23 environmental NGOs and organisations representing fishers from France, Germany, the Netherlands,
and the UK filed a formal request to the European Anti Fraud Office, known as OLAF, to conduct an investigation
into whether fraud has occurred in relation to the Dutch electric trawl fishery.
23 organisations environnementales et représentants de pêcheurs de France, d’Allemagne, d’Irlande, des Pays-Bas et du Royaume‐Uni demandent à l’Office européen de lutte antifraude (OLAF) d’ouvrir une enquête sur la pêche électrique néerlandaise pour suspicion de fraude.
23 milieu-NGO’s en ‐organisaties namens vissers uit Frankrijk, Duitsland, Nederland en het Verenigd Koninkrijk een officieel verzoek ingediend bij het Europese Bureau voor Fraudebestrijding –OLAF– om een onderzoek te starten naar het vermoeden van fraude in de Nederlandse pulsvisserij.
23 organizacji ekologicznych i organizacji reprezentujących rybaków z Francji, Niemczech, Holandii i Wielkiej Brytanii złożyło formalny wniosek do Europejskiego Urzędu ds. Zwalczania Nadużyć Finansowych, w skrócie OLAF,
o wszczęcie dochodzenia w sprawie podejrzenia o nadużycia finansowe holenderskich rybaków poławiających prądem.
23 ONG ecologistas y organizaciones de pescadores de Francia, Alemania, Países Bajos, y el Reino Unido han presentado una petición formal a la Oficina Europea de lucha contra el Fraude, la OLAF, para que inicie una investigación ante la sospecha de fraude en la pesca eléctrica neerlandesa.
23 Umweltschutzorganisationen und Fischereiverbände aus Frankreich, Deutschland, den Niederlanden und dem
Vereinigten Königreich haben heute beim Europäischen Amt für Betrugsbekämpfung, kurz OLAF, einen förmlichen
Antrag auf Einleitung eines Ermittlungsverfahrens wegen des Verdachts auf Betrug in der niederländischen Elektrofischerei gestellt.
23 ONG e organizzazioni per la difesa dell’ambiente che rappresentano i pescatori della Francia, Germania, Paesi Bassi e Gran Bretagna hanno presentato una richiesta formale all’Ufficio Europeo per la Lotta Antifrode, conosciuto
come OLAF, affinché conduca un’indagine su una sospetta frode nella pesca elettrica olandese.
The Q&A section illustrates the determination of the Commission to update and reinforce the Control Regulation. Their reasoning, stated in the Q&A section is that “the current Fishery Control System reflects control strategies, methodologies and challenges of more than 10 years ago, and it is not equipped to effectively address current and future needs in terms of fisheries data and fleet control, to match the constant evolution of fishing practices and techniques. It also does not provide the necessary flexibility to take advantage of modern and more cost-effective control technologies and data exchange systems.
Last but not least, the current system does not effectively promote a culture of compliance and significant loopholes have emerged in the implementation of current enforcement rules, which warrant their revision………. An enforcement system with dissuasive, proportionate and effective sanctions is paramount to ensure that the CFP and its conservation measures are complied with”.
Strong stuff! So what will it mean to UK fishermen in general and the small scale fleet in particular?
It means that things are going to change, and change drastically.
In comes electronic reporting for ALL vessels, irrespective of size, vessel tracking will be mandatory, as will the need to report catches BEFORE landing.
Again, from the Proposal: “For the smaller vessels it is nowadays possible to use mobile and other type of tracking devices, which are affordable and easy to use. Also, all catches should be accounted for and reported electronically, irrespective of the vessel’s size and of the amount of fish caught.
Paper-based reporting will therefore be phased out and current derogations removed.
The proposal remains however, technologically neutral, insofar as it avoids prescribing the use of any specific technology. Specific applications will need to be tailored to the different needs and actors keeping in mind that interoperability is necessary.
All provisions will be in one single act: the Control Regulation. The enforcement system will allow fishermen to be treated equally across the EU, irrespective of the Member State where they operate or land”.
So we are all going to be treated equally across the EU although there is clearly going to be wriggle room for each member state to tailor their own systems. Good luck with that!
