Confronting the implementation of marine ecosystem-based management within the Common Fisheries Policy reform
Introduction
The new European Union (EU) Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) which took effect on 1st of January 2014 proposes a new general framework to manage EU fisheries. In that sense it is widely seen as an opportunity to incorporate and internalize the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management.
The CFP Reform Regulation defines the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management as “… an integrated approach to managing fisheries within ecologically meaningful boundaries which seeks to manage the use of natural resources, taking account of fishing and other human activities, while preserving both the biological wealth and the biological processes necessary to safeguard the composition, structure and functioning of the habitats of the ecosystem affected, by taking into account the knowledge and uncertainties regarding biotic, abiotic and human components of ecosystems” (EU, 2013b). This definition implies ensuring that benefits from living aquatic resources are high while the direct and indirect impacts of fishing operations on marine ecosystems are low and not detrimental to the future functioning, diversity and integrity of those ecosystems. This definition merges the “approach” and “based” concepts. According to Garcia et al. (2003) “approach” implies taking ecosystem considerations into more conventional fisheries management while “based” has been seen as giving environmental considerations pre-eminence over socio-economic and social ones. The mixture of both concepts can be confusing and so we will consider the strongest one, Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management (EBFM), in this study. The main reason for this EBFM is to contribute to the good environmental status (GES) (EC, 2010) in conformity with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) adopted in 2008 (EC, 2008b) in which fisheries are considered as a descriptor and a pressure.
References of the ecosystem-based management can be found since the seminal papers of Odum (Odum, 1969, Odum, 1977). Furthermore, a series of recent papers have been dealing with this issue. In, for example, Jennings and Rice (2011), the main impediments to adopting EBFM are analysed while in Gascuel et al. (2012) possible implementations of EBFM are given. In order to complement this recent research the main aim of this work is to show how the current CFP can be analysed by means of the EBFM framework and if the specific measures contained therein will lead to greater integration and cooperation within the fisheries sector and with the MSFD.
Among the various aspects of EBFM clear priority is given to the ecological dimension over the economic and social ones as this provides the basis for economic and social well-being (Murawski et al., 2008). The maintenance of ecosystem structure and function is given priority in order to obtain benefits from ecosystem services, the most obvious in terms of EBFM being the provisioning services (Curtin and Prellezo, 2010). Acknowledging that ecosystems are complex adaptive systems (Folke et al., 2004, Norberg, 2004) where regime shifts can occur once ecosystem states pass tipping points, underlines the importance of incorporating the precautionary principle,1 adaptive management2 and subsidiarity3 into the management of fisheries. From the socio-economic aspect, EBFM requires the view that humans are an integral part of the ecosystem and not external to it (Grumbine, 1994). The integration of all stakeholders involved in the fishery in its management is prioritized in order to build trust, cooperation and give legitimacy to the management process (Berghöfer et al., 2008). Property rights regimes aim to improve the behaviour of resource users by giving them more of a sense of ownership of the resource and hence to exploit it in a more responsible manner. The three regimes of group property, individual property and government property have been categorized in contrast to the open access state (Ostrom, 1999).
The CFP focuses strongly on multiannual plans as the main tool to preserve marine biological resources and to achieve the sustainability objectives. According to the European Commission (2012) these plans are defined by a management goal for fish stocks and a roadmap for achieving this objective. The plans may contain specific conservation objectives and measures based on the ecosystem approach and in the case that specific conservation measures are required they must be based on the ecosystem approach. However the CFP remains unclear on how to deal with the incorporation of these specific conservation measures and objectives in a practical manner.
The aim of the paper is to analyse if the specific measures foreseen in the CFP are compatible with the EBFM and/or to what extent contradictions can be found. The specific measures analysed are the objectives of the CFP, regionalisation, the landing obligation, maximum sustainable yield (MSY), and transferable fishing concessions (TFC). The paper pays specific attention to the three pillars of sustainability, the ecological, economic and social ones, and foresees potential compensability between these three pillars from the definition and interpretation that the CFP has on EBFM. Hence, a subsequent objective will be to detect which dimension(s) is (are) likely to compensate the others.
Section snippets
Methodology and structure of the paper
The methodology of this paper is meta-synthesis of the literature, in where specific measures of the CFP are individually analysed and a relationship with the EBFM is identified. The papers and reports selected to be part of this paper all contain at least one specific measure and refer to some aspect of the EBFM related to this specific measure.
