Green Paper - Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy
Date: 2009-04-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: aquaculture, common fisheries policy, conservation of fish stocks, fishery management, fishing controls, fishing fleet, international waters

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 22.4.2009 
COM(2009)163 final 

GREEN PAPER 

Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
GREEN PAPER 

Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

A vision for European fisheries by 2020...................................................................... 4 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 4 

The current Common Fisheries Policy and its outcomes............................................. 6 

Overcoming the five structural failings of the policy .................................................. 8 

Addressing the deep-rooted problem of fleet overcapacity ......................................... 8 

Focusing the objectives of the policy........................................................................... 9 

Focusing the decision-making framework on core long-term principles................... 10 

Encouraging the industry to take more responsibility in implementing the CFP ...... 11 

Developing a culture of compliance .......................................................................... 13 

Further improving the management of EU fisheries.................................................. 14 

A differentiated fishing regime to protect small-scale coastal fleets? ....................... 14 

Making the most of our fisheries ............................................................................... 15 

Relative stability and access to coastal fisheries........................................................ 14 

Trade and markets – from catch to consumer ............................................................ 15 

Integrating the Common Fisheries Policy in the broader maritime policy context ... 19 

The knowledge base for the policy ............................................................................ 20 

Structural policy and public financial support ........................................................... 21 

The external dimension .............................................................................................. 22 

Aquaculture ................................................................................................................ 23 

The next steps............................................................................................................. 25 

Have your say............................................................................................................. 26 

Acronyms ................................................................................................................... 27 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

4.4. 

4.5. 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

5.3. 

5.4. 

5.5. 

5.6. 

5.7. 

5.8. 

5.9. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
1. 

A VISION FOR EUROPEAN FISHERIES BY 2020 

Mankind’s main source of high-quality animal protein and healthy fat, fish, is a growing 
market again and has re-established itself as a regular fixture in the diet of the more than 
half a billion  European consumers. The continuous decline of catches by the European 
fleet  came  to  an  end  around  2015.  Although  Europe  continues  to  rely  heavily  on  fish 
imports,  the  proportion  is  starting  to  reverse.  Fish  caught  or  produced  in  Europe  is 
valued and recognised by consumers as high-quality produce. 

Rampant overfishing, with a large impact on coastal economies, has become a thing of 
the  past.  Nearly  all  of  Europe’s  fish  stocks  have  been  restored  to  their  maximum 
sustainable  yields.  For  many  stocks,  this  means  that  they  have  increased  considerably 
compared  to  2010  levels.  Fishermen  earn  more  from  these  larger  fish  populations 
composed of mature and bigger fish. Young people from coastal communities once again 
consider fishing as an attractive and stable means to make a living. 

Europe’s fishing industry has become far more financially robust. The industrial segment 
of  the  fleet  is  efficient  and  independent  from  public  financial  support.  It  operates  with 
environmentally friendly boats and its size is commensurate with the fish it is authorised 
to catch. At the other end of the spectrum, small-scale fisheries continue to produce high-
quality fresh fish consumed locally and marketed under labels of quality and origin that 
give higher value to fishermen. The ever increasing proportion of Europeans living along 
the  continent’s  coasts  represents  a  growing  demand  for  high-quality,  locally  produced 
food.  Their  work  has  also  become  much  more  integrated  with  other  economic  sectors 
which  are  key  to  coastal  communities.  Throughout  the  sector,  the  production  and 
marketing  chain  offers  full  transparency  to  authorities  and  consumers  on  the  origin  of 
raw  materials  “from  net  to  plate.”  Europe’s  aquaculture  industry  is  also  an  important 
provider  of  fish  to  European  consumers:  it  remains  at  the  forefront  of  technological 
development and continues to export know-how and technology outside Europe. 

The  EU  Common  Fisheries  Policy  has  become  streamlined  and  is  now  considerably 
cheaper and simpler to manage. Decision-making allows for specific technical decisions 
to be taken with closer involvement of fishers. Fishing operators are given incentives to 
behave responsibly but they are also expected to demonstrate that they comply with the 
basic  principles  of  the  CFP.  Stakeholders  fully  participate  in  decisions  and  debates  on 
policy implementation. Fisheries control has become far more effective. 

Outside  Europe,  the  EU  continues  its  work  to  promote  good  maritime  governance  and 
responsible fishing worldwide. Agreements with third countries now give higher priority 
to  enhancing  the  European  contribution  to  local  fisheries  development,  investment  and 
good  maritime  governance.  New  regional  programmes  to  improve  the  control  and 
scientific  monitoring  of  fish  stocks  are  in  place  and  involve  most  of  the  world’s  larger 
fishing nations. 

2. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  above  vision  for  the  future  is  a  far  cry  from  the  current  reality  of  overfishing, 
fleet  overcapacity,  heavy  subsidises,  low  economic  resilience  and  decline  in  the 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
volume of fish caught by European fishermen. The current CFP has not worked well 
enough to prevent those problems. 

However, the Commission believes that a whole-scale and fundamental reform of the 
Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and remobilisation of the fisheries sector can bring 
about the dramatic change that is needed to reverse the current situation. This must 
not be yet another piecemeal, incremental reform but a sea change cutting to the core 
reasons  behind  the  vicious  circle  in  which  Europe’s  fisheries  have  been  trapped  in 
recent decades. 

The  fishing  industry  is  essential  to  supplying  food  to  European  citizens  and 
supporting  livelihoods  in  European  coastal  areas.  Ensuring  its  future  is,  and  must 
remain, an  important policy objective  for  the  European  Union.  This  future  must  be 
ensured in a challenging and changing context: 

European fish stocks have been overfished for decades and the fishing fleets remain 
too large for the available resources. This combination means that too many vessels 
chase too few fish and many parts of the European fleet are economically unviable. 
The outcome has been a continuous decrease in the amounts of seafood fished from 
Europe’s waters: more than half of the fish consumed on the European market is now 
imported.  The  high  volatility  of  oil  prices  and  the  financial  crisis  have  exacerbated 
the low economic resilience of fishing. 

The  fisheries  sector  can  no  longer  be  seen  in  isolation  from  its  broader  maritime 
environment  and  from  other  policies  dealing  with  marine  activities.  Fisheries  are 
heavily  dependent  on  access  to  maritime  space  and  to  healthy  marine  ecosystems. 
Climate  change  is  already  having  an  impact  on  Europe’s  seas  and  is  triggering 
changes to the abundance and distribution of fish stocks. Competition  for maritime 
space is also on the rise as ever larger parts of our seas and coasts are dedicated to 
other  uses.  Fishing  economies  are  heavily  influenced  by  broader  trends  of 
employment  and  development  in  coastal  communities,  including  the  emergence  of 
new  sectors  offering  opportunities  for  reconversion  or  income  diversification.  Re-
thinking the CFP therefore requires us all to take a fresh look at the broader maritime 
picture as advocated by the Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP) and its environmental 
pillar, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive1. 

