The Common Fisheries Policy – The Quest for Sustanability

<p>Preface xii</p>
<p>Acknowledgements xiii</p>
<p>Disclaimer xiv</p>
<p>1 Why the common fisheries policy is important 1</p>
<p>Europe and fisheries 1</p>
<p>The CFP as a key European policy 1</p>
<p>The fishing sector in Europe: some facts 1</p>
<p>A historical background 3</p>
<p>The importance of European fishing beyond economics 7</p>
<p>Fishing and national traditions: the difficult balance 8</p>
<p>Fishing and the tragedy of the commons 8</p>
<p>The importance of geography 8</p>
<p>The importance of economics and culture 9</p>
<p>Fisheries and international conflict 10</p>
<p>Fisheries and European law 10</p>
<p>The CFP in the Treaty of Rome 10</p>
<p>Fishing in subsequent Treaties 11</p>
<p>The Treaty of Lisbon 12</p>
<p>Fisheries policy and European integration 13</p>
<p>Who decides what in the CFP? 13</p>
<p>The importance of history 15</p>
<p>Notes 16</p>
<p>References 16</p>
<p>2 The origin of the CFP 18</p>
<p>Fishing in the 1960s 18</p>
<p>The context in Europe 18</p>
<p>The context in the world 19</p>
<p>The precedents: ICNAF and NEAFC 20</p>
<p>The Commission s first initiatives 21</p>
<p>The 1967 Communication 21</p>
<p>The structures and market</p>
<p>regulations of 1970 21</p>
<p>The enlargement of 1973 22</p>
<p>The declaration of exclusive fisheries zones as of 1977 24</p>
<p>Relative stability and The Hague preferences 26</p>
<p>The basic allocation key 27</p>
<p>The Hague Preferences 28</p>
<p>The consolidation of relative stability 28</p>
<p>The regulations of 1983 29</p>
<p>Regulation 170/83 29</p>
<p>Regulation 171/83 30</p>
<p>What remains of the 1983 policy? 31</p>
<p>The 12 ]mile regime 31</p>
<p>Relative stability 31</p>
<p> But relative stability can change 32</p>
<p> And relative stability can be adjusted annually: quota swaps 33</p>
<p>The application of The Hague Preferences 34</p>
<p>Notes 34</p>
<p>References 35</p>
<p>3 EU enlargement and the CFP 36</p>
<p>The first enlargements 36</p>
<p>The second enlargement: Greece in 1981 36</p>
<p>Spain and Portugal in 1986: a quantum leap for the CFP 36</p>
<p>The Treaty of Accession 38</p>
<p>The transitional period and the Western Waters Regulation 38</p>
<p>The first adaptation in 1995 39</p>
<p>The end of the transitional period in 2002 39</p>
<p>The effort management scheme of the western waters 39</p>
<p>The biologically sensitive zone 40</p>
<p>The question of access 41</p>
<p>The other side effect of accession: the quota hoppers 42</p>
<p>Implementation of the Western Waters Regulation 43</p>
<p>Other enlargements 43</p>
<p>Sweden, Finland and Austria in 1995 and the failed accession of Norway 43</p>
<p>The non ]accession of Norway 44</p>
<p>The 2004 enlargement: new Baltic, Mediterranean and land ]locked Member States 45</p>
<p>The enlargement of 2007: the Black Sea 46</p>
<p>Croatia in 2013 47</p>
<p>Notes 47</p>
<p>References 48</p>
<p>4 The conservation policy 49</p>
<p>Conservation: the core business of the CFP 49</p>
<p>TACs and quotas: the main conservation instrument of the CFP 50</p>
<p>The scope of TACs and quotas 51</p>
<p>TACs and scientific advice: a conflicting relationship 53</p>
<p>Improving TAC setting: from ad hoc discussions to the Policy Statement 55</p>
<p>New types of TACs 58</p>
<p>The elusive multi ]species TACs 59</p>
<p>Enforcing TACs 61</p>
<p>Quota flexibility 62</p>
<p>From annual TACs to multi ]annual plans 62</p>
<p>The case of cod 63</p>
