Aquaculture on the move in 2013

2013 is set to be a crucial year for European aquaculture with the EU aiming on boosting growth in the sector and existing proposals in the ongoing reform of the CFP also set to further harness efforts. With concerns surrounding the impacts of the industry however, SAR will be working to ensure that sound policies are in place to protect the marine environment.

As things stand, developments within the management of the aquaculture sector are taking place at break neck speed at the European level with the Commission, the Parliament and Member States all getting in on the act.

Plans, guidance and councils

Currently, Member States are working on their multiannual strategic plans, which they have to submit by the end of 2013 to the European Comission in order to apply for funding under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund. In order to support Member States in this task the Commission is also working on Strategic Guidelines which are due to be issued any time now.

The European Commission also published a guidance document last year on aquaculture and Natura 2000, including best practices to illustrate how nature protection provisions can be compatible with sustainable aquaculture development. Recently, the Commission also announced its intention to develop similar guidance on aquaculture under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. 

In parallel to these processes, work has also started on the establishment of the future European Aquaculture Advisory Council - one of the proposals on the table for a reformed Common Fisheries Policy - as already agreed upon by the European Parliament. This stakeholder forum will bring together representatives of the industry as well as of consumer organisations, NGOs and other interest groups.

Concerns from NGOs

While the Commission profiles aquaculture as a sustainable solution to meet future seafood demands, NGOs are concerned about the consequences in terms of pollution and habitat destruction, escaping fish and their impacts on ecosystems, diseases, parasites, the use of chemicals and impacts on wild fisheries for the production of fish meal and fish oil. There are as yet many gaps in knowledge and data on the various impacts, which warrant a precautionary approach to future developments. 

Seas At Risk will be coordinating the NGO input into the processes mentioned, in order to ensure that the sector develops in an environmentally sustainable manner and that environmental stakeholders are well-represented in the new Advisory Council.

By Ann Dom

Further reading:

Limits to Blue Growth – join NGO position paper 

Conference "European Aquaculture: the path for growth"  

Guidance on aquaculture and Natura 2000 

Reception facilities for ship waste must improve

During an IMO meeting on the marine environment this year, shipping lobby groups submitted a proposal that would delay new regulations banning the dumping of cargo residues at sea; a request based on a presumed lack of adequate facilities to handle such materials. Fortunately for the marine environment, the request was rejected but nevertheless, the need to improve port reception facilities is very real if we are to truly combat ship waste dumping and marine environmental problems such as marine litter.

And oil drum found on a UK beach

On the 1^st January 2013, changes made to Annex V of MARPOL– the international convention relating to pollution from ships – will come into force and require a ship to discharge its waste at a port waste reception facility rather than dumping it at sea, as has been the allowance for several waste streams under the existing Annex V.

Loop holes will still exist, but largely speaking the changes are a positive move to deter ship waste dumping.

Under Annex V of MARPOL, waste streams include items such as packaging materials, crockery, wood, glass and cargo residues, to name just a few.

Press clippings of recent legal cases 

In their proposal at the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the International Maritime Organisation, the industry groups argued that because of a presumed lack of adequate reception facilities to handle cargo residues in some ports across the globe, there should be a deferral of the coming into force of new regulations so as to allow for adequate facilities to be put in place and for ships in the meantime to dump cargo residues at sea where those facilities do not exist.

Although some sympathy can be ascribed to the shipping industry in this instance, in reality ship’s have two choices to make rather than dump their waste at sea: 1) if possible they store the cargo residues on board until they visit a port with adequate facilities 2) they only use ports to unload their cargoes where adequate waste reception facilities are in place.

The decision of the IMO not to defer the coming into force of the new Annex V regulations has a very powerful effect because without the obligation on a ship to discharge their waste at a port, there is the potential that some ports will never provide the adequate facilities because of the lack of demand for their use. 

It is now the case that the IMO should conduct a thorough and independent review of port reception facilities across the globe for the purpose of establishing which ports should take remedial measures and to highlight, for the benefit of shippers, the ports who provide adequate facilities.

In addition, the IMO should also ensure that the GISIS system for the reporting of inadequate facilities should become a mandatory requirement for ships because in its present voluntary format, it is likely that the true scale of inadequate facilities is not being represented.

However, the provision of adequate reception facilities in conjunction with stronger international regulations on ship waste is not the end game situation. Ports also have to ensure that ship’s are not deterred from using the facilities. Here, problems associated with the cost of discharging waste and logistical constraints can pose barriers to their use. Again, good policy can be instrumental, and now we have an opportunity for administrations across the globe to assess their own port operations, and take the appropriate measures to ensure that our seas become No Place For Waste.

