The June 2016 newsletter includes:
The May 2016 newsletter includes:
Follow this link to download News From The Deck – May 2016
Meeting with stakeholders of the Northern Seas in Denmark
LIFE and representatives of two member organizations, FSK. Foreningen for Skånsomt Kystfiskeri u NUTFA, attended the two days event “Slow Fish of the Northern Seas” that took place in Denmark from the 8th to 10th of April. The meeting, organized by Slow Fish and hosted by the fishing community of Thorupstrand, has been the occasion to visit their landing site and processing facilities, to exchange best practices and to carry out a multi-disciplinary reflection among fishermen, producers, researchers and not-for profits on several topics of particular relevance for the Northern Seas, including aquaculture, community-led initiatives, market space and resource management.
The gathering has been the starting point for a broader collective work of networking and engagement that will be developed in the months to come with fishing communities and stakeholders in the framework of the event Terra Madre which will be held in Turin in September 2016.
LIFE becomes member of the Mediterranean Advisory Council
LIFE’s application to become an official member of the MedAC. The MedAC is the committee bringing together European and national organizations representing the fisheries and NGO sectors, providing the Commission and EU countries with recommendations on fisheries management matters. With this seat the low impact fishers of the Med countries will be better able to get their voice heard at the decision-making process level and to influence the policies that define the management of the sector in the Region.
LIFE invited by the European Commission at the launch of the new Mediterranean Strategy
On the 27th LIFE attended the launch of the new Mediterranean strategy by Commissioner Karmenu Vella at Europe’s biggest industry event, the Seafood Global Expo in Brussels. The Mediterranean Sea still laments declining fisheries despite the conservation efforts of both regulators and fishermen. For this reason, the European Commission, concerned with what this could mean for thousands of fishermen, has decided to focus its next political campaign on the Region.
Christian Decugis, LIFE Director for the Med, was interviewed by the official journalists of the event and recalled the vital role played by SSCFs, their historical commitment to sustainable fishing practices and the need for a more inclusive decision-making process !
The organization of Dutch and Belgian small scale coastal and inland fishers NetVISwerk has chosen a new chairperson: Albert Jan Maat. He has been chairman of the National Farmers Union and served in the European Parliament as rapporteur for the Eel Management Plan. With Albert Jan on board, NetVISwerk will increase its National and European network and will work closely with the Dutch Farmers Union in Brussels. The two Dutch organisations are already cooperating on the issue of listing European Invasive Alien Species and the Farmers Union is very much willing to team-up with LIFE in supporting small scale fishers in Europe.
On the 12th of April the French Platform PPPAF (Plateforme de la Petite Pêche Artisanale Française) issued a press release to voice their concerns about how fisheries are managed in France. The article, published on the specialist French newspaper Le Marin ( http://goo.gl/G3nsWm ) , highlights the administrative burden to practice the profession and the opaque allocation of quota and management mechanisms of POs. The PPPAF is not asking for a total exemption of small-scale fishing, just for appropriate management measures.
In addition to the members who joined since the beginning of 2016, the following organisations officially became part of LIFE this month:
Union des Communautés des Prud’hommes Pêcheurs Méditerranéens (UCPPM – France)
Fishing Prud’homies are communities of artisanal fishers who were born on the Mediterranean Coast of France back in the Middle Ages and that in time developed autonomous systems of regulation and management of local fisheries. UCPPM, created in 2015, is the official association representing the voice of 300 Prud’hommes fishers (for 250 under 10 meters’ boats) and among its objectives are the promotion sustainable fishing practices and developing policies which are more appropriate for the local fleet and coastal environment. Welcome to LIFE!
Asociación para la defensa de la pesca artesanal del Mediterráneo (ADPAM – Spain)
ADPAM is an association created in 2008 to represent the artisanal fishing communities of Spain, with a special focus on the Province of Castellὸn and Catalunya, on the Mediterranean Coast. Today it represents 40 fishers (for 40 boats) and has among its priorities the development of European policies that can ensure a sustainable management of Mediterranean stocks. LIFE is delighted to welcome ADPAM as an active member from the Med Region!
This newsletter is a simple snapshot of our external activities. In addition, the LIFE staff in the UK, Brussels and Spain respond to a vast range of queries related to our sector and continuously develop and promulgate policies related to small scale, low impact fishing and fisheries.
Our Regional Directors, all working small scale fishers also promote the values and benefits of coastal fishing.
Would you like some additional information on a specific event, project or initiative? Don’t hesitate to contact us at communications@lifeplatform.eu , or follow us on Facebook ( Low Impact Fishers of Europe ) or on Twitter (@LIFEplatformEU )
Brussels, 10th of May 2016
LIFE Platform
Brian O’Riordan
This article is adapted from an article that appeared in Le Marin “Forum” 22.04.2016 http://www.lemarin.fr/secteurs-activites/peche/25102-critique-dun-systeme-de-gestion-inadapte-la-petite-peche?_=1461345037035, written by three co-Chairs of the Platforme, Anne Marie Vergez, a Basque fisher, Gwen Pennarun, a Brittany fisher, and Frédéric Reste, a fisher from the Mediterranean.
For more details see http://www.plateforme-petite-peche.fr/
——————————————————-
France, like many EU Member States, has administrative and management systems that are ill suited to the needs of the small scale fisheries sector. Despite much promise, two years on, the implementation of the CFP has so far failed to deliver tangible benefits for fishers who have chosen to fish ways that limit their impacts on the environment, who want to combine traditional small scale fishing ways with modern technology and decent working conditions, and who want to support the local communities in which they are rooted.
Despite the lack of delivery to date, LIFE is optimistic that Article 17 does provide the possibility to reward those who fish sustainably, so long as the political will is there to apply its provisions in the spirit as well as in the letter of the law.
The authors of the article below speak not only for themselves and for the French Platform for Small Scale Artisanal Fisheries, but for small scale fishers across Europe who share their worries and frustrations. Their concerns are very much our concerns.
