Archives: publications

  • Proposal for a Regulation on the revision of the EU Fisheries Control System 2018/0193 (COD) – Joint NGO Voting recommendations

    Proposal for a Regulation on the revision of the EU Fisheries Control System 2018/0193 (COD) – Joint NGO Voting recommendations

    Proposal for a Regulation on the revision of the EU Fisheries Control System 2018/0193 (COD)

    Dear Member of the European Parliament,

    Soon, you will decide the fate of the future EU Fisheries Control System. Voting for a robust, harmonised and effective control system will be key to ensure that the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) are enforced and that data collection is comprehensive and reliable enough to support the adoption of appropriate management measures. It is also necessary to complement the strong anti-IUU policy that the EU has adopted with the implementation of the IUU Regulation. This vote is therefore a unique opportunity for the EU to demonstrate its leadership on the fight against IUU fishing and the development of best control and enforcement practices, both within its waters and outside.

    CFFA, Client Earth, EJF, the Fisheries Secretariat, Oceana, Our Fish, Seas at Risk and WWF call on you to vote for ambitious amendments that lead to the adoption of a comprehensive and harmonised EU fisheries control framework and contribute to close the gaps in the current regime. In particular, we call on the Fisheries Committee to consider these recommendations:

    1. Establish a comprehensive system to monitor all vessels, including small-scale ones, and ensure the electronic reporting of all catches. Small-scale vessels under 12 meters currently do not have a vessel monitoring system on board and do not always have to report their catches. Cost-efficient tracking devices should be installed on board of these vessels and their masters should be required to complete an electronic fishing logbook with information on their catches. In addition, there are gaps in the current control monitoring and reporting system for larger vessels which should be closed as well. We therefore ask you to SUPPORT AMs 281, 295, 298−300, 302, 306, 331, 340, 341, 376, 628; and REJECT AMs 66, 180, 181, 198−200, 205, 206, 211, 215, 271, 276, 277, 279, 280, 282, 285, 313−317, 319, 361, 362, 364, 375, 379, 380, 381, 431−434, 437−439, 446.
    2. Ensure the proper control of the landing obligation and the bycatch of sensitive species through the mandatory installation of Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM) on board fishing vessels and the full documentation of all catches and discards. REM tools, including CCTV cameras, are the most effective tools to improve catch reporting and control compliance with the landing obligation and nature legislation, which are critical to prevent overfishing, and improve scientific data and fisheries management. We therefore ask you to SUPPORT AMs 460-462, 701 and REJECT AMs 8, 79, 80, 186, 187, 447−453, 463, 464, 466-468, 479, 800.
    3.  Maintain, harmonise and improve the EU legal framework for enforcement and sanctions. Serious delays and lack of implementation of the enforcement chapter of the current Control Regulation mean that so far, very few Member States are issuing sanctions which are truly effective, proportionate and dissuasive, creating a feeling of unfairness amongst those subject to these rules. To address this issue, what is needed is not a complete overhaul of the system, but instead targeted action to close the remaining gaps, as well as a focus on better implementation. We therefore ask you to SUPPORT AMs 699, 710, 714−716, 721, 733, 759, 788, 794, 799, 838; and REJECT AMs 43, 116−126, 128, 130, 131, 133−139, 150, 151, 165-171, 689, 707, 722, 723, 734, 735, 738, 739, 741, 751−753, 756, 758, 760, 761, 768, 770−779, 801, 803, 839−851;
    4. Improve traceability requirements. It is essential that sufficient information (including IMO number, catching method and a clear link between catch area and catch dates) is passed along the supply chain to ascertain the legality of imported seafood products. In addition, to avoid jeopardising traceability rules, we also strongly oppose allowing 5 kilos or more of fish to be sold directly to consumers. We therefore ask you to SUPPORT AMs 99, 100, 272, 587, 620; and REJECT AMs 569, 571, 577, 578, 580-583, 588−606, 663−666.
    5. Ensure the effective monitoring and control of fleet capacity. It is essential to better monitor and control fishing capacity in order to guarantee that there is no overcapacity of the EU fleet. Fishing capacity is measured in terms of tonnage (GT) and power of the engines (kW). However, this is currently not being controlled. To that end, the Commission’s proposal to have continuous monitoring of the engine power must be supported. We therefore ask you to REJECT AMs 95, 495, 498.
