CSOs comment on access conditions for EU fleets fishing outside FPAs

One issue CFFA and other NGOs insisted on in the context of the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, was the need for the EU to ensure all its external fleets respect similar sustainability conditions, including those fishing outside FPAs and RFMOs. Such concern was taken into account in the reformed basic regulation, and the process is now advancing a step further with the revision of the Fishing Authorisations regulation (FAR). Prior to the publication of its review proposal, the EC has organised a consultation, for which Civil Society organisations active in the Long Distance Regional Advisory Committee (LDRAC) have sent joint preliminary comments 

(click here to see the comments).

 8 organisations, including NGOs (Bread For the World, CFFA, Danish Living Seas, Oceana, Seas At Risk, SSNC, WWF) and the trade union ETF insisted that the FAR should ensure that key sustainability rules agreed in the reformed CFP, - in particular the restoration of marine biological resources-, and those specified in binding international agreements, are implemented for all EU flagged vessels fishing outside EU waters. These organisations then make comments and proposals to address, in the FAR review process, the following specific issues: 

•  Abusive reflagging: 

•  The lack of transparency in private arrangements: 

•  The need to ensure that social legislation is properly applied: 

•  The need to monitor private arrangements 

•  Coherence and compliance with Control Regulation, IUU Regulation and Regulation on countries allowing unsustainable fishing

The European Parliament ambitious for the future EU fisheries relations with third countries

The European parliament voted on February 6th 2013 on its report concerning the future CFP legislation (the ‘basic regulation’). The final report was supported by an important majority of parliamentarians (502 in favor; 137 against – a qualified majority is 377). This means that the Parliament is in a relatively strong position to now go and discuss with the Council and EC to get a final agreement about what the future fisheries policy will look like.

In a briefing note, CFFA highlights the elements of the report that will affect the future EU fisheries relations with third countries (click here for CFFA note), whether they are related to future Sustainable Fishing Agreements (SFAs), fishing operations taking place under RFOs or outside the framework of SFAs and RFOs. Important progress are also registered in terms of good governance, transparency in particular.

The European Parliament ambitious for the future EU fisheries relations with third countries

 The European parliament voted on February 6th 2013 on its report concerning the future CFP legislation (the ‘basic regulation’). The final report was supported by an important majority of parliamentarians (502 in favor; 137 against – a qualified majority is 377). This means that the Parliament is in a relatively strong position to now go and discuss with the Council and EC to get a final agreement about what the future fisheries policy will look like.

In a briefing note, CFFA highlights the elements of the report that will affect the future EU fisheries relations with third countries (click here for CFFA note), whether they are related to future Sustainable Fishing Agreements (SFAs), fishing operations taking place under RFOs or outside the framework of SFAs and RFOs. Important progress are also registered in terms of good governance, transparency in particular.

Small scale fisheries take priority in the discussions on the CFP reform

On the 22nd of November 2012, MEPs supported an initiative on small-scale and coastal fishing tabled by MEP João Ferreira, member of the PECH Committee. According to this resolution, small-scale fisheries are in a critical situation because the resource crisis has a greater impact on these small-sized businesses, which currently represent about three quarters of the EU fishing fleet (65 000 boats). A recent European Parliament study showed that small-scale fleets create about 55 % of all jobs on board fishing vessels, while producing just 27 % of the total value of the landings. Employment has declined by 10 to 30 % between 2000 and 2010. The Parliament asks for a fisheries policy that takes account of the specific characteristics of the small-scale fleets. This includes relative high job creation, and mostly fishing with passive gear. The few female workers in fisheries are generally employed in the small-scale segment. In its resolution the Parliaments asks for specific measures for preferential access to fish resources, fleet management, public aid, and market measures.