The French Platform of Small Scale Artisanal Fisheries, a founder member of LIFE, represents fishermen from the French Atlantic facing coasts and from the Mediterranean. The Platform was launched in June 2012 by a group of associations representing 500 fishers.
The Platform was set up to defend the under 12 metre fleet segment that uses predominantly passive fishing methods. Despite the importance of this fleet segment, it is often marginalised, treated unfairly, not given proper consideration by the authorities, and not given sufficient space within professional organizations.
The aim of the Platform is not to fight against vessels over 12 meters. The complementarity of small scale and large scale activities is recognized and respected by the Platform, which considers that fleet diversity is important for the economic and social wellbeing of both fishing harbours and the sector as a whole.
Of course there are points of contention, and we may disagree on a number of issues. However, like the Platform, LIFE contends that the management of small scale fisheries require a differentiated approach, and that measures are needed to ensure that a balance is maintained between small-scale fishing and other fleet segments, and the small scale low impact segment can thrive.
LIFE identifies with, and wholeheartedly embraces these objectives and views.
In France, as in other European countries, there are many hurdles to setting up as a small scale owner operator. First of all, it is necessary to obtain the PME (Fishing Vessel License). Then a plethora of permits must be obtained, including AEP (European Fishing License), licenses for gears, and licenses for different species like bass, shellfish, sole etc. For bass, no more licenses are available for fishers using hooks, despite this being the most responsible fishing method as far as the resource and the marine environment are concerned, and on which hundreds of fishers depend. Their contribution to the overexploitation of the species is minute compared to the pelagic trawl fleet, where the number of licenses has remained unchanged.
And then there’s the painful question of quotas; a management tool much feared – and with reason – by small scale fishers. It is applied through a mechanism – based on catch history – that is deeply unfair. It rewards those who fish the most, whilst overlooking those who practice low impact fishing.
LIFE and the French Platform both denounce the current distribution system of quotas and its many perverse effects. Last December in France, the Competition Authority raised concerns on how quota is distributed among fishermen, the anti-competitive nature of the practices, the opaque allocation and management mechanisms, particularly in the POs (Producer Organizations).
The quota allocation system for Bluefin tuna graphically illustrates these concerns, with almost all the quota allowances reserved for purse seiners, pelagic trawlers or large longliners. This system should be fully reviewed in order to establish a distribution system based on environmental, social and economic criteria, as set out in Article 17 of the reformed CFP.
Some EU regulations include special provisions that favour small boats, by exempting them from certain fishing authorizations. However, in the case of access to cod in some areas, the exemption for vessels under 10 metres has been overturned by the professional organizations. Instead they have imposed a European Vessel Licence (AEP) on vessels under 10 meters, which penalizes them heavily. The French Platform also strongly objects to the unequal charges levied on small boats compared to large boats. Our sector is the main contributor, but not the primary beneficiary.
Then there is the administrative straitjacket, where bureaucratic requirements are not at all adapted to the constraints of small-scale fisheries. These include safety requirements, the need for life-rafts, the system for weighing the landings, manning levels, direct sales, and so on. It’s a real burden for small scale owner operators.
We are not asking for the exemption of small fishing from all management measures. However, we denounce a management system that is inappropriate. We depend on the areas where we fish – our fishing territories. We need to target the species found in our immediate vicinity, distributing our effort, based on a logic that is not to maximize profit.
It’s a philosophy and a socioeconomic model that the current system constantly undermines. There is nothing more absurd for us than having to avoid catching bluefin tuna that abounds all around us, or to discard it dead, and then having to travel great distances to find fish that we are allowed to catch.
Our critics contend that “if we followed your demands, then the coastal zone would simply fill up with vessels”. But we already find large ships on the coast, notably supertrawlers, other trawlers and 24 metre longliners, which thanks to derogations can operate within the 3-mile zone. All we are asking is that the maritime space be shared amongst vessels according to their size, and for the rules applied to be respected and strictly controlled. Our small vessels will never go far out enough to compete with vessels of 20 or 25 meters.
Similarly, we continually hear officials congratulating themselves on the sound state of stocks. But which stocks they talking about? Bass? Red seabream? Black bream? All these species are far from well managed. Many fishers will tell you how red seabream was decimated by high opening trawls, and how black bream has virtually disappeared in some places because of pelagic trawling. We call for a comprehensive scientific assessment, but are under no illusions that this will happen any time soon.
In the Mediterranean, too, there is an urgent need for progress to be made to improve the state of resources. But when addressing the problem, sports fishing (which is totally unregulated), pollution and coastal urbanization must also be factored in. Better recognition of the roles of prudhommies, ancient secular management bodies, should also be included in the equation. It is by strengthening theses indispensable institutions that we can make progress in fisheries management in the Mediterranean.
We had placed certain hopes in the new CFP, particularly concerning the provisions of Article 17. This article requires Member States to allocate quota using transparent and objective criteria, and to favour fishing vessels “deploying selective fishing gear or using fishing techniques with reduced environmental impact, such as reduced energy consumption or habitat damage.”
But where are these famous criteria that each state is supposed to define and implement? We fear that Danish seines and electric trawls may be the ones to eventually benefit from the misapplication of these environmental and social criteria.
Brussels, 26 April 2016
Brian O’Riordan
LIFE Platform
Blue Growth is the new snake oil of the world economy. It is being promoted as the miracle cure for stagnant growth, overexploited and dwindling resources, and insufficient food on dry land in the context of ever increasing needs of a rapidly growing world population. In the absence of a “Planet B”, Blue Growth provides a glimmer of hope.
The idea of the Blue Economy came out of the 2012 Rio + 20 process under the auspices of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development – building on the 1992 Earth Summit. Advocated for principally by Small Island Development States (SIDS), it is rooted in the Green Economy, which in turn is seen as vital for “achieving sustainable development, to contribute to eradicating poverty as well as sustained economic growth, enhancing social inclusion, improving human welfare and creating opportunities for employment and decent work for all, while maintaining the healthy functioning of the Earth’s ecosystems” (from Para 56. The future we want. UNCSD 2012 http://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/rio20_outcome_document_complete.pdf).