For more information on marine litter: Click here

By Chris Carroll

TFCs putting fishing communities on the brink

An article published by Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera earlier this year has highlighted how the system of Transferable Fishing Concessions has decimated fishing communities on the Danish island of Bornholm – a shocking state of affairs which may also be replicated across Europe.

Fishing has always been the key activity in the Baltic island of Bornholm, providing a livelihood for small scale fishermen across generations. However, Danish fishermen are facing increasing difficulties – from scarce fish resources to low market prices and high operating costs.

In order to address profitability issues, the Danish government has introduced a system of Transferable Fishing Concessions (TFCs), aimed at promoting economic efficiency in the fishing fleet. Each vessel is assigned a fixed proportion of the annual Danish quota, and this right to fish can be transferred or leased among vessels.

Theoretically, this system provides a natural asset to each operator in the fleet, which should induce stewardship for the resource – collapsed fish stocks will make these concessions worthless, whereas healthy populations of fish would make the concession increase in monetary value.

However, assigning a monetary value to a natural resource and allowing users to trade it effectively resulted in a TFC market – where those with the most money can buy out the smaller vessels. As a consequence, fishing quotas are becoming increasingly concentrated in the hands of just a few industrial vessel owners – while their crew are left with nothing.

Another perverse effect of the TFC system is that the larger vessels, which are usually more destructive, buy out the smaller, generally more environment-friendly vessels.

The decline of coastal fishing has had profound effects in Bornholm’s society and economy. Its once vibrant processing industry, which at one point in time employed almost 2000 people, has all but disappeared. Young people can no longer aspire to become fishermen as the cost of acquiring a vessel and a TFC is estimated at around EUR 1 million.

However, this cautionary tale might not be the last we hear of TFCs and their effect on the fishing sector. The Corriere della Sera points out that such a scenario could be replicated across the rest of Europe due to the European Commission’s proposal to impose the TFC system on all EU Member States through the current reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. The Commission’s proposal has proved to be extremely controversial and has stirred heated debates in the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers.

Seas At Risk is advocating a reform of the CFP which gives Member States the flexibility to choose among a range of fleet management and access management tools. Key among these should be the use of social and environmental access criteria to reward responsible fishing with priority access to fish resources.

By Vera Coelho

Links:

Corriere della Sera article (in Italian): http://assets.ocean2012.eu/content_files/files/158/original/Sette-articolo-Pesca-in-Danimarca.pdf

Corriere della Sera article (in English): http://www.ocean2012.eu/press_releases/66-fishing-at-risk-of-sinking

European Commission’s CFP reform proposals: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/reform/proposals/index_en.htm

Cutting back on short life carrier bags

Seas At Risk are calling for a Europe wide ban on short life, disposable carrier bags. With 70% of respondents to a European public consultation agreeing that a Europe wide ban on plastic bags is necessary, the pressure is now on the EU to implement a ban that is reasonable, and reduces unnecessary waste.

Firstly, it is important to recognise that a ban on disposable carrier bags is hardly new nor uncommon. In 2009, the UN Under-Secretary-General Achim Steiner stated that single use plastic bags “should be banned or phased-out rapidly everywhere: there is simply zero justification for manufacturing them anymore, anywhere”.

Bans on short-life carrier bags is also a growing phenomenon across the globe, notably pursued in both developed and developing nations, and of course Europe already has its own Member State with a ban in place in the form of Italy, who implemented one just last year.

Not all plastics are bad, but some are worse than others

Our call for action on carrier bags primarily concerns short-life disposable bags which are distributed within the retail sector. Our broader interest here is in a shift away from the use of disposable products and a move towards long life, sustainably sourced materials. This is the sort of change in habit that is crucial in order to tackle marine litter and particularly plastic pollution.

The notorious short life carrier bags really are the ultimate low hanging fruit. They are relatively unnecessary products, the alternative use of a long life bag is hardly a major drain on the individual and quantities produced are staggering; according to the EU, the average European citizen uses around 500 plastic carrier bags annually, most of which are used only once.

And this does not even take into consideration the impact on the marine environment. According to data from trawl surveys in the UK and the North Sea, plastic bags make up almost 40% of all marine litter in these locations and in the Bay Biscay most of the waste items found on the seabed were plastic and of those 94% were plastic bags. The impacts of course can be shocking as marine life becomes entangled or dies through ingestion or suffocation and other looming concerns relate to the possible transfer of chemicals from plastics to internal tissues of marine life, and potentially to humans along the food chain.

