european commission dg maritime affairs and fisheries the common fisheries policy - room for...

European CommissionDG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries

The Common Fisheries Policy-

Room for improvement?

Hearing om framtiden för EU:s fiskeripolitik

Stockholm 9 April 2008

Poul DegnbolScientific adviser

This presentation relates to preliminary outcomes of an analysis in progress and does not necessarily represent the official opinion of the European Commission


Diagnosis - outcomes


The CFP has delivered less than hoped for

• Overfished stocks and low ecological sustainability • 80% of stocks overfished (global average is 25%)• 30% of assessed stocks outside safe biological

limits

• Low contribution of raw materials from Community fisheries as food


Dramatic reduction in landings over a decade

Landings 1950-2006, EU15

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

200619961986197619661956

1000

t

Total landings NE atlantic + medit

Landings NE atlantic (area 27)

Landings Medit (area 37)

Eurostat data


Regional losses in landings

Estimated landings of demersal species from the North Sea (1970-2004)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Year

Th

ou

san

to

nn

es l

and

ed

Estimated landings of hake, megrims and Nephrops from the Iberian Atlantic Area

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Year

Th

ou

san

to

nn

es l

and

ed

North Sea demersal stocks

Iberian demersal stocks

ICES data


Losses close to Sweden

Western Baltic cod

Kattegat cod

ICES advice report


Decreasing contribution to EU food supplyPercentage contribution of domestic production,

EU 15 landings + aquaculture

0

20

40

60

80

100

200119961991198619811976197119661961EU

15

ca

tch

es

+ a

qu

ac

ult

ure

as

%

of

raw

ma

teri

al s

up

ply Imported raw materials

Domestic EU production, landings + aquaculture

Eurostat data


The CFP has delivered less than hoped for

• Overfished stocks and low ecological sustainability • Low contribution of raw materials from Community

fisheries as food • Overcapacity of the fishing fleets and poor economic

performance• Poor contribution to viability of coastal communities • Work on fishing vessels remains as one of the most

dangerous professions in Europe • Low legitimacy in some important parts of the public

and stakeholder opinion.


Diagnosis - causes


Causes

• Lack of will - Insufficient support for CFP objectives

• Systems failure - Institutional framework fosters short term focus and lack of will


Causes – lack of will to use present instruments efficiently

• Council: TACs consistently decided above scientific advice• Many TACs set above scientific advice• Some TACs set above management plan

• Member States: Poor implementation as control and enforcement by Member States is insufficient

• Industry: Unreported landings, political pressure for excessive TACs


Causes – institutional setup fosters short term perspective

• Relative stability creates focus on short term by Member States

• The responsibility for long term sustainability is not shared - Division of labour between COM and Member States results in a decision process that does not work

• The scope for policy decisions is left open as the objectives are not focused and not linked to standards or indicators;

• Accountability low because measuring stick absent

• The use of instruments in the policy is complex and detailed - Centralised micro-decision and micromanagement

• The resources to implement the policy are increasingly insufficient to meet the demands.


Causes – industry incentives wrong way round

• The instruments of the CFP do not provide the right incentives or may even create incentives for irresponsible fishing.

• Relative stability • Subsidies create overcapacity• Lack of long term rights for industry• Lack of responsibilities for the industry • - promotes a short term perspective in the industry and a focus at Council

on the short term national share rather than the long term

• The burden of proof regarding sustainability is placed with the Commission rather than with the industry.

• Incentive to withhold information (less data = more fish!)

• A general paternalistic/irresponsibility atmosphere


Systemic irresponsibility - the negative micromanagement spiral

• A conservation objective is identified• Technical measures to achieve this are put in

place• The industry experiences losses of catch value

or fishing opportunities• Industry makes technological adaptations which

nullifies negative economic effects of regulation• These adaptations nullify conservation effect in

the process• Conservation outcomes not achieved


Technical micro-regulation“It is prohibited to carry on board or deploy any beam trawl of mesh size equal to or greater than 80 mm unless the entire upper half of the anterior part of such a net consists of a panel of netting material of which no individual mesh is of mesh size less than 180 mm attached:

• directly to the headline, or• to no more than three rows of netting material of any mesh size

attached directly to the headline.