Awareness of the prime importance of our oceans and seas is growing, as is the need 
to preserve them and exploit them sustainably. This has translated into much stronger 
emphasis on the ecological sustainability of fisheries worldwide. The World Summit 
on  Sustainable  Development  in  2002  spelled  out  specific  targets  for  fisheries 
management, including restoring fish stocks to Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY)2 
by  2015,  which  must  be  taken  on  board  by  all  fishery  managing  authorities. 
Important  steps  have  also  been  taken  in  the  United  Nations  to  limit  the  impact  of 
fisheries  in  the  high  seas.  Growing  concerns  about  food  security  in  the  EU  and 

1 

2 

Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing the 
framework for Community action in field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework 
Directive) (OJ L 164, 25.6.2008). 
Maximum  Sustainable  Yield  is  the  maximum  annual  catch  which  on  average  can  be  taken  year  after 
year from a fish stock without deteriorating the productivity of the fish stock. Fishing above MSY in the 
short term will lead to lower catch opportunities in the longer term as the fish stock is fished down. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
worldwide  make  it  ever  more  important  to  manage  and  exploit  natural  resources 
responsibly without jeopardising their future. Some of the most fuel-intensive fishing 
practices are increasingly harder to justify given the need to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions. 

Consumers,  processing  and  retail  sectors  increasingly  share  these  concerns  and 
require guarantees that the fish they consume and sell originates from well-managed 
and sustainable fisheries. 

European fishing activities must be clearly based on economically rational principles. 
Fleets  must  improve  their  economic  resilience  and  adapt  to  changes  in  the 
environment  and  markets.  Some  steps  are being  taken  to  adapt  including  voluntary 
laying-off of vessels and a move towards less fuel-intensive fishing practices. Some 
initiatives  have  been  undertaken  to  improve  quality,  consumer  information  and  the 
match  between  supply  and  demand  in  order  to  increase  economic  viability.  These 
steps, however, fall far short of what is necessary to adapt to change and restore the 
economic viability of the sector. 

The EU Treaties establish fisheries management as one of the exclusive competences 
of  the  Community.  This  is  because  fish  move  across  national  jurisdictions  and 
fishermen have followed them long before Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) were 
introduced  and  the  CFP  was  born.  We  share  the  marine  ecosystems  on  which  our 
fisheries depend. The activity of one fleet therefore has a direct effect on the future 
fishing  opportunities  of  others  exploiting  the  same  fish  stocks  and  the  same 
ecosystem. Trade in fisheries products is also heavily integrated. 

The CFP is now entering a new round of reform. This Green Paper aims to stimulate 
a debate on the reform to provide the Commission with feedback and guide its work. 

3. 

THE CURRENT COMMON FISHERIES POLICY AND ITS OUTCOMES 

The main changes made to the CFP in 2002 included: 

–  moving 

towards  a 

longer-term  perspective  on  fisheries  management  by 

introducing recovery and management plans; 

–  increased  commitment  to  ensure  the  integration  of  environmental  concerns  into 

fisheries management; 

–  increased  stakeholder  involvement  by  establishing  the  Regional  Advisory 

Councils (RACs); 

–  a new fleet policy, doing away with compulsory targets for capacity reduction and 
replacing  them  with  national  ceilings  under  which  Member  States  are  free  to 
choose how they conduct their fleet policy; 

–  introducing fishing effort, such as limiting the days a vessel can operate at sea, as 
a  fundamental  tool  in  fisheries  management,  notably  in  the  context  of  multi-
annual recovery plans; 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
–  a more selective use of public funds to support the development of the sector by 
discontinuing the use of public aid to construct new vessels, by a structural policy 
more coherent with CFP objectives and with more emphasis on diversification in 
coastal communities; 

–  new bilateral fisheries agreements aimed at developing partnerships with the third 

countries concerned. 

However,  the  objectives  agreed  in  2002  to  achieve  sustainable  fisheries  have  not 
been met overall. 

The  marine  ecosystems  in  Europe’s  waters  have  the  potential  to  support  a  high 
productivity of fish stocks. However, most fish stocks have been fished down. 88 % 
of  Community  stocks  are  being  fished  beyond  MSY:  this  means  that  these  fish 
populations could increase and generate more economic output if they were left for 
only  a  few  years  under  less  fishing  pressure.  30 %  of  these  stocks  are  outside  safe 
biological  limits,  which  means  that  they  may  not  be  able  to  replenish3.  European 
fisheries  today  depend  on  young  and  small  fish  that  mostly  get  caught  before  they 
can reproduce. For instance, 93 % of the cod in the North Sea are fished before they 
can  breed4.  This  overall  picture  conceals  considerable  variations  by  marine  region 
and  species.  Nonetheless,  European  fisheries  are  eroding  their  own  ecological  and 
economic basis. 

While a few EU fleets are profitable with no public support, most of Europe’s fishing 
fleets are either running losses or returning low profits. Overall poor performance is 
due to chronic overcapacity of which overfishing is both a cause and a consequence: 
fleets  have  the  power  to  fish  much  more  than  can  safely  be  removed  without 
jeopardising  the  future  productivity  of  stocks.  Capacity  reductions  in  recent  years 
have not been sufficient to break this vicious circle. Although it varies significantly 
by marine region and fleet, on average fleets have been reduced by only 2 % a year. 
Which is broadly offset by technological progress in fishing efficiency (estimated at 
2  to  3 %  a  year).  The  imbalance  between  the  fleet  and  available  fish  was  not 
redressed.  The  overall  result  is  reduced  landings  and  a  heavier  reliance  of  the  EU 
market on imports. 

Another important consequence of the vicious circle of overfishing, overcapacity and 
low  economic  resilience  is  high  political  pressure  to  increase  short-term  fishing 
opportunities  at  the  expense  of  the  future  sustainability  of  the  industry.  Sustained 
political  and  economic  pressure  has  led  industry  and  Member  States  to  request 
countless derogations, exceptions and specific measures. In many cases, the industry 
has  found  ways  to  counteract  the  short-term  negative  economic  effects  of  these 
measures,  leading  to  the  need  for  even  more  detailed  measures.  Documenting, 
deciding,  implementing  and  controlling  the  vast  and  diverse  European  fisheries 
through such micromanagement is increasingly complex, difficult to understand and 
very costly to manage and control. 

3 

4 

According to assessments by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) in 2008. 
These numbers refer to stocks for which there is sufficient information to make an assessment of their 
state.  There  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  the  situation  is  better  for  those  stocks  where  there  is  poor 
information. 
Based on data provided by ICES. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
This situation has arisen in a context of heavy public financial support given to the 
fishing  industry,  one  of  the  results  being  to  artificially  maintaining  excess  fishing 
capacity. On top of direct aid from the European Fisheries Fund and similar national 
aid  schemes,  the  industry  benefits  from  a  number  of  indirect  subsidies,  the  most 
important of which is the overall exemption from fuel taxes. Unlike other industries, 
fishing also benefits from free access to the natural resource it exploits and does not 
have to contribute to the public management costs associated with its activities e.g. 
control  and  safety  at  sea.  In  several  Member  States,  it  has  been  estimated  that  the 
cost of fishing to the public budgets exceeds the total value of the catches. In simple 
terms, this means that European citizens almost pay for their fish twice: once at the 
shop and once again through their taxes. 