<p>The reform of 2002 and the consolidation of long ]term plans 65</p>
<p>Other long term plans 66</p>
<p>Other plans proposed by the Commission 69</p>
<p>The introduction of fishing effort as a management instrument 71</p>
<p>Cod recovery and effort management 71</p>
<p>The implementation of effort management 73</p>
<p>The future of effort management 75</p>
<p>Technical measures 76</p>
<p>Technical measures: are they just technical? 76</p>
<p>Some historical background 77</p>
<p>Gear characteristics 78</p>
<p>Minimum landing sizes: a difficult compromise 82</p>
<p>Closed areas/seasons as technical measures 83</p>
<p>Closed areas as a mainstream management instrument 85</p>
<p>Amending technical measures 85</p>
<p>Implementing technical measures 86</p>
<p>The future of technical measures 88</p>
<p>Is the CFP conservation policy a success? 88</p>
<p>The slow progress of the conservation policy 88</p>
<p>The Mediterranean 92</p>
<p>The contribution from long ]term management plans 92</p>
<p>Linkages of the conservation policy with other policy elements 92</p>
<p>Leisure fishing 94</p>
<p>Notes 95</p>
<p>References 95</p>
<p>5 Fleet policy 99</p>
<p>The relationship between fleets and resources 99</p>
<p>Fleet capacity and fisheries management 99</p>
<p>Historical background: the first fleet policy 100</p>
<p>The multi ]annual guidance programmes 100</p>
<p>MAGPs for the period 1983 1986 101</p>
<p>MAGPs for the period 1987 1991 101</p>
<p>MAGPs for 1992 1996: the Gulland report 102</p>
<p>The MAGPs 1997 2001: the Lassen report 103</p>
<p>Did the MAGPs work? 104</p>
<p>The modest objectives and their implementation 104</p>
<p>The measurement of capacity 105</p>
<p>The technological creep 106</p>
<p>The unpopular image of the policy 106</p>
<p>Other weaknesses of the MAGPs 106</p>
<p>From MAGPs to Member States responsibility: the policy since 2002 107</p>
<p>The new policy 107</p>
<p>Implementation 109</p>
<p>MAGPs versus Member State responsibility 110</p>
<p>Fleet and structural policy: have they helped each other? 111</p>
<p>Vessel construction and modernisation: a contribution to overcapacity? 111</p>
<p>Scrapping 112</p>
<p>Temporary laying ]ups: an instrument to undermine fleet capacity adjustment? 113</p>
<p>Has the fleet policy delivered? 114</p>
<p>Is there an alternative to fleet policy? The case for rights ]based management 115</p>
<p>Are RBM systems a panacea? 116</p>
<p>Notes 117</p>
<p>References 117</p>
<p>6 Structural policy 120</p>
<p>The structural policy: the oldest component of the CFP 120</p>
<p>The 43 years of structural policy 121</p>
<p>The first regulation in 1970 121</p>
<p>The second instrument in 1976 122</p>
<p>Structural policy and the birth of the CFP in 1983 122</p>
<p>The accession of Spain and Portugal and the new regulation in 1986 123</p>
<p>The first FIFG: 1994 1999 124</p>
<p>The second FIFG: 2000 2006 125</p>
<p>The European Fisheries Fund: 2007 2013 125</p>
<p>Implementation of the EFF 126</p>
<p>The new Regulation: EMFF 127</p>
<p>Has the structural policy resolved the structural problems of the CFP? 127</p>
<p>The evolution of the financial package 128</p>
<p>The results: a mixed picture 128</p>
<p>Processing industry 129</p>
<p>Ancillary industries and infrastructures 129</p>
<p>The development of aquaculture 130</p>
<p>The improvements in working conditions on board 130</p>
<p>Community ]led local development 131</p>
<p>Contribution to the achievement of CFP objectives 131</p>
<p>Fisheries and subsidies 132</p>
