Progress towards an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries in Europe Simon Jennings Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science, Lowestoft & School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia

Source: ‘The Times’ 23 April 2009

European fisheries Source: © Nations online

European fisheries © Andy Revill © FNI

Common Fisheries Policy The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is the European Union's instrument for fisheries management The first common measures were introduced in 1970 when it was agreed that EU fishermen should, in theory, have equal access to Member States' waters.

Towards an EAF in Europe The CFP has been placed in a wider policy framework where it is expected to deliver sectoral support for an EA The CFP has been modified to incorporate and deliver aspects of an EAF Two processes

Modification: 2002 reforms of the Common Fisheries Policy - Increase participation of stakeholders - Adopt a long term approach to management - Balance resource productivity and fleet capacity - Reduce adverse impacts on the marine ecosystem - Achieve economic and social viability Several changes to policy consistent with an EAF were proposed Process paralleled preparatory work for WSSD and the Reykjavik declaration

Modification: 2002 reforms of the Common Fisheries Policy Article 2 of the Council Regulation Nr 2371/2002 “ The CFP shall ensure exploitation of aquatic living resources that provides sustainable economic, environmental and social conditions ” “ to provide for …. sustainable exploitation and to minimise the impact of fishing activities on marine eco-systems ” “ aim at a progressive implementation of an eco-system based approach to fisheries management ”

Policy framework: CFP as a contributor to the Marine Strategy Directive and Maritime Policy Work towards a Marine Strategy Directive also began to gather pace in culminating in agreement on the Marine Strategy Directive (MSD) of 2008 The Marine Strategy Directive was seen as the environmental pillar of an overriding Maritime Policy- and applied to all sectors It established the framework within which member states would aim to achieve ‘good environmental status’ of the marine environment

Policy framework: CFP as a contributor to the Marine Strategy Directive and Maritime Policy Aim of the MSD: to apply the ecosystem approach to ensure that collective effects of human pressures were kept within levels that achieved good environmental status The Ecosystem Approach was central ‘Marine strategies shall apply an ecosystem-based approach to the management of human activities’

Commercially exploited fish and shellfish (3) Food webs (4) Benthic habitats (6) Biodiversity (1) Policy framework: Marine Strategy Directive 11 descriptors of Good Environmental Status 4 impacted by fisheries

2012 Assess current status in relation to GES 2014 Monitoring in place 2015 Measures to achieve GES in place 2010 Define criteria for GES 2020 Aim to achieve GES Policy framework: Marine Strategy Directive Timetable to achieve Good Environmental Status

The EC have expressed a view about how the CFP might contribute to the Ecosystem Approach as outlined in the Marine Strategy Directive Policy framework: Marine Strategy Directive Timetable to achieve Good Environmental Status

Progress towards EAF Measured in terms of whether an EAF has enabled managers to meet the CFP objectives Measured in terms of changes in structures, working practices and the effectiveness of management

Progress in relation to objectives The objectives of the CFP can be paraphrased as: (1)To maintain fishing mortality at or below levels that are necessary to achieve maximum sustainable yield for all targeted stocks (2)To maintain or reduce fishing impact on the ecosystem at or below sustainable levels (3)To develop a viable, economically efficient and globally competitive European fisheries and aquaculture industry

Progress in relation to objectives Source: Analysis by Indicators for Fisheries Management in Europe project e.g. objective (2) in the Mediterranean RAC

NSRAC SWW RAC BSRAC Ecological (1, 2) Social (3?) Economic (3) Objectives MRAC Source: Analysis by Indicators for Fisheries Management in Europe project No ? No No ? No No Progress in relation to objectives

The positive news The main issues leading to objectives not being met are few in number Ecological: impacts on target species, vulnerable species and habitats Economic and social: overcapacity Source: Analysis by Indicators for Fisheries Management in Europe project Progress in relation to objectives

Progress towards an EAF: changes in structures

Offer advice to the EC on the CFP and ensure the engagement of stakeholders: established sequentially since 2004 Regional Advisory Councils (RAC) RACDateRegulation North Sea9 Nov /774/EC North Western Waters22 Sep /668/EC Baltic Sea1 Mar /191/EC South Western Waters4 Apr /222/EC Mediterranean29 Aug /695/EC Pelagic 5 Aug /606/EC High Seas29 Mar /206/EC

e.g. North Sea Progress towards an EAF: control of fishing mortality rates

but, overall progress towards meeting objectives has been slow The main reasons are unsurprising and are well recognised by the EC and member states - Overcapacity - Imprecise objectives with no guidance on tradeoffs - Decision making system retains short term focus - Industry not given sufficient responsibility - Lack of political will to ensure compliance

but, progress towards an EAF and meeting objectives has been slow The main reasons are unsurprising and are well recognised by the EC and member states

As we enter the review phase leading to a 2012 revision of the CFP The EC have a vision for 2020 as articulated in the recent Green Paper: Fishing communities are wealthy and thriving, environmental status is good, fish prices are high, consumers want locally produced fish, the CFP cheap and easy to manage, stakeholders are fully involved in decisions and the CFP promotes responsible fishing outside EU waters. But will there be the political will to meet the costs associated with moving from unprofitable, socially and ecologically unsustainable to profitable and socially and economically sustainable ?

1.Reduce overall fishing pressure 2.Reduce bycatches and habitat impacts 3.Provide protection for vulnerable species 4.Simplified technical measures to support ERF 5.CFP to manage fishery interactions with MPA Source: European Commission COM (2008) 187 final Next steps: an EC view on further moves towards an EAF and achieving GES

EAF thinking has led to changes in policy, more clearly defined relationships among policies and changes to management structures. The political system has been unwilling to meet the high short-term costs of reducing capacity, but the range of drivers to encourage a change is growing Despite progress towards longer-term regional management, progress in meeting the management objectives of an EAF is limited Conclusions

Management bodies need support to develop more pre-negotiated and pre-agreed processes to support transparent, decisive and effective management New aspirations do not cure ineffective governance. The performance of management in meeting objectives depends on the weakest link Conclusions Decisions are slow and centralised because there are no pre-arranged agreements on the actions to take when multiple objectives cannot be met