4. 

OVERCOMING THE FIVE STRUCTURAL FAILINGS OF THE POLICY 

The Commission considers that the above outcomes are due to five main structural 
failings: 

–  a deep-rooted problem of fleet overcapacity; 

–  imprecise  policy  objectives  resulting  in  insufficient  guidance  for  decisions  and 

implementation; 

–  a decision-making system that encourages a short-term focus; 

–  a framework that does not give sufficient responsibility to the industry; 

–  lack of political will to ensure compliance and poor compliance by the industry. 

4.1. 

Addressing the deep-rooted problem of fleet overcapacity 

Despite continued efforts, fleet overcapacity remains the fundamental problem of the 
CFP. Overall, the European fleets remain far too large for the resources available and 
this  imbalance  is  at  the  root  of  all  problems  related  to  low  economic  performance, 
weak  enforcement  and  overexploited  resources.  The  future  CFP  must  have  in-built 
mechanisms to ensure that the size of European fishing fleets is adapted and remains 
proportionate to available fish stocks. This is a pre-requisite for all other pillars of the 
policy to work. 

The  overcapacity  of  European  fishing  fleets  has  been  addressed  by  various  means. 
The EU has repeatedly tried to implement structural measures aimed at reducing its 
fishing  fleet,  including  funding  for  vessel scrapping  schemes.  However,  experience 
shows that permanent support for scrapping does not effectively reduce capacity, as 
operators  simply  factor  the  scrapping  premium  into  future  investment  decisions. 
One-off scrapping schemes are more likely to be efficient. 

Use  of  market  instruments  such  as  transferable  rights  to  fishing  may  be  a  more 
efficient  and  less  expensive  way  to  reduce  overcapacity,  and  one  for  which  the 
industry has to take more responsibility. Several Member States have taken steps in 
recent years towards using such instruments. This has generally led to more rational 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
investment decisions and to reductions in capacity, as the operators adapt their fleet 
to their fishing rights in order to achieve economic efficiency5. Such systems can be 
complemented  with  proper  safeguard  clauses  to  avoid  excessive  concentration  of 
ownership or negative effects on smaller-scale fisheries and coastal communities. 

•  Should capacity be limited through legislation? If so, how? 

• 

Is the solution a one-off scrapping fund? 

•  Could  transferable  rights  (individual  or  collective)  be  used  more  to  support 
capacity  reduction  for  large-scale  fleets  and,  if  so,  how  could  this  transition  be 
brought about? Which safeguard clauses should be introduced if such a system is 
to be implemented? Could other measures be put in place to the same effect? 

•  Should  this  choice  be  left  entirely  to  Member  States  or  is  there  a  need  for 

common standards at the level of marine regions or at EU level? 

4.2. 

Focusing the policy objectives 

The  current  CFP  regulation  states  that  "the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  shall  ensure 
exploitation  of  living  aquatic  resources  that  provides  sustainable  economic, 
environmental  and  social  conditions"6.  No  priority  is  set  for  these  objectives  and, 
while  direct  references  are  made  to  adopting  a  precautionary  and  an  ecosystem 
approach, it is not clear how this relates to economic and social conditions. There are 
no  clear  indicators  and  yardsticks  that  could  provide  more  concrete  guidance  or  to 
help measure policy achievements. 

Economic and social sustainability require productive fish stocks and healthy marine 
ecosystems.  The  economic  and  social  viability  of  fisheries  can  only  result  from 
restoring  the  productivity  of  fish  stocks.  There  is,  therefore,  no  conflict  between 
ecological,  economic  and  social  objectives  in  the  long  term.  However,  these 
objectives can and do clash in the short term, especially when fishing opportunities 
have to be temporarily reduced in order to rebuild overexploited fish stocks. Social 
objectives such as employment have often been invoked to advocate more generous 
short-term fishing opportunities: the result has always been to further jeopardise the 
state of the stocks and the future of the fishermen who make a living out of them. It 
is therefore crucial that any compromises made to cushion the immediate economic 
and social effects of reductions in fishing opportunities remain compatible with long-
term ecological sustainability, including a move to fishing within MSY, eliminating 
discards and ensuring a low ecological impact of fisheries. 

Ecological  sustainability  is  therefore  a  basic  premise  for  the  economic  and  social 
future of European fisheries. 

5 

6 

An Analysis of existing Rights Based Management (RBM) instruments in Member States and on setting 
up best practices in the EU. European Commission study, 2009. 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2371/2002  of  20  December  2002  on  the  conservation  and  sustainable 
exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  How can the objectives regarding ecological, economic and social sustainability 
be defined in a clear, prioritised manner which gives guidance in the short term 
and ensures the long-term sustainability and viability of fisheries?  

•  Should  the  future  CFP  aim  to  sustain  jobs  in  the  fishing  industry  or  should  the 
aim  be  to  create  alternative  jobs  in  coastal  communities  through  the  IMP  and 
other EU policies? 

•  How can indicators and targets for implementation be defined to provide proper 
guidance  for  decision  making  and  accountability?  How  should  timeframes  be 
identified for achieving targets? 

4.3. 

Focusing the decision-making framework on core long-term principles 

The  current  decision-making  framework  of  the  CFP  does  not  distinguish  principles 
from implementation: all decisions are taken in Council at the highest political level. 
This has resulted in a focus on short-term considerations at the expense of the longer-
term  environmental,  economic  and  social  sustainability  of  European  fisheries. 
Another consequence is that the CFP is regulated through extremely detailed Council 
regulations  that  leave  very  little  flexibility  in  implementing  them.  This  highly 
unsatisfactory situation is without doubt the main reason why the CFP is criticised by 
stakeholders.  “Brussels”  –  in  fact  the  Council  of  Fisheries  Ministers  –  is  seen  as 
deciding on each and every detail of the implementation of the policy. 

Under  the  Lisbon  Treaty,  the  co-decision  procedure  (under  which  the  Council  and 
the  European  Parliament  take  decisions  together)  would  apply  to  all  fisheries 
decisions  apart  from  establishing  yearly  fishing  opportunities.  This  makes  it  all  the 
more  necessary  to  re-evaluate  the  current  approach  on  micro-management  at  the 
highest political level and bring decision-making under the CFP in line with all other 
EU  policies  i.e.  a  clear  hierarchy  between  fundamental  principles  and  technical 
implementation. 

