An Ecosystem based approach to the common fisheries
policy:
Achieving the objectives
Summary
Introduction
1. The second report on An Ecosystem Based Approach to the
Common Fisheries Policy outlines some of the basic conditions for
its implementation in terms of policy measures and institutional
frameworks. It acknowledges that existing policy, designed
essentially to make short term adjustments to fishing effort while
maintaining the overall status quo, is inappropriate to the
implementation of an ecosystem based approach to management. It
argues for the introduction of new policy instruments and a
progressive restructuring of management institutions
(Section 1).
The policy approach
2. To date fisheries management has been conducted almost
exclusively through regulation i.e. the imposition of rules
limiting fishing activity. By comparison with agriculture, the
policy approach largely neglects opportunities for persuasion in
the form of financial incentives and market mechanisms. Although
there are significant differences between agriculture and
fisheries, which make the direct transposition of policy measures
from one area to the other difficult or impossible, it should be
feasible to develop a less regulatory and more balanced approach to
fisheries policy (Section 2).
Policy instruments
3. Translating the ecosystem objectives defined in the
previous report into permitted levels of overall fishing mortality
will require a considerable reduction in fishing activity and
significant job losses throughout European fishing industry. Such
changes can only be contemplated as part of a long term strategy.
This needs to take particular account of the transitional problems
in moving towards a more sustainable future for the fishing
industry by phasing in the more drastic measures over a ten to
fifteen year period (Section 3.1).
4. Although the temptation within the policy hierarchy may
well be to seek to achieve the new objectives by intensifying
current management practice, existing measures offer little
prospect of achieving the required reduction and restructuring of
fishing activity. The industry has lost confidence in the efficacy
of the existing approach and new measures will be needed to steer
policy towards the desired outcomes. Considerable improvements can
be effected by measures to reduce fishing capacity. Future
Multi-annual Guidance Programmes (MAGPs) will, however, need to
target the reductions more precisely and a large injection of funds
will be needed to persuade sufficient numbers to withdraw
voluntarily from the industry. The provision of grant aid to assist
the modernisation of the industry, will also need to be revised, to
avoid the re-emergence of recapitalised fishing capacity and to
ensure that overall capacity is kept within the target level.
Total allowable catches (TACs) and quotas - the cornerstone of
present fisheries policy - do not serve the purposes of an
ecosystem approach to management particularly well. The present
system is prone to too many loopholes (black fish landings,
misreporting, discards etc) and is largely discredited in the eyes
of the fishing industry. Moves to introduce individual transferable
quotas (ITQs) may go some way to remedying some of these problems,
though evidence supporting the claims to 'stewardship' values in
respect of the wider marine environment is at best equivocal. An
alternative might be the introduction of more transparent effort
quotas (days at sea) coupled with a discards ban.
For the purpose of ecosystem based management, the use of
technical conservation measures (TCMs), eg. gear restrictions,
closed areas, etc. seems more appropriate. Relatively little use
has been made of these to restructure the pattern of fishing. More
emphasis needs to be given to:
- the phasing out of fishing methods that cause unacceptable
effects to non-target species and marine habitats;
- the introduction of more selective fishing gears; and,
- the systematic use of ground closures (including long term no
take zones, NTZs) to protect essential fish habitats and vulnerable
populations of non-target species (Section 3.2).
Financial measures
5. The report urges a fundamental rethinking of the management
strategy and a progressive switching of the emphasis from
regulation to persuasion through the adoption of financial
instruments. The tradition of free and open access to fisheries is
already at an end. Licensing and quota entitlements restrict access
to most commercial fisheries. But, until now, fishermen do not have
to pay society for the privilege of using the common pool
resources; nor do they contribute directly to the overhead costs
(i.e. scientific assessment, administration and enforcement) of
maintaining the quality of the resource base.
The EU has relatively little experience in using financial
instruments to regulate the fishing industry. Two basic forms of
financial instrument are examined: financial charges levied on
fishermen as payment for access to the resource and financial
incentives paid to fishermen to encourage the adoption of fishing
practices in line with responsible fishing.
Entry fees, payable annually on licences and graduated according
to vessel size and fishing activity, and/or resource rents, levied
on individual vessel quotas at fixed rates or through an auction
system, are the preferred methods of charging the industry for the
rights to fish. Care would need to be taken to ensure that such
charges did not have a perverse effect by increasing fishing effort
in order to cover the extra costs. Alternative means of controlling
fishing effort through charges, which have been mooted in the past,
involve levying taxes on landings or, more appropriately, on fuel
(as a cost factor directly proportional to effort).
Financial incentives work to persuade fishermen to take
decisions which conform with the general thrust of fishing policy.
Environmental resource payments could, for example, be introduced
to support responsible fishing practice in 'environmentally
sensitive marine areas' (ESMAs), where the marine ecosystem is at
risk from the use of certain types of gear and/or from fishing
carried out at certain times of the year. ESMAs could form a third
tier of designated areas after Marine Nature Reserves and No Take
Zones.
Finally, market incentive schemes, eg. eco-labelling, similar to
those being developed on a global scale by the Marine Stewardship
Council, would be a useful addition to an ecosystem based strategy
for fisheries management (Section 3.3).
