Friday, December 30, 2011
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Monday, December 26, 2011
Sunday, December 25, 2011
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Friday, December 23, 2011
Fisheries Ministers: not enough progress, yet again.
On 17 December, after a difficult negotiation session ending at around 3:00am, the Fisheries Ministers of the European Council decided on the fishing possibilities for 2012 for EU stocks in the North Sea and the Atlantic. Despite assurances expressed by Commissioner Maria Damanaki, that ‘we have a happy end’ after the quota haggling, not enough progress has been made to ensure MSY is reached by 2015 for all stocks.
The results of the negotiations were neither consistent with following scientific advice nor with ensuring long-term sustainability of EU fisheries. According to CFP Reform Watch, the Council increased the total allowable catches (TACs) in 79% of the EU water stocks when compared to the Commission Proposals, which have been set in line with scientific advice for most stocks. Seas at Risk reports, the Council followed the Commission proposal for only 14 EU fish stocks out of 75. It has already been determined that MSY can be reached by 2015 (more specifically, the fishing mortality target, Fmsy), yet true commitment has yet to emerge for making reductions in catch levels in line with scientific advice.
It should be highlighted that prior to the Fisheries Council meeting, the Commission and Norway has agreed that the TAC for North Sea herring should be increased by more than 100% thereby abandoning the rule stipulated by the long-term management plan for the stock, where only a maximum of 15% increase in TAC should be allowed.
In the end however, the Fisheries Ministers went along with this proposal, in effect breaking the rules of the long-term management plan. This has set a very dangerous precedent for other stocks covered by long-term management plans (i.e.: cod). At a press conference Commissioner Damanaki said that Fisheries Ministers were ‘successful in keeping the long term management plans’ and agreed to ‘implement (them) in good cooperation’. Clearly this has not been the case for the North Sea herring.
Striking a balance between the need of the fisheries sector and the conservation of stocks, were deemed the most important issues at this Fisheries Council session according to the Polish Undersecretary of State of Agriculture, Tadeusz Nalewajk. Ironically, decisions relating to our limited fisheries resources are being made frivolously by setting fishing limits at unsustainable levels to guarantee jobs for fishermen. With such short-sighted perspective for most stocks today, the prognoses for ensuring fishermen have something to fish out, and consumers have fish to eat, does not look promising.
“Ministers remain under the illusion that overfishing will somehow save jobs. This disregard for scientific advice and for international commitments will undermine the future of the fishing industry and does not bode well for the ongoing reform of the Common Fisheries Policy”, said Dr. Monica Verbeek, Executive Director of Seas At Risk (SAR), in a press release.
While Maria Damanaki claims a ‘very good compromise’ has been reached, and that ‘there is a better climate referring to good cooperation, control and compliance’ (press conference), more ambitious decisions need to be taken by the Council next year, which are in line with scientific advice and ensure long-term sustainability of our fish stocks.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
IUU regulation reviewed by IEEP
On December 2, the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) published an independent review of the Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing regulation, which was adopted in the European Union (EU) in September 2008, and came into force more than one year later. Although it continues to be heavily debated —inside and outside the EU— an official review of the legislation has not yet been produced by the European Commission.
Funded by the Oak Foundation, the IEEP independent analysis on the implementation of the IUU regulation specifically addresses:
• The review of the implementation process in the first year
• The identification of implementation challenges faced by Member States and third-countries; and
• Recommendations for changes that may improve the system
The goal of the IUU Regulation (EC) 1005/2008 is to combat illegal fishing by ensuring that none of its illegally caught fish and fish products end up on the Community market. It is worth noting that the regulation is indeed very significant since the European Union is the largest market for fishery products in the world— at 40% of the global market— according to IEEP report. According to the European Commission in 2009, it is estimated that IUU fishing accounts for almost 20 percent of all marine catches in the world, with a value of approximately 10 billion Euros every year. This makes IUU fishing the second largest source of fishery products in the world. EU imports of IUU catches, according to ‘conservative’ estimates in the IEEP report, have been valued at 1.1 billion Euros in 2005 alone.