In its proposals for the CFP reform, the Commission confirms the importance of the small-scale fisheries in Europe. They are likely to benefit the most from a reformed fisheries policy based on a clear and time-bound obligation to manage stocks at MSY levels and to eliminate discards. The reform package contains an increased the number of measures that are specifically useful for small-scale fisheries, in particular access to funding under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF). Small-scale vessels can also expect a higher aid intensity (75 % instead of 50 %) under the EMFF. As for the financial allocation of funds to Member States, the share of small-scale fleets in the wider national fleet is an important parameter for increasing the financial allocation. The European Parliament’s resolution will further boost the profile of small-scale fisheries during the next debates on the CFP reform.

Sources : Press release : http://ec.europa.eu/information_soc... Study on the subject by the EU Parliament : http://www.europarl.europa.eu/commi...

Joint NGO response to the Commission consultation on future role and composition of Advisory Councils (ACs)

A number of environmental and developmental NGOs, active in one or more of the Regional Advisory Councils (RACs/ACs), elaborated a joint document providing some propositions to be included in the debate about regionalisation and the future ACs in the context of CFP reform. The document highlights the key role of RACs in terms of sharing information, seeking stakeholder advice in fisheries management and providing a great opportunity for resolving conflicts, enhancing dialogue and understanding between different stakeholders. It should however remain an advisory body. The main concern about regionalisation is that it would extend the role of RACs and increase its workload. Few issues are raised regarding the rules and tasks of ACs. On financial aspects, first, considering the funding, there should be no changes but the Commission should consider increasing ACs funding if the workload due to regionalisation increases. Secondly, some suggestions regarding how to have fair membership fees according to the size and financial capacity of the member organisations are suggested.

On the matter of participation/representation, the current stakeholder mix in the RACs needs to be reviewed, both in terms of overall structure (1/3 and 2/3) and in terms of in which members belong to which group Representation and participation rules should be enhanced, redressing the balance of different interests groups. Indeed, large-scale sector interests in the RACs should be balanced with small-scale fisheries interests. Plus, trade unions should clearly be classed as sector representatives and women’s networks were already defined as part of the ‘fisheries sector’ in the Council Decision of 2004. The document proposes therefore 3 new participation/representation schemes, with the advantages and setbacks of each proposition. The second proposition suggests that, in regions where the small-scale fishing interests (including catching, processing and marketing operations) represent an important part of the sector, the current division of seats is revised to instead consist of 1) 1/3 for representatives of fisheries sector 2) 1/3 for representatives of small-scale and coastal fishing interests, anglers and women’s networks, and 3) 1/3 for representatives of other interest groups. This will require an agreement on a definition of small-scale fisheries. The advantage is that the representation would be better balanced, as no stakeholder group would be overly dominating. Such a division would also help secure better representation of small-scale fishing interests (the majority of the EU fishing sector in number of people). However, it could be difficult to determine which group stakeholders belong in.

Regarding the international dimension, in order to get better prepared for international meetings, it is suggested that RACs receive well in advance all the relevant and necessary information. Regarding the LDRAC (LDAC), a delegation of stakeholders should participate to international fora meetings and EU bilateral negociations of fisheries agreements. The LDRAC should play an active role in facilitating a dialogue between EU and third countries, including third country stakeholders, on issues arising from SFAs, RFMOs, private arrangements/chartering and, when appropriate, international fora discussions. The lack of a formal process for consultation of developing third country stakeholders (sector and NGOs) is also a challenge to be addressed. Moreover, in order to improve participation by these countries’ stakeholders, the impacts of EU operations on the concerns and interests of third countries should be better reflected in key documents such as the FPAs (SFAs) evaluations. The EU should certainly also promote third country (and EU) stakeholder consultation by RFMOs.

See the report send to DG MARE in joint document

CFFA welcomes the adoption of the ACP-EU JPA declaration on the CFP reform

CFFA welcomes the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA) declaration on the Common Fisheries Policy reform and its impact on ACP countries, adopted in Horstens (Denmark), on May 30th 2012. The declaration rightly puts the emphasis on the need to put good governance at the heart of the ACP-EU Fisheries relations.