    6. Improve the control of recreational fisheries. Adopting a registration or licencing system for recreational fishers and collect data on their catches is an essential step to move towards the sustainable management of fisheries, especially for those species and stocks subject to a recovery plan. Recent scientific studies have estimated that marine recreational fishing represents a big percentage of the total catches (up to 72%, depending on the stock and the region). We therefore ask you to SUPPORT AMs 97, 534−536, 538, 548, 551, 566; and REJECT AMs 224, 225, 529−531, 537, 540, 542−545.
    7. Strengthen the EFCA mandate and improve data quality, management and sharing among Member States, Commission and EFCA. The Commission and EFCA do not have access to data on a continuous basis. The Commission receives relevant data from the Member States, however it does not have the power to analyse it without requesting an authorisation from the relevant Member State. EFCA receives information from Member States on the fleets engaged in the regions covered by Joint Deployment Plans, but not on a structural basis. In 2017, the European Court of Auditors also found that Member States do not sufficiently share and trace information concerning the activities of EU- flagged vessels operating in the waters of another Member State. To solve these issues, in the revised Control Regulation, there should be equal and real-time access to data provided by Member States on fishing activities as well as on control efforts to both the Commission and EFCA. Member States, the Commission and EFCA should have access to the data in a non-aggregated form. We therefore ask you to SUPPORT AMs 58, 75, 96, 108, 109, 146, 158, 312, 428, 482, 483, 807−810; and REJECT AMs 32, 82, 85, 86, 90, 154−157, 247, 423.
    8. Increase transparency and make crucial information on control efforts public. Transparency is essential to assess if the Control Regulation is effectively implemented across the EU. As was the case before 2009, there should be annual updates by the Commission on the implementation of the enforcement provisions of the Control Regulation in every Member States. In addition, the transparency regime of the Control Regulation must be aligned with the general one contained in the Aarhus Regulations on access to information regarding environmental matters. We therefore ask you to SUPPORT AMs 148, 785, 805, 814−816; and REJECT AMs 34, 145, 246.
    9. Adapt the general control framework to the control of technical measures. The Control Regulation must be adapted to enforce more precisely the rules on technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources and the protection of marine ecosystems. We therefore ask you to SUPPORT AMs 254, 332, 680, 789, 790.
    10. Effectively control fishing restricted and marine protected areas. The development of new technologies has made it easier and more cost-effective to monitor and control the activities of fishing vessels in fishing restricted and marine protected areas. This should be reflected in the revised Control Regulation. We therefore ask you to SUPPORT AMs 97, 522; and REJECT AMs 520, 521.
    11. Support the creation of an EU database for catch certificates to strengthen the EU IUU Regulation. Electronic catch certificates as well as the introduction of an EU-wide IT system for their processing will provide a decisive mean to improve seafood import controls and verifications and harmonise these practices among Member States, as well as bring added transparency into supply chains in a cost, labour and time-effective manner. This tool should be mandatory for Member States to use. We therefore ask you to SUPPORT AM 163.

    Download recommendations as pdf: Joint NGO voting recommendations

    Proposal for a Regulation on the revision of the EU Fisheries Control System 2018/0193 (COD)

     

  • Briefing: Did the UK Throw Away 7,500 tonnes of North Sea Cod?

    Briefing: Did the UK Throw Away 7,500 tonnes of North Sea Cod?

    Fish Overboard: Did the UK Throw Away 7,500 tonnes of North Sea Cod?

    Summary:

    A freedom of information request from Our Fish to the UK’s fisheries management body (the Marine Management Organisation) has revealed that despite the landing obligation having applied to all catches of North Sea Cod from January 2018, zero tonnes of unwanted undersize cod were landed by the UK fleet from 1 January – 15 November, in comparison to at least 7,500 tonnes accounted for in the quota setting.

