
No
No
No
Social (3?)
? No
? No
? No
? No
Economic (3)
No
No
No
No
Objectives
Source: Analysis by Indicators for Fisheries Management in Europe project
Progress in relation to objectives
The positive news
The main issues leading to objectives not being met are few
in number
Ecological: impacts on target species, vulnerable species
and habitats
Economic and social: overcapacity
Source: Analysis by Indicators for Fisheries Management in Europe project
Progress towards an EAF:
changes in structures
Regional Advisory Councils (RAC)
Offer advice to the EC on the CFP and ensure the engagement
of stakeholders: established sequentially since 2004
RAC
North Sea
North Western Waters
Baltic Sea
South Western Waters
Mediterranean
Date
9 Nov 2004
22 Sep 2005
1 Mar 2006
4 Apr 2007
29 Aug 2008
Regulation
2004/774/EC
2005/668/EC
2006/191/EC
2007/222/EC
2008/695/EC
Pelagic
High Seas
5 Aug 2005
29 Mar 2007
2005/606/EC
2007/206/EC
Progress towards an EAF:
control of fishing mortality rates
e.g. North Sea
1.4
Fishing mortality
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
1985
1990
1995
Year
2000
2005
but, overall progress towards meeting
objectives has been slow
The main reasons are unsurprising and are well recognised
by the EC and member states
- Overcapacity
- Imprecise objectives with no guidance on tradeoffs
- Decision making system retains short term focus
- Industry not given sufficient responsibility
- Lack of political will to ensure compliance
but, progress towards an EAF and
meeting objectives has been slow
The main reasons are unsurprising and are well recognised
by the EC and member states
As we enter the review phase
leading to a 2012 revision of the CFP
The EC have a vision for 2020 as
articulated in the recent Green Paper:
Fishing communities are wealthy and thriving, environmental
status is good, fish prices are high, consumers want locally
produced fish, the CFP cheap and easy to manage,
stakeholders are fully involved in decisions and the CFP
promotes responsible fishing outside EU waters.
But will there be the political will to meet the costs
associated with moving from unprofitable, socially and
ecologically unsustainable to profitable and socially and
economically sustainable ?
Next steps: an EC view on further moves
towards an EAF and achieving GES
1.
Reduce overall fishing pressure
2.
Reduce bycatches and habitat impacts
3.
Provide protection for vulnerable species
4.
Simplified technical measures to support ERF
5.
CFP to manage fishery interactions with MPA
Source: European Commission COM (2008) 187 final
Conclusions
EAF thinking has led to changes in policy, more
clearly defined relationships among policies and
changes to management structures.
Despite progress towards longer-term regional
management, progress in meeting the management
objectives of an EAF is limited
The political system has been unwilling to meet the
high short-term costs of reducing capacity, but the
range of drivers to encourage a change is growing
Conclusions
Decisions are slow and centralised because there are
no pre-arranged agreements on the actions to take
when multiple objectives cannot be met
Management bodies need support to develop more
pre-negotiated and pre-agreed processes to support
transparent, decisive and effective management
New aspirations do not cure ineffective governance.
The performance of management in meeting
objectives depends on the weakest link