Menu

EMFF

subsidies

Stop to harmful subsidies

, ,

Fisheries Subsidies:  public funds for public good, not individual gain.

Not to help us fish more, but to help us fish better.

Brussels, 4th of October 2019

Brian O’Riordan

The Low Impact Fishers of Europe (LIFE) advocates that public funds should be used for public good, not individual gain. Fisheries and the marine environment are a public resource that need conserving within sustainable limits if fishing is to have a future. This requires giving attention to the three pillars of sustainability – the environmental as well as the social and economic dimensions. LIFE therefore urges that under the new European funding scheme for the maritime sector, that priority be given to protecting the environment and conserving fish stocks, and to supporting collective projects that contribute to social and economic sustainability of fishing communities.

In this light, LIFE agreed to be a co-signatory on a letter drafted together with environmental NGOs (available here) on fisheries subsidies and addressed to Members of the European Parliament. The European Parliament will play a determining role as co-deciders in the forthcoming “trilogue” process to adopt a new regulation for a European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF) for the period 2021 to 2027.

At the last meeting of the Fisheries (Pech) Committee of the European Parliament on October 2, the Deputies reviewed the subsidies being provided to the European fisheries sector through the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF). They also discussed the issues arising from the proposal approved under the last Parliament for subsidizing Europe’s maritime, fisheries and aquaculture sectors over the next period, 2021 to 2027, under what is to be called the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Find (EMFA). The debate comes just ahead of the next round of trilogue negotiations, through which the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers must arrive at an agreed “co-decision” on the new legislation, with the facilitation of the European Commission.

A contentious issue in the debate is the provision of subsidies for actions that contribute to overcapacity, overfishing or Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing. Since 2005 the World Trade Organisation (WTO) has been mandated to negotiate the ending of certain forms of fisheries subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing. Following the Rio + 20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in 2012, and the subsequent development of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the WTO is now focussed on delivering SDG 14.6. This commits States to: “by 2020, prohibit certain forms of fisheries subsidies which contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, and eliminate subsidies that contribute to IUU fishing, and refrain from introducing new such subsidies.”

For this reason, in its 2018 proposal on the EMFF (now EMFAF) post 2020, the European Commission listed as ineligible, subsidies for “operations that increase the fishing capacity of a fishing vessel or support the acquisition of equipment that increases the ability of a fishing vessel to find fish” and for “the construction and acquisition of fishing vessels or the importation of fishing vessels, unless otherwise provided for in this Regulation”.

In the European Parliament’s proposal, subsidies may be used for “the purpose of improving the safety or the working or living conditions of the crew which includes corrections to vessel stability, or the quality of the product,” provided that any increase in capacity “is within the limit allocated to the Member State concerned, without jeopardising the balance between fishing capacity and available fishing opportunities and without increasing the ability of the fishing vessel concerned to catch fish.”

Such a proposal is very much in line with the ILO Work in Fishing Convention, C.188, and as such supported by both vessel owners and trade unions. Thanks to their efforts, key provisions of ILO C.188 became EU law in December 2016 through Council Directive 2017/159. Member States must comply with this by November 15 2019. Subsidizing safety and decent conditions is also in line with efforts to make the fishing sector more attractive to the younger generation. But there is a fine line between increasing fishing capacity on the one hand and improving safety and working and living conditions on board on the other. Should public money be used for improving safety and working conditions if this also increases fishing capacity? Would such a provision undermine the EU’s credibility at the WTO negotiations to prohibit harmful subsidies contributing to overcapacity, overfishing and illegal fishing by 2020, in line with Sustainable Development Goal 14.6?

Also of contention is whether or not fishers should be compensated for the temporary closure of fisheries which force them to tie up their vessels. Such forced closures mean that their livelihoods are curtailed, and if closures are protracted this can mean the demise and death of their businesses. Once such small enterprises fail, there is no bringing them back.

