European+Common+Fisheries+Policy

Abstract:

In this paper, we will look at the European Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), and try to evaluate the effectiveness, and/or shortcomings, of the CFP, by investigating research and evaluations made throughout the years. The continuous shortcomings of the CFP, and ensuing depleted fish stocks, has resulted in many reforms with different policy instruments to try and ensure better environmental protection. The CFP has a long history from its origin to the current state following the 2013 reform, which we’ll explain in more detail. Though many different policy instruments are part of the CFP, in this paper we will focus on the Maximum Sustainable Yield, and its misuse, while mentioning other important instruments. Further on, we’ll also suggest improvements that could be useful for the upcoming review of the CFP in 2022 (McConalogue, 2021).

Table of content:

Abstract:        1

Table of content:        1

Introduction:        1

The European Common Fisheries Policy:        3

Origin of the CFP        3

The 2013 Reform        3

Public Authorities responsible for the CFP        5

How effective has the CFP been?        5

Suggestions for improvement        7

Conclusion        8

References        10

Introduction:

        71% of the Earth’s surface is covered by oceans (NOAA, 2021a). And, as such, they play an important part in our planet’s health, but also in our daily life. They represent an important source of food for an ever-growing population, but also allow for the globalized economy as we know it today. And still, the balance of the oceans is endangered by human activity. For example, 12 million tons of plastic are poured in the ocean every year, resulting in plastic pollution (Sherrington, 2016). Or even, the release of dredged material, sewage sludge, and industrial waste in oceans, that impacts the quality of water (MarineBio, 2021). But in this paper, we will focus on the question of fishing.

        Fishing, although essential as a source of food, can be the cause of multiple issues when unregulated. To illustrate these issues, as interactions between society and the environment, we will use the DPSIR model. This model shows that driving forces exert pressures on the environment, which will in turn alter the state of the environment. These alterations will then have different impacts, which will lead to different responses to try and mitigate those impacts.

[pic 1]

Figure 1 The DPSIR model (Smeets and Weterings, 1999)

Population growth and subsequently their need for food, as well as economic gain can be considered as driving forces. Indeed, if we take the example of the United States, their ocean economy “produces $282 billion in goods and services and ocean-dependent businesses employ almost three million people” (NOAA, 2021b). This leads to pressure on the environment like overfishing and bycatch, but also habitat loss. The environment then suffers of depleted fish stocks and destructed natural areas. Those changes will in turn have multiple negative impacts: diminished food supply, economic loss for fisheries, loss of marine biodiversity and habitat (Harris, 2012).

In this paper, we’ll focus on the responses part of the DPSIR model. More specifically, on the European Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and its attempts at ensuring “that negative impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are minimized” (Treaty on the functioning of the European Union, Regulation 1380/2013). So, to what extent is the European Common Fisheries Policy effective at protecting fish stocks, and how can it be improved?

We’ll start by giving a brief history of the CFP, and focus on the 2013 reform, as the public was consulted to improve the reform, and therefore a lot of different sources are interesting to further investigate. We’ll the continue by mentioning the public authorities responsible for the CFP, and then dig into the efficacy of the regulations. Before concluding, we’ll try and find some other improvements for the CFP that could be added in a future reform.  

The European Common Fisheries Policy:

Origin of the CFP

The CFP was first mentioned in the treaty of Rome (1957) and was only a sub-part of the Common Agricultural Policy. It’s only with the creation of Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs), starting in the 1970s, that more problems starting to surround fisheries (Breuer, 2021). One of those problems was described by Lado (2016), “Beyond the 12nm [nautical miles] zone, member states had no independent decision-making powers with regard to fishing activity and member state waters were opened up giving equal access for fishing vessels registered in one member state to fish within the waters of any other member state.” and illustrates the need for better regulation, to ensure fair access and distribution to European waters.

        It’s only in 1983 that the CFP came to be on its own, and allowed the creation of trade policies, like the total allowable catch (TAC) and quotas (Breuer, 2021). And in 1992, the concept of “fishing effort” was defined with “a view to restoring and maintaining the balance between available resources and fishing activities” (Breuer, 2021). Only, this ‘fishing effort’ was not sufficient in the protection of the balance, leading to the 2002 reform, in an effort to better preserve the seas. Recovery plans for stocks outside safe biological limit and long-term fisheries management plans were introduced (Breuer, 2021). Furthermore, the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA) was created to ensure better monitoring under the CFP (EFCA, n.d.). As depletion of fish stocks continued after the 2002 continued, the need for a new reform pushed the European Commission to propose a new reform.

The 2013 Reform

        After debate in the European Council and Parliament, a new fisheries regime was created in the 2013 reform. We will go further into the details of what this 2013 reform entails.

First, the role of the European Parliament will be increased to allow for legislative power, ensuring that future quotas on fish stocks are set “according to sustainability goals, instead of through yearly haggling between ministers” (Agritrade, 2013).

Furthermore, for the first time, the interdependence of fish stocks is mentioned (Langlet & Rayfuse, 2019). Indeed, one of the main reasons the regulation of fishing is difficult, is that fish stocks are common goods. It is very difficult to ensure that specific countries only catch specific fish, from a specific area. Recognizing the interdependence of fishing stocks ensures that stocks within the same ecosystem can be managed “without any serious threat to their reproduction” (Langlet & Rayfuse, 2019).

...