    The landing obligation required all UK fishers to count and land unwanted undersize North Sea cod since January 2018, but data provided to Our Fish by Marine Management Organisation (MMO) suggests that while an enormous 5,200 tonnes of extra quota was given to fishers to cope with the burden of landing extra fish, it appears to have been used to land even more adult fish, mostly in Scotland and England.

    “Of an estimated 5,200 tonnes of expected undersize cod, absolutely zero had been landed by November 2018. The UK instead landed a total catch of 21,596 tonnes of adult cod. This suggests that, extrapolating the percentage of undersize fish, at least 7,500 tonnes of undersize fish were illegally discarded, and the UK’s total catch of North Sea cod could actually have been over 29,000 tonnes, or around one third above the quota”, said Rebecca Hubbard, Program Director for Our Fish. “This unreported catch would represent an enormous waste of valuable fish, and significantly worsen overfishing of the iconic north sea cod stock. This is extremely concerning; in recent years north sea cod was thought to be recovering, however the outlook is again looking very poor with scientists recommending a huge cut for 2019 fishing limits.”

    Read full briefing: Fish Overboard: Did the UK Throw Away 7,500 tonnes of North Sea Cod? (PDF)

     

     

  • Legal Opinion on Video Monitoring on board EU Fishing Vessels

    Legal Opinion on Video Monitoring on board EU Fishing Vessels

    Briefing: Legal Opinion on Video Monitoring on board EU Fishing VesselsThe European Union’s ban on discarding fish dead or dying at sea, or the Landing Obligation (LO), was introduced in 2013 as part of the reformed Common Fisheries Policy, and was actively supported by over 870,000 EU citizens. The objective of the LO is to eliminate discards and drive change in fishing practices, e.g. avoid catching unwanted and non-valuable fish, incentivise improvements in selectivity, count everything that is caught, and promote ecosystem-based management. This means that all catches of all species for which there is a Total Allowable Catch (TAC), and Mediterranean species that have a minimum landing size, caught by EU fishing vessels, must be landed and counted against quota.

    The European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA) has assessed that a majority of fishing activities using active gears, e.g. trawling, are at medium to very high risk of being non-compliant with the Landing Obligation. Consequently, there is increased illegal and unreported fishing, with unaccounted catches impacting on the reliability and quality of scientific data, stock assessments and management. It is thus essential to ensure that EU Member States implement effective at-sea monitoring and enforcement programmes to end discarding and ensure fully documented fisheries.

    The European Commission is proposing to use a review of its Control Regulation to introduce Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM). To achieve this, it will need the support of Member States and of the European Parliament. So far, few Member States have been outspoken supporters of REM. One reason given is the issue of individual’s right to privacy and protection of their data, especially in the context of the new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

    This report, Legal Opinion on Video Monitoring on Fishing Vessels with Special Focus on Other Comparable Cases – Requirements, Concerns, Solutions shows that while there are justifiable concerns, they are not reason for inaction. Other sectors, such as slaughterhouses are grappling with the same challenge, and are showing it is possible to have effective monitoring while observing data protection requirements. Under the GDPR, video monitoring of an individual is only permissible when it is justified and conforms to strict criteria. All possible measures have to be taken to minimise any intrusion of privacy.

     

    Briefing: Briefing: Legal Opinion on Video Monitoring on board EU Fishing Vessels (3 pages, pdf)

    Report Legal Opinion on Video Monitoring on Fishing Vessels with Special Focus on Other Comparable Cases – Requirements, Concerns, Solutions (10 pages, pdf)

     

  • Recomendaciones de las ONG a la Industria de la cadena de suministro

    Recomendaciones de las ONG a la Industria de la cadena de suministro

    Recomendaciones de las ONG a la Industria de la cadena de suministroHoja de ruta con 10 recomendaciones para un abastecimiento más responsable de la industria pesquera en España, elaborado por una coalición de organizaciones ambientales. La coalición incluye a ClientEarth, Greenpeace, Oceana, Our Fish, Sustainable Fisheries Partnership y WWF.En este documento se analiza cómo las empresas pueden afrontar la creciente preocupación sobre la sostenibilidad de los productos del mar en toda la cadena de suministro, desde el origen hasta que llegan a nuestras mesas. Además, este grupo de ONG ambientales solicita a todas las empresas de la cadena de suministro que aseguren que sus proveedores siguen estas 10 recomendaciones, mejorando así la responsabilidad a lo largo de toda la cadena de suministro.

