Download WOR 2 PDF - World Ocean Review

124> Chapter 055.20 > Discarding ofbycatch is a problemworldwide, not just inthe EU. This Mexicanprawn fisherman isdumping fish with nomarket value overboard.is intended to protect cod from overfishing and avoid discards.Furthermore, the European Commission is keen toencourage the use of more selective fishing gear in future,as more sophisticated fishing technology can also help toreduce the amount of bycatch. A further proposal aims toreduce bycatch by obliging fishermen to avoid certain areasof the sea with large stocks of bycatch species at certaintimes of the year. A further possibility being discussedwith a view to reducing discards is to equip the EU’s fishingvessels with electronic surveillance systems, includingCCTV, in future. This would enable checks to be carriedout to determine whether any fish had been discarded,and if so, of which species. More intensive deployment ofobservers is a further option. However, the advantage ofCCTV, compared with observers, is that it is far lessexpensive.More power for fishermenAt present, the EU’s fisheries policy is still largely a topdownpolicy. The rules are agreed in Brussels at the highestlevel and must be adhered to by every fisherman in thesame way. National or, indeed, regional approaches tofisheries management are virtually non-existent at present.As a result, conflicts are inevitable. Many of thesometimes contradictory rules agreed in Brussels areviewed by fishermen themselves as excessive or impractical.Indeed, some are ignored altogether. The Commissionis proposing to defuse the situation by involving fishermenin fisheries management and decision-making to a greaterextent, in the hope that this will increase their acceptanceof the rules.There is to be stronger regionalization of fisheries policy,as the Agriculture and Fisheries Council explains in itsproposal on CFP reform. The proposal envisages thatMember States would be able to devolve decision-makingto the regional level. In recent years, a number of RegionalAdvisory Councils (RACs) have been established by variousEU Member States, e. g. for the Baltic Sea and for thewaters in the Arctic and around Iceland. These RACs haveproduced a number of proposals for CFP reform. Up totwo-thirds of the members of the RACs are experts fromthe fisheries sector, with experts from other interestgroups, such as nature conservation organizations andtrade unions, comprising the remaining one-third. Infuture, the RACs, in conjunction with the relevant nationalauthorities, could potentially undertake the managementof fisheries in their specific region and submit theirproposals to Brussels. Provided that there were no objectionsfrom the European Parliament or individual countries,the proposed fisheries management strategy wouldthen enter into force.Open-endedOnly time will tell which of the European Commission’sreform proposals will be implemented; that will becomeclear when the new CFP is adopted in 2013. Ultimately, itis up to the Council and the European Parliament to decidewhich of the Commission’s proposals will be incorporatedas rules and provisions in the new CFP. We can only hopethat the two institutions manage to agree on a fisheriespolicy which is good for both the economy and the environment.In fact, there is cause to be reasonably optimistichere: with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, theEuropean Union, in 2002, imposed an obligation on allMember States to take the necessary measures to protectand conserve the marine environment and achieve ormaintain its good environmental status by the year 2020at the latest. The Council is therefore obliged not only toensure, with the new CFP, that fisheries are exploited atlevels which produce the maximum sustainable yield(MSY); it must also minimize the impact of fishing on themarine environment at the same time.