One  option  would  be  to  delegate  more  of  the  current  detailed  management  to  the 
Commission  in  cooperation  with  Member  States  and  the  European  Parliament 
through the so-called comitology procedure. Under this procedure, the Commission 
drafts  proposals  in  close  consultation  with  Member  States  and  the  European 
Parliament. 

Another  option  to  be  carefully  considered  would  be  to  rely  wherever  possible  on 
specific  regional  management  solutions  implemented  by  Member  States,  subject  to 
Community  standards  and  control.  The  Treaty  stipulates  that  the  policy  must  be 
this  would  not  prevent 
based  on  exclusive  Community  competence  but 
implementation decisions from being delegated to Member States, provided they are 
bound  by  decisions  on  principles  at  Community  level.  For  instance,  decisions  on 
certain principles and standards such as fishing within MSY, adapting fleet capacity 
to available resources or eliminating discards could remain at Community level, but 
it  would  then  be  left  to  Member  States  to  regulate  their  fisheries  within  these 
Community  standards.  In  most  cases  this  delegation  would  need  to  be  organised  at 
the level of marine regions because shared fish stocks and shared ecosystems cover 
wide geographical areas and cannot be managed by individual Member States acting 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
in isolation. Member States would therefore have to work together to develop the set-
ups required. This set-up requires effective checks and balances by the Community 
to ensure that common standards are safeguarded when policy in implemented. 

Putting policy in its right place by letting Council and Parliament focus on principles 
and delegating implementation decisions to Member States, the Commission and/or 
self-management  by  the  industry  would  lead  to  a  simpler  and  cheaper  policy.  It 
would make implementation more sensitive to specific local conditions and give the 
industry more responsibility in shaping its own destiny. It would enable governments 
and the industry to adapt the implementation of the policy to their needs and to find 
the best solutions both technically and economically. 

There is also a need to assess the role of consultative structures such as the Advisory 
Committee  for  Fisheries  and  Aquaculture  (ACFA)  or  the  Regional  Advisory 
Councils  (RACs)  under  the  new  set-up.  Policy  decisions  would  in  any  case  remain 
the remit of Community institutions and Member States. Moving to regional set-ups 
would most likely enhance the advisory role of the RACs. 

•  How  can  we  clarify  the  current  division  of  responsibilities  between  decision-
making and implementation to encourage a long-term focus and a more effective 
achievement  of  objectives?  What  should  be  delegated  to  the  Commission  (in 
consultation with Member States), to Member States and to the industry? 

•  Do you think decentralised decisions on technical matters would be a good idea? 
What  would  be  the  best  option  to  decentralise  the  adoption  of  technical  or 
implementing decisions? Would it be possible to devolve implementing decisions 
to  national  or  regional  authorities  within  Community  legislation  on  principles? 
What are the risks implied for the control and enforcement of the policy and how 
could they be remedied? 

•  How could the advisory role of stakeholders be enhanced in relation to decision-
making? How would ACFA and the RACs adapt to a regionalised approach?  

4.4. 

Encouraging the industry to take more responsibility in implementing the CFP 

Very little can be achieved if the forthcoming reform fails to motivate the catching 
sector,  the  processing  and  seafood  chain  as  well  as  consumers  to  support  the 
objectives of the policy and take responsibility for implementing them effectively. It 
is  critical  to  the  success  of  reform  that  industry  should  understand  the  need  for  it, 
support it and have a genuine stake in its successful outcome. In a mostly top-down 
approach,  which  has  been  the  case  under  the  CFP  so  far,  the  fishing  industry  has 
been  given  few  incentives  to  behave  as  a  responsible  actor  accountable  for  the 
sustainable  use  of  a  public  resource.  Co-management  arrangements  could  be 
developed to reverse this situation. 

There  are  two  closely  linked  aspects  to  involving  the  industry  more  closely: 
responsibilities and rights. 

The  industry  can  be  given  more  responsibility  through  self-management.  Results-
based  management  could  be  a  move  in  this  direction:  instead  of  establishing  rules 
about  how  to  fish,  the  rules  focus  on  the  outcome  and  the  more  detailed 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
implementation decisions would be left to the industry. Public authorities would set 
the  limits  within  which  the  industry  must  operate,  such  as  a  maximum  catch  or 
maximum by-catch of young fish, and then give industry the authority to develop the 
best solutions economically and technically. 

Results-based management would relieve both the industry and policy-makers of part 
of the burden of detailed management of technical issues. It would have to be linked 
to a reversal of the burden of proof: it would be up to the industry to demonstrate that 
it operates responsibly in return for access to fishing. This would contribute to better 
management  by  making  the  policy  considerably  simpler  and  removing  the  current 
incentives  for  providing  false  or  incomplete  information.  Proportionality  should  be 
observed  and  the  impact  on  preserving  a  competitive  industry  when  implementing 
results-based management. 

There  are  already  many  examples  of  such  self-management  through  bottom-up 
initiatives  in  the  European  catching  sector.  Some  Producer  Organisations  (POs) 
manage the quota uptake of their members and provide for private penalties against 
those  who  overshoot  their  individual  quota  at  the  expense  of  others.  There  are 
examples of groups of vessels that have taken on the burden of proof by providing 
full documentation of their catches, often as a response to processors’ and retailers’ 
pressure to improve traceability. These initiatives could be generalised by turning the 
POs  into  bodies  through  which  the  industry  takes  responsibility  for  documentation 
and quota/effort management. 

Giving  the  industry  more  responsibility  requires  that  safeguard  mechanisms  are  in 
place and implemented by the Community. 

There  are  cases  where  the  catching  sector  shoulders  greater  responsibility  to  adapt 
the  size  of  the  fleet  and  their  management  costs.  In  some  cases,  this  has  been 
achieved  by  giving  rights  to  the  industry,  which  has  encouraged  them  to  use  their 
investments more efficiently and eliminate surplus capacity (see 4.1.). 

In the context of a CFP which gives more rights to the catching sector and relieves 
the industry the burden of the micro-management it will be relevant to raise the issue 
of  sharing  the  costs  of  fisheries  management.  So  far  the  fishing  industry  has  been 
given  free  access  to  a  public  resource  and  management  costs  have  been  largely 
incurred by taxpayers. 

Rights,  responsibility  and  accountability  should  of  course  go  hand  in  hand:  those 
who  exercise  responsibility  in  a  proper  and  effective  manner  should  be  the  ones  to 
enjoy the access to fish stocks. 

•  How  can  more  responsibility  be  given  to  the  industry  so  that it  has  greater 

flexibility while still contributing to the objectives of the CFP? 

•  How  could  the  catching  sector  be  best  structured  to  take  responsibility  for  self-
management? Should the POs be turned into bodies through which the industry 
takes on management responsibilities? How could the representativeness of POs 
be ensured? 

•  What  safeguards  and  supervisory  mechanisms  are  needed  to  ensure  self-

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
management by the catching sector does not fail, and successfully implements the 
principles and objectives of the CFP? 

•  Should the catching sector take more financial responsibility by paying for rights 
or sharing management costs, e.g. control? Should this only apply to large-scale 
fishing? 