<p>The fishing sector: a highly subsidised industry? 132</p>
<p>State aid 133</p>
<p>Indirect subsidies 134</p>
<p>The effects: subsidies and competitiveness 135</p>
<p>The resource rent of the fishing sector in Europe 137</p>
<p>Is there a social dimension in the CFP? 137</p>
<p>The invisible part of the CFP 137</p>
<p>Working as a fisherman in Europe 139</p>
<p>The social elements of the CFP 140</p>
<p>Notes 141</p>
<p>References 141</p>
<p>7 The external dimension 144</p>
<p>The last frontier of the CFP: external resources 144</p>
<p>The importance of the external sector 145</p>
<p>A stand ]alone policy pillar? 145</p>
<p>The global governance of fisheries 146</p>
<p>The development of international fisheries law 146</p>
<p>Global governance 149</p>
<p>Soft law: FAO 149</p>
<p>Future prospects 150</p>
<p>The recognition of the Union as a world partner for fisheries governance 151</p>
<p>Multilateral management of fisheries 152</p>
<p>The Union in Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs): the question of membership 152</p>
<p>The relationship between the CFP and global fisheries management 155</p>
<p>The contribution of RFMOs to the development of the CFP 156</p>
<p>What challenges for the RFMOs? 157</p>
<p>Are resources improving in RFMOs? 160</p>
<p>Other neighbouring relationships.</p>
<p>Coastal states of the Northeast Atlantic: the case of mackerel 161</p>
<p>Bilateral fisheries agreements 161</p>
<p>Mutual access agreements 162</p>
<p>Agreements with trade concessions 164</p>
<p>Agreements with financial compensation 164</p>
<p>Private partnerships 165</p>
<p>Fisheries and international conflict: the Greenland halibut war 167</p>
<p>Notes 168</p>
<p>References 168</p>
<p>8 The mediterranean specificity 170</p>
<p>The CFP in the Mediterranean 170</p>
<p>A CFP in and for the North Sea and Atlantic 170</p>
<p>The Importance of Mediterranean fisheries 171</p>
<p>The Mediterranean specificity: myth or reality? 171</p>
<p>The status of Mediterranean fisheries 172</p>
<p>A different policy approach 175</p>
<p>The jurisdictional regime of Mediterranean waters 175</p>
<p>Fisheries management under the CFP 178</p>
<p>The 1994 Regulation 178</p>
<p>The 2006 Regulation 179</p>
<p>Implementation and enforcement 180</p>
<p>Multilateral management in the Mediterranean 181</p>
<p>The case of GFCM 181</p>
<p>ICCAT: the case of Bluefin tuna 182</p>
<p>The Black Sea: the new challenge of the CFP 185</p>
<p>Notes 186</p>
<p>References 186</p>
<p>9 Enforcing the CFP 188</p>
<p>The control pillar of the CFP 188</p>
<p>Why enforcement matters 188</p>
<p>The question of competence 189</p>
<p>The historical development of</p>
<p>the control system of the CFP 189</p>
<p>1982: The first regulation 189</p>
<p>1987: The second regulation 190</p>
<p>1993: The third regulation 190</p>
<p>Further developments 191</p>
<p>The evaluation of the control policy 192</p>
<p>The difficulty of enforcing the CFP 193</p>
<p>The legislation 193</p>
<p>Member States control 194</p>
<p>The Commission s role 195</p>
<p>The industry s attitude 195</p>
<p>The issue of sanctions 196</p>
<p>Control as a key factor in the development of the CFP 196</p>
<p>A case story: control and effort management 197</p>
<p>Financing the control of the CFP 197</p>
<p>The new control regulation 198</p>
<p>Why a new instrument? 198</p>
<p>Regulation 1224/2009 199</p>
<p>Future perspectives 200</p>
<p>The international dimension of the control of fisheries 200</p>