The potential of the seas and oceans – the Blue Economy – to meet sustainable development needs is enormous; but only if they can be maintained in and/or restored to a healthy, and productive state.
However, LIFE is concerned that amid all the hype and razzmatazz, sight is being lost of the fact that Blue Growth has huge implications for fisheries, be they small or large in scale. Blue Growth only takes an interest in those sectors which exhibit growth potential – and it sees the fishery sector as one in decline. At the same time, the economic sectors targeted by Blue Growth include many that will encroach on the spaces traditionally occupied by fisheries, and which will undoubtedly have an impact on the resources on which fishery activities depend. These include industrial scale aquaculture, ocean energy, and seabed mining.
Although maritime spatial planning is included as an “essential component”, more attention is needed to ensure that the European Blue Growth strategy seeks coherence and complementarity with the CFP. If not the CFP will be overwhelmed by the tsunami of Blue Growth.
LIFE also asserts that Blue Growth should not be a license for business as usual and more of the same “brown” development. Up to now oceans have been treated as a means of free resource extraction and waste dumping, and environmental and social costs have been externalised from economic calculations. Blue Growth is a call for fundamental change; ongoing trends in the exploitation and degradation of marine and coastal ecosystems show that endeavours to date have been insufficient and that more needs to be and must be done quickly. The huge amounts of marine debris building up in the oceans, especially plastics, demands urgent action. This was highlighted in a speech last year by Commissioner Vella, delivered to the Microplastics conference in Brussels on 12 May, 2015 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-2019/vella/announcements/eliminating-plastic-and-microplastic-pollution-urgent-need_en. Addressing the problem must go beyond paying fishermen to become litter collectors at sea.
Along with Blue Growth razzmatazz, LIFE is also concerned that large, private and non-governmental organizations are investing in the Blue Economy, and taking on the roles traditionally occupied by States.
Increasingly States are ceding land and marine concessions to large environmental NGOs, which are often set up as “Trusts”. These NGOs then manage the environmental reserves ceded to them on behalf of the States. These NGOs, whose activities are often financed by transnational corporations, then decide by themselves – without any democratic control – environmental actions to be undertaken. Local communities and citizens are often uninformed about these projects or kept out of managing these environmental reserves. Whilst the fight to combat climate change has in large part been entrusted by States to large environmental NGOs, and for various reasons transnational corporations finance these NGOs, the question now arises as to how what is often referred to as the “environmental industry” is regulated.
At the same time, international banks, private equity funds and other financial players seeking new areas for investment, are speculating on the oceans through carbon trading, debt for nature swaps and other such schemes.
The need to reign in this environmental industry, and to make it accountable and transparent was recently highlighted by Professor Gilles Lhuilier in “Le Marin” http://www.lemarin.fr/secteurs-activites/environnement/24995-initiative-pour-la-transparence-dans-les-ong.
Blue Growth and small scale fisheries was also one of the main themes of the recent Regional Conference on “Building a future for sustainable small-scale fisheries in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea” organized by the GFCM and the FAO in collaboration with the Algerian Government – http://www.fao.org/gfcm/meetings/ssfconference2016/en/.
The Consultant presenting the case for Blue Growth highlighted that in order to be included in the rush for Blue Growth, fisheries would need to demonstrate how they can maximize their contribution to the economy and to growth, and to “reposition” themselves accordingly. This would require he said a) applying a “use right” system to achieve economic efficiency, and b) generating an “investible surplus” that could be invested in growth.
The CFP reform process brought to the fore the way the traditional use rights of the fishery sector and of fishing communities, and their access to fisheries has been eroded over time. Such traditional rights and access in Europe, as in many other areas of the world, have been replaced by private and tradable rights. This has transformed resources that were previously public into privately owned quotas, concentrated into fewer and fewer hands.
By contrast, the FAO’s approach through its Blue Growth Initiative (BGI) offers some hope. The BGI aims at building the resilience of coastal communities and restoring the productive potential of fisheries and aquaculture, in order to support food security, poverty alleviation and sustainable management of living aquatic resources.
Blue Growth and small scale fisheries, far from being incompatible, are entirely complimentary. But for such complementarity to be effectively transformed into a “win-win” situation, greater attention needs to be paid to safeguarding the fishing rights of small scale fisheries, and providing them with secure and priority access to their traditional fishing areas.
Implementing Article 17 of the CFP could go a long way in this regard.
There is much in the new Technical Measures Regulation proposal, published by DG Mare on March 11, that is to be welcomed (see http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52016PC0134&from=EN).
For example, there are provisions for regional implementation through Multi-Annual Plans (MAPs); for incentives to be provided to fishing vessels that use gears that are more selective and with less impact on the marine environment (in line with Article 17); and towards a balanced representation of stakeholders on the Advisory Councils.
It is also to be welcomed that the need for technical measures to be applied to recreational fisheries is taken account of.
The rationale for a new regulation are spelt out in the Executive Summary of the impact assessment, available on the link http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52016SC0056&from=EN.
However, overall, like previous technical measures, the proposal fails to differentiate sufficiently between small and large scale, and mobile and fixed gear operations.
In the preamble, the proposal notes that “the catching sector comprising around 82,000 vessels and employing 98,500 Full-time equivalents (FTE) is the most affected by potential changes to the technical measures regulations. Of these approximate 82,000 fishing vessels, almost 98% of them would be classified as micro-enterprises employing fewer than 10 persons and whose annual turnover and/or annual balance sheet total does not exceed €2 million. With such a high proportion of the sector being micro-enterprises exempting them from this proposal would undermine the conservation objectives of the CFP as few fishing enterprises would be governed by the general rules.”