In addition, it is also important here to expel the perverse argument that measures should not be implemented to deter disposable plastic bag use; on the basis that bags made from other materials would have to be used disproportionately more times in order to match the global warming potential of a disposable bag. This argument is perverse because of course a long life bag should be used multiple times: that’s the point!

Banning what exactly

As regards an EU wide ban, our first demand is that all short-life carrier bags, made from plastic or bio based products, should be banned from distribution in the retail sector. Such a ban could be implemented by considering certain criteria such as the thickness and resistance of the bag.

Our second demand is that long-life carrier bags are only allowed for distribution at a cost. Here, criteria for their design would also be needed to ensure against bags being sold as long-life that in reality end up only lasting for a short period time. In addition, we also propose the allowance to set a levy on such bags to ensure against over-consumption if the price signal fails.

The objective of this approach is of course to encourage the use of bagging that lasts, for years; an objective that is implicit within the EU strategy to “to assist consumers to consume differently in order to reduce the resource use and associated environmental impacts.” Short life carrier bags are only one part of the problem, but there must be EU action here to show there is substance behind these words, to respect the overwhelming opinion of EU citizens and of course to help protect the marine environment against plastic pollution.

This blog is an extended and amended version of a letter that first appeared in the European Voice.

From a Clean Concept to Cleaned Up Seas

Just under ten years ago, North Sea Ministers acknowledged that a new approach would be needed to minimise the impact of commercial shipping on the environment. The ‘Clean Ship Concept’ was born and whilst the idea has gained momentum amongst global policy makers and shipping companies alike, the maritime sector still has much to do in order to realise its green potential.

It’s important to acknowledge here why the shipping industry must change. For good reason it is seen as a sector that reacts to environmental incidents rather than acting in advance to stop them, and when it does act, the industry is judged to move so slowly that to the outside world it gives the impression of a sector with little interest in its environmental responsibilities.

This might seem unfair when viewing the numerous environmental initiatives being pursued by the better ship operators and ports, but the list of concerns remains long: non-indigenous species are still being transported by ships with devastating consequences for marine biodiversity; global ship SOx and NOx emissions are still staggeringly high and impacting on life expectancy the world over; negligent operators are still dumping their ship waste at sea, ships are still ending their lives being dismantled on beaches by children, and the industry has very visibly failed to grasp the challenge posed by climate change and put in place measures that will reverse the huge projected rise in ship GHG emissions.

These and many other examples testify to the fact that the Clean Ship Concept is a long way from being properly implemented, and regulators recognise this: according to the OSPAR Commission the approach “still needs to be implemented in maritime and environmental policies” and further efforts are needed “to mitigate adverse effects of shipping”.

What is the Clean Ship Concept?

A Clean Ship is designed, constructed, operated and recycled in a manner that eliminates harmful discharges and emissions, and one that is energy and resource efficient in its daily operation.

A Clean Ship operation maximises the opportunities for safe and environmental navigation while at the same time provides all possible safeguards in the event of an accident. It requires a shipping sector that puts environmental protection first and where a "safety culture" is at its heart.

While the Clean Ship concept reaches into every corner of shipping practice, two areas - GHG emissions from ships and ship-source marine litter - are of particular interest to Seas At Risk.



Clean Ships and Climate Change

Perhaps the most pressing challenge facing the shipping sector is its contribution to tackling climate change. The industry currently emits circa 3% of global GHG emissions and this is projected to rise to 6% by 2020.

First tasked by the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, the shipping sector only in July of this year agreed on a legally binding measure to reduce its GHG emissions in the form of the IMO’s Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI). The adoption of this tool should result in slowing the growth of emissions . However, such an outcome will only result in the longer term and it is deep, short term cuts in emissions that are also urgently required if emissions are to peak soon and if warming is to be kept to below dangerous levels. For such a scenario, there is sadly nothing on the table from the shipping sector to deliver anything like this.

If there really were few options then one might have sympathy for shipping, but studies by the IMO have shown that the industry has many technical and operational options for reducing emissions, that deep cuts (up to 75%) are possible with known technology and practices, and that cuts of circa 20% are possible at zero cost.
Apart from the EEDI the response of the IMO has been endless wrangling over matters of principle, and a protracted debate about emissions trading, another approach that will only deliver in the longer-term and likely only result in reductions in other sectors. This is hardly a good advert for the shipping industry.

