Fisheries and the Environment Workshop: Gatwick

Full Report - Format: PDF Size: 486kb

Summary

Introduction

"Environmental integration has been given a higher profile within Community policy as a consequence of the new Amsterdam Treaty. Article 2 of the EC Treaty places sustainable development among the EC's primary objectives, followed by Article 6 which requires that environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the Community policies and activities"

"The challenge of translating these commitments into action was followed up by the high level 'Cardiff integration process' which calls on all relevant Council formations to establish Council integration strategies, giving effect to integration and sustainable development within their policy areas. The fisheries environmental integration strategy is to be presented in 2000, with a final report to be revisited at the June 2001 Summit under Sweden's Presidency of the Council. The Cardiff process presents a special opportunity to promote a comprehensive and strategic approach to 'greening' the Common Fisheries Policy, particularly as part of the 2002 review of the CFP"

(Clare Coffey in "Fisheries and the Environment workshop" p3 "Setting the scene")

The Fisheries and the Environment Workshop - Gatwick

The Gatwick meeting was. "an opportunity to establish contact, exchange experience and initiate joint initiatives to demonstrate concern at EU level".

Key points and conclusions drawn from the workshop national presentations

Supranational directives and conventions (Convention on BioDiversity, Birds Directive, Habitat Directive, Ramsar et cetera) are the essential driving forces behind implementation via national legislation
When implementing, as they must under international law, these directives and conventions, nations are compelled to re-examine their national legislation and attitudes regarding nature conservation
National situations regarding fisheries and nature conservation range from countries that have the same ministry responsible for both areas and where there is full integration; to the other end of the spectrum where a country has separate ministries which are mutually antagonistic
There is sometimes a lack of suitable manpower to enforce legislation, especially in the smaller nations
All over the EU fisheries area, there are major destruction of habitats due to fishing activity, particularly by beam trawling
Increasing scientific knowledge of the environmental impacts of fishing helps draw attention to the need to integrate fisheries management and nature conservation
Data is being collected on non-commercial species
There is EU wide recognition of the need to:
Integrate environmental and fisheries policy
Incorporate the Precautionary Principle
Reduce fishing effort by Decommissioning and limiting effort
A local approach to management of Regional Seas, with stakeholder participation
Involve stakeholders (especially fishermen) in decision making in order to increase compliance, part of the shift from 'command & control' to 'consultation'.
Encourage 'green' fishing gear and methods (application of technical conservation measures)
Intense aquaculture activity requires:
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
Reduction of impact, perhaps by rotating cultivation
Regionalisation:
Different meanings to different groups
In UK/Ireland it tends to mean SUPRA national groupings
In the EC it tends to mean a SUB national grouping
Improved management is not automatic on a regional basis
Some accept, that it may be good in 'closed' seas such as the Baltic or Mediterranean, but there could be considerable difficulty over choosing boundary criteria in other areas. Political? Geographic? Biological? et cetera
Regional management may be very susceptible to pressure from local groups with a vested interest
Regions may work better if 'pushed' by central government
Innovative conservation methods include the use of artificial reefs (large blocks of concrete penetrated by railway lines located on the sea bed)
To protect habitats from trawling
Augment available substrate for growth
Research needed on use and effects of artificial reefs

Conclusions from Workshops:

Workgroup One: Future Co-operation between the Workshop Delegates?

The delegates felt that they want to work together to obtain elevated recognition of influence, improve their advice, recognise common strengths and weaknesses, help 'greening' process by generating international pressure on national processes, break up isolated working and generate apt research on fisheries impacts, policy and instruments
They wanted to influence the CFP, and increase their capacity to tackle various subjects, learn from each other, identify the key issues as they emerge and develop a strategic view
They concluded that they could work together by E-mail groups, communicating on specific topics, interface with the outside world to raise awareness at seminars and other meetings
The delegates felt that there were many potential sources of funding for our group's activities including INTERREG III, DG10 with 100% funding, DG12 with 50% funding, DG11 which has an 'information awareness' budget or LIFE (L'Instrument Financier pour l'Environment). DG 16 structural funding. These are just some of the possibilities.

Stefano Moretti and Barry Haynes were nominated to investigate practical sources of funding for the group's future activity immediately after the end of the workshop.