Following from the sections on individual measures proposed in the reform the paper discusses the results obtained and makes recommendations in order
Sustainability objectives and social concerns
European marine legislation such as the MSFD or the Water Framework Directive (EC, 2000), has been developed in order to protect and restore ecological quality or integrity, within estuarine, coastal and offshore systems. The main objective of these legislative measures and policies is to maintain a good status for marine waters, habitats and resources, delivering an integrated ecosystem-based approach (EBA).
Sustainability is the dominant theme of MSFD and sustainability in fisheries
Regionalisation
Management at the appropriate scale is a fundamental objective of EBFM (see Rosenberg (2006) and Curtin and Prellezo (2010), among others). Subsidiarity, where decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen, delimits the actions of the EU to only those areas where the MS cannot sufficiently achieve their objectives due to scale effects (EC, 2008a). However, due to the scale of the CFP, management has been centralized to a very high degree. The reform of the CFP will promote this
Maximum sustainable yield
The concept of Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) has a long tradition as a guide to fisheries management worldwide from the early works of Schaefer (1954) (1957). However this approach is subject to great uncertainty and has been criticized for ignoring the multidimensional nature of fisheries (Larkin, 1977).
Within a unique dimension in which the MSY is included (the ecological one) one could argue that MSY would require that all species be exploited below their MSY abundance and therefore that
Landing obligation
Due to the importance given to ecosystem structure and functioning in order to maintain essential ecosystem services EBFM requires the minimization of all human impacts that could negatively affect these characteristics/attributes (Halpern et al., 2008). The associated discards of bycatch species have been identified as a threat to ecosystem structure and functioning in a variety of ways. They can have direct negative ecological effects on target species and non-target species, large indirect
Transferable fishing concessions
The disincentives that arise from badly defined property rights have been identified as a serious problem that should be corrected alongside the introduction of ecosystem-based management (Garcia, 2005, Pikitch et al., 2004). These disincentives include the race to fish and a short-term vision of the fishery, where long term planning and constraint on the part of the fisher only benefits the ‘free-rider’ fishers.
The main aims of ‘rights based’ management (in which TFCs are included) are to
Discussion
Regarding sustainable objectives of the reform of the CFP our discussion goes in line with that of Jennings and Rice (2011) in that the adoption of an EBFM could be used to argue that the environmental objectives should have primacy. Furthermore, as pointed out in Borja et al. (2011) the development and implementation of EBFM should be aimed at the conservation of the marine ecosystems. Such an approach should include protected areas and should address all human activities that have an impact
Concluding remarks
The specific measures considered in the CFP reform are positive or ambiguous in their effect and hence in their ability to impulse the implementation of EBFM within European fisheries.
Regionalisation is a big step towards all these objectives. In fact, the CFP anticipates tools to incorporate the regional perspective, such as the multiannual plans. In this context ACs and fisheries administrations will be closer and more sensitive to the regional problems. This is a positive development and
Acknowledgements
This work has been funded through a research project by the Department of Environment, Territorial Planning, Agriculture and Fisheries of the Basque Government. R.P also received funding from the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under grant agreement MYFISH no289257. We wish to thank Angel Borja (AZTI) and Katrine Soma (Wageningen University) for kindly advising us on some details of previous drafts. We also acknowledge the helpful comments made by two anonymous
References (93)
- et al.
Stakeholder participation in ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries management: a synthesis from European research projects
Mar. Policy
(2008) - et al.
Implementation of the European Marine strategy framework directive: a methodological approach for the assessment of environmental status, from the Basque country (Bay of Biscay)
Mar. Pollut. Bull.
(2011) - et al.
Rebuilding EU fish stocks and fisheries, a process under way?
Mar. Policy
(2013) - et al.
Discards in North sea fisheries: causes, consequences and solutions
Mar. Policy
(2005) - et al.
The economics of fishing and modern capital theory: a simplified approach
J. Environ. Econ. Manag.
(1975) - et al.
Understanding marine ecosystem based management: a literature review
Mar. Policy
(2010) - et al.
A framework for practical application of the concepts of critical natural capital and strong sustainability
Ecol. Econ.
(2003) A decade of ITQ-management in icelandic fisheries: consolidation without consensus
Mar. Policy
(2000)- et al.
Reversal of fish stock decline in the Northeast Atlantic
Curr. Biol.
(2013) - et al.
Size matters: how single-species management can contribute to ecosystem-based fisheries management
Fish. Res.