•  When  giving  more  responsibility  to  the  industry,  how  can  we  implement  the 
principles  of  better  management  and  proportionality  while  at  the  same  time 
contributing to the competitiveness of the sector? 

•  Are  there  examples  of  good  practice  in  particular  fisheries  that  should  be 
promoted  more  widely?  Should  incentives  be  given  for  the  application  of  good 
practices? If so, which? 

4.5. 

Developing a culture of compliance 

In a report published in November 20077 the EU Court of Auditors gave an extensive 
description of the shortcomings of fisheries control in the European Union. Fisheries 
control  has  generally  been  weak,  penalties  are  not  dissuasive  and  inspections  not 
frequent enough to encourage compliance. Moreover, no checks have been built into 
the  system  to  ensure  that,  for  example,  Member  States  only  access  Community 
funding  if  they  fulfil  their  basic  control  and  conservation  responsibilities.  Besides 
heavy  overfishing,  this  has  generated  strong  resistance  to  implementing  the  policy 
and the feeling that enforcement is not applied across the board in a uniform manner. 
Data collection systems to measure fish catches for short-term quota monitoring and 
for medium term structural evaluations are not satisfactory and coherence has to be 
improved. 

The  Commission  agreed  with  the  Court’s  analysis  and  considered  that,  irrespective 
of other policy options to be adopted in the future, it was urgent to move ahead with 
an  immediate  in-depth  reform  of  the  control  and  enforcement  system.  The 
Commission  therefore  made  an  ambitious  proposal  in  November  2008  that  is  now 
being discussed with Member States and the European Parliament8.  

•  How  can  data  collection  systems  be  improved  in  the  short  and  medium  term  to 

ensure coherent information for enforcement purposes? 

•  Which  enforcement  mechanisms  would  in  your view best ensure  a high level of 
compliance:  centralised  ones  (e.g.  direct  Commission  action,  national  or  cross-
national controls) or decentralised ones? 

•  Would  you  support  creating  a  link  between  effective  compliance  with  control 

responsibilities and access to Community funding? 

7 

8 

Special  Report  n° 7/2007  on  the  control,  inspection  and  sanction  systems  relating  to  the  rules  on 
conservation of Community fisheries resources together with the Commission's replies. 
Communication  from  the  Commission  on  the  proposal  for  a  Council  Regulation  establishing  a 
Community  control  system  for  ensuring  compliance  with  the  rules of  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  - 
COM(2008) 718. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  Could  increasing  self-management  by  the  industry  contribute  to  this  objective? 
Can management at the level of geographical regions contribute to the same end? 
What mechanisms could ensure a high level of compliance? 

5. 

FURTHER IMPROVING THE MANAGEMENT OF EU FISHERIES 

5.1. 

A differentiated fishing regime to protect small-scale coastal fleets? 

Fisheries  with  their  large  share  of  small-  and  medium-sized  companies  play  an 
important  role  in  the  social  fabric  and  the  cultural  identity  of  many  of  Europe’s 
coastal  regions.  Many  coastal  communities  remain  dependent  on  fisheries  for  their 
income,  some  of  them  with  limited  potential  for  economic  diversification.  It  is 
therefore  essential  to  secure  a  future  for  coastal,  small-scale,  and  recreational 
fishermen taking fully into account the particular situation of the small- and medium-
sized enterprises. 

Bringing  and  keeping  the  capacity  of  the  fishing  fleets  in  line  with  fishing 
opportunities will inevitably lead to less overall employment in the catching sector. 
There  is  a  legitimate  social  objective  in  trying  to  protect  the  most  fragile  coastal 
communities  from  this  trend.  These  social  concerns  must  be  addressed  in  a  way 
which does not prevent larger fleets from undergoing the necessary adaptations. 

One  way  could  be  to  have  differentiated  management  regimes:  one  for  large-scale 
fleets,  where  capacity  adjustment  and  economic  efficiency  are  at  the  core,  and 
another  for  small-scale  fleets  in  coastal  communities  with  a  focus  on  social 
objectives.  The  arrangements  for  the  large-scale  segment  could  then  include 
incentives  for  fleet  adaptation  such  as  market-based  allocation 
economic 
mechanisms,  while  small-scale  coastal  fisheries  would  be  managed  through  direct 
allocation of quotas or effort or through collective schemes. The approach to public 
financial support could be different for the two segments: the large-scale fleet would 
be expected to be economically self-reliant, while public funding may help the small-
scale segment adapt to changing conditions in the wake of the CFP reform, thereby 
strengthening  its  economic  viability,  and  maintain  its  contribution  to  the  life  of 
coastal communities. 

Many  vessels  are  small  scale  and  have  a  limited  environmental  impact  but  small-
scale  fishing  can  also  be  harmful  to  sensitive  coastal  habitats  and  its  aggregated 
impact can be significant with real consequences on the state of the stocks. There are 
cases where small and large-scale fleets target the same fish stocks. A differentiated 
regime would have to be carefully designed to secure the ecological sustainability of 
the stocks on which these fishing communities ultimately depend. While the overall 
principles and standards would have to apply EU-wide, specific decisions concerning 
small-scale fleets should be taken as close as possible to the coastal community. 

•  How  can  overall  fleet  capacity  be  adapted  while  addressing  the  social  concerns 
faced  by  coastal  communities  taking  into  account  the  particular  situation  of 
small- and medium-sized enterprises in this sector? 

•  How could a differentiated regime work in practice? 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
•  How  should  small-scale  fisheries  be  defined  in  terms  of  their  links  to  coastal 

communities? 

•  What level of guidance and level-playing field would be required at EU level?  

5.2.  Making the most of our fisheries 

The MSY concept was accepted by all Member States at the 2002 World Summit on 
Sustainable Development as an objective to achieve by 2015. It was also part of the 
1995  UN  Fish  Stocks  Agreement.  This  international  commitment  should  now  be 
enshrined as a principle for stock management in the future CFP. 

Most EC fisheries outside the Mediterranean are managed by setting Total Allowable 
Catches (TACs) of which each Member State gets a national quota. This system of 
management  by  landing  quotas  seems  relatively  simple  but  it  has  also  proven  sub-
optimal in several ways. In mixed fisheries targeting several species of fish, it creates 
unwanted  by-catches  when  the  quota  of  one  species  is  exhausted  while  quotas  for 
other species remain, which leaves fishermen with no choice but to discard the fish 
which  they  are  no  longer  allowed  to  land.  In  addition  to  being  a  waste  of  precious 
resource,  discarding  has  prevented  several  stocks  from  recovering  in  spite  of  low 
quotas. The future CFP should ensure that discarding no longer takes place. 

Management based on fishing effort such as limiting the days a fishing vessel can go 
to  sea  would  remove  this  problem  but  it  may  not  be  sufficient  to  achieve  the 
objectives of the CFP. 

