Menu

september 2018

IMG_20180805_122645422

News from the Deck – July & August 2018

July & August 2018

Download the Newsletter

 

Sign up!

Sign up to receive 'News from the Deck' newsletter in your preferred language on a monthly basis.

fishing-net-406989_960_720

WestMedMAP – amendments

, ,

Barcelona, 17th of september 2018

Marta Cavallé

The Low Impact Fishers of Europe (LIFE) Platform shares its input on the regulation establishing a multi-annual plan for the fisheries exploiting demersal stocks in the western Mediterranean Sea (WestMed MAP) that should be voted by the Parliament during this autumn.
LIFE members agree that the main focus of the WestMed MAP should be the regulation of trawling activities. However, they feel that all fleet segments, both commercial and recreational, need to be addressed. The amendments below incorporate those fleet segments and address those issues that will have an impact on the lives and livelihoods of our constituency, the small-scale passive gear coastal fleets.

Access the document in English here

Accédez au document en Français ici

Acceda al documento en Español clicando aqui

polish_coast

Action Plan for Eastern Baltic cod

,

Action Plan for Eastern Baltic cod stock

following the discussions on ICES advice for 2019

Warsaw, Monday 3rd of September 2018

Marcin Ruciński

The situation

The Eastern Baltic cod stock, for long the cornerstone stock supporting the livelihoods of many Baltic fishers, and a key element of the Baltic ecosystem, has been in a downward trend for about the last 5 years. This year, ICES’s stock size indicator is the lowest observed in the time series, and the TAC of 16.685 tons, less than a half of this year’s TAC, is advised for 2019 fishery.

The TAC decreases, applied since 2015, have not brought about any visible improvement of the situation. Indeed, the TAC has not been fully taken since 2011. The causes of the current situation lie both within and outside the fisheries sector.

  1. There is widespread but as yet informal knowledge within the sector that illegal mobile gear modifications (BACOMA, T90) are commonplace in the cod fishery. This is a response to the uneconomical, small rates of marketable large cod in catches, caused in turn by a truncated size structure of the stock. The causes of the truncated stock size structure should be better investigated.
  2. The practice described above has an obvious consequence of drastically increased discards, which ICES themselves point to in a number of annual advice papers. Their discard estimates range between 10 and 15%, with a hint that the numbers may be an underestimate, an issue of concern that LIFE has been bringing to managers’ attention since 2016. The more difficult access to gain observer data, observed by the scientists since the introduction of Landing Obligation in the Baltic since 2015, is a very worrying signal for the managers.
  3. The body condition of Eastern Baltic cod individuals has significantly decreased over the last years. There are a few causes for this, amongst which the relatively low abundance of sprat and herring, the main prey species for large cod, in sub-divisions 25-26 (where most cod occur), is of particular concern. Therefore, ICES have since 2014 been advising a spatial management plan to restrict the pelagic catches in the main area of cod occurrence. Furthermore, there is evidence[1] that the “skinny cod”, if provided with proper food, can quickly increase body condition, which i.a. makes it more resistant to seal-induced parasites.
  4. The spawning of Eastern Baltic cod is not optimally protected, especially in the Bornholm Deep, where the most significant spawning takes place. The coordinates of the spawning closure do not cover some of the most significant areas where spawning concentrations, eggs and larvae occur. Some fishers have, through their contacts with Members of European Parliament, tried to help managers address this situation a few years ago[2], to no avail however. There is science[3] supporting our view that spawning disturbance must be avoided for a successful recruitment.
  5. The Eastern cod stock is also significantly and negatively affected by a number of factors over which fisheries management has no or very limited influence and which cannot be addressed in this Action Plan. These include (and are not limited to):
    • Strong increase in the grey seal population in the Central Baltic Sea, resulting in both direct predation and increased occurrence seal-induced parasites in cod, further compounding declines in body condition (see p. 3 above)
    • Climate change resulting in a water temperature increase in the Baltic Sea;
    • Lack of major saline and oxygenated water inflows from the North Sea since 2014;
    • Unfavourable changes in the zoo- and phytoplankton structure;
    • Underwater construction works, especially those undertaken in the Bornholm Deep – the main Eastern cod spawning area.

Elements of the Action Plan

  1. It is long overdue that the widespread illegal mobile gear modification practices leading to currently high, and largely unreported, level of cod discards, as well as the discards themselves, are properly dealt with by the competent control and inspection authorities with all available means (on-board observers, electronic surveillance, etc.). We have already extensively written about these matters[4]. Both must quickly come to an end! Almost 4 years after introducing the Landing Obligation in the Baltic, it is a sine-qua-non-condition for Baltic managers to retain their credibility.

Without stamping out the illegal gear modifications and discards, further TAC decreases (except a zero TAC which we do not support) will not bring about the expected results.

  1. It is high time that the long-standing ICES advice about a spatial management plan for pelagic fisheries be properly recognized by the managers. That said, LIFE would want to minimize the ensuing difficulties in implementing this measure for our pelagic fleet colleagues. Potentially, it could be applied seasonally, taking account of cod feeding and spawning patterns, to the largest fleet segments which, technically speaking, can easily reach the rich pelagic fishing grounds in the Northern Baltic. Quota bonuses could also be used in various ways to ensure that at least a good part of pelagic fishing effort moves North to release the much-needed sprat and herring for the cod – and is the better for it financially.
  2. LIFE puts many hopes in the ongoing ICES efforts to evaluate the applicable conservation measures for Eastern Baltic cod, in particular the spawning closures and other spawning protection measures (WKCONGA). The enhanced cod spawning protection, whilst not directly addressing the key question of the truncated size structure, can possibly help improve recruitment, thus minimizing the risk of stock collapse.
  3. LIFE would also encourage the managers and scientists to look deeper into the possible importance of recreational fishing on Eastern cod. This would be particularly relevant for its possible impact on the global fishing effort on the largest cod size cohorts in the stock.
  4. All the fishers negatively affected by the much-needed innovative management and conservation measures for the Eastern cod stock should have the possibility to access the EMFF funds to compensate any losses.

LIFE looks forward to discussing with DG Mare officials, directly concerned Member States, Members of the European Parliament and other stakeholders on how these measures can be incorporated concretely into the new framework for allocating fishing opportunities in the Baltic Sea in 2019 and the regional Technical Measures.

♦ ♦ ♦

[1] The initial results of a project led by SLU Aqua are accessible here https://www.slu.se/ew-nyheter/2018/6/stodutfodring-av-vildfangad-torsk-kan-ge-lonsammare-kustnara-yrkesfiske/

[2] Amendment 163 of the then-draft multispecies plan for the Baltic Sea, 2014, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fNONSGML%2bCOMPARL%2bPE-551.757%2b01%2bDOC%2bPDF%2bV0%2f%2fEN

[3] Van Overzee, Rijnsdorp, Effects of fishing during the spawning period: implications for sustainable management https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11160-014-9370-x

[4] https://lifeplatform.eu/jeremy-percy-writes-danish-minister-karen-ellemann/

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/

SIGN UP TO OUR NEWSLETTER

* indicates required