The regulation also focuses on control of all landings and transshipment of third-country fishing vessels in Community ports, and all trade of marine fishery products to and from the European Union.
The importance of the IUU regulation cannot be underestimated due to the large EU market share, “if the Regulation is successful, it could have a considerable influence on global IUU fishing”, IEEP reports.
The IEEP analysis of the IUU regulation identified the following gaps:
1) Deficiencies in the catch certification scheme— the paper certificates are vulnerable to fraud (massive amounts of products requiring certification and validation) and this cannot sufficiently prevent illegal imports into the EU market. The report mentions that the DNA sampling methodology for traceability, control and enforcement, could be explored for implementation in the EU, as it has proven effective elsewhere; in addition it is very important to identify which species ‘are vulnerable to fraudulent trading’ in order to understand the ‘lucrative illegal trade flows… and closing up the loopholes’.
2) Over-dependence on the Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs), which are known to be ‘slow, cumbersome, and political’, when adding vessels to the Community Black List. IEEP recommends that the Commission manages the vessel lists itself, updating the list not annually as is currently the case, but on a more frequent basis.
3) Lack of action on publication of the Community Alert System and the Non-Cooperating Third Country List. It is recommended that a timeframe is provided for establishing the Non-Cooperating Third Country List, or progress on establishing such list should be communicated by the Commission. This would be helpful in identifying the effectiveness of trade restrictions or sanctions on non-cooperating third countries.
4) Lack of transparency on Commission’s actions and implementation of the regulation. The report suggests that the Commission should improve ‘its communication on the implementation process on all aspects’, including the publication of non-cooperating states, which at the moment is confidential.
The report findings were compiled using a comprehensive methodological process which included the completion of three parts. The first part included a desktop review of the available documents on IUU fishing and existing legislation. The second part included the identification of challenges experienced by Member States in the first year of implementation of the IUU regulation. This part was completed using two sets of questionnaires: first questionnaire designed for DG Mare; and, another one was distributed to 20 of the 27 Member States and included follow-up interviews. The third and last phase of the process included the analysis of EU fisheries imports to determine the effectiveness of the catch certification scheme, which if effective, it was hypothesized, should have changed EU import trends.
Despite the identification of the gaps listed above, a more comprehensive assessment on the implementation and effectiveness of the regulation is still required. So far, no official review date of the IUU Regulation has been set by the European Commission; however, according to Article 55 of the Regulation, the EC must undertake this task by 29 October 2013.
For detailed information contained in the report please check the links below:
EU fisheries subsidies evaluation shows that they contribute to overcapacity
The European Court of Auditors (ECA) today strongly criticised the use of subsidies in sustaining overcapacity when publishing its investigation entitled “have EU measures contributed to adapting the capacity of the fishing fleets to available fishing opportunities?” The court investigated spending in seven member states (Denmark, France, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Spain and the UK) and found that four had set inadequate targets for reducing their fleet, leading to overcapacity, which the court identify as one of the main reasons behind the “failure of the CFP”.
These findings were welcomed by Commissioner Damanaki, who agreed with their comments regarding overcapacity and stated that a system of TFCs with adequate safeguards to prevent quota concentration would help to solve this endemic problem. She also argued that the proposed EMFF should stop financing the scrapping of vessels while providing funds for projects that will adapt capacity toward more sustainable ends.
Decommissioning programmes were condemned in the ECA report as a waste of resources given that the alignment between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities has been so poorly matched. Despite vast sums being used to remove vessels from the fleet, vessel modernisation being also subsidised has in fact meant that taxpayers’ have paid to both remove some modernise other vessels. This has left the European fleet bloated, uncompetitive and subsidy dependent.
