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.