An area of particular interest to SAR is speed reduction, where deep cuts in emissions are possible in the short term. A study of our own from 2009 showed that a cut in emissions of up to 30% was possible by slowing the fleet down just to the extent that it brought currently redundant capacity back into use. More work is being undertaken by Seas At Risk on the advantages of mandatory slow steaming and how it might be implemented. While the industry has used slow steaming to deal with high fuel prices and fleet overcapacity, it has so far at least refused to support an approach that would mandate slow steaming for the whole fleet and secure those very substantial speed related GHG emission gains in the longer term.

Clean ship options for tackling GHG emissions exist but are not being adopted.

No Place for Waste
Marine litter is fast becoming a major environmental, social and industrial problem, and ships are an important source. The Clean Ship approach would entail minimised onboard waste production, a total ban on dumping garbage into the sea and delivery of non-incinerated waste to port reception facilities. Here, the approach can play a big part tackling this growing problem.

And the enormity of the task is truly engulfing. New ocean garbage patches are being discovered across the globe; beaches in the North East Atlantic have on average 712 pieces of litter per 100m; marine litter costs the Scottish fishing fleet as much as €13 million each year; concerns about plastics entering the food chain are ever growing; and estimates suggest that 6.5 million tonnes of plastics are dumped each year by the shipping and fishing sectors.

Incentives intended to discourage dumping of waste at sea are simply not working and the more unscrupulous operator can make big cost savings by dumping their waste over the side, rather than paying at a port reception facility.

Across the majority of European ports it is the financial disincentive that is a key problem and the use of a direct fee that discourages the discharging of waste in port and rather encourages dumping at sea. In order to truly combat this problem, European ports must have a more harmonised approach, in part following Baltic ports, and administering a No-Special-Fee across the region.

With a more harmonised approach, technologies such as compacting devises will take a precedent over incinerators and the likelihood of serious markets in ship waste recycling will become more of a reality rather than a pipe dream. This can only be a positive for ports.

Cleaner ships in the future

For both the issues of climate change and marine waste, ships can and must move much closer to the Clean Ship ideal.

An important premise of the Clean Ship Concept is that growth in global shipping has to be uncoupled from the environmental harm it causes. Despite taking a knock from the recent recession the shipping industry is still projected to grow dramatically in the years ahead and this makes operationalising the Clean Ship Concept an urgent task. Regulators must move faster to green the sector, shippers must intervene to ensure their goods are shipped in the most environmentally sound manner, and ports must encourage and incentivise Clean Ship practices. With this kind of holistic approach, the concept can become reality.

By Chris Carroll. The article has been amended but first appeared in Green Port Magazine earlier this year.

Stepping off the plank

On the 15th July 2011, the world’s first globally binding climate change initiative for an international industry sector was adopted by the UN’s International Maritime Organisation. It was a fraught and complex agreement that although welcomed by Seas At Risk, is seen only as the first step towards tackling GHG emissions from the shipping sector. Below is the statement of the Clean Shipping Coalition, of which Seas At Risk is a founding member, made shortly after the measure was adopted:

“The [Energy Efficiency Design Index] EEDI is about setting energy efficiency standards for a leading global industry which will reduce long-term costs and environmental impacts. When setting fuel efficiency standards in other transport modes, industry has invariably resisted vehemently. To its great credit, the shipping industry is largely on-board with the EEDI.

Ironically, the difficulty here has not been with industry, nor has any lack of technology been a problem, nor has it been about differences in levels of development between developed and developing countries - ships built in developing countries are some of the most advanced and innovative. Rather the difficulty has been about the political positions of some in other UN forums, and the misconception of others that consensus on its own is a worthy objective. These concerns, regrettably, have seriously undermined the effectiveness of the world’s first globally binding climate change initiative.

During the almost 7 year phase-in period of EEDI, shipping GHG emissions, by the Organisation’s own estimates, will have almost doubled to 6% of global emissions. Environmental NGOs supported this process from the beginning in the belief that the potential for improvements in ship efficiency is significant particularly as many measures can be taken at zero or low cost to industry. Those possibilities risk being set aside with this decision.

If there is a rush to have all new ships take advantage of the waiver by flagging them with obliging registries, this will have enormous implications for the administration of all sorts of IMO rules and conventions, endangering both the environment and seafarer safety.

The CSC therefore calls on all enlightened ship-owners to put the question of delay aside and implement immediately the EEDI as good business sense and sound environmental practice. We call on the European Union to embrace the EEDI as an effective instrument to complement other measures it is now considering. We call on shippers, the logistics industry and harbours to use the EEDI when taking decisions on chartering and when setting port dues.