Moreover, the ECA report highlights the outdated methods of defining fishing capacity that member states have applied, namely kW and GT. These no longer reflect the ability of fishing vessels to catch fish and run contrary to the Commission guidelines on how to measure fishing capacity and also feature in the annual report from the Commission to the European Parliament. Better evaluation standards which gauge the efficiency of vessels would better enable fishing opportunities to be matched by catching capacity.
The entrenched failure to deal with overcapacity has been one of the hallmarks of the CFP. However, recent proposals by the Commission on EMFF funding, which contain provisions for modernisation but neglect to include mandatory capacity ceilings are unlikely to solve the problem.
Multi-Species Plan for the Baltic Sea
At the end of November, the Expert Working Group of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF), an advisory body to the European Commission on fisheries management, met in Edinburgh to establish an initial work plan for an impact assessment for the Multi-Species plan for the Baltic Sea. The plan is suggested to include the Baltic sprat, herring and cod.
Impact assessments for the long-term cod management plans for the Kattegat, North Sea, Irish Sea and the sea West of Scotland, were also discussed.
A multi-species plan for the Baltic Sea is a collaborative effort and has been in development for a while now. Already in 2009, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) evaluated the possibilities for a joint management of the Baltic herring and sprat stocks. Due to the recent recovery of the Eastern Baltic cod stock under the multiannual cod management plan, the European Commission (EC) requested that a multi-species management plan should be developed for the Baltic Sea, particularly addressing ecosystem effects on the pelagic fish assembly.
The STECF meeting imparted scientific knowledge on the state of the Baltic Sea herring, sprat and cod stocks, as well as the nature and economic reality of the Baltic fishing fleet targeting those species. The aspiration of the European Commission (EC) is that all the Baltic stocks managed under catch quotas, including the Kattegat stocks, should be covered under the long-term management plans, albeit not necessarily by multi-species or multi-fisheries plans.
The initial discussions, therefore, focused on which stocks should be included in the initial multi-species plan. It was proposed to include herring, sprat and cod from the Baltic Sea east of Bornholm since satisfactory scientific data is available for those species in this Baltic Sea region. There are some data gaps however, particularly relating to the cod diet, which are needed to ensure reliable modelling. Western Baltic Sea cod and spring spawning herring, were proposed to be included in the plan with technical measures only, since not much data is available on their biological interactions with other stocks.
The final version of the multi-species management plan is likely to be a combination of a multi-species plan and a multi-fisheries plan. The possibility to include technical measures concerning other fish was also discussed, with main reference to salmon, in addition to flounder and turbot, which are commonly caught as by-catch in the demersal cod fishery.
The Baltic Sea Regional Advisory Council (BSRAC) was also present at the meeting. The one-third group of the BSRAC is formed by environmental NGOs, who proposed the following action points for the initial multi-species management plan for the Baltic Sea:
- The inclusion of as many stocks and species as possible, although the scientific knowledge of biological interactions between stocks should be of main concern
- The inclusion of all commercial fisheries as well as recreational fisheries
- The direct and indirect ecological effects on species not included in the plan (e.g. coastal fishes and sticklebacks) should be further highlighted
- The technical measures for reducing by-catch, especially flatfish and salmon, should be included from the starting point of implementation
- The incorporation of the historical geographical and size distribution of cod in the evaluations, due to the fact that different sizes of cod have different ecological impacts
- Finally, the reservation of more fishing opportunities for fisheries utilising selective fishing techniques, which are less damaging to habitats and have lower carbon footprint
It is noteworthy that ICES has also commenced work towards developing the multi-species management plan for the Baltic Sea. Both STECF and ICES work collaboratively on the matter, and division of tasks was identified to avoid duplication of work.
The next STECF meeting is planned for March 2012, and the first draft of the impact assessment has to be delivered to the Commission in June 2013, at the latest.
EU-Morocco fisheries deal rejected by the European Parliament
At a plenary today, members of the EP rejected the fisheries partnership agreement (FPA) with Morocco by 326 votes to 296.
The agreement had been strongly criticised by the fisheries committee rapporteur Carl Haglund, and both the budget and development committees voted against the extension. However, the fisheries committee, which hasseveral MEPs noted for representing vested interests from the large-scale industrial fishing fleet, had supported the extension by 12 votes to 8.