In a similar vein, the current derogation for not reporting catches of under 50kg will go [the EU reckons that this permits the landing of up to 350,000 tons of fish across the EU that go unreported!]. It does appear however that the current allowance for the sale of fish direct to private buyers will remain: [“Traceability rules do not apply in the case of small quantities of fishery products sold directly from fishing vessels to the consumers”]
New rules for the reporting of lost gear are proposed: “Reporting of the loss of fishing gears will be done through the so-called fishing logbook, which will be submitted electronically to the competent authorities. Since the loss of fishing gear can concern any category of fishing vessels, irrespective of its size, the reporting via the logbook will have to be done by all categories of vessels. All vessels will also have to carry on board the equipment necessary for the retrieval of lost gear”.
This element appears to introduce a requirement by the back door for the registration of how much gear a fisherman carries and sets, as well as how much is lost and recovered or otherwise, irrespective of whether it’s a trawl, longline, pot of net.
So just how much of a level playing field there will be remains to be seen, not just across member states but also within them, as it is clear that current ‘enforcement’ varies significantly depending on where you fish from.
And if you think the proposals are going to cause problems for and generate resistance from commercial fishermen, it is likely to be nothing like as vociferous as that that will come from the recreational sector who are going to be registered and licensed on the basis that: “There are an estimated 8 to 10 million recreational fishermen in the EU, but catches from recreational fisheries are today still largely unaccounted for because of lack of proper control measures”. Member states “……will be able to the collect reliable data on catches and practices”. And just who is going to monitor and enforce all these millions of anglers, scattered along the coastlines of Europe is also going to be a “challenge” if it is actually possible in the first place.
The list of serious infringements will be updated and doled out irrespective of the size of vessel or the amount of fish involved so on that basis, we can assume that it won’t matter if you have one fish over, or a thousand tons, the penalty will be the same?
Oh, and there will be CCTV on boats that have a specific level of discard risk.
These proposals, and they are only proposals at his stage, will generate huge concerns in relation to the clear aim of the Commission to get tough on compliance. Just how much of the technology will actually work remains to be seen. It will require a whole new system of electronic reporting structures that vitally will need to be able to talk to each other and to the central servers at local, national and EU levels and that is not something that is even available at present. The amount of data that will be flying through the ether will be enormous, especially when you consider the amount of commercial and recreational activity on any given day. Just who is going to have the time and resources to actually look at this level of information remains to be seen.
And will Brexit save UK fishers, commercial and recreational, from these new requirements? Don’t bet on it!
Please find below LIFE’s contribution on the way forward to tackle the main challenges faced by the sector in the year to come, including on how the levels of fishing effort and quotas are set according to the new Common Fisheries Policy and in relation to scientific advice about sustainable fishing.
During past months the members and staff of the Low Impact Fishers of Europehave been working hard to improve the environmental, economic and social framework within which the European small-scale fleet operates.
LIFEurges European and national institutions not to turn a blind eye on the complex situation affecting coastal communities throughout Europe, and is confident that the dedication and efforts of its members to improve the situation will be rewarded in the long run.
Historically, small scale fisheries, specifically vessels under 12 metres using non-towed gears, have been overlooked by the CFP, with the notable exception of the 12-mile zone derogation. This has meant that previous CFP’s have focussed on larger scale, mobile gear fisheries, that are more industrial in nature and intensive in their impact on the fish stocks and wider environment.
The specific characteristics of smaller scale low impact fishing operations, providing as they do solutions to current problems of overfishing and ecosystem impact, have tended to be overlooked at both national and EU level in fisheries policies and the implementation thereof.
In LIFE’s experience, Producer Organizations set up to distribute and manage quota have tended to alienate small
scale fishers, whilst catering to the needs of larger scale fishing operations. The use of historic catch records as the basis for allocating quota has restricted access of small scale fishers to quota species. In many sea areas, smaller scale fishing operations are increasingly reliant on non-quota species. This impacts on their profitability, as well as their ability to diversify and with the application of the landing obligation coming into force, in its currently understood form, will result in the forced closure of many small scale fishery enterprises due to their lack of quota for “choke” species. Unless these issues are addressed – restricted access to quota species and the consequent ‘choke species’ issue – the historic demise of small scale fisheries and the coastal communities they support is likely to continue.