Mr Chairman, as difficult as today’s decision seems to have been, it is only the IMO's first step to address shipping’s climate change impact. A package of additional market-based and operational measures such as emissions trading, a levy, speed limits and mandatory cuts is urgently needed to properly address the rapidly growing emissions from shipping. This work on existing ships is almost in its 15th year and needs to be accelerated urgently.“ The Clean Shipping Coalition.

Biodiversity can’t be lost at sea

The EU committed itself to halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010. Clearly that target has not been met, and marine biodiversity continues to steadily decline. The main reasons for this failure were threefold: lack of political will to prioritise biodiversity protection, lack of intermediate milestones to assess progress towards the 2010 target, and lack of integration of biodiversity considerations into sectoral policies.

The Council has recently endorsed a new and ambitious target to halt biodiversity loss and restore, where possible, lost or damaged ecosystems by 2020. Meeting this new deadline will be no simple task, and it will demand that the EU seriously addresses the shortcomings which caused the 2010 failure.

A key tool for meeting this deadline will be the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), whose aim is to achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) in EU marine waters by 2020. The Directive not only mentions that biodiversity must be maintained, it also specifically identifies certain sectoral problems which must be addressed in order to achieve GES. Key among these are overfishing and the accumulation of waste at sea. These problems can only be solved if European policy makers are, firstly, honest enough to acknowledge their magnitude and, secondly, ambitious enough to impose bold measures.

The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) has resulted in 88% of assessed European fish stocks being overfished, and 30% being outside safe biological limits. The CFP has failed not only in environmental terms, but also in social and economic terms. The European Parliament and the Council must take the opportunity posed by the CFP reform to reverse this. Healthy seas are a prerequisite for abundant fish stocks and thriving fishing communities – therefore, the environment must be at the heart of the reformed CFP. This entails providing preferential access to fish resources to appropriately-scaled community-based fisheries, using ecologically responsible fishing practices. Bold decisions are needed - nothing short of a radical overhaul of the CFP will do.

Marine litter is a different, yet also manageable problem. Its impact is obvious; from the harm it can cause through entanglement through to the absorption of micro plastics into foods chains by smaller organisms, its effect is shocking. Seas At Risk’s work is particularly concerned with litter sourced from ships. In this, the EU must impose a number of measures, such as having a fee structure in place across European ports that incentivises ships not to dump waste at sea and enforces adequate port reception facilities for ship waste.

Nevertheless, all our efforts to halt the loss of marine biodiversity will be hindered by the effects of climate change. Changes in the physical properties of oceans and seas are already impacting marine life. Ocean acidification is threatening the survival of several organisms, and the knock-on effects on food webs mean that it is only a matter of time before larger marine organisms are threatened. In light of the stumbling climate negotiations, the EU must increase its own efforts to bring about strong GHG cuts across Europe and use this to further incentivise cuts in other countries.

The Parliament, the Council, and the Commission have their work cut out when it comes to protecting marine biodiversity. I just hope that this UN International Year of Biodiversity has made all three institutions fully aware of the problem, and that all three act in unison to protect not only our seas, but our futures too.

By Monica Verbeek

The article is an edited version of a piece that first appeared in the Parliament Magazine earlier this year.

Marine litter: It’s a global issue, but is there regional ‘will’ to act?

Listening to the opinions of delegates at a panel discussion organised by Seas At Risk at this year’s OSPAR Environment Summit, it seems that everyone agrees marine litter is an issue of concern, it just appears that political will to act, unlike the problem itself, is difficult to find.

This is perhaps surprising when you consider the discovery of ocean ‘garbage patches’, the astonishing findings of national beach clean-ups and monitoring programmes and of course the shocking photographic evidence of marine birds with their stomach’s filled to the rim with plastic remnants. Somehow, however, this evidence has not been enough to propel political will to the extent whereby ambitious and progressive actions are being taken and it is perhaps this disconnect between what we know and what we are doing that is most worrying.

Take the work of the OSPAR Commission on marine litter for example. OSPAR, being the regional mechanism set up to protect the North-East Atlantic, has encouragingly taken measures to monitor the problem of marine litter and raise its profile. What has been lacking however, has been progressive measures to stop the growth in marine litter and ultimately prevent litter reaching the sea from ships and land-based sources.

Of course marine litter is not a simple problem to solve in that inputs come from multiple sources. However, in comparison to other environmental problems, such as the prevention of hazardous substances from entering the marine environment, for which OSPAR does have a strategy, the problem of multiple sources really is no different.