6. It will be important to present the new policy measures as
part of a well integrated package. Financial measures would be used
to reinforce the aims of regulation and to accelerate the processes
of change by confronting fishermen with clear economic choices -
whether to leave the industry voluntarily through decommissioning
schemes, or, to remain and pay for fishing rights through resource
rents etc. Equally, it will be important to convince politicians
and the general public that the introduction of financial
instruments will not impose a burden on public expenditure: over
time, the incomes generated through resource rentals will be used
to finance incentive schemes (decommissioning, environmental
resource payments etc) and may best be seen as in the nature of a
loan scheme to assist the development of the fishing industry
(Section 3.4).
Institutional reform
7. The centralised system of fisheries management which
characterises the present CFP is unlikely to be appropriate to the
needs of an ecosystem based approach. Indeed, a fundamental feature
of the approach is the need for the regionalisation of management,
so that the details of the regime can be tailored to the
requirements of the particular ecosystem (Section 4.1).
8. The basis for ecosystem based management at the regional
level would be provided by Integrated Regional Management Plans
(IRMPs). These would comprise a status report describing the
current situation and a strategic management plan detailing
specific management targets for the marine ecosystem and the
commercial fisheries. IRMPs would be structured to provide short
and long term objectives, in line with those described in Defining
the Goals. They would serve as a framework for coordinating other
environmental policy initiatives such as Biodiversity Action Plans
(BAPs) and Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) (Section 4.2).
9. A nested structure of management regions is suggested,
including:
a. Regional seas, used as the basis for the
IRMPs;
b. National marine regions, a subdivision of the
regional seas falling within the Member State's EEZ; and
c. Sea Fisheries Districts, as the basis for
locally devolved management of inshore waters
(Section 4.3).
10. It has become fashionable to argue that good governance in
fisheries requires the adoption of co-management, involving
stakeholders directly in the formulation and implementation of
policy. There are, however, sound reasons for advising caution in
the adoption of co-management systems in the early stages of
developing an ecosystem based approach. What is envisaged,
therefore, is a gradual progression towards true co-management,
beginning with the establishment of regional consultative
committees - combining scientific and professional expertise - but
eventually evolving into devolved regional institutions, with a
significant degree of autonomy in determining the detailed
management strategies for the regional seas.
Possibly the most useful model for the consultative committees
is the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council (FRCC) in Atlantic
Canada, comprising 15 experts drawn from the scientific and
fisheries communities together with ex officio members from the
federal and provincial administrations, which makes its
recommendations directly to the Minister for Fisheries and Oceans.
The FRCC has already exerted a strong influence on fisheries policy
and on research priorities.
Perhaps ten to fifteen years hence, one could contemplate the
formalisation of the regionalisation approach through the
establishment of Regional Fisheries Councils formed of scientists,
stakeholder representatives and administrators drawn from the
relevant coastal states with powers to develop regional management
strategies for the regional seas, subject to ratification by the EU
Council of Ministers.
Management of inshore waters is likely to remain the
responsibility of Member States after 2002. The organisational
arrangements are best left to reflect the natural conditions and
also the political cultures of the individual Member State. In
England and Wales a sound basic framework for inshore management
exists in the form of the Sea Fisheries Committees (SFCs), though
there are good reasons for recommending a review of their
structures, powers and funding to ensure that they are adequately
equipped to cope with the increasing pressures for the sensitive
management of inshore waters (Section 4.4).
A programme for implementation
11. The successful implementation of an ecosystem approach will
depend on the careful synchronisation of the different elements of
the new policy. The implementation programme, developed over a
longer time scale than is normal, must allow sufficient time for
both the industry and the fisheries administrations to adjust to
the considerable implications of policy reform. Well defined,
interim targets at five year intervals, should be established as
staging posts en route to the eventual goal, but the programme must
retain sufficient flexibility to take account of any unforseen
events.
Although detailed targets may not be available much before 2005,
there is no reason to delay the introduction of special measures to
accelerate the planned reduction in fishing capacity. While the
implementation of the new financial measures (resource rents and
environmental resource payments) is likely to be deferred until
after the setting of the detailed targets, the intention to
introduce such measures should be announced as soon as possible,
thus preparing the industry for what is a major change in fisheries
management, and to give individual fishermen time to consider their
options. Regionally specific measures, such as the introduction of
gear restrictions, are likely to be phased in during the second
five year period, after the completion of the IRMPs.
Broader implications
12. The introduction of an ecosystem based approach, as outlined
above, will have far reaching implications. Reductions in fishing
effort could bear heavily on the fishing communities and intensify
quite dramatically the familiar spiral of job losses, out migration
and ageing population structures. Decisions may have to be taken to
protect certain socially important elements of the fishing industry
through preferential access to resources and exemptions from
resource rents. The scientific community also faces a radical
reappraisal of its functions in relation to fisheries management
and there will be important shifts in the roles and
responsibilities of stakeholders and administrators in the evolving
policy process. For the general public the impacts will be muted.
Nonetheless some initial disruption to supplies of fish and, in the
short term, higher retail prices are to be expected as a
consequence of reduced fishing activity. The benefits in terms of
improvements to the marine ecosystem and the recovery of threatened
non-target species may go largely unnoticed.
Conclusion
Radical reform of fisheries policy in Europe is inevitable.
There is, in effect very little choice. Either one can continue the
largely unplanned decline of the fishing industry or develop a
strategic programme of structural change phased over 15-20 years
and based around a package of adequate compensation for those
willing to leave the industry and financial inducements to restrain
fishing effort and steer the industry towards more responsible
fishing practice. Meanwhile a regionalised approach can integrate
the broad thrust of structural change with more specific issues
relating to the management of the ecosystem.