Several MEPs had written an op-ed in the European Voice prior to the vote, calling for this rejection on financial, environmental and legal grounds. Moreover, an independent evaluation of the agreement concluded that the agreement has been a failure and benefits the EU less than any other FPA.
After the plenary rejected the deal, Christofer Fjellner, a Swedish MEP from the EPP group, said he voted against the deal to “stop the tax-subsidised overfishing and… against the Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara”. Asa Westlund, a Swedish MEP from S&D stated that this was a triumph for international law and the people of Western Sahara.
Saturday, December 10, 2011
TFCs discussed at hearing in Brussels
At a meeting in which Danish and Norwegian experiences of ITQ systems were presented, the consensus from four MEPs was that such a system of quota allocation should not be mandatory but may be a useful tool to reduce capacity if stringent safeguards are implemented.
Ole Christensen, a Danish social democrat MEP who is a substitute on the Fisheries Committee (PECH), organised the hearing as part of a series of meetings focusing on specific parts of the CFP reform as part of his work with the Fish For the Future (FFF) group.
The FFF group are a cross-party coalition of MEPs committed to reforming the Common Fisheries Policy. This group may have an important role to play in coordinating and informing MEPs from all parties now that the European Parliament has co-decision powers on fisheries legislation as a result of the Lisbon Treaty.
Ulrike Rodust, a German social democrat MEP who is the rapporteur for the CFP basic regulation, began her presentation by linking TFCs to overcapacity. She argued that the current overcapacity in the EU fleet leads to three significant problems; underused vessels having the potential to engage in illegal fishing, control and monitoring of fishing activities are more difficult, and that overcapacity puts pressure on the Council to increase TACs.
Rodust felt that TFCs would help fishermen to better plan their work and quota would concentrate in the hands of successful fishing companies. Moreover, those who wish to leave the industry would receive a payout by selling out their share of fishing concessions. She argues that an increased sense of responsibility would emerge in fishermen as the status of fish stocks would have a direct economic impact on them.
However, several of the presumptions Rodust made during her presentation were challenged by Thomas Hojrup of the University of Copenhagen in his analysis of the consequences of the Danish ITQ system. His research has shown that TFCs do not contribute to a decrease in illegal fishing, rather highgrading becomes more prevalent as fishers attempt to maximise the value of their limited catch. This has also been borne out in the privatised Pacific halibut fishery.
Moreover, the claim that having fishing rights concentrated in the hands of fewer vessels will reduce the pressure on Ministers to increase TACs at Council meetings fails to hold up to scrutiny. Hojrup explained that most quota transactions in Denmark have been funded by bank loans, with existing quota being used as security against the loans. A hypothetical situation in which interest rates were to rise sharply would mean that unless TACs were raised by Ministers, fishermen could go bankrupt, thus creating significant pressure on the Council to ignore scientific recommendations.
Isabella Lovin, a Green MEP from Sweden, posited that access criteria would be a superior method of quota allocation to TFCs, in terms of reducing capacity while redirecting incentives in the European fleet toward those vessels that are most sustainable. However, were TFCs to be utilised then obligations should be attached to these concessions so that Member States can direct their fleet toward long-term objectives of stock recovery. As a warning of what may happen were the EU to embrace the TFC system, the experience of Iceland whose Parliament has rejected their existing ITQ system and has now implemented a buyback scheme to restore quota ownership from their banking sector back to the State was raised.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Monday, December 5, 2011
Hd Fitness Diet Plan
Do You Want To Drop A Dress Size In 6 Weeks Or Your Money Back? Offer For A Limited Time - Massive 75%! No Calorie Counting, No Restrictive Diet, You Will Learn How By Taking Very Simple Steps Can Change The Way You Eat Forever!
Check it out!