Fisheries Agreements reform: The EU must act in a coherent manner for sustainable fisheries

In a document published at the occasion of the first exchange of views between European parliamentarians on the CFP external dimension reform, on 25 January 2012, CFFA demands the EU ’to address, in a clear and coherent manner, the complexity of EU-developing countries fisheries relations (access to resources, access to markets, investments, etc). The EU needs to develop a framework which will ensure that all the components of fisheries relations with developing countries contribute to sustainable fisheries.

To this end, the EU should develop Sustainable Fisheries Development Partnerships, which sole objective should be to create a favorable environment, in the third developing country concerned, for environmentally, socially and economically sustainable operations, in line with the objectives of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible fisheries.

In the particular case where EU flagged and EU owned vessels are fishing in developing countries waters, good governance agreements should be signed between the EU and the coastal country concerned. Such agreement will stipulate the conditions under which EU operators can undertake fishing activities in the third countries concerned, ensuring these activities are in line with the third countries initiatives and efforts undertaken through the sustainable fisheries partnerships.

Some specific issues are also addressed in the document: 1. The case of tuna 2. The need for EU investments in developing countries sustainable fisheries 3. Support to Small scale fisheries 4. Improving transparency and accountability

CFP Reform: Good Governance issues

On October 5th 2011, CFFA organised, with some of its partners, a workshop in the European Parliament, on good governance issues in the reform of the CFP external dimension. The workshop was attended by about 60 participants, including representatives from the European Commission, members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and staff, members of the African parliamentary network APPEL, representatives from EU and ACP Member States, from EU and African fishing organisations platforms , trade unions, fish traders, and NGOs.

The summary report highlights the main points of agreement emerging from the debate, which included:

• The EU’s objectives must be to ensure all its fleets fishing outside EU waters, whether under access agreements, private licensing schemes or joint ventures, operate sustainably, from an environmental, social and economic point of view.

• The EU should also promote the establishment of a level playing field for all fishing operators from distant water fishing nations and coastal countries, whilst recognising the rights of developing countries and their coastal fishing communities to have priority access to their resources.

• The EU needs to develop stronger measures to promote transparency in the CFP, and should also take a leading role in mainstreaming transparency in fisheries, which requires supporting other governments and fisheries organisations to implement transparency measures.

• EU fisheries agreements should be reformed so that they provide a framework to control all EU fisheries-related activities in developing countries fisheries, whilst providing the necessary support to ensure all private investments made in these fisheries are transparent, and environmentally, socially and economically sustainable. The reform of the CFP external dimension must ensure that the means and mechanisms to achieve those objectives are developed and implemented.

Following the meeting, CFFA drafted a list of proposed amendments to the CFP basic regulation, related to good governance issues.

A new basis for EU agreements with ACP countries

What will change concretely? How will the activities of the EU fleets fishing outside fisheries agreements be monitored? How will the EU develop regional strategies for European fisheries relations with third-country partners? Is the ‘raise in production standards’ not likely to become a non-tariff barrier for ACP countries? How will the promotion of good governance be concretised in future agreements? Read the interview with Stefaan Depypere, Director of International Affairs and Markets, DG Mare.

OCEAN2012 initial reaction to the Commission’s package on reform of the CFP

The first package on reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), published on July 13 2011, sets out the Commission’s ambitions for the reform, including a proposal for a new Basic Regulation, a proposal for a new organisation of the market and a communication on the external dimension. The package includes some significant improvements, but is not the radical reform proposal that we expected.

This reform offers a unique opportunity to recover the wellbeing of our seas and fishing-dependent communities. The CFP should end overfishing, reduce damage to ecosystems, and rebuild a European Union fishing sector that is environmentally sustainable and socially, as well as economically, viable. Only such a fisheries policy will guarantee Europe’s consumers a rich variety of responsibly and locally caught fish in the future.