However, not once in the proposal is reference made to the small scale fleet segment (under 12 metres and using non-towed gear) which comprises 80% of the 82,000 vessels mentioned above. That said, some exemptions can be found in the Annexes to rules applied to vessels in the Baltic Sea under 8 metres and under 12 metres, such as permissible length of passive nets, and access to closed areas.
LIFE agrees that the majority sector (80% of the fleet), which is small in scale should not be exempted. However, the measures should take more account of the specificities and different levels of impact of the two distinct – small and large – fleet segments. The proposal does not go far enough in this regard.
It must be recalled that whilst the Green Paper on the CFP reform had floated the idea of adopting a differentiated approach to managing small and large scale fishery activities, and this was endorsed by the European Parliament, such an approach was not adopted in the new CFP. However, despite this, the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund Regulation ((EU) No 508/2014) does include many provisions designed to defend and support small scale fisheries, as does the Commission Delegated Regulation ((EU) 2015/242) laying down detailed rules on the functioning of the Advisory Councils under the Common Fisheries Policy.
On regionalisation, the preamble notes that the framework for the regulation of technical measures “should establish general rules to apply across all Union waters and provide for the creation of technical measures that take account of the regional specificities of fisheries through the process of regionalisation introduced by the CFP”, and “where no technical measures are in place at regional level then defined baseline standards should apply.” It notes that “Member States in conjunction with stakeholders can develop joint recommendations for appropriate technical measures that deviate from the baselines in accordance with the regionalisation process set out in the CFP”.
It is therefore vital that small scale fishers become more active at the regional level, especially through engagement with the Advisory Councils (ACs). The new CFP contains specific provisions to promote a balanced representation of stakeholders in the ACs, bolstered by this new proposal, including reserving spaces in the ACs (at Executive Committee level) for the participation of small scale fishers and their representatives.
Rightly, the focus of the new DG Mare proposal is on the taking and landing of fishery resources, on the operation of fishing gears, and the interaction of fishing activities with marine ecosystems. Its specific objectives are to provide protection for juveniles and spawning aggregations; to minimize and where possible eliminate discards; minimize the environmental impact of fishing on marine habitats; and to promote compliance with the Habitats, Wild Birds, Marine Strategy Framework and Water Framework Directives. All good stuff.
The proposal sets out measures and conditions to be applied for the use of towed and static gears, which are detailed in the Annexes according to regional sea basins and sensitive habitats.
However, in the case of towed gears (Article 9), no account is taken of the effects of engine power and gear design on selectivity (mesh size opening), or of the environmental impact of ground ropes, trawl doors, twin rigging “clumps”, or of the shoes and beams of otter and beam trawls on marine fauna and habitats. Some provisions should be included on parameters relating to the size and weight of ground gear and net design generally, including engine power. Such provisions may not be easy to apply, but a balance is needed between giving fishers the scope and responsibility for reducing their impacts, whilst ensuring that regulations are not flouted.
It must also be noted that originally the landings obligation came into being as an incentive to fishers to design and use fishing gears that would avoid aggregations of juveniles, spawning adults, prohibited species, and other species that may choke the fishery. With the ongoing uncertainties as to the final shape of the landings obligation, the Technical Measures Regulation is needed mainly as a back up to limit the negative impacts of fishing. At the same time, it is important to avoid over specifying rules on technical measures that would rob fishers of the flexibility needed to comply with the landing obligation and make a living.
LIFE Members from the Western Baltic Sea also point out that reported levels of by-catch of undersize cod from trawl fisheries is much higher than the 2% reported. In practice this can be as high as 40%.
LIFE is also concerned that previous measures restricting the use of pulse beam trawling to “no more than 5% of the beam trawler fleets of Member States” appears to have been lifted. The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) observed that as of November 2015 “84 licences had been issued to use pulse trawl in the Netherlands for scientific research and data collection purposes. This is well in excess of the 5% limit included in the original legislation. The increases in the number of licences issued were agreed at EU level in 2010 and 2014” and “it would seem (that these increases) are over and above levels that would normally be associated with scientific research.”
Given the significant lack of scientific evidence regarding the impacts of this type of fishing on both target and non-target species and on the wider marine environment, though clear damage caused to some species of fish by electric pulses has been found, LIFE questions why DG Mare’s new proposal has removed this limitation? And, if there is no longer such a limitation, how does the Commission propose to monitor and regulate the use and the impacts of this gear? The above comments from ICES indicate that the beam trawl fleet finds this fishing method to be commercially advantageous, and the increasing numbers of vessels using this potentially destructive method has no scientific rationale, and flies in the face of the precautionary approach.
LIFE also questions whether the measures and the capacity for monitoring, control and surveillance at Member State level are sufficient to ensure that the fleet of pelagic super trawlers fishing in coastal waters off Ireland, UK, France and other Member States comply with quota regulations and regulations concerning discards and by-catch. Recent anecdotal reports indicate that little or no control can be applied to the operation of these vessels to prevent unwanted catches of prohibited species, and catches of species that are over quota and undersize. Due the methods used to catch and retain the catches on board, the crew are often not aware of what is in the catch till it is pumped ashore into processing facilities.
But the devil is in the detail, and to get to grips with the implications of this new proposal, some immersion in the 11 Annexes to the proposal is required. These set out the baseline measures that will apply in the absence of measures being put in place regionally. They include baseline mesh sizes, minimum conservation reference sizes (MCRS), closed or restricted areas to protect juveniles and spawning fish and other regionally specific measures.
Annex I lists the prohibited species that if caught as bycatch must be returned immediately to the sea; Annex II provides a list of areas closed to fishing established for the protection of sensitive habitats (referred to in Article 13), with details of the restrictions to be applied on the carrying and use of fishing gears, use of VMS, reporting, vessel registration, etc.; and Annex III provides a list of species that are prohibited for capture with driftnets.
Annexes IV to XI contain baseline measures by sea basin (i.e. North Sea, Baltic, Northwestern waters, Southwestern waters, Mediterranean, Black Sea and the outermost regions).