<p>NAFO 201</p>
<p>NEAFC 202</p>
<p>Other cases 202</p>
<p>Control and the international level playing field : the IUU regulation 202</p>
<p>Control in a global context 202</p>
<p>The precedents 203</p>
<p>The IUU Regulation of 2010 204</p>
<p>Implementation 205</p>
<p>Possible future developments 206</p>
<p>Towards integration of the control of fisheries 207</p>
<p>European integration: EFCA 207</p>
<p>Sectorial integration: the opportunity of CISE 209</p>
<p>Policy integration control and structural policy: conditionality 209</p>
<p>Notes 210</p>
<p>References 211</p>
<p>10 The scientific advice for the CFP 213</p>
<p>The CFP, a science ]based policy 213</p>
<p>The sources of fisheries research to underpin the CFP 213</p>
<p>The sources of advice for the CFP 214</p>
<p>The basic data for science and advice 216</p>
<p>The processing of the data 217</p>
<p>The evolution of the scientific advice 218</p>
<p>From safe biological limits to maximum sustainable yield 218</p>
<p>From short to long term advice 219</p>
<p>Moving from single species advice 220</p>
<p>The case of data poor stocks 221</p>
<p>The precautionary principle 223</p>
<p>The advice in the Mediterranean 223</p>
<p>Science and policy making: an often difficult relationship 224</p>
<p>Scientists and policy ]makers: a different language 224</p>
<p>Science and political decisions 224</p>
<p>Fisheries science and enforcement 225</p>
<p>Science and industry: from mistrust to cooperation 226</p>
<p>The future scientific advice: new methodologies and new demands of the reformed CFP after 2013 226</p>
<p>Economic science in the CFP 227</p>
<p>Economic versus biological science in the CFP: closing the gap 227</p>
<p>The Annual Economic Reports 229</p>
<p>Economic analysis as a tool for fisheries management 229</p>
<p>Notes 230</p>
<p>References 230</p>
<p>11 Fisheries and the environment 232</p>
<p>Environmental performance of the CFP 232</p>
<p>The integration of environmental concerns in the CFP 232</p>
<p>What has been achieved 233</p>
<p>Fisheries and environment: a difficult relationship 234</p>
<p>Fisheries and the environment as complementary policies 234</p>
<p>Pelagic sharks 235</p>
<p>Whaling 235</p>
<p>Eels 236</p>
<p>Marine mammals 237</p>
<p>Seabirds 237</p>
<p>Environmental questions as drivers for fisheries decisions 238</p>
<p>Implementing environmental law through the CFP 239</p>
<p>Natura 2000 and the CFP 239</p>
<p>The ecosystem approach 241</p>
<p>Implementation in the CFP 241</p>
<p>Managing the ecosystem? 243</p>
<p>The Marine Strategy Framework Directive 244</p>
<p>The notion of balanced harvest and the ecosystem approach 245</p>
<p>The ecosystem approach and maritime spatial planning 246</p>
<p>Notes 247</p>
<p>References 247</p>
<p>12 The stakeholders 250</p>
<p>The CFP and the ivory tower effect 250</p>
<p>The Advisory Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture 251</p>
<p>A historical background 251</p>
<p>The contribution of ACFA 252</p>
<p>Regional Advisory Councils 253</p>
<p>The precedents: regional workshops 253</p>
<p>The establishment of the RACs 254</p>
<p>The growth phase 254</p>
<p>RAC composition 255</p>
<p>Are RACs a success? 256</p>
<p>Non ]governmental organisations 257</p>
<p>The precedents 257</p>
<p>From iconic species to mainstream fisheries 258</p>
<p>Widening the scope: from campaigners to formal stakeholders 258</p>
<p>Other consultations 259</p>
<p>Institutional consultations 259</p>
<p>Social dialogue 260</p>
