A report on iUU fishing of Baltic Sea cod - Fisheries Secretariat

More documents

Recommendations

Info

that were adopted within the IBSFC’s recoveryplan.The following provides a brief summary of thekey points in the plan:Based on scientific advice, target fishing mortalityrates are set for both stocks. In order to reachthese targets an annual 10% reduction in fishingeffort and fishing mortality is proposed. AnnualTACs would be set so that they correspond withthe effort limits. In order to avoid large annualchanges in the TAC a maximum 15% variation,up or down, would be allowed.Fishing effort would be limited by annual closuresin both the western and eastern Baltic Sea,initially; these would correspond to approximately2 months in the spring and summer, respectively.Thereafter, if the fishing mortality rateis at least 10% higher that the target rate, thetotal number of days allowed for fishing wouldbe reduced by 10%. A further three seasonal areaclosures are proposed that correspond to spawningareas.Monitoring, inspection and surveillance measuresare highlighted with the intention of betterensuring Member States improve the accuracy oflanding data and enable improved coordinationand cooperation between each other.The plan would be evaluated after the first threeyears and, thereafter, annually to review the rateof progress toward the targets. If there is an indicationthat targets are not likely to be achieved,the Council would decide on a proposal from theCommission on additional or alternative measures.CommentThe main difference between the existing managementapproach and that which is described inthe multi-annual plan is the proposed adoptionand use of target fishing mortality rates againstwhich to assess the recovery of stocks. Also, byclearly linking TACs and fishing effort to thesetargets and introducing annual maximum variationsin them, the Commission has attemptedto strike a balance between bringing the stockswithin safe biological limits and the likely economicand social consequences of doing so.In theory, this approach is an improvement onthe existing regime. However, the outcome ofthe TAC negotiations for 2006 left some peoplefeeling that the European Commission and theCouncil of Ministers took a backward step and,indeed, created a worse situation from whichtheir own recovery plan will start if adopted in2007. A cynical view may suggest it confirmsthe lip service that the European institutions payto the management of fish stocks; a pragmaticview may suggest it more accurately reflects thepresent reality of the fishery by taking accountof the un<strong>report</strong>ed landings and will thereforeprovide a more realistic basis for a new recoveryplan.Furthermore, some have raised concern that theproposed plan does not meet the requirementsof the CFP in that stocks outside safe biologicallimits must have a “recovery plan”. However,because the plan aims to manage two stocks, oneof which is at or slightly above the safe biologicallimit, the Commission has proposed a compromiseand called it a “multi-annual plan”. Thestated intention being to conform with the overallobjectives of the CFP, aid recovery and, at thesame time, allow fishing in a less restrictive waythan would be required with a recovery plan.Control and enforcementThe reformed CFP provides a new frameworkfor a Community control and enforcement systemwhich, in summary: clarifies the responsibilitiesof the Member States and the Commission; isdesigned to ensure that compliance with the rulesof the CFP is achieved; and ensures that exploitationof the fish stocks is controlled throughoutthe whole fisheries chain. The following representa summary of some of the key points afforded bythe new framework:• The Member States are primarily responsiblefor the control and enforcement of the CFP,while the Commission is responsible for monitoringand enforcing correct application ofCommunity law by the Member States.• Member States shall ensure:– enforcement measures are taken to ensurecompliance with the rules of the CFP;– effective control, inspection and enforcement,and provide adequate financialand human resources to achieve this;– 24 –