However, small-scale fishers, as self-employed entrepreneurs are not eligible for unemployment benefit during such closures. Neither are they eligible nor have they asked for subsidies to compensate them for their loss of earnings during such closures. They would much prefer to be working at sea than to be unemployed ashore. They therefore agree with NGOs that loss of earnings should not be compensated for by European subsidies. They are open to suggestions and assistance to enable them to pursue viable alternatives, and to diversify. LIFE advocates that such closures, and any short-term alternatives to fishing, need to part and parcel of National level action plans for small-scale low impact coastal fishing, outlined in the Commission’s proposal.

Such action plans would provide the basis for investing in the sustainability of the sector and to improve its profitability. In 2017 the small-scale fleets of five Member States suffered gross losses and in nine Member States net losses, as reported by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee (STECF 2019 AER Report). This compares to 3 and 5 respectively for larger scale fishing activities. The STECF also notes that the viability of small-scale fishery enterprises is far more dependent of value addition, making market access a key factor for profitability. Small-scale fishers have to sell their fish on the same markets used large scale fishing activities, where the quality, especially freshness, may be very different. All too often, the bulk landings of the larger scale-scale sector drag down prices on the market, making it difficult for small scale operations to make a living.

LIFE therefore advocates that support be provided to small scale fishers to organize themselves and to establish Producer Organizations (POs). Such POs would both secure their access to resources through quota reallocation schemes supported by the EMFF, and to markets. Small-scale fishers see no point in investing in new vessels or in improving their vessels if their lack of access to resources and markets undermines the viability of their businesses. Rather they would like to see investments in actions that secure their future; actions which secure sustainable access to resources and access to markets. Small-scale fishers don’t want to fish more, they want to fish better, prioritizing quality over quantity.

Reporting on the current implementation of the EMFF, the European Commission noted that overall the larger scale fleet segment had received around 70% of the subsidies, with 18% going to the smaller scale sector (under 12 metres using non-towed gears). This has created a distortion on the seas that needs to be redressed. The Commission representative also commented that there was no economic justification in investing public funds in vessels and engines given the strong economic performance of the larger scale fleet. Rather, such investment should come from the private sector.

Summing up, the Chair of the Fisheries Committee, Chris Davies noted that no Parliamentarians were in favour of harmful subsidies. By the WTO SDG 14.6 yardstick, upgrading vessel security to ensure the safety of the fishers could not be bad. However, we can’t be sure, he said, that our actions will not lead to unintended consequences.

♦ ♦ ♦

fishing-boat-82696_960_720

Vote on the 2021-2027 EMFF

, ,

The new EU fisheries fund must stay on course to help small-scale fishers!

 

Brussels, 16th of January 2018

Brian O’Riordan and Marcin Ruciński

LIFE calls on MEPs to reject amendments 10, 19, and 39, which aim to expand the definition of small-scale fisheries and create an uneven playing field across Europe.

Imperfect as it is given the great diversity of small-scale fleets, the simple definition – under 12 metres and not using towed fishing gears – offers some basic clarity, a level-playing field and comparability of fisheries across the EU.

In one month’s time, MEPs in the European Parliament’s Fisheries (PECH) Committee are scheduled to vote on amendments to the EC proposal on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) for the years 2021-2027.

For LIFE it is of critical importance that the much-needed financial support directed to small-scale fishing communities in the proposal will actually get to where it is intended. We see some worrying signs that, yet again, vested interests are at work to divert crucial support away from the small-scale fisheries sector.

LIFE lauds the Commission for taking the right step by proposing to simplify and re-orient the funding priorities away from big fleet investments and top-down management to opening the financing to the freedom of design for Member State-level Operational Programs. Fundamentally, the difficult situation of small-scale fisheries across Europe has been responded to by the requirement to have an Action Plan for small-scale fishing – and the actions within it can benefit from a co-financing rate of up to 100%.