Indeed, in order to act on these sources, OSPAR does have a number of options available to it and during the panel discussion there were two interventions that are worth mentioning.

One suggestion was that a Regional Seas Action Plan on Marine Litter – as is the case in several other regions of the world – would be essential to bring about a concerted effort towards acting on all sources of marine litter. The second view gave a more immediate way forward as a panellist suggested that OSPAR could focus its efforts on at least one of the sources of marine litter.

This latter point is also one that is most opportune and is presented by a golden opportunity in the form of the IMO’s review of Annex V – concerning ship waste dumping. Here lies an opportunity for OSPAR and its contracting parties to support a position of ‘general prohibition’ concerning the dumping of waste, and to ultimately prevent all onboard materials from ending up in the sea. This might only be one source, but it is a significant one at that.

Time, however, is upon us. If OSPAR does intend to use its combined efforts to press for environmentally friendly shipping regulations, it will need to step up its work in order to be part of the IMO’s review procedure that is expected to culminate in amended regulations by around 2012. This won’t be agreed during the OSPAR Summit, but if it can quickly agree to such a strategy, then it might just demonstrate whether OSPAR does have the political will to go beyond monitoring and indeed take measures to help solve this persistent environmental problem.

Needed: Vigorous reform of fisheries policy

Reform of the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) comes around roughly once a decade, and the latest reform cycle is now in full swing. EU Fisheries Ministers have met informally in Vigo, on 4-5 May, to be presented with the Commission’s summary of the public consultation in 2009 and with the orientations stemming from a large stakeholder conference in La Coruña, on 2-3 May.

The CFP’s glaring failures have been recognised by the Commission in its Green Paper, published in April 2009 as a catalyst to the reform process. The CFP has resulted in 88% of assessed European fish stocks being overfished, and 30% being outside safe biological limits – meaning that they are at risk of collapse. If fishing stopped altogether in 2010, more than a fifth of European fish stocks would not be replenished by 2015, according to research conducted last year at the University of Kiel.

In order to find solutions for this state of affairs, the stakeholder conference which preceded the informal Council addressed three issues which Seas At Risk and the OCEAN2012 coalition believe are among the key topics in the reform process.

Governance

Most problems regarding the CFP stem from governance failures. The CFP has long suffered from political haggling and short-termism, with measures of great intricacy being dealt with at the highest political level. Traditionally, national ministers have entangled themselves in debates about issues such as the size of nets and annual quotas. Now, following the Lisbon treaty, the political process also includes the European Parliament in most decisions related to fisheries management. More politicians are, in short, debating issues that do not require political leadership. Urgent technical measures become subject to protracted political discussion.

If European fisheries are to be sustainable, the future CFP must put in place a governance framework that differentiates between long-term (strategic) and operational (management) decisions, with decisions taken and implemented at the most appropriate level. The task of the Council and the Parliament should be to decide on the overarching principles and long-term objectives of the policy; detailed implementation should be left to the Commission or decentralised management bodies.

Access to and management of fish stocks

At present, the CFP allocates access to fish stocks based on the principle of ‘relative stability’, which means that access to stocks is allocated based on individual countries’ historical catches. This model needs to be replaced with one that gives preferential access to fishing resources to those operators who better contribute to the objectives of the CFP, by fishing in an environmentally sustainable and socially responsible manner. Sustainability criteria should also be applied when tackling the deep-rooted problem of fleet overcapacity: the most destructive vessels should be removed from the fleet first.

Small-scale and coastal fisheries

The so-called “small scale” sector represents about 80% of the number of EU vessels. But, in practice, the CFP has so far focused on the management of and support to the large scale sector, which secures most money, using these subsidies to modernise and fuel their fleets. By contrast, operators of small vessels receive the least EU money, and most of the subsidies they receive are for scrapping their vessels.
Small is not always beautiful, and artisanal and coastal fleets do cause some harm. This is, though, the part of the fishing industry that fishes most sustainably. Socially, too, it is the most important, providing 65% of the industry’s jobs (it provides 30% of the catch).

Looking at the numbers, the state of Europe’s fisheries can seem hopeless. But better management could allow fish stocks to revive and ease the economic plight of coastal communities. EU ministers must accept that the status quo is unsustainable. The reform of the CFP poses an opportunity not to be missed if Europeans want to have their fish... and eat them too.