Now that some of the reform proposals have been published, it will be up to the European Parliament and the Fisheries Council to ensure that the CFP achieves healthy fish stocks and contributes towards achieving good environmental status for EU waters according to the 2008 Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Only through stock recovery can the CFP deliver a secure future for fish, fishing communities, and consumers alike.

OCEAN2012 Briefing

No Increase in Blind Spending: NGOs and OCEAN2012 oppose an increase in de minimis aid

Selected Members of the EU Parliament are calling for an increase of possible de minimis aid to the fisheries sector, mainly to provide fuel subsidies to the fishing sector at a time of rising fuel prices. This is in strong contradiction with the EU’s commitment to eliminate environmentally harmful subsidies but, more importantly, granting more public money to the fisheries sector without a clear link to delivering public goods would send a perverse signal during the discussion on the new CFP.

NGOs and the OCEAN2012 coalition oppose an increase of the de minimisceiling for the following reasons:

 Increased Fishing Pressure: More than 70% of assessed European fish stocks are over-fished. While aid to operational costs could initially augment profits, it would also allow for a more intensive use of the vessels. This increase in fishing effort causes further depletion of fish stocks, decreasing catches and reduced profitability in the medium and long term. The aid is therefore not helping the fishing industry, but threatening the economic basis of fishermen and coastal communities.

 Distortion of Competition and Delay of Restructuring: a further increase to € 20.000 of de minimis per vessel and per year can make up as much as 48 % of a vessel’s annual operating costs. For most EU vessels, all fuel costs could already be paid under the existing rules. As a result, fleets from Member States that refuse to subsidise operating costs can find themselves unable to compete with fleets from Member States that do. In addition, providing aid to operating costs will not help the fisheries sector to become more sustainable. On the contrary, such subsidies will delay the much needed restructuring and prevent the European fishing sector from adapting to the new biological and economic realities they face: over-fished resources and higher oil prices.

 Under utilisation of existing aid: The EU fishing sector receives substantial amounts of aid, among others through the European Fisheries Fund (EFF). So far, most Member States have not fully taken advantage of the EFF. Overall, only 15 per cent of the available aid was used in more than half of the financial programming time. It is unclear why there is a need for an increase in de minimis aid if the existing instruments are not fully used.

 Lack of disclosure and evaluation of de minimis: No information about recipients of de minimis aid and the financed measures has been disclosed by DG MARE, preventing public scrutiny of this instrument. In 2007, the European Commission already increased the level of de minimis aid to the fishing sector by ten times, from € 3.000 to € 30.000. Before suggesting another increase, proper review of the use and the impact of de-minimis should be undertaken.

 Incoherence with Fisheries Policies: The CFP suggests the need for substantial reductions in fishing effort for stocks outside safe biological limits. Article 6(5) of the EFF specifically excludes financial support to operations which increase fishing effort. Also, guidelines for state aid require that aid must “serve to promote the rationalisation and efficiency of the production” while “improving the recipient’s income is, as operating aid, incompatible with the common market”.

 Other Policy Incoherencies: Increasing fisheries subsidies, including for fuel, when the EU itself highlights the need to phase out environmentally harmful subsidies is counterproductive. It will also not help meeting the objectives of the EU 2020 Strategy, the Kyoto Protocol, or the 2002 WSSD objective to phase out fisheries subsidies contributing to overcapacity. Last but not least, increasing fisheries subsidies at the time of general cutbacks in government spending, and following pledges by the G-20 leaders to phase out fuel subsidies and agreement by WTO members to bring fisheries subsidies within WTO disciplines is counter to current international thinking and likely to undermine EU’s leadership in ongoing negotiation processes.

We strongly urge the European Parliament not to support any calls for increase of the level of de minimis aid to the European fisheries sector. Taxpayers’ money should not be spent in a way that undermines the objectives of the CFP, further increases the pressure on already over-fished stocks, delays the necessary restructuring of the EU fisheries sector, distorts competition among Member States and undermines fundamental EU positions in international reform processes.