LIFE welcomes this move, which responds to the results of our in-depth analysis in the Baltic and North Sea regions[1] and to the deliberations of the “Beyond 2020” EMFF Stakeholder Conference on “Supporting Europe’s Coastal Communities”, held in Tallinn, Estonia, 12-13 October 2017[2]. In his opening address to the conference, Commissioner Vella highlighted how nearly half of all small-scale coastal fleets are still making losses – hence the need for affirmative action projects to favour the small-scale sector.

LIFE calls on Member States to ensure that genuine small-scale fishers’ representatives are involved with the shaping of these Action Plans, to ensure that much needed support is channelled to actions that will make a real difference in the struggle to sustain this vital sector.

The response from large-scale interests to expand the definition of small-scale fisheries is not unexpected. They have benefited hugely from the previous rounds of EMFF. It is high time that Europe levelled the playing field and devoted support and attention to the majority of the fleet (over 70%), to the small-scale sector that fishes in a low impact manner and with significant potential to add value at local level.

LIFE therefore calls on MEPs to reject the amendments 10, 19 and 39 proposed in Rapporteur Gabriel Mato’s draft report, which aim to expand the current, simple and universally applicable EU definition of small-scale fisheries: boats less than 12 meters length not using towed fishing gears. Imperfect as it is given the great diversity of small-scale fleets, this simple definition offers some basic clarity, a level-playing field and comparability of fisheries across the EU.

The Rapporteur’s amendments 10 and 19[3] offer a complete freedom for Member States to design their small-scale definitions as they please. They will result in an unlevel playing field between Member States and confuse the understanding of what SSF actually is: small in scale, low in impact and high in social value. Amendment 39 proposes to extend EMFF support to vessels up to 24 metres in length. These amendments provide a huge loophole for larger-scale fishing interests that currently dominate the policy, administrative and financial playing field to gain access to EU financing on strongly preferential terms – very much the contrary of Commission’s original intentions.

Next week, on January 23, ahead of this crucial vote on the EMFF in the PECH Committee, a Hearing on the Future of Small-scale Fisheries in the EU will be organized[4]. The agenda provides the opportunity to focus attention on 2 key aspects: the need for a differentiated approach to managing small-scale fisheries through a dedicated EU action plan; and the need for national allocation systems to properly take the needs of small-scale fisheries into account.

This provides a golden opportunity to focus attention on the CFP provisions that allocate priority access to small scale fishing operations in the 12-mile zone, for criteria of an environmental, social and economic nature to be used to allocate quota and to incentivize low impact fishing with additional quota, as prescribed under Article 17. To date, these provisions have not been given the attention they deserve. They are more honoured in the breach than in the observance.

LIFE is disappointed not to have been invited to speak on the panels. It is an opportunity missed. We hope that panellists invited from the  Azores, Germany, Ireland, Spain and Italy whose organizations purport to represent both large and small-scale interests, will not just toe the line of the status quo, but that through their presence the interests of the smaller-scale fishers will be properly represented and articulated.

LIFE calls on all the MEPs and fisheries policy stakeholders to make sure that the glimmer of hope offered to small-scale fishers by the EMFF proposal is not squandered by expanding a long-standing and clear small-scale fisheries definition. It is not broken. It works well. It does not need fixing.

For way too long, small-scale fishers have been alienated and disenfranchised by the CFP. It is high time for change, time for small-scale fisheries to be included more centrally in fisheries policies, so that coastal communities are not just able to survive, but also to thrive.

[1] https://lifeplatform.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/LIFE_BANS_Final_Technical_Report.pdf; see Recommendation 2, page 4.

[2] http://www.emff-now-and-then.eu/documents/DG-MARE-Conclusions-Conference-A4-03.pdf

[3] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-625.439+02+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN

[4]http://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/159323/Programme%20PECH%20public%20hearing%20Future%20of%20small%20scale%20fisheries%20in%20the%20EU%20.._.pdf

♦ ♦ ♦

lobster-cage-2073032_960_720

New European Maritime and Fisheries Fund

,

A Blue Revolution in the Making and a chance not to be missed for small-scale fishers!

