Last week the GAP 2 meeting “Putting science into regionalisation: Participatory approaches in the new regionalised CFP” was held in Brussels. Main topics discussed were how relevant knowledge can be developed, accessed and deployed in a regional context. According to the EU Common Fishery Policy the development of discard ban and multiannual plans are examples of fishery management elements that need regional attention.
Discussions around the development of discard ban and multiannual plans were used to illustrate the complexity of linking science and management according to four questions:
- What are the knowledge needs for implementation of discard plans and multi-annual plans?
- Who will develop the knowledge-base and how can its credibility and reliability be ensured?
- What funding and support is needed for the research infrastructure to deliver the knowledge for regional decision-making?
- How could the knowledge be accessed and deployed in a regional context?
As with previous GAP2 meetings the procedure was mainly interactive with group discussions. There was a broad mix of participants including Member State administration, Advisory Councils, the European Commission, ICES, STECF, Member State scientists, NGOs, and the European Parliament. Participants were guided by the GAP 2 team in a well prepared and structured way; discussions were interspersed with relevant short presentations. Although there were a number of issues debated, there were a few that were found to be especially important and were repeatedly discussed:
Increased trust in scientific data among all stakeholders.
It was evident that the trust in scientific data needs to be improved. Presently there is a lack of trust and communication between scientists and the industry, but occasionally also between the industry and Member States officials. One way to overcome this might be to further engage all stakeholders in data collection and other research activities but also to further inform the basic methodology for analyses and rationale behind scientific advice. Also, the need for a higher flexibility by fishermen to develop technical solutions to overcome practical problem (e.g. increase selectivity in fishing gears to reduce bycatch) was discussed. This was exemplified by the importance to collaborate with fishermen to implement the omnibus regulation.
There is a need for a more regionalised scientific approach.
As a consequence of a more regionalised fishery management improved scientific knowledge on a regional level is needed (especially in response to great challenges of creating multiannual plans, especially if they should include multispecies considerations). The scientific community is currently divided into scientists from the different member states, International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES, largely made up by the same scientists from the member states) and the EC Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). In many cases the responsibilities among these groups are not clear and in some cases the aggregated knowledge is lacking due to too many actors. Some participants at the meeting suggested that new formations of groups of scientists should be created on a regional level, whereas, others believed that the best way to solve the problem was to use and refine current structures.
Problems with transparency and the need of inclusion of all stakeholders in the newly established fishery management bodies, i.e. the Scheveningen Group, the North Western Waters Group and BALTFISH.
These bodies are constituted by Member States within the same region and are parts of the regionalisation process according to the Common Fisheries Policy. None of these have a permanent secretariat or a functioning website (apparently the Scheveningen Group has a website but so far containing no information). Furthermore the high level group meetings are closed and mainly including member state policy makers, thus mainly functioning as miniature “EU Councils”. Neither agenda nor minutes from these meetings are publicly accessible, which was seen as a democratic shortcoming of the current structures. Questioned were also raised on how and on what grounds people were invited to take part in the regional management work.
Among the regional bodies, most discussions were around the Scheveningen Group. They also presented their MoU and their work with the compilation of a fish atlas on discard by the North Sea fisheries (this atlas cannot currently be found on any official website but only at the websites of the Pelagic and North Sea Advisory Councils, which is one example of lack of transparency within the regional work). There was also some focus on the North Western Waters Group and their mutual effort together with the Scheveningen Group on creating a discard ban plan for the pelagic fisheries.
BALTFISH however, was not included in the agenda at all and only briefly mentioned as a good model for the other regional bodies, primarily as an example linking science and management within the Baltic Sea region. However, Gustaf Almqvist from the Fisheries Secretariat (FISH), who also represented the Baltic Sea Advisory Council (BSAC), argued that this was not the case as the same shortcomings of lack of transparency and inclusion of stakeholders are also valid for the Baltic regionalisation process. He exemplified this by describing how even technical meetings are currently closed for participation by BSAC, the sector and NGOs. Furthermore, there was an understanding that the unclear role of the ACs in relation to the regional Bodies has to be stronger and that is was not constructive to use expressions in the MoUs of the regional bodies such as, the regional bodies should be “acquaintances with the ACs” (as phrased in the MoU of the Scheveningen Group).
Finally, the meeting decided to send a strong message to the EU member states Directors and decision makers on the need for improvement on their willingness to further engage with scientists and other stakeholders as this was considered to be essential for functioning regional fishery management.
GAP2′s work is coordinated by an interdisciplinary team across Europe aiming at achieving sustainable fisheries by bringing fishermen, scientists ad policymakers together, funded by the European Commission, link: http://gap2.eu/