Joint position on de minimis aid

OCEAN2012 position on the elimination of discards in EU waters and for EU fishing activities in third countries waters

The main questionable fishing practices that result in discarding are:

 Fishing with unselective gear, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, thereby catching a high amount of unwanted by-catch; 
 Catching over quota or undersized fish, or catching protected species; and 
 High-grading (improving quality of landings by throwing out lower value catch before entering port).

A number of policy approaches have been listed by the fishing sector as encouraging the wasteful practice of discarding:

 The setting of landing quota in a mixed fishery without the allocation of bycatch quota; 
 The bycatch rules (limiting bycatch to a certain percentage of the catch of your target species); 
 Minimum landing sizes; 
 Effort (days at sea) management.

The CFP reform offers an excellent opportunity to establish new policies that will address the discard problem. What follows are policy recommendations of OCEAN2012 for the elimination of discards under a reformed CFP:

1. It is vital that unwanted catches are avoided in the first place. OCEAN2012 insists that EU policy needs to effectively respond to the range of by-catch problems, including juveniles, endangered and protected species, as well as addressing the two main reasons for discarding: high-grading and the dumping of unwanted (over quota, illegal and uneconomic) catches.

2. OCEAN2012 supports the principle of a discard ban, as it would move the focus of management measures from landings to catches and thereby to overall fishing mortality. By making "no discards" the norm, any discarding then requires adequate justification (e.g. high survival potential).

3. The purpose of a discard ban is to avoid the unnecessary wastage of throwing marketable fish overboard due to lack of quota; not to provide opportunities for new markets that utilize discards of unwanted or unsustainable catches (e.g. undersized fish). Operators should receive compensation, equal to a small percentage of the value of the unmarketable landed catch, as is the case in Norway and New Zealand.

4. In order to ensure that biomass is removed from the sea in a quality and quantity that ensures sustainable exploitation and good environmental status of the marine environment in the long term, fishing mortality rates have to be set according scientific advice, following the precautionary approach as defined by the UN Fish Stocks agreement, and the ecosystem-based approach.

5. To avoid unsustainable biomass removal from the seas, quota management under a discard ban needs to transition from landing quotas to true catch quotas. All caught fish needs to be counted against quota. By-catch quota needs to be set according to biological parameters, in the same way as catch quota, and mixed fisheries management must be on the basis of protecting the weakest stock.

6. To avoid unnecessary biomass removal, fishing should be regulated at the appropriate (e.g. regional) level, in line with fishing seasons, promoting the use of multiple gears during the year, restricting gears that impact both species biodiversity and habitat integrity and diversity, and applying zoning measures that address both inter-gear/inter-sector conflicts and overfishing (be it recruitment, non-target species, or growth overfishing).

7. Under a discard ban, Minimum Landing Sizes (MLS) need to be replaced by Minimum Marketing Sizes (MMS). MMS need to be at least the same size as current MLS. However, any revision should respect biological constraints to avoid opening up new markets for undersized fish and should still provide a disincentive for the capture of small immature fish.

8. Incentives should be provided to ensure compliance with a discard ban. These could be in the form of providing preferential access to fish resources to those fishing in the most sustainable way, i.e. those meeting certain environmental and social criteria.

9. Enforcement will be equally crucial in the implementation of a discard ban. Onboard observer programmes will play an important role in the success of the policy. In cases where observer coverage may be impractical (i.e. small-scale vessels), the possibility to implement other observer techniques (such as cameras) to achieve fully documented fisheries should be fully investigated. Monitoring and enforcement measures must be imposed consistently across all Member States and fleets.

10. Special attention should be given to how measures to counter by-catch can be "translated" to apply to EU fleets fishing in the waters of third countries. As a priority, the emphasis should be on the need to promote selective fishing and to ban destructive fishing practices. This is particularly important in the coastal zone of tropical countries, where wasteful and destructive practices directly affect local coastal communities, who depend on fishing for their livelihoods.