It is therefore at the regional level that most effort will be required to ensure that small scale low impact activities are not tarred with the same broad brush as larger scale high impact activities.
Small scale needs to get its act together; it needs to get to the decision taking table, be it in the ACs, with their national authorities, or with parliamentarians at national and European level. Tomorrow is not soon enough to ensure that issues affecting small scale coastal fishery activities are not overlooked or marginalised in the implementation of the CFP.
There is much in the new Technical Measures Regulation proposal, published by DG Mare on March 11, that is to be welcomed (see http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52016PC0134&from=EN).
For example, there are provisions for regional implementation through Multi-Annual Plans (MAPs); for incentives to be provided to fishing vessels that use gears that are more selective and with less impact on the marine environment (in line with Article 17); and towards a balanced representation of stakeholders on the Advisory Councils.
It is also to be welcomed that the need for technical measures to be applied to recreational fisheries is taken account of.
The rationale for a new regulation are spelt out in the Executive Summary of the impact assessment, available on the link http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52016SC0056&from=EN.
However, overall, like previous technical measures, the proposal fails to differentiate sufficiently between small and large scale, and mobile and fixed gear operations.
In the preamble, the proposal notes that “the catching sector comprising around 82,000 vessels and employing 98,500 Full-time equivalents (FTE) is the most affected by potential changes to the technical measures regulations. Of these approximate 82,000 fishing vessels, almost 98% of them would be classified as micro-enterprises employing fewer than 10 persons and whose annual turnover and/or annual balance sheet total does not exceed €2 million. With such a high proportion of the sector being micro-enterprises exempting them from this proposal would undermine the conservation objectives of the CFP as few fishing enterprises would be governed by the general rules.”
However, not once in the proposal is reference made to the small scale fleet segment (under 12 metres and using non-towed gear) which comprises 80% of the 82,000 vessels mentioned above. That said, some exemptions can be found in the Annexes to rules applied to vessels in the Baltic Sea under 8 metres and under 12 metres, such as permissible length of passive nets, and access to closed areas.
LIFE agrees that the majority sector (80% of the fleet), which is small in scale should not be exempted. However, the measures should take more account of the specificities and different levels of impact of the two distinct – small and large – fleet segments. The proposal does not go far enough in this regard.
It must be recalled that whilst the Green Paper on the CFP reform had floated the idea of adopting a differentiated approach to managing small and large scale fishery activities, and this was endorsed by the European Parliament, such an approach was not adopted in the new CFP. However, despite this, the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund Regulation ((EU) No 508/2014) does include many provisions designed to defend and support small scale fisheries, as does the Commission Delegated Regulation ((EU) 2015/242) laying down detailed rules on the functioning of the Advisory Councils under the Common Fisheries Policy.
On regionalisation, the preamble notes that the framework for the regulation of technical measures “should establish general rules to apply across all Union waters and provide for the creation of technical measures that take account of the regional specificities of fisheries through the process of regionalisation introduced by the CFP”, and “where no technical measures are in place at regional level then defined baseline standards should apply.” It notes that “Member States in conjunction with stakeholders can develop joint recommendations for appropriate technical measures that deviate from the baselines in accordance with the regionalisation process set out in the CFP”.
It is therefore vital that small scale fishers become more active at the regional level, especially through engagement with the Advisory Councils (ACs). The new CFP contains specific provisions to promote a balanced representation of stakeholders in the ACs, bolstered by this new proposal, including reserving spaces in the ACs (at Executive Committee level) for the participation of small scale fishers and their representatives.
Rightly, the focus of the new DG Mare proposal is on the taking and landing of fishery resources, on the operation of fishing gears, and the interaction of fishing activities with marine ecosystems. Its specific objectives are to provide protection for juveniles and spawning aggregations; to minimize and where possible eliminate discards; minimize the environmental impact of fishing on marine habitats; and to promote compliance with the Habitats, Wild Birds, Marine Strategy Framework and Water Framework Directives. All good stuff.
The proposal sets out measures and conditions to be applied for the use of towed and static gears, which are detailed in the Annexes according to regional sea basins and sensitive habitats.
However, in the case of towed gears (Article 9), no account is taken of the effects of engine power and gear design on selectivity (mesh size opening), or of the environmental impact of ground ropes, trawl doors, twin rigging “clumps”, or of the shoes and beams of otter and beam trawls on marine fauna and habitats. Some provisions should be included on parameters relating to the size and weight of ground gear and net design generally, including engine power. Such provisions may not be easy to apply, but a balance is needed between giving fishers the scope and responsibility for reducing their impacts, whilst ensuring that regulations are not flouted.
It must also be noted that originally the landings obligation came into being as an incentive to fishers to design and use fishing gears that would avoid aggregations of juveniles, spawning adults, prohibited species, and other species that may choke the fishery. With the ongoing uncertainties as to the final shape of the landings obligation, the Technical Measures Regulation is needed mainly as a back up to limit the negative impacts of fishing. At the same time, it is important to avoid over specifying rules on technical measures that would rob fishers of the flexibility needed to comply with the landing obligation and make a living.
LIFE Members from the Western Baltic Sea also point out that reported levels of by-catch of undersize cod from trawl fisheries is much higher than the 2% reported. In practice this can be as high as 40%.
LIFE is also concerned that previous measures restricting the use of pulse beam trawling to “no more than 5% of the beam trawler fleets of Member States” appears to have been lifted. The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) observed that as of November 2015 “84 licences had been issued to use pulse trawl in the Netherlands for scientific research and data collection purposes. This is well in excess of the 5% limit included in the original legislation. The increases in the number of licences issued were agreed at EU level in 2010 and 2014” and “it would seem (that these increases) are over and above levels that would normally be associated with scientific research.”