The Best Prasouda Diet Book - Secrets Of The Mediterranean Diet
The Best Prasouda Diet Outlines The Secrets Of The World Famous Mediterranean Diet. The Prasouda Diet Is A Proven Means To Effortlessly Lose Weight Without Counting Calories And While Eating The Foods You Love. The Only Diet Endorsed By The Mayo Clinic.
Check it out!
Commission proposals on new fisheries fund launched
Today, the European Commission published its proposals for the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF). The subsidy package will run from 2014–2020 and is valued at €6.5 billion, a slight increase on the previous fund.
Subsidies will be aimed at achieving the objectives of the reformed CFP, as Commissioner Damanaki hinted at during her visit to Stockholm last week. She gave the example of subsidies being made available for more shifting to more selective gears in order to pave the way/support the proposed discard ban .
Damanaki stated that the EMFF “will help fishermen in the transition towards sustainable fishing, as well as coastal communities in the diversification of their economies,” while also warning that “no more money will be spent to build big vessels”. No mention was made regarding subsidies for the modernisation of such vessels.
Aquaculture will also be a big beneficiary of the new subsidy package. The Commission press release states that “the fund will strive to boost this industry in a sustainable manner”. This at least signals a shift in the Commission’s language from July when the proposals for the CFP reform were launched, and no mention of sustainability was made.
Damanaki is aware that the CFP has led to the overexploitation of fish stocks, sometimes supported by a generous subsidy scheme that often favoured the most unsustainable and environmentally damaging vessels. She hopes that putting funds in place to assist the transition to fishing methods that are more selective and targeted will rebuild fish stocks to their previous levels.
However, it remains to be seen whether the small adjustments proposed in the EMFF budget will help to reduce fleet overcapacity, which has for so long been the scourge of sustainable fisheries management in EU waters. While the proposals include funds to further a social agenda in fishing communities through economic diversification, it remains to be seen whether this will lead to a reduction in fishing pressure.
Rather, the Commission proposals overall, including the EMFF, seem to embed overcapacity still further by removing the scrapping fund, failing to enforce capacity ceilings in Member States and most importantly by neglecting to include any measures to halt the increased catching capacity of existing vessels through technological creep.
Fishsubsidy.org is an organisation that has followed subsidies in EU fisheries closely over the years. They have raised persistent concerns over the lack of transparency with which subsidies are allocated and the lack of sanctions applied to vessels that receive public funds but have been convicted of illegal fishing activities. However, they welcomed the proposals that compel Member States to publish their data in specific data formats; however, concerns with transparency persist over national co-financing and European subsidies still not being separated and end recipients of subsidies, such as vessels, not being named. This practice has been criticised by the OCEAN2012 coalition as “blind spending”.
Scandinavian countries say ‘YES’ to a discard ban: first step to a complete ban in the EU?
On November 23, Ministers of Fisheries in Sweden, Denmark and Norway signed a joint declaration to end the discarding of dead fish in the Skagerrack. The agreement will come into force on 1 January 2013 at the latest.
The agreement was presented just before a meeting on the ‘Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy: Ban of discards and minimising by-catch’ in Stockholm, Sweden, attended by Commissioner Maria Damanaki. According to the Swedish Fisheries Minister, Eskil Erlandsson, it is hoped it will be the first step to a complete discard ban in the EU.
The event, organised by the Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry (KSLA), was dedicated to the rather controversial topic of fish discarding and bycatch, and attracted about 100 participants. This meeting was of significant importance because in July of this year, the European Commission proposed a gradual discard ban for a few commercial fish species, but not all bycatch, as part of the reformed Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The approach proposed by the Commission, however, fails to address the widespread discarding of non-commercial species, thereby reducing the incentive to prevent these unwanted catches in the first place.
The focus on the wasteful practice of discarding was tabled by the European Commission already under the previous Commissioner for Maritime Affairs & Fisheries, Joe Borg. Since then the issue has been influenced by the Fish Fight campaign, which has helped the current Commissioner, Maria Damanaki, highlight the problem of discarding among the general public across Europe. So far close to 800 000 people in the European Union and beyond actively support the cause, and politicians are paying attention.
