European fishing fleet capacity management

Transcription

1 European fishing fleet capacity management Seas at Risk Conference Brussels, 21 October 2009 Sophie des Clers Photo Zineb Sedira

2 CFP reform - Vision for 2020 Europe s fishing industry has become far more financially robust. The industrial segment of the fleet is efficient and independent from public financial support. It operates with environmentally friendly boats and its size is commensurate with the fish it is authorised to catch. At the other end of the spectrum, small-scale fisheries continue to produce high-quality fresh fish consumed locally and marketed under labels of quality and origin that give higher value to fishermen. 2009, Green Paper CFP reform

3 Sustainable European Fishing Fleet Each and every fishing fleet segments are sustainable: Environmentally - activity limited to sustainable precautionary fishing mortality in all fisheries; avoids bycatch of juveniles; does not catch threatened and protected species; avoids impact on sensitive habitats and ecosystems; low energy/t fish landed, low pollution and waste => greener capacity Economically - profitable without public aide => fewer vessels Socially - transparent and equitable allocation of fishing rights to inshore fleet and communities=> balance small-scale/industrial; good ILO working conditions; minimum wage

4 European fleet Size and consequences of European fleet over-capacity in 2007 Capacity control initiatives Possible ways forward Photo SdesClers

5 The Present Situation In its 2008 mid-term review of the CFP the Commission admitted that there had been no drastic decommissioning, and instead the fishing fleet continued its slow but steady reduction at an annual rate of between two percent and three percent and that this had been the trend for the last 16 years. EC, Commission Working Paper: Reflections on further reform of the Common Fisheries Policy.

6 Gradual decrease in fleet nominal engine power offset by technological efficiency 40% The black line shows how the actual fishing capacity has increased assuming an annual creep in technological fishing efficiency of 3% since 1992.

7 Fishing capacity control so far Regulation (entry-exit) Fishing activity restrictions through effort limitation, area closure etc. and, A mix, depending on fisheries: Public-aided (semi-continuous) vessel decommissioning Some subsidies to modernize FV (and new entries even now) Right-Based Management (ITQs etc) New indicators in 2009 chalutier-industriel.skyrock.com

8 European Fisheries Fund ( ) Eligible measures - Priority Axis 1 Aid for permanent cessation as part of fishing effort adjustment plan or national fleet exit plan Aid for forced temporary cessation Aid for investments on board fishing vessels (such as more selective gear, fuel efficiency) Aid for small-scale coastal fishing (same as above and towards local management plans) Socio-economic compensation for temporary or permanent exit out of fishery Aid for young fishermen to - under certain conditions - cofinance a premium for the first-time acquisition (partial or total) of a vessel.

9 Decommissioning Has not worked Need to remove subsidies Next speakers Mostly disconnected from the need of a specific fishery, for less capacity or for capacity with less ecosystem impact => Need Plan of Action by fishery

10 ITQs and other RBM systems Initial allocations problems need urgent attention, particularly for small-scale fleet segments Next speakers Hatcher (2000) found that the EC Member State with the most incentive-adjusting management system, the Netherlands (which operates ITQs for most commercially significant stocks), is also the one with the worst record of compliance with MAGP objectives ; An in-depth analysis of existing Rights Based Management in Member States (MRAG Consortium 2009) found no overwhelming evidence that good quality rights lead to more sustainable exploitation, either in terms of better stock status or of more profitable fleet. => existing European RBM systems need to be revised IEEP, CFP Health Check

11 DG Mare Guidelines for an improved analysis of the balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities Technical indicator: (1) ratio between average days at sea and maximum days at sea observed in a fleet segment; Biological indicators (2) ratio between estimated fishing mortality (F) and targeted fishing mortality (F t ) of stocks exploited by the fleet segment; (3) ratio of current catch weight of species and the estimated biomass of the stock exploited attributed to fleet segments according to their share of Total Allowable Catch (TAC); and (4) Catch per Unit Effort (CPUE) measured in catch weight per days at sea of a fleet segment; Economic indicators: (5) return of investment (ROI); and (6) current revenue against break even revenue per segment; and Social indicators: (7) average wage per Full-time equivalent (FTE); and (8) gross value added of the activity of the fleet segment.

