MEFEPO M aking the Project aim and objectives E uropean Aim is to - - PDF document

Making the European Fisheries Ecosystem Plan Operational

August 30th, 2010 Pelagic RAC, Leiden

Gerjan Piet IMARES Aim is to support the transition towards an ecosystem approach to the management of European marine fisheries by developing operational strategies for the implementation of an ecosystem approach in three regions (NS, NWW, SWW), and identify how the

• verarching institutional framework needs to be modified

to support these strategies.

– Operationalizing an Ecosystem Approach: Framework to translate policy objectives (MSFD) to operational management strategies supporting the ‘three pillars of sustainability’ (ecological, social and economic) – Evaluate the different modes of fisheries governance in relation to the institutional frameworks used to manage the fisheries: Role and functioning of the RACs in relation to regionalisation

Project aim and objectives

MEFEPO

RACs and REGIONALISATION

MEFEPO

‘Consultation’ Methods

 Observations

4 RAC meetings and 4 conferences with regionalisation on the agenda

 Key-informant interviews

20 interviews: 2 researchers, 5 managers, 3 policy-makers, 10 stakeholders (8 of which were from the fishing industry)

 Study of Documents

Relevant documents on CFP reform, incl. selected position papers

 Survey

134 respondents (41%) from a population of 329 participants in selected RAC meetings held in 2009 (Pelagic, North Sea, NWW, SWW)

METHODS

“Another option to be carefully considered would be to rely wherever possible on specific regional management solutions implemented by Member States, subject to Community standards and control. […] In most cases this delegation would need to be

• rganised at the level of marine

regions because shared fish stocks and shared ecosystems cover wide geographical areas and cannot be managed by individual Member States acting in isolation. Member States would therefore have to work together to develop the setups required” (Commission’s Green

Paper 2009: p10-11)

REGIONALISATION ?

MEFEPO

BREAKDOWN OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS

MEFEPO

Functionality

Regionalisation helps the system to… * Cope with lengthy co-decision procedure * Focus the EU central level on principles * Facilitate EBFM and integration of policies

Procedural / input legitimacy

Regionalisation helps to… * Bring decisions closer to stakeholders * Provide better match between those making decisions and those implementing them

Content / output legitimacy

Regionalisation helps to… * Allow more tailor-made management * Incorporate local / stakeholder knowledge * Develop ‘best practices’ * Provide for coherent integration of policies

PERCEPTIONS 1

“The truth is that now with the entry of the Lisbon Treaty and the […] long period of time that it supposedly it will take to take decisions, the concept of regionalisation starts to soak through in the different countries” (Industry

stakeholder, 2009)

“When I think of regionalisation , I don’t think of regionalisation of the CFP, I think of regionalisation of the wider management of the North Sea” (Manager,

2009)

“If we do not find ways of involving the fishermen, letting them assume part of the management in the future, they will always find some way of protecting themselves from any organised scheme created” (Women’s representative, 2009) “The CFP should be regionalized because without this, it will be impossible for the policy to take into account all the different realities that exist” (Industry stakeholder, 2009) “…a more regional / local level where fishermen basically can be more involved in coming up with the solutions that would result in the objectives that have been agreed—because most often you have a number of different choices, different ways to do things”

(Environmental NGO representative, 2009)

REGIONALISATION: Why ?

Practical reasons to regionalise the CFP

 Regional Marine Management Organisations

* Necessitates formal regional organisation and re-orientation of RACs * Potential empowerment of regional stakeholders * Reduces micro-management, but EU level maintains coordinating role * Holistic, integrated approach to fisheries and marine management * Drastic change from current system

 Nationalisation

* No regional politico-administrative structures needed * Loss of ability to coordinate and micro-manage from the EU level * Member states in the driver’s seat * RACs obsolete or complete rethinking of role * Drastic change from current system

REGIONALISATION: How?

MEFEPO

Characteristics of the “Archetypes”, i.e. models of regionalisation  Regional Fisheries Co-Management Organisations

* Necessitates formal regional organisations * High likelihood for significant empowerment of stakeholders * RACs cease to exist, stakeholders participate in the regional org. * Reduces micro-management, but EU level maintains coordinating role * Drastic change from current system

 Regional Fisheries Management Organisations

* Necessitates formal regional organisations * Potential empowerment of regional stakeholders * RACs direct advice to regional organisations rather than to EU level * Reduced micro-management, but EU level maintains coordinating role * Significant change from current system

 Cooperative Member State Councils

* Only simple, regional politico-administrative structures needed * Empowerment of stakeholders not an explicit aim * RACs to advise regional councils as well as Commission * Micro-management may continue, but perhaps more efficient * Modest change from the current system

REGIONALISATION ?

