No surplus, No fishing?

In its new report, CFFA explores how the concept of surplus is integrated in the new EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) regulation. The CFP makes the concept of surplus a corner stone of EU access to third country waters through its bilateral fisheries agreements.

The EU has presented this approach as a progress achieved through the CFP reform. It is nevertheless a basic legal principle of access agreements as set up by UNCLOS since 1982, and not new to the CFP external dimension.

It has to be understood in the framework of the creation of Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ), where a Coastal States has sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing living resources of the seabed, subsoil and superjacent waters in its EEZ.

In parallel to these sovereign rights, Coastal States have the duty to assess the status of resources in their waters for management and conservation purposes, in order to allocate fishing opportunities to their how national fleets. The Coastal State has the right to allocate to foreign States the “surplus” that it cannot exploit itself.

The availability of a surplus following the determination of its harvesting capacity by the coastal State is the "raison d'être" of the conclusion of agreements granting access. Bilateral agreements between the EU and third countries, mostly African and Indian Ocean developing countries, have always been based on these rules, but not always applied by the book; in the past, we can find numerous examples where EU fleets access to third countries fisheries through bilateral access agreements were not based on the existence of a proven surplus.

Have things changed today, with the entry into force of the new Common Fisheries Policy?

EU Tuna and small pelagic fleets obliged to land 'discards' - issues for developing countries

The new EU Common Fisheries Policy has introduced a 'discard ban', to be implemented through the introduction of a 'landing obligation' of all catches.

The landing obligation will be introduced in 2015 for external fleets targetting tropical tuna and small pelagics. Details have to be precised, in a European Commission (EC) 'delegated act'.

For developing countries, important risks exist, in terms of sustainability and food safety, as well as associated costs for the implementation of the landing obligation.

In its position, CFFA demands the EC to provide clear answers, and to develop strategies, in consultation with third countries stakeholders, to address environmental sustainability and food safety issues arising from the implementation of the landing obligation.

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 

 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

Read the full preliminary comments by the NGOs of the Fishing Authorizations Regulation

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, 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.

NGOs’ briefing on CFP reform to be discussed in plenary session in the Parliament on February the 5th

With regards to the plenary vote on the future CFP Basic regulation, which will take place on February the 5th, the consolidated version of the ‘Rodust report’, as adopted by the European Parliament Fisheries committee, made some amendments to the Commission’s proposition. NGOs concerned made a briefing ‘Overfishing: you can end it!’ regarding this report and the future vote, highlighting elements to support, strengthen and reject (see briefing in joint document). CFFA wishes to insist on elements regarding external dimension.

MEPs should support: 

• The promotion of sustainable fisheries in external fisheries, as it is promoted in internal fisheries. 

• The discard ban, to be implemented in external fisheries by January 2017. The discard ban in these fisheries shouldn’t lead to massive dumping of fish by EU vessels in developing countries. Like it is the case for internal waters, the priority should be given to measures that help avoid unwanted catches in the first place. 

• The reference made to Aarhus Convention for accessing information as a very important element in terms of transparency + SFAs evaluations should be made public. 

• Also, measures to be taken, in the Common Market Organization regulation, so that internationally recognized social and environmental standards are applied to imports. 

• Improved measures related to SFAs such as an exclusivity clause to be introduced in SFAs, a human rights conditionality, the financial compensation to be used for development purpose, etc. 

• There are also several amendments supporting small scale fisheries which could be also promoted at the external level.

However, there are some issues needing further input in the basic regulation, which should be improved and then supported: 

• The need to take into account developing countries nutritional needs. Reference to article 62 (2) and 62 (3) – referring to art. 70 – of UNCLOS, which highlight this issue should be made. 

• Regarding stakeholders participation, nothing is proposed concretely for the external dimension. A new amendment 167 bis, should be added, which would call for : Delegations from the European Parliament and the Advisory Councils shall be present when SFA are negotiated. 

• Several articles deal with the covering of activities outside the scope of SFAs and RFMOs. However, what is proposed is not sufficient enough. It should be insisted on the fact that those good intentions (that EU vessels fishing outside SFAs/RFMOs must follow the same sustainability principles) will have to be adequately reflected in the conditions made for fishing authorizations (regulation 1006/2008).

At last, one element should be rejected: 

• Providing fishing opportunities for a recreational sector that opposes to be regulated under CFP should not be an objective

More information:

Read the NGOs joint position.

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

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.

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 well-being 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.

More information:

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 minimis ceiling for the following reasons:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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”.

6. 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.

More information:

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.

Dowload the pdf version.

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?”

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.

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.

Read our briefing:

Policy Coherence for Development and Fisheries