– measures that provide sufficient deterrentto discourage infringements;– cooperation with each other to ensurecompliance with the rules of the CFP;– that fisheries products are subject to anaudit and that anybody commerciallytrading in fishery products must be registered.• The Commission will:– evaluate and control the application of theCFP by Member States, and facilitate coordinationand cooperation between them;– take preventative measures where there isa risk of a serious threat to the conservationof living aquatic resources;– evaluate and <strong>report</strong> every three years onMember States’ application of the CFPrules.In order to take forward the new control andenforcement framework, the Commission producedtwo Communications 17, 18 in 2003 whichdescribed a step-wise approach with the applicationof an “Action Plan for Cooperation inEnforcement” followed by a “Compliance WorkPlan” which the Commission would implementin coordination with the Member States. Bybetter integrating national control strategies, theCommission aimed to promote a “European cultureof control and enforcement” 3 . The ActionPlan was viewed as a short-term initiative, i.e.2003-2005, providing the platform from whichthe long-term Compliance Work Plan would belaunched.To implement the Action Plan, the Commissioncalled upon two of its advisory bodies– the Management Committee for Fisheries andAquaculture and the Expert Group on FisheriesControl – to provide advice, feedback andsupport. The Management Committee is madeup of senior representatives from Member Statesadministrations responsible for the whole gambitof fisheries management issues. In this instance,individuals from Member State policy, scientificand inspectorate divisions are all potential participants.Similarly, the Expert Group on FisheriesControl is made up of senior representativesfrom Member States but, more obviously, fromthose parts of national administrations that areresponsible for monitoring, control and surveillanceof fisheries.The Action Plan was meant to establish the basisfor the Compliance Work Plan and 2006 marksthe transition between the two. It is thereforetimely to consider and review how the ActionPlan has been applied in the Baltic Sea. Table 5describes each of the Action Plan’s eleven actionpoints and, drawing upon discussions with representativesfrom the Commission’s DirectorateD and from some Member State inspectorates,provides an analysis of each. Figure 1 provides apictorial explanation of how the Action Plan andWork Plan relate and the intended outcomes.Figure 1. The relationship and planned outcomes of the Action Planfor Cooperation in Enforcement and Compliance Work PlanThe Action Plan for Cooperation in EnforcementThe aim and objectives of the Action Plan wereto achieve more effective use of national meansof inspection and surveillance through:• better using the means available in selectedfisheries or stocks;• adopting Specific Monitoring Programmes(SMPs); and• periodically evaluating the effectiveness of theSMPs.Support to nationalauthorities & promotionofcoordinationbetween themAction Plan forCooperation inEnforcementCommissionComplianceWork PlanTransparency2002–20052006 & beyondControl andenforcement withthe support of theCFCA– 25 –
Page 1 and 2: A report on IUUfis
Page 3 and 4: A report on IUUfis
Page 5 and 6: Part II 21Policy and regulatory fra
Page 7: Executive summaryThe cod fisheries
Page 10 and 11: Part IDescribing and quantifying IU
Page 12 and 13: which it has undermined their abili
Page 14 and 15: the Association of Fish Processors
Page 16 and 17: or close to fishing communities was
Page 18 and 19: Fishing in closed areasEU fisheries
Page 20 and 21: the fishing industry and, therefore
Page 22 and 23: very active on the issue and, at th
Page 26 and 27: Table 5. An analysis of the 11 Poin
Page 28 and 29: Action Point and its Aim6. Working
Page 30 and 31: failings in the process (see page 3
Page 32 and 33: of cod and hake. The Commission wil
Page 34 and 35: adopted in the North Sea, the Balti
Page 36 and 37: Table 6 Showing the indicators used
Page 38 and 39: Policy areas Policy theme Indicator
Page 40 and 41: Table 7. The list of types of behav
Page 42 and 43: of this Regulation is to streamline
Page 44 and 45: appeared to bear out that significa
Page 46 and 47: General headings/Sub-headingsDetail
Page 48 and 49: Notes1ICES. 2005. Report of the Bal
Page 50 and 51: ReferencesAnderson, J.L., 2002. Rea
Page 52 and 53: DENMARKThe Baltic is the third most
Page 54 and 55: highest allowable level of dioxin i
Page 56 and 57: duction are Iceland, Norway, Japan
Page 58 and 59: The processing sectorAt the beginni
Page 60 and 61: Annex IIMembers of the Administrati
Page 62 and 63: Annex IVSummary of the European Com
Page 64 and 65: Department of Fisheries and Game (k
Page 66 and 67: InspectionsThe Fisheries Control De
Page 68 and 69: this was to exceed the maximum, the
Page 70 and 71: Theme/ PolicyareaInspection andcont

A report on iUU fishing of Baltic Sea cod - Fisheries Secretariat

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?