MEFEPO

Headline

Possible subheader

Text PERCEPTIONS OF MODELS 3

Functioning of RACs

MEFEPO

THE RAC EXPERIENCE

“In spite of the fact that the fishing sector and the rest of members are doing praiseworthy work, investing lots of hours, money and time in RACs work, the reality is that when the recommendations are generated from the RACs and sent to the Commission, most of them are not being taken into account, attention is not paid to them—and the truth is that this demotivates and discourages a lot of those who work in the RACs” (Industry stakeholder,

2009)

“…many of the taboos that existed and many preconceived ideas have been changing through time”

(Industry stakeholder talking about how the relationship between the industry and the NGOs have changed due to interactions in the RACs, 2009)

The RACs so far

Mixed feeling of impact But builds trust…

Aim is to support the transition towards an ecosystem approach to the management of European marine fisheries by developing operational strategies for the implementation of an ecosystem approach in three regions (NS, NWW, SWW), and identify how the

• verarching institutional framework needs to be modified

to support these strategies.

– Evaluate the different modes of fisheries governance in relation to the institutional frameworks used to manage the fisheries: Role and functioning of the RACs – Operationalizing an Ecosystem Approach: Framework to translate policy objectives (MSFD) to operational management strategies supporting the ‘three pillars of sustainability’ (ecological, social and economic)

Project aim and objectives

MEFEPO

Policy

MSFD

• The Marine Strategy Framework Directive constitutes

the vital environmental component of the Union's future Maritime Policy

• The Marine Strategy Framework Directive aims to

achieve good environmental status of the EU's marine waters by 2020 and to protect the resource base upon which marine-related economic and social activities depend.

• Good Environmental Status (GES) shall be determined

at the level of the marine region or subregion, on the basis of the qualitative descriptors. Adaptive management on the basis of the ecosystem approach shall be applied with the aim of attaining good environmental status

Operationalizing policy

3 pillars of sustainability

Science

Operationalizing Policy

Is GES achieved? Compare indicators to reference levels Identify potential management measures that apply different tools Choose preferred management measure by balancing the tradeoffs between the ecologic, economic and social pillars/descriptors. This should be conducted in a formal and fully transparent process where science and stakeholders interact Preference elicitation for the GES descriptors identified for the pillars of sustainability Assess how these measures affect the GES descriptors using the best scientific knowledge

Science Stakeholders Proces

Choose preferred management measure by balancing the tradeoffs between the ecologic, economic and social pillars/descriptors. This should be conducted in a formal and fully transparent process where science and other stakeholders interact

Stakeholder consultation: Management tools

Days at Sea and decommissioning Increase the selectivity of the gear using separator devices, escape hatches, increased mesh-size or pingers to reduce by-catch. Lighter, less destructive gears may limit fishing disturbance to some habitat types Permanent and temporary closures to certain types of fishing TAC

Stakeholder Foodweb Seafloor integrity Biodiversity Commercial (shell)fish Efficiency Stability Community viability Job attractiveness Food security NGO 20 15 20 10 5 5 10 15 Industry 20 40 10 30 Scenario Foodweb Seafloor integrity Biodiversity Commercial (shell)fish Efficiency Stability Community viability Job attractiveness Food security 1 40 30 40 30 70 30 50 30 2 100 100 100 80 50 10 3 80 80 60 100 40 100 50 60 100 4 20 50 20 100 100 60 5 10 10 40 100 80 80 80

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1 2 3 4 5

Management scenario P refe ren ce

NGO Industry

Operationalizing policy

3 pillars of sustainability

Consequences MSFD for the pelagic fishery

• Biological diversity is maintained. The

quality and occurrence of habitats and the distribution and abundance of species are in line with prevailing physiographic, geographic and climatic conditions.

• Populations of all commercially exploited

fish and shellfish are within safe biological limits, exhibiting a population age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock.

• All elements of the marine food webs, to

the extent that they are known, occur at normal abundance and diversity and levels capable of ensuring the long-term abundance of the species and the retention

• f their full reproductive capacity.
• Sea-floor integrity is at a level that ensures

that the structure and functions of the ecosystems are safeguarded and benthic ecosystems, in particular, are not adversely affected.

• Pelagic fishery does not target vulnerable

species

• Relatively clean fishery, bycatch is low
• Food for charismatic species (i.e. marine

mammals or seabirds) is secured when GES for the target species is achieved

• Move from precautionary reference levels to

MSY

• These reference levels may depend on

environmental conditions but incorporating this is not a policy requirement

• Bycatch of top predators is low
• Abundance of those key trophic species

affected by pelagic fisheries is secured when GES for the target species is achieved

• Pelagic gears do not disturb the seafloor

Thank you

More: www.liv.ac.uk/marinebiology/mefepo.html

MEFEPO