•  How  can  long-term  management  plans  for  all  European  fisheries  be  developed 
under the future CFP? Should the future CFP move from management plans for 
stocks to fisheries management plans? 

•  Should  we  consider  reforming  the  CFP  in  two  steps,  with  specific  measures  to 
move to MSY prior to 2015 followed by measures to maintain MSY as the upper 
exploitation level after that date? 

•  How  could  the  MSY  commitment  be  implemented  in  mixed  fisheries  while 

avoiding discards? 

•  What  should  the  main  management  system  be  for  Community  fisheries  and  to 
which fisheries should it apply? Catch limitations? Fishing effort management? A 
combination of the two? Are there any other options? 

•  What  measures  should  be  taken  to  further  eliminate  discards  in  EU  fisheries? 

Could management through transferable quotas be useful in this regard? 

5.3. 

Relative stability and access to coastal fisheries 

Relative  stability  was  established  as  a  principle  of  the  first  CFP  in  1983.  It  means 
that  each  Member  States’  share  of  each  Community  quota  should  remain  constant 
over time. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
Relative stability has had the merit of establishing a mechanism to distribute fishing 
opportunities among Member States. However, it has also given rise to very complex 
practices  such  as  quota  swaps  between  Member  States  or  out-flagging  by  fishing 
operators. The addition of fishing effort management targets has blurred the picture 
even  further.  After  more  than  twenty-five  years  of  policy  and  changes  in  fishing 
patterns,  there  is  now  a  considerable  discrepancy  between  the  quotas  allocated  to 
Member States and the actual needs and uses of their fleets. In short, it is fair to say 
that relative stability no longer provides a guarantee that fishing rights remain with 
their fishing communities. 

The principle also limits the flexibility to manage the CFP in at least three different 
ways: 

–  it reduces the flexibility of the fishing sector to make efficient use of its resources 

and to adopt different fishing activities, techniques and patterns; 

–  it  is  one  of  the  key  reasons  that  have  led  national  administrations  to  focus  on 
increasing TACs, and thereby their share of fish, at the expense of other longer-
term  considerations.  In  many  cases  it  creates  inflationary  pressure  on  TACs 
because a Member State that wants a higher quota has no other option but to seek 
an increase of the whole Community TAC; 

–  it contribute to discards because it creates many national quotas that generate their 
own  discarding  constraints:  one  national  fleet  may  not  have  exhausted  its  quota 
for a certain species but another national fleet which exhausts its quota, or has no 
quota at all, is forced to discard it. 

For the above reasons, it is important to address the continuation of relative stability, 
in  its  current  form.  One  option  would  be  to  replace  relative  stability  with  a  more 
flexible  system,  such  as  allocating  fishing  rights.  Another  alternative  could  be  to 
retain  the  principle,  but  introduce  flexible  arrangements  to  address  the  above 
shortcomings and align national quotas with the real needs of national fleets. 

Another historical restriction of fishing opportunities is the 12 nautical mile regime, 
which  reserves  Member  States’  inshore  areas  to  their  national  fleets  (except  for 
specific  access  rights  for  other  fleets  based  on  historic  fishing  patterns).  This  has 
generally worked well and could even be stepped up if a specific regime is developed 
for coastal small-scale fleets. 

•  How could relative stability be shaped to better contribute to the objectives of the 
CFP? Should it be dismantled or if not should it become more flexible and if so, 
how? How could such alternatives be set up? 

•  Should access to the 12 nm zone be reserved for small-scale fishing vessels?  

5.4. 

Trade and markets – from catch to consumer 

Europe’s  fishing  industry  (whether  fisheries  or  aquaculture)  generally  receives  a 
small share of the price the consumer pays for the fish at the counter. Overall, first 
sale prices of fish have been stagnating, even at times of extraordinary variations in 
fuel prices such as those in 2008. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
This has had three important consequences: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

Persistent low prices encourage fishers to seek high quantities; 

The inability to pass on to the consumer increases of production costs leads to 
chronic low profitability and again acts as an incentive to overfish; 

This increases the fishers' dependence on public aids with the result that they 
become an integral and permanent feature in the business plans of the fishing 
industry. 

There are several reasons for this situation. 

First, European seafood producers are very fragmented and they have not organised 
themselves in order to market their products so as to ensure that a higher part of the 
value returns to them. This is in stark contrast with a highly concentrated distribution 
sector through which 90 % of the production is channelled. 

Second, consumers tend to turn increasingly towards processed or frozen products at 
the expense of fresh ones. These products enjoy low energy and transport costs and it 
has  been  argued  that  this  is  because  their  prices  do  not  factor  in  the  cost  of  their 
carbon  footprint.  Nor  are  they  faced  with  the  same  immediate  constraints  as 
fishermen in situations of external shocks e.g. due to oil prices. It raises the relative 
costs of other ingredients, processing and marketing and reduces the relative share of 
fish in the final consumer price. 

Third,  the  price  of  certain  fisheries  products  is  also  influenced  by  the  very  high 
proportion  of  products  imported  into  the  EU  market.  Trade  regimes  have  an 
important part to play in this respect: they should ensure supply of the market at best 
prices, but they should also support sustainable development. The EC should aim to 
promote that fisheries products come from sustainably managed fisheries to ensure a 
level-playing field on the EU market. 

The  existing  market  intervention  system  under  the  Common  Market  Organisation 
(CMO) entails direct public action when fish prices for a range of species fall below 
their  established  targets.  This  system  does  not  reflect  the  changing  supply  and 
demand balance and has proven increasingly complex to manage. The poor state of 
the resource as well as the very large dependence of the EU market on imports, have 
gradually reduced its importance9. 

There would still be space for a CMO that would abandon direct support to prices but 
that  would  put  much  stronger  emphasis  on  improving  the  way  producers  organise 
themselves.  In  addition  to  possible  reinforced  fisheries  management  powers, 
producer organisations could play an increased role in marketing their products. The 
resulting strengthening of interbranch relationships would enable producers to better 
anticipate  demand  in  terms  of  timing,  quantity,  quality  and  presentation.  It  would 
also  allow  them  to  address  the  growing  demand  from  consumers  and  thus  retailers 
for  guarantees  on  the  sustainable  origin  of  fisheries  products  in  the  form  of 
certification,  better  labelling  and  traceability.  This  strategy  of  “fishing  to  sell”  and 

9 

The present CMO set-up is up for review in 2009 and the public consultation is ongoing. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
focusing on quality could ultimately lead producers to getting better value for their 
catches. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
•  How  could  market  mechanisms  be  used  to  encourage  the  development  of 

fisheries that are market efficient as well as sustainably exploited? 

•  How can the future CFP best support initiatives for certification and labelling? 

•  How can traceability and transparency in the production chain be best supported? 

•  How  could  the  EU  promote  that  fisheries  products  come  from  sustainably 

managed fisheries, providing a level playing field for all? 