Under the new EMFF proposal all Member States must submit an Action Plan for small scale coastal fishing as part of their national Operational Programmes. The Commission proposal also calls for small scale fisheries to be given “preferential treatment through a 100% aid intensity rate, including for operations related to control and enforcement, with the aim of encouraging sustainable fishing practices.”

 

Warsaw and Brussels, Monday 3rd of September 2018

Marcin Ruciński and Brian O’Riordan

The basics

This summer saw the publication of a very important legislative proposal by the European Commission: the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) Regulation covering the years 2021-2027. Whilst it will take a few years for its effects to be felt in practice, it is of fundamental importance to look into the possible consequences of the far-reaching changes proposed by the Commission in the architecture of the Fund and the concrete measures it will support.

Now is therefore the time for small scale fishers to engage in shaping the EMFF proposal to ensure that its potential to meet these needs is realized.

A total EU budget allocation for the EMFF is planned to be 6,14 billion euros. More than 80% of this money will be allocated to Member States for their national Operational Programmes, negotiated bilaterally with the Commission after the Regulation has been adopted. Community-Led Local Development (CLLD) is recognised as a key element of the new fund.

The negotiating timeline is planned to be much shorter than for the previous editions of the Fund – the Commission would like all the negotiations, including the most political ones on the overall money sharing between Member States, to be concluded at a summit in Sibiu, Romania, on 9 May 2019. The idea is to avoid implementation delays (the current EMFF was adopted as the last of EU’s Structural Funds), and the resulting potentially slow spending of the funds available in the first years after 2021. Given the looming impact of Brexit, the Fund is planned for the remaining 27 Member States, and the reduced budget takes into account the withdrawal of the UK’s contribution to the fund.

What’s in it for the small-scale fishers? Quite a lot in fact!

The Commission proposal includes an entire section devoted to small scale fisheries with two key articles on action plans and investments. As part of their national Operational Programmes ALL Member States must submit an action plan for small scale coastal fisheries. In the current Fund, this obligation applies to Member States with more than 1000 small-scale fishing boats and is very generally worded. Furthermore, The Commission proposal calls for small scale fisheries to be given “preferential treatment through a 100% aid intensity rate, including for operations related to control and enforcement, with the aim of encouraging sustainable fishing practices.”

Whilst today’s debates about implementing the reformed Common Fisheries Policy are full of praise for the economic results achieved by many segments in the large-scale part of the sector, way too little attention is given to the difficult economic situation of many small-scale fishing communities across Europe. Last October at a key conference in Tallinn[1], Commissioner Vella said that 53 out of 135 small-scale coastal fleets are loss-making. “Entire coastal communities risk devastating losses in income and jobs”, he said. The STECF’s 2017 Annual Economic Report also makes clear that the picture in this sector of the EU fleet is mixed at best. In the Baltic Sea for example, only the small-scale fleets in 2 Member States out of 8 were actually making net profits in 2015[2]. It is thus a good sign that, when preparing the proposal internally, the Commission has recognized the difficult economic situation of many small-scale fishing communities across Europe.

The central element of the Commission’s extended support for small-scale fishers is Article 15, requiring Member States to elaborate an action plan for the development of sustainable and profitable small-scale fishing. The plan needs to take into account the FAO’s Voluntary Guidelines for securing sustainable small-scale fisheries, as well as the GFCM regional plan of action for SSF in the Mediterranean and Black Sea. The elements of this plan are worth citing in extenso:

  • “adjustment and management of fishing capacity;
  • promotion of low-impact, climate resilient and low-carbon fishing practices that minimize damage to the marine environment;
  • reinforcement of the value chain of the sector and promotion of marketing strategies;
  • promotion of skills, knowledge, innovation and capacity building;
  • improvement of health, safety and working conditions on board fishing vessels;
  • increased compliance with data collection, traceability, monitoring, control and surveillance requirements;
  • involvement in the participatory management of the maritime space, including Marine Protected Areas and Natura 2000 areas;
  • diversification of activities in the broader sustainable blue economy;
  • collective organisation and participation in the decision-making and advisory processes.”