12 Technical indicator of fleet segment over-capacity = days at sea used/max days at sea No effective fleet reduction by 2002 and most fleet segment did not use their fishing opportunities in 2007 MAGP IV 2008 Guidelines Member States 2002 fleet segments Technical indicator for 2007 segments Belgium 1/2 1/2 1/2 Bulgaria 4 Denmark 4/4 7/12 5/12 Germany 6/7 Estonia Greece 5/6 Spain 7/7 France 19/21 Ireland 3/3 X Italy 7/11 X 1/21 2/21 11/21 Cyprus Latvia Lithuania 2/2 Malta 3/3 Netherlands 4/7 X 1/4 Poland Portugal 10/10 Romania Slovenia Finland 4/4 Sweden 5/6 6/6 United Kingdom 7/8 Compliance with MAGPIV objectives in power (kw) over the period Global and segment objectives achieved 2008 Guidelines - Technical indicator > Segments Segment objectives not achieved.7-.9 by X Infringement procedures pending <.7 Technical indicator class x/y Fleet segments with objectives achieved / total Report not submitted In 2009, 8 MS reported /22 IEEP, Overcapacity, what overcapacity?

13 DG Mare Guidelines for an improved analysis of the balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities. The use of indicators for reporting according to Art 14 of Council Regulation 2371/2002. Version 1 March Indicator group Name Thresholds Technical Days at sea / max days at sea < >.9 Biological F/Ft <1. 1 >1. Catch weight / stock biomass Need reference conditions CPUE «and use for trends only Economic ROI <0. 0. >0. Current revenue/break-even <1. 1 >1. Social crew share FTE GVA see IEEP, Overcapacity, what overcapacity?

14 Indicators for the balance between capacity and fishing opportunities (2008 Guidelines - DG Mare) Tech 1. Ratio between average days at sea and maximum days at sea observed Biol 1. Ratio of current fishing mortality (F) to target fishing mortality (Fmsy) for stocks exploited (F/Fmsy) Biol 2. Ratio of catch weight to estimated stock exploited biomass (fleet segment TAC share) Biol 3. Catch per Unit Effort (CPUE) measured in catch weight per days at sea Eco 1. Return on investment Eco 2. Ratio of break-even to current revenue Socio 1. Average wage per Full-time equivalent Socio 2. Gross value added (GVA) of the activity of the fleet segment

15 Indicators for the balance between capacity and fishing opportunities (2008, STECF Guidelines) IEEP, Overcapacity, what overcapacity?

16 2008 Indicators of fleet over-capacity First impressions Links can be established between fleet segment overcapacity and by fishery, a combination of under-used fishing opportunities, over-fished resource and poor economic performance Development work needed to obtain operational indicators at EU and Member States levels Fleet segments must be linked to fisheries and to fishing opportunities; Need collection of economic and social data; Member States need new reporting obligations

17 Plan of Action: Capacity Management Implementation Strategy in the Asia Region (from APFIC, 2007) 1. Carry out assessments of fishing capacity: Based on regular census of fishing vessels and fishing effort 2. Initiate a programme for capacity management: Start with a small number of major fisheries; Set meaningful targets for change reduction where overfishing occurs 3. Develop a NPOA for capacity management: Based on a consultative process involving inter-agency collaboration and consensus building 4. Introduce management measures (taking into account socio-economic conditions): Include rights-based measures wherever feasible; Ensure that excess fishing capacity is removed, not transferred 5. Develop regional co-operation to harmonise initiatives

18 Ways forward Plan of Action - by fishery looking at fleet size, and environmental impacts; devised and implemented by multi-stakeholder groups for all shared fisheries with EC and (only) MS concerned Adapted rights-based management systems, and Targeted decommissioning with industry support with Definition of European and MS levels clearly and programme structural funds accordingly Revision of existing rights at both EU and member States levels and re-allocation to redress deficit of small-sector and fisheries - dependent communities as necessary; eliminate paper fish Reformed governance to allow more industry-responsibility at fishery level

19 Thank you References in Conference Background document Photo SdesClers