•  How  can  the  POs  better  work  to  match  production  with  market  needs?  Which 
new market based policy instruments could be implemented through POs? How 
can fishermen improve their position towards processing and distribution? 

•  What is the role of trade policy in balancing the interests of producers, consumers 

and our relations with exporting countries? 

5.5. 

Integrating  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  in  the  broader  maritime  policy 
context 

The  fisheries  sector  interacts  closely  with  other  maritime  sectors.  The  Integrated 
Maritime Policy (IMP)10 addresses interactions between all EU policies and maritime 
affairs. The future CFP must take this a step further with an integrated approach: 

–  an  ecosystem  approach  to  marine  management,  covering  all  sectors,  is  being 
implemented  through  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive,  which  is  the 
environmental  pillar  of  the  IMP  and  sets  the  obligation  for  Member  States  to 
achieve  Good  Environmental  Status  in  2020.  The  future  CFP  must  be  set  up  to 
provide the right instruments to support this ecosystem approach11. This is also in 
the interest of the fishing sector because this approach will address the impacts of 
other sectors on fisheries resources in a proportionate and coherent way; 

–  climate  change  will  impact  severely  on  the  marine  environment.  Marine 
ecosystems  and  biodiversity,  already  under  pressure  from  pollution  and 
overfishing,  will  be  further  affected  by  warmer  temperatures  and  acidification, 
with changes in species reproduction and  abundance, changes in distributions of 
marine  organisms  and  shifts  in  plankton  communities.  The  new  Common 
Fisheries Policy has to play a role in facilitating climate change adaptation efforts 
concerning impacts in the marine environment. Climate change is an added stress 
on marine ecosystems which makes a reduction of fishing pressure to sustainable 
level  even  more  urgent.  Sustainable  fishing  therefore  has  to  replace  overfishing 
which  has  rendered  marine  ecosystems  more  vulnerable  to  climate  change  and 
thus less capable of adapting; 

10 
11 

An Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union - COM(2007) 575. 
The role of the CFP in implementing an ecosystem approach to marine management. Communication 
from the Commission - COM(2008) 187. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                 
–  capture  fisheries  and  aquaculture  compete  increasingly  with  other  maritime 
sectors for marine space. Marine spatial planning is an important element of the 
IMP with which the future CFP must be integrated; 

–  the IMP’s strong focus on sustainable development in coastal regions, e.g. in the 
form  of  sustainable  tourism,  could  make  a  substantial  contribution  to  alleviating 
socio-economic  impacts  of  reducing  capacity  in  the  catching  sector.  Coastal 
Community  development  cannot  be  undertaken  by  the  CFP  alone  but  must  be 
seen  as  a  wider  undertaking  within  the  context  of  the  IMP  and  EU  cohesion 
policy; 

–  there is strong synergy between the various maritime sectors, including fisheries, 

in terms of surveillance, data, knowledge and research. 

Crucial  challenges  such  as  climate  change,  emission  policies  and  energy  efficiency 
must be factored in when defining the future CFP and its role in shaping the future of 
the  fisheries  and  aquaculture  sector.  Ensuring  adequate  funding  of  the  wider  IMP 
goals must also be addressed either through the EFF or through other financial tools. 

•  In  which  areas  does  the  fishing  industry  interact  closely  with  other  sectors? 

Where specifically is integration within the IMP required? 

•  How can the future CFP contribute to the continued access of fisheries, including 
both fishing fleets and aquaculture, to marine space, within an integrated spatial 
planning framework? 

•  How  can  the  future  CFP  best  ensure  consistency  with  the  Marine  Strategy 

Framework Directive and its implementation? 

•  How  can  the  future  CFP  support  adaptations  to  climate  change  and  ensure  that 

fisheries do not undermine the resilience of marine ecosystems?  

5.6. 

The knowledge base for the policy 

Scientific  knowledge  and  data  are  of  vital  importance  to  the  CFP,  because  policy 
decisions must be based on robust and sound knowledge on the level of exploitation 
that  stocks  can  sustain,  of  the  effects  of  fishing  on  marine  ecosystems  and  on  the 
impacts  of  changes  such  as  climate  change.  The  human  and  institutional  resources 
available to provide this advice are increasingly limited and the questions to address 
have become increasingly numerous and complex. 

Future  long  term  CFP-oriented  research  programmes  must  tackle  new  challenges 
such  as  the  need  to  promote  synergy  at  European,  national  and  regional  level,  to 
integrate  fisheries  policy  with  other  maritime  issues,  (especially  the  ecosystem 
approach  and  climate  change)  and  further  development  of  policy  instruments  and 
governance.  The  Communication  on  a  European  Strategy  for  Marine  and  Maritime 
Research12  recently  published  by  the  Commission  is  a  first  step  to  addressing  this 
integration. 

12 

A European Strategy for Marine and Maritime Research - COM(2008) 534. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Improving  communication  between  scientists,  policy  makers  and  stakeholders, 
particularly ACFA and the RACs and securing their full commitment, should remain 
a priority. 

•  How  can  conditions  be  put  in  place  to  produce  high-quality  scientific  research 
regarding  fisheries  in  the  future,  including  in  regions  where  it  is  currently 
lacking? How can we best ensure that research programmes are well coordinated 
within the EU? How can we ensure that the resources are available and that young 
researchers are educated in this area? 

•  How can the resources available best be secured and utilised to provide relevant 

and timely advice? 

•  How  can  we  better  promote  stakeholder  involvement  in  research  projects,  and 

incorporate stakeholder knowledge in research-based advice? 

5.7. 

Structural policy and public financial support 

Public  financial  support  to  fisheries  is  substantial,  whether  through  EU  fisheries 
funds or various Member State aid and support measures, including tax exemptions. 
It  also  often  contradicts  with  CFP  objectives,  in  particular  the  need  to  reduce 
overcapacity,  and  has  sometimes  appeared  as  compounding  structural  problems 
rather than helping to solve them. 

The  2002  reform  of  the  CFP  made  important  progress  in  the  right  direction  by 
removing some of the financial support that directly contributed to overcapacity and 
overinvestment.  However,  synergy  is  not  sufficiently  developed  and  there  is  very 
little  conditionality  in  the  way  Member  States  can  spend  their  fisheries  funds.  In 
addition,  the  current  system  is  not  designed  to  address  new  challenges  or  rapidly 
changing circumstances. It needs to be able to adapt for example to the development 
of  IMP,  the  implementation  of  the  Marine  Strategy  Directive  and  the  adaptation  of 
coastal  areas  to  climate  change.  The  current  distribution  of  EFF  funds  is  based  on 
regional  convergence  criteria  rather  than  on  the  composition  of  the  European  fleet 
and its structural deficiencies. 

This demonstrates the need for a much closer link between public funding (notably 
the European Fisheries Fund) and the objectives of the policy and the new challenges 
affecting  marine  activities.  The  next  reform  will  have  to  ensure  structural 
deficiencies  of  the  industry  are  addressed  while  ensuring  safeguards  against  any 
unwanted side effects of the reform. It should promote and facilitate the restructuring 
and modernisation of the European industry, help it improve its long-term economic 
viability, and avoid artificially maintaining overcapacity. 