By Vera Coelho

Bluefin and the EU: a match not made in heaven

So, it’s been over a month since the CITES conference came to an end. For bluefin tuna lovers, not eaters, the conference was a great disappointment.

The inclusion of Atlantic bluefin tuna on Annex I to the Convention was rejected and European nations could not even vote in the final and most important stage of proceedings; a vote, that if it had been successful, would have effectively meant for a complete ban on trading of bluefin tuna, and would have given this highly prized species a chance to recover.

On the basis that scientific evidence made such a ban so self evident, it is important to reflect on why the European political system could not stand up for this endangered species.

EARLY OPTIMISM

At first, many were hopeful when the EU agreed on a common position supporting a ban of bluefin tuna trade shortly before the beginning of the CITES conference. However, there was also skepticism in that the EU position came with stringent conditions. In this, instead of supporting an immediate, complete, worldwide ban, the EU position only supported a ban of industrial fishing of bluefin tuna to come into effect sometime in the future, and only once it had been proven again that bluefin tuna is indeed on its way to extinction. Reading further into this, in essence the EU was indirectly trying to change the rules of the CITES game and indeed, before the meeting, it was perceived as highly questionable whether the conditional position would be acceptable under the terms of CITES.

The very outcome and failure of the CITES meeting to ban trade of bluefin tuna in many ways provides us with the answer to this political conundrum.

WEAKNESS

The weak EU position also raised questions about the benefit of having a common EU position at such meetings.
The EU is not a member of CITES, the individual member states are. With the common EU position, the 27 member states lost their right to promote their individual position on the listing and had to represent the common EU position. In a situation where a majority of member states would have supported a complete ban without conditions this would possibly have had a stronger persuasive effect on other CITES members than the weak EU position had.

Again, things are never as clear cut as they appear and this issue take us to the very foundation of the EU; the Lisbon Treaty.

SHARES FARE?

Until the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in December 2009, fisheries were under the exclusive mandate of the EU. If the EU did not act, the matter remained unregulated and member states could not intervene. Since the coming into force of the Lisbon Treaty, this is no longer the case.

Fisheries are now largely a shared competence, meaning that the EU shall only act when the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the member states but can be better achieved at EU level. In the absence of EU measures, member states may act individually.

However, to make things (even) less clear, not all fisheries matters are now a shared competence. Issues relating to the conservation of marine biological resources remain an exclusive competence of the EU but it has not been finally resolved yet, whether the inclusion of a species such as the bluefin tuna on Annex I would fall within the scope of this exception.

Whatever the outcome, the whole fiasco surrounding the call for a listing of bluefin tuna means the EU and its members states need not only to reflect on why, in the end, such a pitiful response was made, but also to evaluate what must be done when a similar situation is apparent. Let’s just hope that when that situation arises it is a positive outcome for a united European front, but also a positive one for bluefin and other species so desperately needing protection.

By Maja-Alexandra Dittel

Copenhagen fails on bunkers

In the end COP15 produced no progress whatsoever on bunker emissions or finance; in fact the texts to come out of the meeting do not even mention them. At the start of negotiations to addresses these emissions at IMO the EU made it clear that if there was no global action taken then it would prepare regional measures of its own. The EU didn't push hard enough for a fair, ambitious and binding agreement in Copenhagen but they have probably done everthing that could reasonably be expected of them to get global measures on bunker emissions and they now have a green light for regional mesures and in particular the inclusion of emissions from ships visiting EU ports in an EU emissions trading scheme.

Little news, no progress

Despite informal negotiator level drafting group meetings yesterday there has been little progress on the bunker issue. Saudi Arabia and others overnight refused to allow further "informals", suggesting instead that the issue be left to ministers. There remains many differences of opinion in the draft text and it is unclear what ministers could do with it in its present form. With only a handful of environment NGOs people still in the conference centre the information coming out of the negotiations has slowed but what there is suggests that the negotiations are still a long way from agreement on bunkers (and indeed many of the other issues) and that time is running out.

Come on EU

In a press release issued in the last hour Environment NGOs have responded to the recent Norway proposal by calling on the EU to fight back with the least developed countries and others who still believe that a strong deal is both necessary and possible.

Norway’s proposal sends responsibility for action on bunkers back to ICAO and IMO without any sense of urgency or commitment to absolute reduction targets other than a vague reference to keeping warming below 2 degrees. There is also no reference to the pivotal role that bunker revenues can play in climate finance. Norway’s proposal risks continued inaction and political paralysis. The whole idea of raising the aviation and shipping issue in Copenhagen was to use the occasion of wider negotiations to break the political deadlock and agree a fast track to introduce reduction measures. That chance is now slipping away as is the likelihood of releasing billions of dollars of urgently needed additional climate finance.