Given the significant lack of scientific evidence regarding the impacts of this type of fishing on both target and non-target species and on the wider marine environment, though clear damage caused to some species of fish by electric pulses has been found, LIFE questions why DG Mare’s new proposal has removed this limitation? And, if there is no longer such a limitation, how does the Commission propose to monitor and regulate the use and the impacts of this gear? The above comments from ICES indicate that the beam trawl fleet finds this fishing method to be commercially advantageous, and the increasing numbers of vessels using this potentially destructive method has no scientific rationale, and flies in the face of the precautionary approach.
LIFE also questions whether the measures and the capacity for monitoring, control and surveillance at Member State level are sufficient to ensure that the fleet of pelagic super trawlers fishing in coastal waters off Ireland, UK, France and other Member States comply with quota regulations and regulations concerning discards and by-catch. Recent anecdotal reports indicate that little or no control can be applied to the operation of these vessels to prevent unwanted catches of prohibited species, and catches of species that are over quota and undersize. Due the methods used to catch and retain the catches on board, the crew are often not aware of what is in the catch till it is pumped ashore into processing facilities.
But the devil is in the detail, and to get to grips with the implications of this new proposal, some immersion in the 11 Annexes to the proposal is required. These set out the baseline measures that will apply in the absence of measures being put in place regionally. They include baseline mesh sizes, minimum conservation reference sizes (MCRS), closed or restricted areas to protect juveniles and spawning fish and other regionally specific measures.
Annex I lists the prohibited species that if caught as bycatch must be returned immediately to the sea; Annex II provides a list of areas closed to fishing established for the protection of sensitive habitats (referred to in Article 13), with details of the restrictions to be applied on the carrying and use of fishing gears, use of VMS, reporting, vessel registration, etc.; and Annex III provides a list of species that are prohibited for capture with driftnets.
Annexes IV to XI contain baseline measures by sea basin (i.e. North Sea, Baltic, Northwestern waters, Southwestern waters, Mediterranean, Black Sea and the outermost regions).
It is therefore at the regional level that most effort will be required to ensure that small scale low impact activities are not tarred with the same broad brush as larger scale high impact activities.
Small scale needs to get its act together; it needs to get to the decision taking table, be it in the ACs, with their national authorities, or with parliamentarians at national and European level. Tomorrow is not soon enough to ensure that issues affecting small scale coastal fishery activities are not overlooked or marginalised in the implementation of the CFP.
There is much in the new Technical Measures Regulation proposal, published by DG Mare on March 11, that is to be welcomed (see http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52016PC0134&from=EN).
For example, there are provisions for regional implementation through Multi-Annual Plans (MAPs); for incentives to be provided to fishing vessels that use gears that are more selective and with less impact on the marine environment (in line with Article 17); and towards a balanced representation of stakeholders on the Advisory Councils.
It is also to be welcomed that the need for technical measures to be applied to recreational fisheries is taken account of.
The rationale for a new regulation are spelt out in the Executive Summary of the impact assessment, available on the link http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52016SC0056&from=EN.
However, overall, like previous technical measures, the proposal fails to differentiate sufficiently between small and large scale, and mobile and fixed gear operations.
In the preamble, the proposal notes that “the catching sector comprising around 82,000 vessels and employing 98,500 Full-time equivalents (FTE) is the most affected by potential changes to the technical measures regulations. Of these approximate 82,000 fishing vessels, almost 98% of them would be classified as micro-enterprises employing fewer than 10 persons and whose annual turnover and/or annual balance sheet total does not exceed €2 million. With such a high proportion of the sector being micro-enterprises exempting them from this proposal would undermine the conservation objectives of the CFP as few fishing enterprises would be governed by the general rules.”
However, not once in the proposal is reference made to the small scale fleet segment (under 12 metres and using non-towed gear) which comprises 80% of the 82,000 vessels mentioned above. That said, some exemptions can be found in the Annexes to rules applied to vessels in the Baltic Sea under 8 metres and under 12 metres, such as permissible length of passive nets, and access to closed areas.
LIFE agrees that the majority sector (80% of the fleet), which is small in scale should not be exempted. However, the measures should take more account of the specificities and different levels of impact of the two distinct – small and large – fleet segments. The proposal does not go far enough in this regard.
It must be recalled that whilst the Green Paper on the CFP reform had floated the idea of adopting a differentiated approach to managing small and large scale fishery activities, and this was endorsed by the European Parliament, such an approach was not adopted in the new CFP. However, despite this, the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund Regulation ((EU) No 508/2014) does include many provisions designed to defend and support small scale fisheries, as does the Commission Delegated Regulation ((EU) 2015/242) laying down detailed rules on the functioning of the Advisory Councils under the Common Fisheries Policy.
On regionalisation, the preamble notes that the framework for the regulation of technical measures “should establish general rules to apply across all Union waters and provide for the creation of technical measures that take account of the regional specificities of fisheries through the process of regionalisation introduced by the CFP”, and “where no technical measures are in place at regional level then defined baseline standards should apply.” It notes that “Member States in conjunction with stakeholders can develop joint recommendations for appropriate technical measures that deviate from the baselines in accordance with the regionalisation process set out in the CFP”.
It is therefore vital that small scale fishers become more active at the regional level, especially through engagement with the Advisory Councils (ACs). The new CFP contains specific provisions to promote a balanced representation of stakeholders in the ACs, bolstered by this new proposal, including reserving spaces in the ACs (at Executive Committee level) for the participation of small scale fishers and their representatives.
Rightly, the focus of the new DG Mare proposal is on the taking and landing of fishery resources, on the operation of fishing gears, and the interaction of fishing activities with marine ecosystems. Its specific objectives are to provide protection for juveniles and spawning aggregations; to minimize and where possible eliminate discards; minimize the environmental impact of fishing on marine habitats; and to promote compliance with the Habitats, Wild Birds, Marine Strategy Framework and Water Framework Directives. All good stuff.
The proposal sets out measures and conditions to be applied for the use of towed and static gears, which are detailed in the Annexes according to regional sea basins and sensitive habitats.