Scientific Advice and Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY)
LIFE supports the adherence to scientific advice in setting quotas, and the setting of fishing levels in line with achieving MSY targets (Fmsy). However, we feel that greater attention should be given to including the wealth of local knowledge of small scale fishers in decision-taking, in combination with scientific knowledge so as to put scientific advice within a socio economic context. By doing so, this will ensure that we don’t “throw the baby out with the bathwater”, maintaining the current upward trend in stock levels but at the same time providing sufficient fishing opportunities to maintain and even improve the viability of Europe’s extensive small scale fleet.
Further, given the historic alienation of small scale fishing activities from the quota allocation processes, LIFEadvocates the use of positive discrimination and affirmative action to level the playing field with larger scale fishing interests as regards access for small scale fishers to quota and fishing areas.
In this regard, LIFE is disappointed that many of the provisions of Article 17 have been overlooked, particularly as regards the genuine use of criteria of an environmental, social and economic nature when allocating fishing quota, and the use of quota allocations to provide incentives to fishing vessels deploying selective fishing gear or using fishing techniques with reduced environmental impact.
Within the context of the Technical Measures Conservation Regulation proposal (COM (2016) 134), and the emerging Multiannual Plans (MAPs), LIFEwould like to see greater use being made of areas reserved exclusively for the use of small scale low impact fishing operations, trawl free zones, and the temporal closure of spawning and other areas where fish may concentrate during certain seasons and life cycle stages.
LIFEhas submitted its view on the Baltic Sea fish stocks’ TACs and accompanying measures following the ICES advice for 2017 to the BSAC and DG MARE services for the Baltic Sea. This is included as an annex below.
LIFE is extremely worried at the latest ICES advice for Western Baltic cod. A TAC of 917 tons would effectively mean a bankruptcy of many small-scale businesses, the backbone of coastal communities in most affected Member States. A multitude of reasons has led to this situation, including science shortfalls, long-term overfishing, the rise of recreational fishing, and ecosystem aspects. But it is crucially important to think outside the box and look for innovative longer-term solutions rather than haggling over the percentages of TAC reductions, which is bound to be very serious. LIFE calls for a recognition that just as we take utmost care for our most vulnerable fish stocks, we are obliged to take the utmost care for the most vulnerable fishers – the low impact small-scale fishers with no alternative whatsoever to fishing Western cod.
The situation calls for an array of measures to protect both the stock and the fishers directly dependent on it. These should include:
Enhanced spawning protection through total trawling closure in Subdivisions 22 and 23 in February and March (2 months);
A reallocation of quotas from trawl fleet to small-scale low impact fishers in the spirit of Article 17 of the Basic Regulation, at least until the stock clearly recovers;
Measures to minimize by-catch of undersize and small cod, as well as tightened discards control;
Stronger regulation of recreational fishing and raising their awareness on the Western cod situation;
Taking targeted measures to reduce impact from increased seal population; and
Smart use of EMFF funds to offset the tough effects of these measures.
North Sea, North East Atlantic, Iberian Atlantic and Bay of Biscay
For LIFEMembers operating in these sea areas, one of the main issues of concern is access to quota species and the potential impact of the landings obligation in this regard.
A further concern relates to the situation of the bass stocks, and the ICES advice for zero catch levels (commercial and recreational fisheries) in 2017 based on a precautionary approach.
The livelihoods of many LIFE members using hook and line are critically dependent on access to bass stocks. A complete fishery closure would mean bankruptcy for these small scale enterprises.
Observations from LIFE members in relevant member states on the availability of bass are contradictory. Along the French Atlantic coast, fishers using hook and line report a general absence of bass, both North and South of the 48th
for catches of a variety of year classes, although the fishing has declined recently in some areas, whilst in the North Sea, many of the UK bass fishers have moved to potting for whelks. Dutch hook and line fishers report having had a poor year, although they have seen very significant shoals of juvenile Bass. The North Sea and eastern Channel fishers have reported large concentrations of undersized sea bass, raising very significant concerns that these shoals will be decimated by active gears such as those used by the very large Dutch fly shooters utilizing relatively small mesh nets.
