The debate still centres around the same ”crisis in EU fisheries” as it did ten years ago, an important European research organisation says in a “health check” on the current Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), which also includes prescriptions for a better and more sound future.
“Of all the European policies that govern the exploitation of natural resources there is none that attracts the same level of criticism and public bafflement as the Common Fisheries
Policy”, David Baldock, director of the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) writes in the foreword.
In view of the upcoming 2012 reform of the CFP, and with the outturn of the current 2002 CFP in the rear-view mirror, the report looks at three aspects of EU fisheries policy:
- Stock management.
- Structural isssues.
- The CFP in the context of current European efforts to widen the political approach to an eco-system based one.
Looking back, the study notes that there has been “some progress” since 2002 towards achieving the environmental objectives of the CFP, but adds that the pace has been slow and “piecemeal”.
“If decision-making under the CFP continues to compromise the ecological sustainability of fish stocks and the marine ecosystems upon which they depend, it is difficult to imagine that there will be a reversal of the economic, and therefore social, decline in the sector”, it concludes.
As for structural policy, the review assumes that regulations calling for better integration structural/conservational measures and for member states to report on efforts to balance fishing capacity/fishing opportunities have been helpful, but that overcapacity remains a “huge challenge”.
On the role of the European Fisheries Fund (EFF), implemented since 2007, the report notes that EU members have shown a “clear preference” for fleet adaption and modernisation, rather than supporting nature conservation.
“In relation to overcapacity, it is recommended that the links between fishing mortality, fishing effort and fishing capacity need to be further investigated and used to assess overcapacity as a matter of priority. Without these links being established for all ecosystems, fisheries and fleet segments, the structural policy will remain disconnected in its efforts to steer sustainable fishing capacity reductions”, IEEP says.
In its Green Paper on CFP reform published this spring, the Commission stated that Union fisheries should be considered in a wider ecological and economical context, which leads to a need to set the new CFP in relation to the new Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP) and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD).
The IEEP report supports the Commission’s ideas, but recommends that member states on an early stage ask the DG MARE directorate for a statement on how the objectives of the MSFD should be addressed “in concrete terms”.
Meanwhile, steps could be taken sooner to include measures for “good environmental status” under the MSFD into the decision-making framework of the CFP: “A good example would be to link the new assessments to the setting of TACs on an ecosystem basis”, the report states.
On another note, the study discusses the role of the rather newly established Regional Advisory Councils (RACs), the objective of which is to ensure stakeholder participation and improved transparency.
“The RACs were recently reviewed and their role post 2012 is likely to be modified pending decisions about further regionalisation of the CFP and de-centralisation of management”, IEEP suggests.