<p>Consultations with the public at large 260</p>
<p>Note 260</p>
<p>References 260</p>
<p>13 The governance of the CFP 262</p>
<p>The CFP: a central command policy? 262</p>
<p>The micromanagement from Brussels 262</p>
<p>The culture of the December Council 262</p>
<p>The psychology of decision making 263</p>
<p>Horse trading 264</p>
<p> Paper fish and governance 265</p>
<p>Allocating national quotas: a Member State prerogative 266</p>
<p>Improving decision making 266</p>
<p>Front loading 267</p>
<p>The effects of the Policy Statement 267</p>
<p>Streamlining TAC decisions 267</p>
<p>Enlargement and decision</p>
<p>making by Council 268</p>
<p>The CFP, a complex policy 268</p>
<p>The ever increasing complexity 269</p>
<p>The number of regulations 270</p>
<p>Duplication of management instruments 271</p>
<p>The number of Member States in Council 272</p>
<p>The Treaty of Lisbon and co ]decision 272</p>
<p>Co–decision and simplification 272</p>
<p>Co –decision and societal interests 274</p>
<p>Council versus Parliament: Articles 43(2) and 43(3) 274</p>
<p>Co –decision and regionalisation 275</p>
<p>Non–legislative elements for decision making 275</p>
<p>Is co –management an option for the CFP? 276</p>
<p>Notes 277</p>
<p>References 277</p>
<p>14 Aquaculture 278</p>
<p>Is aquaculture part of the CFP? 278</p>
<p>A unique part of the CFP 278</p>
<p>Some facts and figures on aquaculture in the EU 278</p>
<p>The evolution of the EU policy in promoting aquaculture development 279</p>
<p>EU legislation and aquaculture 280</p>
<p>Aquaculture as part of the structural policy of the CFP 280</p>
<p>Aquaculture and environmental policy 280</p>
<p>Aquaculture and sanitary policy 282</p>
<p>Aquaculture and research policy 283</p>
<p>Alien species in aquaculture 283</p>
<p>Stakeholders 283</p>
<p>The aquaculture strategies 283</p>
<p>2002: The first strategy 284</p>
<p>2009: The second strategy 284</p>
<p>2013: The strategic guidelines 285</p>
<p>Aquaculture strategy and CFP reform 285</p>
<p>What future for European aquaculture? 286</p>
<p>European aquaculture: a unique mixture of strengths and weaknesses 286</p>
<p>The challenges 286</p>
<p>Notes 289</p>
<p>References 289</p>
<p>15 Reforming the CFP: 1992 and 2002 291</p>
<p>Reforming the CFP 291</p>
<p>The first reform: 1992 292</p>
<p>The context 292</p>
<p>The new basic regulation of 1992 293</p>
<p>Implementation of the first reform 293</p>
<p>The second reform: 2002 294</p>
<p>The context 294</p>
<p>Vessel construction 295</p>
<p>Long –term plans 296</p>
<p>Regional Advisory Councils 296</p>
<p>Other issues 297</p>
<p>What the 2002 reform missed: Maximum Sustainable Yield 298</p>
<p>The implementation of the 2002 reform 300</p>
<p>Note 301</p>
<p>References 301</p>
<p>16 The CFP reform of 2013 303</p>
<p>The context for reform and the Green Paper 303</p>
<p>The reform in 2012: the status quo is not an option 303</p>
<p>The Green Paper 303</p>
<p>The proposals 304</p>
<p>The impact assessment 304</p>
<p>The package 305</p>
<p>The discard ban 305</p>
<p>Why a discard ban? 305</p>
<p>Why a top ]down approach? 306</p>
<p>The practical difficulties and the need for flexibility 308</p>
<p>Discard ban and TAC levels 309</p>
<p>Regionalisation 310</p>
<p>Regionalising the CFP: easier said than done 310</p>
<p>Regionalisation and national law: the need for delegated acts 310</p>
<p>Maximum sustainable yield 311</p>
<p>Accepting the principle 311</p>
<p>Is MSY a balanced objective? 311</p>
<p>MSY by when? 312</p>