With regard to this particular activity, we also highlight the concerns expressed by LIFE Members on the western coast of Denmark where the traditional ropes used by large fly shooting vessels have been replaced by steel wires. This, together with the very powerful engines used by these vessels is result
ing in the laying waste of the seabed by cutting off the limestone nodules that have provided effective protection for juveniles for decades. Prompt action now, and especially within the technical regulations would prevent any further damage being done to the long term sustainability of currently viable fisheries and the stocks on which they rely. This is an opportunity to reverse an approach that has almost inevitably resulted in only acting when a stock of fishery has already suffered degradation and the means of revitalising it are significantly more painful than if the problem had been addressed at the outset.
The fishery crisis in the Mediterranean Sea is of great concern toLIFE Members, where they consider that the intensive use of trawls in sensitive inshore areas has had a major impact on both fish stocks and the supporting environment. They consider that there is a need to establish extensive trawl free areas in designated coastal waters which are sensitive habitats, and reproductive and nursery areas for many species.
At the same time, it is clear that it would be wrong to lay the blame for all the ills of the Mediterranean exclusively at the feet of mobile gear operators. There is a fast growing recognition by smaller scale fishers that the Mediterranean is in dire need of an overarching and robust management plan that takes the impact of all gears into account, not just that of heavier mobile methods and that the responsibility for the rejuvenation of Mediterranean fisheries is the responsibility of all concerned and not just a single sector.
LIFE Members welcome the reported recovery of Bluefin tuna stocks in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea, and the proposal of the European Parliament “to distribute national quotas fairly among the various fleet segments giving consideration to traditional and artisanal fisheries, and to provide incentives to Union fishing vessels deploying selective fishing gear or using fishing techniques with reduced environmental impact.”
LIFE fervently hopes that this statement reflects the recognition by decision makers at all levels of the need to provide real and meaningful support to the 80% of the European Union fleet that is deemed to be small in scale but large in social, economic and environmental benefits if managed effectively.
Annex 1: LIFE comments on Baltic Sea fish stocks’ TACs
and accompanying measures following the ICES advice for 2017
Eastern cod and relation to pelagic species
LIFE is strongly concerned about the continued lack of analytical assessment of this stock by ICES, in spite of numerous efforts to this end. The lack of larger cod individuals and reliance on small number of incoming year classes increase risks ahead of this key Baltic Sea stock.
Furthermore, ICES points to increasing discard rate, which is most probably higher than 15%. LIFE Members’ observations confirm the information available to ICES that “modification of selectivity properties” does take place at large scale in demersal trawl fishery.
The condition of cod individuals has improved a little, but it is still much worse than long-term average; this must not be used as an excuse for complacency. There is no single cause of this phenomenon. However, LIFE Members point to a root cause of continued cod food deprivation, especially for 3 to 4-year-old cod, which should mainly feed on sprat in normal conditions. In LIFE’s view, it is because forage fish is simply not available, due to excessive effort exerted on pelagic species, particularly sprat in Subdivisions 25 and 26. ICES advice is quite clear on this.
The situation described above calls for a moderate TAC decrease, in view of increased risks for the stock. It is, however, immensely more important for decision-makers to adopt without delay measures leading towards:
Much better food availability for 3 to 4-year-old and older cod individuals;
Significant and strong decrease of discards. They are a disgrace to the region hitherto seen as example for the rest of Europe to follow.
Small-scale fishers of the Baltic Sea can ill-afford a repetition of the situation of Western cod stock in the East.
LIFE considers that, in a situation of cod food deprivation in Central Baltic and on the basis of just one strong year class, the TAC increase suggested by ICES should not be followed. We hope that decision-makers shall act moderately here to avoid steep sprat TAC decreases in the future. LIFE recommends a rollover of the TAC with a robust spatial management plan to move large-scale pelagic effort away from SDs 25 and 26 and leave the sprat as prey for hungry cod, as advised by ICES.
Central Basin Herring
LIFE feels it necessary to bring to the table a worrying anecdotal evidence provided by one of our Members: some fishers specialized in herring for bait, operating in southern Swedish waters, have pointed out to very bad situation of herring in their area, with i.e. the fish growing very thin. This has resulted in some bait-specialized boats going out of business this year.
Impact of seal predation
LIFE calls upon ICES to take full account of the extent of fish mortality caused by the huge increase in seal population over the last decade. This is particularly important for the assessment of cod and salmon stocks. Furthermore, environmental organizations, as well as the relevant EU and national authorities, need to re-think their seal conservation policies to ensure that the balance in Baltic Sea ecosystem is kept.
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.
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.
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.