However, in the case of towed gears (Article 9), no account is taken of the effects of engine power and gear design on selectivity (mesh size opening), or of the environmental impact of ground ropes, trawl doors, twin rigging “clumps”, or of the shoes and beams of otter and beam trawls on marine fauna and habitats. Some provisions should be included on parameters relating to the size and weight of ground gear and net design generally, including engine power. Such provisions may not be easy to apply, but a balance is needed between giving fishers the scope and responsibility for reducing their impacts, whilst ensuring that regulations are not flouted.
It must also be noted that originally the landings obligation came into being as an incentive to fishers to design and use fishing gears that would avoid aggregations of juveniles, spawning adults, prohibited species, and other species that may choke the fishery. With the ongoing uncertainties as to the final shape of the landings obligation, the Technical Measures Regulation is needed mainly as a back up to limit the negative impacts of fishing. At the same time, it is important to avoid over specifying rules on technical measures that would rob fishers of the flexibility needed to comply with the landing obligation and make a living.
LIFE Members from the Western Baltic Sea also point out that reported levels of by-catch of undersize cod from trawl fisheries is much higher than the 2% reported. In practice this can be as high as 40%.
LIFE is also concerned that previous measures restricting the use of pulse beam trawling to “no more than 5% of the beam trawler fleets of Member States” appears to have been lifted. The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) observed that as of November 2015 “84 licences had been issued to use pulse trawl in the Netherlands for scientific research and data collection purposes. This is well in excess of the 5% limit included in the original legislation. The increases in the number of licences issued were agreed at EU level in 2010 and 2014” and “it would seem (that these increases) are over and above levels that would normally be associated with scientific research.”
Given the significant lack of scientific evidence regarding the impacts of this type of fishing on both target and non-target species and on the wider marine environment, though clear damage caused to some species of fish by electric pulses has been found, LIFE questions why DG Mare’s new proposal has removed this limitation? And, if there is no longer such a limitation, how does the Commission propose to monitor and regulate the use and the impacts of this gear? The above comments from ICES indicate that the beam trawl fleet finds this fishing method to be commercially advantageous, and the increasing numbers of vessels using this potentially destructive method has no scientific rationale, and flies in the face of the precautionary approach.
LIFE also questions whether the measures and the capacity for monitoring, control and surveillance at Member State level are sufficient to ensure that the fleet of pelagic super trawlers fishing in coastal waters off Ireland, UK, France and other Member States comply with quota regulations and regulations concerning discards and by-catch. Recent anecdotal reports indicate that little or no control can be applied to the operation of these vessels to prevent unwanted catches of prohibited species, and catches of species that are over quota and undersize. Due the methods used to catch and retain the catches on board, the crew are often not aware of what is in the catch till it is pumped ashore into processing facilities.
But the devil is in the detail, and to get to grips with the implications of this new proposal, some immersion in the 11 Annexes to the proposal is required. These set out the baseline measures that will apply in the absence of measures being put in place regionally. They include baseline mesh sizes, minimum conservation reference sizes (MCRS), closed or restricted areas to protect juveniles and spawning fish and other regionally specific measures.
Annex I lists the prohibited species that if caught as bycatch must be returned immediately to the sea; Annex II provides a list of areas closed to fishing established for the protection of sensitive habitats (referred to in Article 13), with details of the restrictions to be applied on the carrying and use of fishing gears, use of VMS, reporting, vessel registration, etc.; and Annex III provides a list of species that are prohibited for capture with driftnets.
Annexes IV to XI contain baseline measures by sea basin (i.e. North Sea, Baltic, Northwestern waters, Southwestern waters, Mediterranean, Black Sea and the outermost regions).
It is therefore at the regional level that most effort will be required to ensure that small scale low impact activities are not tarred with the same broad brush as larger scale high impact activities.
Small scale needs to get its act together; it needs to get to the decision taking table, be it in the ACs, with their national authorities, or with parliamentarians at national and European level. Tomorrow is not soon enough to ensure that issues affecting small scale coastal fishery activities are not overlooked or marginalised in the implementation of the CFP.
Brussels, 12 April 2016
There is much in the new Technical Measures Regulation proposal, published by DG Mare on March 11, that is to be welcomed (see http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52016PC0134&from=EN).
For example, there are provisions for regional implementation through Multi-Annual Plans (MAPs); for incentives to be provided to fishing vessels that use gears that are more selective and with less impact on the marine environment (in line with Article 17); and towards a balanced representation of stakeholders on the Advisory Councils.
It is also to be welcomed that the need for technical measures to be applied to recreational fisheries is taken account of.
The rationale for a new regulation are spelt out in the Executive Summary of the impact assessment, available on the link http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52016SC0056&from=EN.
However, overall, like previous technical measures, the proposal fails to differentiate sufficiently between small and large scale, and mobile and fixed gear operations.
In the preamble, the proposal notes that “the catching sector comprising around 82,000 vessels and employing 98,500 Full-time equivalents (FTE) is the most affected by potential changes to the technical measures regulations. Of these approximate 82,000 fishing vessels, almost 98% of them would be classified as micro-enterprises employing fewer than 10 persons and whose annual turnover and/or annual balance sheet total does not exceed €2 million. With such a high proportion of the sector being micro-enterprises exempting them from this proposal would undermine the conservation objectives of the CFP as few fishing enterprises would be governed by the general rules.”
However, not once in the proposal is reference made to the small scale fleet segment (under 12 metres and using non-towed gear) which comprises 80% of the 82,000 vessels mentioned above. That said, some exemptions can be found in the Annexes to rules applied to vessels in the Baltic Sea under 8 metres and under 12 metres, such as permissible length of passive nets, and access to closed areas.
LIFE agrees that the majority sector (80% of the fleet), which is small in scale should not be exempted. However, the measures should take more account of the specificities and different levels of impact of the two distinct – small and large – fleet segments. The proposal does not go far enough in this regard.