<p>Which MSY: based on fishing mortality or biomass? 312</p>
<p>Why not Maximum Economic Yield? 313</p>
<p>MSY for mixed fisheries 314</p>
<p>Transferable fishing concessions and fleet policy 314</p>
<p>Why a system of transferable rights? 314</p>
<p>Why did TFCs fail? 315</p>
<p>The new fleet policy 316</p>
<p>Other issues in the basic regulation 317</p>
<p>The policy objectives 317</p>
<p>Long –term management plans 317</p>
<p>The composition of Advisory Councils 318</p>
<p>Integration of environmental concerns 318</p>
<p>Closed areas 319</p>
<p>Aquaculture 320</p>
<p>Control 320</p>
<p>Scientific advice and data collection 321</p>
<p>Small –scale fishing 321</p>
<p>Delegated and implementing acts 321</p>
<p>The external dimension 322</p>
<p>Contributing to long ]term sustainability worldwide 322</p>
<p>The new market regulation 323</p>
<p>The new structural instrument: the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) 324</p>
<p>The proposal 325</p>
<p>The negotiation and the final regulation 326</p>
<p>Fleet measures 327</p>
<p>Aquaculture 329</p>
<p>Marketing 329</p>
<p>Outermost regions 330</p>
<p>Control and data collection 330</p>
<p>Processing industry 331</p>
<p>Social measures 331</p>
<p>Environmental measures 332</p>
<p>Other measures 333</p>
<p>Community–led local development 334</p>
<p>Integrated maritime policy 335</p>
<p>Conditionality 335</p>
<p>Investments by the Commission under direct management 336</p>
<p>The allocation of funds 337</p>
<p>Notes 339</p>
<p>References 339</p>
<p>17 What s next? 341</p>
<p>Implementing the new CFP: a daily affair 341</p>
<p>Implementation of the MSY objectives 342</p>
<p>MSY in 2015 or 2020? 342</p>
<p>MSY proxies 342</p>
<p>MSY in multi–species fisheries 342</p>
<p>Implementing the discard ban 343</p>
<p>The necessary changes in current legislation: the omnibus proposal 343</p>
<p>Improving selectivity: the next generation of technical measures 343</p>
<p>Preparing the future rules 344</p>
<p>The problem of choke species 344</p>
<p>Facilitating the discard ban 345</p>
<p>Controlling the discard ban 346</p>
<p>Discard ban and conservation policy: a new paradigm 346</p>
<p>Regionalisation 347</p>
<p>Enhancing regional cooperation 348</p>
<p>Regionalisation versus harmonisation 348</p>
<p>The role of stakeholders 350</p>
<p>Long –term multi–species management plans 351</p>
<p>Planned versus bottom –up approach 351</p>
<p>What multi –species approach? 351</p>
<p>Scope of the plans 352</p>
<p>Other issues 353</p>
<p>Improving the scientific advice 353</p>
<p>Natura 2000 sites 354</p>
<p>Fishery Protected Areas: a lost opportunity? 354</p>
<p>The role of consumers 355</p>
<p>The future of management by fishing effort 355</p>
<p>The new CFP under co–decision 356</p>
<p>Co –decision and policy complexity 356</p>
<p>Adaptation of legislation 356</p>
<p>The role of the Commission 356</p>
<p>Will the new CFP prevent the tragedy of the commons ? 357</p>
<p>Fisheries in a wider maritime context: integrated maritime policy 360</p>
<p>Blue growth 360</p>
<p>Maritime Spatial Planning 361</p>
<p>Marine knowledge 361</p>
<p>Some external challenges for the CFP 361</p>
<p>The effects of climate change 362</p>
<p>Possible increases in fuel prices 363</p>
<p>Possible changes in the ownership of the means of production 363</p>
<p>Possible changes in the world s fisheries governance 364</p>
<p>Closing remarks 364</p>
<p>Notes 365</p>
<p>References 365</p>
<p>Glossary 367</p>
<p>Index 371</p>