    Recomendaciones de las ONG a la Industria de la cadena de suministro

  • Responsible sourcing recommendations for the Spanish seafood supply chain

    Responsible sourcing recommendations for the Spanish seafood supply chain

    New roadmap targets responsible sourcing improvements in Spanish seafood industry

    Roadmap with 10 recommendations for responsible sourcing improvements in the Spanish seafood industry. These recommendations come from a coalition of environmental organisations, which includes ClientEarth, Greenpeace, Oceana, Our Fish, Sustainable Fisheries Partnership and WWF.

    This roadmap details how companies can address the growing concern about sustainability throughout the seafood supply chain, from source to table. In addition, the coalition urges businesses to ensure their suppliers also fulfill the 10 recommendations, thus improving responsibility along the entire supply chain.

    Download: Responsible sourcing recommendations for the Spanish seafood supply chain (PDF)

  • A joint NGO proposal to EU Ministers regarding European eel

    A joint NGO proposal to EU Ministers regarding European eel

    On December 17th and 18th 2018 the EU Fisheries Council (AGRIFISH) will decide on fishing opportunities for 2019 and will address measures for critically endangered European eel. ICES has yet again repeated their advice that: “all anthropogenic impacts (e.g. caused by recreational and commercial fishing on all stages, hydropower, pumping stations, and pollution) that decrease production and escapement of silver eels should be reduced to – or kept as close to – zero as possible in 2019” [ICES Advice 7th November 2018].

    We call upon the EU Commission and Member States to act accordingly in light of this advice, the same advice ICES has given for over 15 years. Last year’s Fisheries Council, agreeing on the urgency to improve the stock status and acknowledging that eel do fall under CFP and the TAC and quota regulation, decided to create a 3-month closure period for eel and agreed on a Declaration that among a number of points specifically notes:

    […]”Understanding that the recovery of the stock requires measures in all natural eel habitats in the EU and during all stages of the eel life-cycle from the glass eel to the silver eel stage.”

    Considering the content and intention of the Declaration and the scientific advice showing no recovery for the eel stock, the active fishery on all life stages of eel must be phased out until the eel stock has recovered.

    We therefore ask the Commission and Member States to:

    •  list eel under prohibited species in the TAC and quota regulation decision, a prohibition valid in all EU waters and on all life stages of eel.
    • prohibit all recreational fishing in all waters of the critically endangered eel, starting summer 2019 to give sufficient time to inform the public of such a ban.

     

    Continue reading: A joint NGO proposal to EU Ministers regarding European eel (pdf)

     

     

  • Joint NGO recommendations for 2019 total allowable catches for selected Northeast Atlantic and North Sea stocks, December 2018

    Joint NGO recommendations for 2019 total allowable catches for selected Northeast Atlantic and North Sea stocks, December 2018

    Input to the EU Fisheries Council Meeting, 17-18 December 2018 Ahead of the EU Fisheries Council Meeting on 17-18 December in Brussels, NGOs have written to EU Fisheries Ministers with recommendations for total allowable catches For selected Northeast Atlantic and North Sea stocks in 2019.

    “We urge you to take our recommendations into account during your discussions at the upcoming Council meeting and to ensure that the 2019 TACs meet the requirements of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP).”