The fleet modernization measures, including the engine replacement support and the help to purchase a used boat for new entrant into fisheries, are restricted to small-scale fisheries as defined by the Fund, i.e. less than 12m length and not using mobile gears. The boat needs to belong to a fleet segment with a fishing capacity in balance with the available fishery resources.

The small-scale fishers are also privileged by a possibility for Member States to use increased aid-intensity rates, i.e the overall level of support for a given investment. In the case of investments under Article 15 detailed above, it can even be up to 100% of eligible expenditure.

Article 16 contains a special provision to support young (less than 40 years old) fishers to make their first vessel acquisition with funding levels of up to 75%, on the condition that the vessel is between 5 and 30 years old, and that the applicant has worked for at least five years as fisher or has acquired adequate vocational qualification. Whilst LIFE welcomes the intention of this provision, it must be noted that one of the main constraints for SSF to being profitable is lack access to resources. In the main, SSF have to fall back on non-quota species, with the lion’s share of quota species allocated to larger scale operations. Furthermore, the looming full application of the landing obligation on January 1, 2019 will have a major impact on SSF. Their lack of quota, especially for the “choke species” implies that either they will have to tie up and go bankrupt or put to sea and break the law.

LIFE therefore urges that grants for vessels and engine replacement for new entrants must be linked to access to quota, using the provisions of Article 17 of the 2014 CFP which call on MS to provide incentives to fishing vessels deploying selective fishing gear or using fishing techniques with reduced environmental impact, within the fishing opportunities allocated to them. There is a real danger that the zero-discard policy could well become a zero-fishing, zero-income policy for the SSF, unless there is some meaningful quota uplift provided for the sector.

Moreover, Articles 17 (permanent cessation of activities) and 18 (temporary cessation of activities) can be used only by vessels that have fished for at least 120 days for the last three years. This high threshold may be prohibitive for many small-scale fishers and should be lowered somewhat, especially for Article 18, which covers i.a. tie-ups due to natural disasters.

If properly implemented at Member State and regional level in both the spirit and letter of the proposal, there is the possibility to truly turn around the difficult situation and uncertain future of Europe’s small-scale fishing communities. Some small improvements can still be made to the language of Article 15, and LIFE will spare no effort to make the Regulation better still for European SSF.

However, the good funding rules alone will not heal the current situation completely. Much more needs to be done to genuinely implement the “class, not the mass” – quality not quantity – approach and so to enable SSF to benefit directly from the value addition they provide, as recommended by LIFE’s recently concluded pilot project in the Baltic and North Seas[3]. In particular, it is important to have a long, hard and critical look at the way the EU’s fisheries markets are organized, in relation to the way Producer Organizations are set up and run, and as regards market intelligence, and other specific needs of small-scale fishers to access markets and to benefit from value addition.

Some simplicity at last…but risks abound!

The prevailing and previous editions of the Fund provide a very long menu of support measures for Member States to choose from, described with a great degree of detail. They were often subject to complex and lengthy negotiations in Brussels, and with many interpretation questions and misunderstandings with Member States later, during the implementation phase. Crucially, the new Fund proposal by the Commission contains no measures – only a list in Article 13 detailing investments that cannot be financed. In adopting an “if it is not ineligible, it can be funded” approach, the Commission seeks to avoid the new EMFF proposal being prescriptive, and so to give flexibility to MS to use fisheries funds to suit their needs.

In this regard, although the new EMFF proposal makes no mention of women, and is gender neutral (the term “fisher” not fisherman is used throughout), women entrepreneurs and fishery workers may avail of financial aids thanks to the non-prescriptive approach of the proposal.