Workgroup Two: Marine Protected Areas

Marine Protected Areas may range from locations in which there is no human interference to those in which human activity is compatible and not harmful to the objectives of the MPA
The delegates felt that they want MPAs for nature conservation, to create sustainable use fisheries, to fulfil legal obligations, to preserve unique habitats, to help to avoid the collapse of a fishery, to restore habitats and as a reference site for scientific studies
The most effective size for an MPA depends upon the species to be protected. Quite a small MPA can be a useful mechanism to protect a sedentary species. For a species that ranges over a wide area an MPA covering a high proportion of that area will be needed
The delegates felt that they could influence the creation of MPAs by involving stakeholders and understanding what drives them, mutual agreements, demonstrating the damage caused by some activities in the area, demonstrating locations where they can benefit fishermen and other users and helping to promote voluntary agreements involving stakeholders
When trying to create an MPA it was felt that a clear view of the objective(s), avoiding narrow views (eg a fisheries department just interested in fish), use the Habitats Directive as a good legal driver, analyse the comprehensive cost of NOT having an MPA (Collapse of fishery, decrease of food, increase in unemployment et cetera) compared with the cost of having one and collect as much data as possible about existing MPAs.
Be very vigilant with cost analysis. One may come up with 'odd' answers because of holes in the data. and also be cautious with outcomes

There is a specific measure under the EU Structural funds that can be used to support Protected Marine Areas. eg the Columbretes reserve used structural funds. Funds used for both monitoring and enforcement. Funds can be used to raise the value of the fish coming from the area. It is important to view the whole as a 'package' including social effects.

Workgroup three: The ecosystem approach to fisheries management

The group concluded that:

There are many views about the definition. Spatial scale in terms of habitat and the broad measure of activity going on are important. Should it involve an individual fishery or encompass everything? Much debate. Not resolved in group. Complex systems are more difficult to manage on the other hand over simplification may not be able to achieve aim. It is best not to be too prescriptive. Ecosystem approach vital for sustainable use. If you do not have an ecosystem approach you do not understand the system. The ecosystem can be divided into: components/structure/functioning. It is vital to understand all three to understand the ecosystem.
An ecosystem approach might be achieved by: knowing what you are trying to do. Have ways of measuring progress towards objectives (targets/bench marks/indicators). Have links between targets/activities that effect those targets/the management options. Develop a process that allows you to achieve targets democratically with all interest groups. An 'ecosystem approach' involves everybody; you can not just impose it. A 'trade off' system is sometimes useful (but care needs to be take that commercial groups to not dominate with the environment becoming the loser).
Other ways of helping to get an ecosystem approach are: strategic environment assessment including risk assessment of various possible outcomes stemming from the options. Things should be kept simple so that it is easy for everybody to understand. Find common interests. Include other measures such as the Habitats Directive
There is now a massive opportunity for the group to share information.
Workgroup four: Advantages to nature conservation of regionalisation
This workgroup concluded that:
Much 'regional' approach already exists in the CFP. Quotas are decided on a stock basis to regional areas / technical measures are regionalised / structural funds are part of regional policy.
European Parliament working on regionalisation has come up with two concepts:
National jurisdiction is extended outwards
Devolution of policy downwards not to member states but to cross boundary regions
Some ambiguity. In English it is Supranational but the EU often uses it to mean a sub-national region
In some parts of the world (USA) regional fisheries management is dominated too much by the fishing industry resulting in over fishing. In other places (Waddenzee and the Baltic) regionalisation results in positive benefits
Much concern was expressed over the basic unit upon which a region could be based. Ecological or political? Subsidiarity is closely associated with regional concepts.
Any subsidiarity/regionalisation will need to be accompanied buy a strong monitoring system;

The group expressed no views on how regionalisation can be achieved

Conclusion

The workshop achieved a mutual understanding of the national problems with regard to fisheries management nature conservation and a clear understanding that fisheries management and nature conservation are in fact synonymous. Integration requires a broad church of views

The Delegates found many areas of agreement and an understanding on areas of variance

Decisions were made on the way forward and plans for future action with regard to forming an E-group, exchanging information and seeking funding to continue the groups activity.