(2008)
Winners and losers of a technical change: a case study of long-term management of the Northern European Hake
Fish. Res.
Weak and strong sustainability assessment in fisheries
Ecol. Econ.
Towards the implementation of an integrated ecosystem fleet-based management of European fisheries
Mar. Policy
Why ITQs on target species are inefficient at achieving ecosystem based fisheries management outcomes
Mar. Policy
Managing for cumulative impacts in ecosystem-based management through ocean zoning
Ocean Coast. Manag.
Defining success in fisheries and conflicts in objectives
Mar. Policy
Limits of governability: Institutional implications for fisheries and coastal governance
Mar. Policy
Impact of maximum sustainable yield on mutualistic communities
Ecol. Model.
Science in support of ecosystem-based management for the US west coast and beyond
Biol. Conserv.
Weak comparability of values as a foundation for ecological economics
Ecol. Econ.
Toothfish crises, actor diversity and the emergence of compliance mechanisms in the southern ocean
Glob. Environ. Change
The elephant in the room: the hidden costs of leasing individual transferable fishing quotas
MarinePolicy
Individual transferable quotas in multispecies fisheries
Mar. Policy
Reform of the European union's common fisheries policy: making fisheries management work
Fish. Res.
Estimating the effects of technological efficiency on the European fishing fleet
Mar. Policy
Reducing the discards of finfish and benthic invertebrates of UK beam trawlers
Fish. Res.
Institutional failure in resource management
Annu. Rev. Anthropol.
Ecological fisheries management using individual transferable share quotas
Ecol. Appl.
Property rights in fisheries: iceland's experience with ITQs
Rev. Fish Biol. Fish.
Current problems in the management of Marine fisheries
Science
Fleet dynamics and fishermen behavior: lessons for fisheries managers
Can. J. Fish. Aquatic Sci.
Abdicating responsibility: the deceits of fisheries policy
Fisheries
Balancing exploitation and conservation of the eastern scotian shelf ecosystem: application of a 4D ecosystem exploitation index
ICES J. Mar. Sci. J. du Conseil
Limits to the privatization of fishery resources
Land Econ.
Can catch shares prevent fisheries collapse?
Science
For the Common Good
Directive 2000/60/EC of the European parliament and of the council establishing a framework for the community action in the field of water policy
Official J. Eur. Union
Article 5. Consolidated version of the treaty on European Union
Directive 2008/56/EC of the European parliament and of the council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine strategy framework Directive)
Official J. Eur. Union
Commission decision of 1 september 2010 on criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of marine waters
Official J. Eur. Union
Multi-annual Plans
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Common Fisheries Policy
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Amending Council Regulations (EC) No 850/98, (EC) No 2187/2005, (EC) No 1967/2006, (EC) No 1098/2007, No 254/2002, (EC) No 2347/2002 and (EC) No1224/2009 and Repealing (EC) No 1434/98 as Regards the Landing Obligation
Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, Amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and Repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC Official Journal of the European Union, Brussels
Regime shifts, resilience and biodiversity in ecosystem management
Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst.
Ecosystem approach to fisheries: a review of implementation guidelines
ICES J. Mar. Sci.
Cited by (39)
Engaging fishers in sea turtle conservation in the Mediterranean Sea
2024, Marine PolicyThe carbon footprint of the hake supply chain in Spain: Accounting for fisheries, international transportation and domestic distribution
2022, Journal of Cleaner ProductionModelling ecosystem dynamics to assess the effect of coastal fisheries on cetacean species
2021, Journal of Environmental ManagementMeasuring the value of ecosystem-based fishery management using financial portfolio theory
2020, Ecological EconomicsCan the common fisheries policy achieve good environmental status in exploited ecosystems: The west of Scotland demersal fisheries example
2019, Fisheries ResearchCitation Excerpt :FMSY is defined by a single-stock approach, meaning that it is calculated individually for a stock based on its own status only, regardless of the status of other stocks. However, this contradicts EBFM (Prellezo and Curtin, 2015), where the interactions between species should be taken into account when defining safe harvest levels for fish stocks. In fact, while FMSY has long been considered a desirable exploitation level for single stocks (Schaefer, 1954), its performance in mixed fisheries, where several stocks are caught simultaneously by the same fleet, has been challenged (Walters et al., 2005), largely due to the fact that it is virtually impossible to apply FMSY simultaneously to all stocks in mixed fisheries (Kumar et al., 2017; Larkin, 1977).