This fundamental change will surely make the negotiations and implementation of the Fund a lot easier for all involved. At the same time however, it opens a whole new territory, rife with risks for all the players in the fisheries and aquaculture sectors: the final shape of the Fund at national level will be decided by individual member states in negotiations with the Commission. This enormously raises the importance of consultations in respect of shaping each national Operational Programme, and for SSF to fully engage in such consultations.

The Commission will have limited influence on the choice of measures at Member State level. The fulfillment of the nice provisions in support of small-scale fishers’ communities contained in Article 15 and beyond will entirely depend on the capacity of small-scale representatives at national level to exert a proper and positive influence on how the national Operational Programmes are drafted. At LIFE, we are ready to assist our Members in taking up this challenge.

Some important elements will also be worked out at the level of the EU Regions. With paragraph 5 of Article 9, the Commission is planning to conduct Sea Basin Analyses, summarizing the main challenges to be responded to by national Operational Programmes. Whilst this approach is bound to be controversial for Member States used to freedom of programming in bilateral relations with the Commission, our Members, and other friends of small-scale fisheries active in Advisory Councils, will get a chance to comment on the Sea Basin Analyses in the coming months.

Another reason for concern is the Commission’s idea to open the CLLD method and the FLAGs beyond the fisheries sector and its related diversification activities. To date, significant investments in good, innovative projects have been made in this small-scale fisheries-friendly environment. In the post-2021 setup, all the Blue Economy participants will be entitled to influence the shape of local development strategies and the resulting measures.

At LIFE, we look at this new development with serious concern. It creates the risk of fisheries interests within the Local Action Groups being crowded out by the financially stronger and privileged Blue Growth interests such as –aquaculture, tourism and marine energy generation players for example. We have written about this risk before[4], and will continue calling for the FLAGs and Farnet to remain primarily fisheries-oriented bodies.

What’s lying ahead

Even if 2021 may look like a date far away from today’s realities, the future of the Commission proposal – and with it the highly positive measures directed towards small-scale fishers – is being decided now. The technical-level negotiations in the Council, as well as first preparations in the European Parliament have already started. Some elements of the extended support for small-scale fisheries will not be accepted easily by larger-scale fishers and national administrations used to the freedom of programming.

There are many other interests around us, within the broadly understood fisheries sector and beyond. Many of them have grown to today’s strength largely thanks to the intensive use of EU funds for fisheries in the past. It is high time that small-scale fishers truly become one of the main beneficiaries of these funds, to safeguard and brighten the future for the 80% of EU fishing fleet that is small scale and who employ over 50% of the workforce, as well as thousands of directly and indirectly dependent jobs for both men and women all along the value chain.

But we must be aware: this will not happen on its own. Without our intensive and merits-based involvement in the upcoming EMFF debates and negotiations, the good things contained in the Commission proposal risk being lost or, at best, watered down and weakened – both in Brussels now and later at national level.

Whether we like it or not, money is both mover and shaker in world affairs. EU funds for fisheries are no exemption. For too long it has, for the most part, been flowing the way of those financially strongest and most capable of successfully lobbying authorities at all levels in favour of their needs. Since the inception of the CFP in 1983, small-scale fishers have been outsiders. We simply cannot afford to miss the chances offered by this new, potentially revolutionary Commission proposal.

♦ ♦ ♦

[1] http://www.emff-now-and-then.eu/documents/DG-MARE-Conclusions-Conference-A4-03.pdf

[2] https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-reports/2017-annual-economic-report-eu-fishing-fleet-stecf-17-12, page 133 and Table 4.17.

[3] https://lifeplatform.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/LIFE_BANS_Final_Technical_Report.pdf

[4] https://lifeplatform.eu/life-calls-inclusive-blue-growth/

Irreġistra GĦAL NEWSLETTER TAGĦNA

* indicates required
maMaltese
en_GBEnglish hrCroatian nl_NLDutch fr_FRFrench de_DEGerman elGreek it_ITItalian pl_PLPolish ro_RORomanian es_ESSpanish maMaltese