The panel of netting shall extend towards the posterior of the net for at least the number of meshes determined by:

• (i) dividing the length in metres of the beam of the net by 12;• (ii) multiplying the result obtained in (i) by 5 400 and• (iii) dividing the result obtained in (ii) by the mesh size in

millimetres of the smallest mesh in the panel and• (iv) ignoring any decimal or other fractions in the result obtained

in (iii).”Council reg 2056/2001 art 5.3


Bacoma regulation 2005


Interesting legal prose is matched by equally interesting technological

innovations


Outcomes of the micromanagement spiral

• Perverted technologies and fishing practices• Non-economical technologies and practices• Technologies which do not achieve conservation targets

• Low legitimacy• Low compliance• Increasingly paternalistic governance - down to

repair guides in legal text• Widening the fisher-science-manager gap• Non-achievement of objectives - ecological,

economic, social


The creation of overcapacity

• As in all other industries - fishers invest in productivity increase

• But the resource base does not increase• Harvest capacity outgrows the possibilities for

sustainable harvest• Fish stocks become overfished and fish densities in

the sea decrease• More effective gear required to catch low fish

densities economically

Technological creep 3-4% annuallyWith no action 3% increase in efficiency leads to 35% overcapacity in 10 years


Public contributions to overcapacity

• Subsidies have been given to vessel building, engines, fishing gear…..

• Subsidies to scrapping may lead to more risk taking in investment and thus to overcapacity

• Subsidies are still given to engine renewal• Indirect subsidies are still given:

• The industry does not pay for right to harvest a public resource

• Management costs are covered by taxpayers


Whose fault?

• Everybody is reacting perfectly rationally to the role assigned to them in the fisheries management system

• The problem is systemic – everybody is locked into their roles in an iron cage of rationality which has become irrational

• Rational behaviour within an irrational system leads to overall irrational performance


New challenges - context• Markets for fish products changing - retailers increasingly

insisting on products which can be documented to originate from sustainable harvest

• Need to integrate CFP with other marine governance regimes – Environmental policy (Marine Strategy) and with other sectors (Maritime Policy)

• Pressure to reduce the cost of running the CFP• Demands on what fisheries should deliver are increasing• Resources to implement fisheries management in COM and

Member States are expected not to increase or even to reduce


Need for reform?

• We need a CFP one form or other because fish stocks are a shared mobile natural resource which is limited

• Short term - much can be done by using the existing instruments better

• Longer term – the institutional drivers for short term focus and irresponsibility must be removed


Questions - way forward??


How can we make more effective use of the present framework?

• How to promote responsible policy decisions?• Can we more forcefully Insist on long term sustainability as

the guiding principle for decisions?• Other options?

• How to promote more effective implementation?• Control reform• Other options?

• How to build responsibility?• Change towards results based management where society

defines maximum allowable impact and industry implements – discards policy, technical measures reform

• Better communication with stakeholders and citizens• Better linkage to market drivers – traceability, ecolabelling• Other options?


A new framework - a future policy which is conducive to responsibility and a long term

approach?

• A clearer policy focus

• Responsible policy decisions

• Responsible industry


A clearer policy focus?

• Are all objectives equal – ecological sustainability, social and economic?

• Is ecological sustainability the basis for everything else?

• Should the CFP take care of all objectives?

• Or should the CFP only focus on ecological sustainability and leave social and economic objectives to other policies?

• How do we ensure sufficiently precise descriptions of objectives to enable monitoring and accountability?

• Standards, indicators?• Guidelines for operationalisation?


Responsible decision making and implementation?• How do we enhance a longer term focus in decision making – including shared

responsibility for long term sustainability?

• How do we get clear responsibilities and accountability?

• A clearer hierarchy of decisions and implementation?

• Should strategic decisions on standards and management plans be taken at a high level while leaving implementation decisions to Commission and Member States?

• Can more implementation be delegated to MS under Community standards and control ?

• Can implementation of the CFP be regionalised (with MS responsibility on regional level)?

• What are the requirements for standards and plans to enable more delegation?

• What are the requirements for control and audit?

• How is accountability on all levels ensured?

• How do we address the micromanagement and resource issues?


Responsible industries?• How do we reverse present perverse incentives for irresponsible fishing?

• Longer term access rights? • Long term user rights to increase decision horizon?• Do rights need to be tradable to ensure structural adaptation and effective

industries?

• More Responsibility as condition for rights?• Will rights in themselves lead to more responsibility?• Should rights be linked to responsibilities?• More use of results based management leaving implementation details to industry

within clear standards for maximum impact?• Reversal of burden of proof - should right of access be subject to demonstration of

responsible fishing?• More financial responsibility?

• Payment for rights? • Cost recovery of management costs?

• Stronger support of market drivers for responsibility?• Traceability• Certification


Summary

• The CFP has delivered less than hoped for

• The causes are both ‘lack of will’ and ‘systemic failure’, a framework which is conducive to short term focus and irresponsibility

• Can we do better by:• More efficient use of the existing framework?• By improving the framework in the future?

• Clearer policy focus?• Framework to promote responsible decision making and

implementation?• Incentives to promote industry responsibility?

european commission dg maritime affairs and fisheries the common fisheries policy - room for...

Documents

european commission

maritime affairs

fisheries losses

community fisheries

food slide

fisheries diagnosis

fisheries regional losses

fisheries dramatic reduction