It must be recalled that whilst the Green Paper on the CFP reform had floated the idea of adopting a differentiated approach to managing small and large scale fishery activities, and this was endorsed by the European Parliament, such an approach was not adopted in the new CFP. However, despite this, the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund Regulation ((EU) No 508/2014) does include many provisions designed to defend and support small scale fisheries, as does the Commission Delegated Regulation ((EU) 2015/242) laying down detailed rules on the functioning of the Advisory Councils under the Common Fisheries Policy.
On regionalisation, the preamble notes that the framework for the regulation of technical measures “should establish general rules to apply across all Union waters and provide for the creation of technical measures that take account of the regional specificities of fisheries through the process of regionalisation introduced by the CFP”, and “where no technical measures are in place at regional level then defined baseline standards should apply.” It notes that “Member States in conjunction with stakeholders can develop joint recommendations for appropriate technical measures that deviate from the baselines in accordance with the regionalisation process set out in the CFP”.
It is therefore vital that small scale fishers become more active at the regional level, especially through engagement with the Advisory Councils (ACs). The new CFP contains specific provisions to promote a balanced representation of stakeholders in the ACs, bolstered by this new proposal, including reserving spaces in the ACs (at Executive Committee level) for the participation of small scale fishers and their representatives.
Rightly, the focus of the new DG Mare proposal is on the taking and landing of fishery resources, on the operation of fishing gears, and the interaction of fishing activities with marine ecosystems. Its specific objectives are to provide protection for juveniles and spawning aggregations; to minimize and where possible eliminate discards; minimize the environmental impact of fishing on marine habitats; and to promote compliance with the Habitats, Wild Birds, Marine Strategy Framework and Water Framework Directives. All good stuff.
The proposal sets out measures and conditions to be applied for the use of towed and static gears, which are detailed in the Annexes according to regional sea basins and sensitive habitats.
However, in the case of towed gears (Article 9), no account is taken of the effects of engine power and gear design on selectivity (mesh size opening), or of the environmental impact of ground ropes, trawl doors, twin rigging “clumps”, or of the shoes and beams of otter and beam trawls on marine fauna and habitats. Some provisions should be included on parameters relating to the size and weight of ground gear and net design generally, including engine power. Such provisions may not be easy to apply, but a balance is needed between giving fishers the scope and responsibility for reducing their impacts, whilst ensuring that regulations are not flouted.
It must also be noted that originally the landings obligation came into being as an incentive to fishers to design and use fishing gears that would avoid aggregations of juveniles, spawning adults, prohibited species, and other species that may choke the fishery. With the ongoing uncertainties as to the final shape of the landings obligation, the Technical Measures Regulation is needed mainly as a back up to limit the negative impacts of fishing. At the same time, it is important to avoid over specifying rules on technical measures that would rob fishers of the flexibility needed to comply with the landing obligation and make a living.
LIFE Members from the Western Baltic Sea also point out that reported levels of by-catch of undersize cod from trawl fisheries is much higher than the 2% reported. In practice this can be as high as 40%.
LIFE is also concerned that previous measures restricting the use of pulse beam trawling to “no more than 5% of the beam trawler fleets of Member States” appears to have been lifted. The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) observed that as of November 2015 “84 licences had been issued to use pulse trawl in the Netherlands for scientific research and data collection purposes. This is well in excess of the 5% limit included in the original legislation. The increases in the number of licences issued were agreed at EU level in 2010 and 2014” and “it would seem (that these increases) are over and above levels that would normally be associated with scientific research.”
Given the significant lack of scientific evidence regarding the impacts of this type of fishing on both target and non-target species and on the wider marine environment, though clear damage caused to some species of fish by electric pulses has been found, LIFE questions why DG Mare’s new proposal has removed this limitation? And, if there is no longer such a limitation, how does the Commission propose to monitor and regulate the use and the impacts of this gear? The above comments from ICES indicate that the beam trawl fleet finds this fishing method to be commercially advantageous, and the increasing numbers of vessels using this potentially destructive method has no scientific rationale, and flies in the face of the precautionary approach.
LIFE also questions whether the measures and the capacity for monitoring, control and surveillance at Member State level are sufficient to ensure that the fleet of pelagic super trawlers fishing in coastal waters off Ireland, UK, France and other Member States comply with quota regulations and regulations concerning discards and by-catch. Recent anecdotal reports indicate that little or no control can be applied to the operation of these vessels to prevent unwanted catches of prohibited species, and catches of species that are over quota and undersize. Due the methods used to catch and retain the catches on board, the crew are often not aware of what is in the catch till it is pumped ashore into processing facilities.
But the devil is in the detail, and to get to grips with the implications of this new proposal, some immersion in the 11 Annexes to the proposal is required. These set out the baseline measures that will apply in the absence of measures being put in place regionally. They include baseline mesh sizes, minimum conservation reference sizes (MCRS), closed or restricted areas to protect juveniles and spawning fish and other regionally specific measures.
Annex I lists the prohibited species that if caught as bycatch must be returned immediately to the sea; Annex II provides a list of areas closed to fishing established for the protection of sensitive habitats (referred to in Article 13), with details of the restrictions to be applied on the carrying and use of fishing gears, use of VMS, reporting, vessel registration, etc.; and Annex III provides a list of species that are prohibited for capture with driftnets.
Annexes IV to XI contain baseline measures by sea basin (i.e. North Sea, Baltic, Northwestern waters, Southwestern waters, Mediterranean, Black Sea and the outermost regions).
It is therefore at the regional level that most effort will be required to ensure that small scale low impact activities are not tarred with the same broad brush as larger scale high impact activities.
Small scale needs to get its act together; it needs to get to the decision taking table, be it in the ACs, with their national authorities, or with parliamentarians at national and European level. Tomorrow is not soon enough to ensure that issues affecting small scale coastal fishery activities are not overlooked or marginalised in the implementation of the CFP.
Maltese 
English 
Croatian 
Dutch 
French 
German 
Greek 
Italian 
Polish 
Romanian 
Spanish