In order to break the bunkers deadlock, environmental NGOs call on:
* All delegations to act on the urgency of the situation and have Copenhagen link early global action to reduce bunker emissions to a significant program of climate finance for developing countries.
* The Copenhagen Agreement to set the level of ambition, the framework for revenue distribution and a fast track timeline to agree on global measures in ICAO and IMO.
* The United States to declare its willingness to use revenues from bunker mitigation as climate finance. Such a declaration from the USA would quickly trigger a developed country (Annex 1) offer of climate finance in return for global bunker mitigation.
* Emerging economies to agree to participate in a global bunker mitigation process or see regional measures imposed by the EU and USA without any access to the revenues generated.
* Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) to support bunker measures on the condition that routes to their countries will be exempted and revenues will flow to the most vulnerable states.
* Latin American countries to accept that any trade impacts will be low for them and, in any case, more than compensated by access to climate financing.
* OPEC to support bunker measures provided a proportion of revenues are used for clean technologies within the sector.

Bunkers in the news

This morning has seen a flurry of press interest in the bunkers issue at Copenhagen, with stories on Reuters, in The Australian national daily, and in the UK's Daily Telegraph. Gordon Brown and Richard Branson are reported as supporting action on bunkers. While Reuters is down beat, the others suggest a deal is still possible. More general reporting on the summit this morning is gloomy and the chance of bunkers bucking the trend diminished last night with the appearance of an extremely weak proposal from Norway. More on this later.

Bunkers a late finisher?

The general feeling about the talks is gloomy to say the least but hope remains that bunkers mitigation, helped by its potential to raise funds for climate adaptation, may rise to the surface of the talks and provide ministers and heads of state with a success story. While the actual negotiations have disappeared into the hallowed halls of ministers and heads of state and taken the old negotiator's text with them, the issue is increasingly visible in the comments and publications of key players in the talks. Bunkers remains high on the agenda of the host country and COP15 President, the EU presidency today described fees from maritime and aviation as "crucial" for a climate deal, and the French jointly with Ethiopia (representing the Africa Group) have called for "taxes on sea freight or air transport". A number of obstacles remain, but the future of the bunkers issue now almost certainly lies with ministers and heads of state and the intersecting of a number of other elements of the negotiations.

US gets bunkers fossil

The fossil of the day award, given by environment and development NGOs to the country that has done most to hinder progress during the negotiations, goes to the US today for its blocking of discussions on bunker finance. The US has been supported in this by Saudi Arabia with the informal ministerial meetings making little progress as a result. Developing countries that might counterbalance the effect of the US and Saudi Arabia are having trouble covering all the meetings and have not made it to the bunkers meetings in the numbers needed.

NGO appeal to ministers

In an open letter to environment ministers attending COP15 Norwegian NGOs supported by others at the summit have today made an appeal to the Norwegian Environment Minister to show strong leadership and pilot the talks towards an ambitious and equitable outcome to reduce GHG emissions from shipping and aviation.

Norway & Singapore take the helm

The environment ministers from Norway and Singapore will today take over the bunker issue and chair a meeting with all Parties to discuss key outstanding issues: targets, finance and how to handle the issue of "common but differentiated responsibility" issue. There will be no drafting just an attempt to find the compromise that attracts most support. They are due to report back to the ministerial plenary later in the day. The choice of Norway and Singapore will be seen as unfortunate in some quarters. Norway has recently come under criticism for watering down its own bunker proposals early in the process and Singapore has been less that supportive on bunkers at ICAO and has the world's fifth largest fleet, with an open ship register ("flag of convenience").

Connie's on side

At an informal meeting this afternoon Connie Hedegaard, the President of the COP and Denmark's Climate Change Minister, emphasised the need to find innovative new sources of climate finance and specifically mentioned the billions of dollars that could be mobilised by bringing international shipping and aviation emissions into the agreement. Earlier in the day she proposed that bunkers, along with six other issues that require further high level negotiation, should be dealt with by special working groups chaired by pairs of ministers, one from the developed and one from the developing world.

Booted out

The NGOs have been booted out of the room where the President's ministerial consultations are supposed to consider bunker emissions and finance, and there is still no sign of the bunkers drafting group reforming. A joint-NGO press release has just gone out in an attempt to encourage progressive elements in the negotiations to hold their ground, and to raise the profile of the implications of failing to get a global deal on bunker emissions.