The Scandinavian countries are now ahead of the game in relation to the CFP reform process. In response to a question last Wednesday, Commissioner Damanaki claimed that a discard ban, including non-commercial bycatch, may be implemented in the future.
Discarding of unwanted catches (or bycatch) leaves 1.3 million tonnes of perfectly good fish thrown back to the sea each year – often dead or badly damaged. Bycatch is defined as fish (commercial or non-commerical species) caught unintentionally while trying to catch other fish. Bycatch includes untargeted catch, which means catching undersized/ juvenile individuals or protected species.
The two key reasons for discarding are highgrading, which is improving quality of landings by throwing out lower value catch before entering port, and the dumping of unwanted catches, which are often unprofitable, or over the allotted quotas thus illegal. Maritime Affairs & Fisheries Commissioner, Maria Damanaki, was very clear that it is not acceptable, nor ethical, to throw hundreds of thousands of tonnes of perfectly good fish overboard.
During her speech, Damanaki emphasized that it is not fair to only blame the fishing industry for discarding, as she claims the fishermen are locked into the policy ‘box’. “Discarding is not something invented by the fishermen” said Damanaki, “policy makers are as much to blame”. Despite Damanaki’s claims however, the incentives fishermen have to discard through highgrading, and simply the desire for maximising profits will continue to exist. Clearly, this practice will need to be targeted and will require control and enforcement as tools to counteract the continuation of such behaviour. Change is required on the policy side and the industry side alike.
In the view of the European Commission, the discard ban should be mandatory for all fishermen catching the selected stocks included in the current discard ban proposal, in order to ensure a level-playing field for all, to change consumer perception through retailers of fish and fish products, and to enable consumers to buy fish from sustainable markets.
The implementation of the ban for the selected commercial pelagic species in 2014 will not be easy. The issue of landing undersized fish is particularly sensitive politically. It is also very complex and has been debated on many fronts for many years. There seems to be a push for renewed discussions on the landing sizes and the catch composition. For years now, Denmark has been advocating a lower landing size of cod, and it is widely known that the processing sector preference is for ‘plate sized’ fish. This proposal has been vigorously opposed by many environmental groups who claim that such decision will bend the rules to enable juvenile fish ending up on the market. The new Danish Minister for Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries, Mette Gjerskov, believes that proposing changes to minimum landing sizes will need to be introduced because of the problems in solving the market for juveniles. Commissioner Damanaki suggested that juveniles could be processed into fishmeal. This issue clearly needs some streamlining and further discussion before consensus is reached.
The implementation of the proposed discard ban requires collaboration of both Member State governments and the fishing industry. The industry will need to believe that the discard ban is a good way to do business and the way forward, as there will always be ways around regulations. Damanaki emphasised that money under the new European Maritime & Fisheries Fund (EMFF) will fund innovation, including innovation in selective gear types. The EMFF will also support trials to reduce discards and fund storage mechanisms for producer organisations.
The topic of reducing discards was taken up by a panel discussion at the end of the meeting, which included seven Swedish MPs and a representative from the fishing industry. Some of the panellists thought it would be sensible, while others did not, that those vessels that already comply with a discard ban and are examples of best practice in terms of responsible fishing and impact positively on marine ecosystems, should be rewarded with a larger share of the quota – as opposed to just non-compliant vessels being paid to participate in trials and having more selective gear provided to them. This item ties well to the OCEAN2012 notion of access criteria, which advocates that those who fish sustainably (i.e.: those who use highly selective gear) should get priority access to the fisheries, thus in the long run, reducing the amount of vessels with unsustainable fishing practices.
The meeting featured many high profile Swedish politicians, Norwegian and Danish Fisheries Ministers, civil servants, and stakeholders such as commercial fishermen, small-scale fishermen, non-governmental organisations, and representatives from the food industry supporting sustainable fisheries.
For more information you can refer to the items below.