11. In the case of the EU distant water fleet, OCEAN2012 advocates that the use of the most selective fishing gears should be a pre-requisite condition for participation in fishing under Fisheries Partnership Agreements (FPAs). The EU should initiate the inclusion of the issue of discarding in the negotiations for FPAs. Third countries also need to be convinced of the necessity to introduce measures to stop the waste of their resources.

OCEAN2012 position on the elimination of discards

Letter to Mr. Barosso on elimination of environmentally harmful subsidies

Brussels, March 17, 2011 – 89 European and international organisations, including CFFA, have called on President Barroso to honour the Commission commitment to end environmentally harmful subsidies.

In 2006 the EU committed to defining a roadmap for the removal of environmentally damaging subsidies by 2008. The European Commission reiterated this commitment in 2007. And in 2010 the Europe 2020 Strategy stressed the need to phase out environmentally harmful subsidies. This is in addition to numerous calls by EU heads of state and the European Parliament for the phasing out of environmentally harmful subsidies.

“We are really concerned that the European Commission is failing to develop a roadmap for the abolishment of environmentally harmful subsidies. It is ignoring its own commitment and the requests of both the Parliament and Council.” said the letter. “It is nonsensical that in this day and age public funds are still being used to subsidise activities that are damaging the environment on which we all depend.”

Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy and Common Agricultural Policy are advancing without any obvious analysis of the environmental effects of the massive subsidies handed out in these sectors.

“The EU is reforming both the Common Fisheries Policy and the Common Agricultural Policy. How can we know these two policies will be supporting sustainable sectors if there is no assessment of the potential environmental harm of these subsidies?”

Letter to Barosso on Harmful Subsidies

Who should have the right to fish?

"Who should have the right to fish?" A question from the Greens in the European Parliament", new GREENS-EFA leaflet on the CFP reform.

Maria Damanaki’s letter on discards

In her letter dated February 15 2011, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Commissioner Maria Damanaki thanks the members of the OCEAN2012 coalition for their position on eliminating discards by EU fishing activities in EU and third country waters.

Policy Coherence for Development and Fisheries

The principle of coherence was introduced by the 1992 Maastricht Treaty. It introduced an obligation on the EC to consider the impact of all its policies (including fisheries) on the stated objectives of its development policy.

This notion has been mentionned several times during the parliamentary hearing on Fisheries Partnership Agreement, on November 17 in Brussels. We feel it is necessary to remind what is meant by policy coherence for development and how it is currently being applied in fisheries.

Policy Coherence for Development and Fisheries

The benefits and limits of transparency

The European Union is currently reforming its Common Fisheries Policy. Initial discussions suggest the issue of improving transparency and accountability in EU fisheries will be taken seriously, with specific recommendations being made on introducing transparency and anti-corruption clauses in EU Fisheries Partnership Agreements signed with third countries. Such recommendations come at a time when calls for improving transparency and accountability in fisheries are gaining momentum, not only from civil society, but also from the fishing industry. The CFP therefore represents an opportunity to advance the notion of access to information and accountability in international fisheries, not only within the EU. Yet this call for improving transparency that has accompanied the CFP reform process has yet to be elaborated on, and recommendations remain vague. This paper aims at deepening the debates on how transparency can be achieved through the CFP reforms, considering both the benefits and the limitations to transparency reforms. The paper puts forward some key discussion points that could be used as the basis for the development of a coherent and thorough strategy on transparency in fisheries, driven by the EU in collaboration with partner organisations, including the fishing authorities of developing countries.

The benefits and limits of transparency

CFP reform: WWF’s recommendations for the EU external fleet

Fishing outside EU waters by EU vessels should be firmly anchored in the 2012 revision of the Common Fisheries Policy. This is to ensure consistency and clarity on the standards of behaviour for EU vessels wherever they fish.

Check out WWF’s recommendations to improve the rules that apply to EU activities, to ensure sustainable fisheries abroad.