    We welcome the long-term progress towards more sustainable fisheries that has been made, which has contributed to the enhanced profitability of many segments of the European fleet, as presented in the Commission’s communication on fishing opportunities1. However, the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee on Fisheries (STECF) has made clear in its latest CFP monitoring report that “progress achieved until 2016 seems too slow to ensure that all stocks will be rebuilt and managed according to FMSY by 2020”. With only two December Fisheries Councils left to achieve the requirements of Article 2(2) of the CFP basic regulation, it is essential that ministers ensure that fishing opportunities for 2019 do not exceed scientifically advised levels and that the Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) objective can be achieved for all stocks by 2020 at the latest. There is no time for further delays. In order to urgently meet the legal requirements for all stocks, we call on you to consider the following recommendations when preparing your national position on the 2019 fishing opportunities and throughout the discussions in the lead-up to and at December Council (continue reading).

     

     

     

  • NGO recommendations for 2019 fishing limits for EU-Norway shared fish stocks

    NGO recommendations for 2019 fishing limits for EU-Norway shared fish stocks

    Fishing dragger hauls in net full of Atlantic Cod fish
    Fishing trawler hauls in net full of Atlantic Cod fish. Jeff Rotman / Alamy Stock Photo

    The European Union and Norway share responsibility for the management of several fish stocks. Each November the two sides get together to agree on fishing limits for the following year. Both have made commitments to fish sustainably and to end overfishing, and claim to be leaders in restoring global ocean health. Yet when they get together, behind  closed doors, the EU and Norway almost always agree on continued destruction and more overfishing. This year Our Fish and our NGO allies are calling for transparency and sustainability. Our detailed recommendations for the Total Allowable Catches (annual fishing limits) for EU-Norway shared stocks are in the below document. These will be decided in a meeting in Bergen, Norway between November 26 – 30. Keep an eye on @our_fish in the build-up to Bergen, we will be there too, making some noise.

    Document: Joint NGO recommendations for the European Union and Norway agreement on fishing opportunities in the North Sea and the Atlantic for 2019(pdf)

    Table of TAC Recommendations: Joint NGO recommendations for the European Union and Norway agreement on fishing opportunities in the North Sea and the Atlantic for 2019 (pdf)

    See also: Letters Sent to EU Fisheries Ministers ahead of November 2018 EU-Norway meeting in Bergen

  • Letters Sent to EU Fisheries Ministers ahead of November 2018 EU-Norway meeting in Bergen

    Letters Sent to EU Fisheries Ministers ahead of November 2018 EU-Norway meeting in Bergen

    Seagulls Feed on By-catch From Trawler © Greenpeace / Christian Aslund
    Seagulls Feed on By-catch From Trawler © Greenpeace / Christian Aslund

    The European Union and Norway share responsibility for the management of several fish stocks. Each November the two sides get together to agree on fishing limits for the following year. Both have made commitments to fish sustainably and to end overfishing, and claim to be leaders in restoring global ocean health. Yet when they get together, behind  closed doors in the Norwegian town of Bergen, the EU and Norway almost always agree on continued destruction and overfishing. We are calling for an end to the hypocrisy. Below are several letters which have been sent to EU ministers responsible for fisheries, ahead of this year’s meeting in Bergen (November 26 – 30). Keep an eye on @our_fish in the build-up to Bergen, we will be there too, making some noise and highlighting the hypocrisy.

    Belgium: EU/Norway Fisheries Agreement

    Denmark: Fiskeriaftale Mellem Eu Og Norge

    France: Accord de pêche entre l’Union européenne et la Norvège

    Germany: Die Verhandlungen zwischen der EU und Norwegen über die Fangmöglichkeiten für 2019 vorbereiten

    Ireland: EU/Norway Fisheries Agreement

    Portugal: Acordo de pescas União Europeia/Noruega

    UK: EU/Norway Fisheries Agreement

    See also: Document: Joint NGO recommendations for the European Union and Norway agreement on fishing opportunities in the North Sea and the Atlantic for 2019(pdf)

    Table of TAC Recommendations: Joint NGO recommendations for the European Union and Norway agreement on fishing opportunities in the North Sea and the Atlantic for 2019 (pdf)