•  What  should  be  the  top  priorities  for  future  public  financial  support  and  why? 
What changes can the sector not manage to bring about on its own and therefore 
require public financial support? 

•  How  can  we  change  the  focus  of  EU  financial  resources  to  promote  innovation 
and  adaptation  to  new  policies  and  circumstances?  Does  any  new  policy  area 
require  funding?  Should  public  financial  support  be  focused  on  specific 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
transitions such as eliminating discards in the fishing industry? 

•  How  can  synergy  and  coherence  of  possible  CFP  funds  with  other  EU  and 

national instruments be ensured? 

•  How  can  a  synergy  between  the  pillars  of  a  future  CFP  be  achieved?  Should 
public assistance be conditional on Member States' achieving policy objectives? 

•  How can EU financial resources be developed to provide the flexibility needed to 

respond swiftly when a crisis occurs? 

•  Should  public  financial  support  apply  equally  to  all  sectors  (small  and  large 
scale)?  Should  the  European  Fisheries  Fund  continue  to  distinguish  between 
convergence and non-convergence regions? 

•  Should indirect support such as services related to fisheries management (access, 

research, control) continue to be provided free to all sectors of the industry? 

•  Should permanent fisheries subsidies be phased out, maintaining, on a temporary 
basis, only those aimed at alleviating the social impacts of the restructuring of the 
sector? 

5.8. 

The external dimension 

Under  the  Treaty,  the  scope  of  the  exclusive  competence  of  the  Union  in  terms  of 
conservation of aquatic resources extends to the management of the fishing activities 
of the EU fleets in non-EU waters. 

The  main  objective  for  activities  under  the  external  dimension  of  the  Common 
Fisheries  Policy  should  be  to  extend  the  principles  of  sustainable  and  responsible 
fisheries  internationally.  This  objective  must  be  placed  fully  within  the  aims  of  the 
IMP  on  good  governance  of  the  sea  and  the  sustainable  development  of  coastal 
regions.  Other  objectives  that  currently  guide  the  external  dimension  of  the  CFP, 
such as maintaining the presence of an EU fleet internationally and ensuring that this 
fleet supply the EU market, may be less relevant today. 

The  idea  that  the  presence  of  EU  vessels  worldwide  supports  EU  legitimacy  and 
influence in Regional Fisheries Management Organisations does not seem so obvious 
today:  even  in  the  absence  of  fishing  interests,  many  international  partners  have 
demonstrated the ability to influence global fisheries governance as well as an active 
presence in international fora. Furthermore, the sheer importance of the EU market in 
world  trading  of  fisheries  products  provides  sufficient  legitimacy  for  our  action  in 
regional  and  other  multilateral  fora.  It  must  also  be  said  that  the  logic  of  the  EU 
external  fleet  supplying  the  EU  market  is  being  undermined  by  our  large  and 
increasing dependence on imports. 

Coherence with other EU policies must be ensured within all parts of the CFP. In the 
case of the external component, the EU development and environment policies have 
a particular role to play.  

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
It is crucial therefore that the objectives of the external dimension be reviewed and 
redefined so that they meet the needs of the 21st Century. 

A future CFP should continue to promote responsible fisheries in international fora 
such  as  the  UN  General  Assembly  and  FAO,  as  part  of  the  EU’s  overall 
responsibility and effort to achieve better global governance of the seas. We need to 
continue to work on issues such as the Law of the Sea, the protection of vulnerable 
marine ecosystems from destructive fishing practices and also in the negotiations to 
develop  an  international  agreement  on  marine  genetic  resources  beyond  national 
jurisdiction. 

Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) are so far considered to be 
the best instruments for fisheries governance in particular for straddling and highly-
migratory fish stocks in the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) and in the high seas. 
However,  their  performance  is  uneven  and  they  have  not  always  been  effective  in 
adopting  stringent  conservation  and  management  measures  or  ensuring  compliance 
with  these  measures  or  in  their  means  of  control.  There  is  a  need  therefore  to 
strengthen  their  commitment  in  this  respect  as  well  as  their  overall  performance. 
Work with international partners will continue to be crucial to achieve this. 

The 2002 CFP reform led to a transition from traditional fisheries agreements, mostly 
based  on  the  principle  of  “pay,  fish  and  go”,  to  the  more  comprehensive  and 
cooperative  approach  under  the  current  Fisheries  Partnership  Agreements  (FPAs). 
Along with providing access to EU vessels, present FPAs seek to strengthen partner 
countries’ capacity to ensure sustainable fisheries in their own waters. 

Most  of  the  financial  contribution  attached  to  these  agreements  helps  partner 
countries  strengthen  their  fisheries  policy,  including  scientific  research  and  control 
and  monitoring  of  fisheries  activities  in  their  waters.  However,  these  agreements 
require  very  “heavy  maintenance”  and  have  proven  problematic  to  implement  in 
many  countries  because  of  political  turmoil  or  slow  –  or even  sometimes  lack  of  – 
uptake of the assistance provided for the fisheries policy. Conversely, parts of the EU 
fishing industry – in particular the tuna sector – express a strong interest in extending 
the networks of agreements in order to better cover the trail of migratory species they 
target  in  neighbouring  EEZs.  EU  fishermen  are  also  interested  in  deploying  their 
activities  in  EEZs  where  EU  agreements  provide  a  high  level  of  legal  security  and 
transparency. 

The greatest virtue of FPAs is that they help improve fisheries governance in waters 
of  developing  countries.  Nevertheless  scientific  analysis  and  research  capacity 
should  be  reinforced  to  better  assess  the  conservation  status  of  the  stock  and 
determine sustainable catch levels. 

The  support  to  the  fisheries  sector,  in  particular  in  the  framework  of  FPAs;  has 
contributed to the development of this industry but not in a way to have a significant 
impact  on  the  fight  against  poverty  and  the  achievement  of  the  Millenium 
Development Goals. The external fisheries policies should better take into account in 
the food security strategies of the third countries. 

The current architecture of our agreements should therefore be revisited in order to 
explore alternative forms of arrangements with third countries that would better meet 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
the  needs  of  our  industry  and  those  of  our  partners.  The  introduction  of  regional 
forms of cooperation may be worth exploring in this regard especially at a time when 
regional integration is being promoted as a tool for development. 

•  The core objective of the CFP is to promote responsible and sustainable fisheries. 
Is there any reason why the external dimension of the CFP should be driven by 
different objectives? 

•  How could the EU strengthen its role on the international stage to promote better 

global governance of the sea and in particular of fisheries? 

•  How can the EU cooperate with its partners to make RFMOs more effective? 

•  Contrary  to  the  current  free  access  principle  in  international  waters,  should 
fishermen pay for the right to fish in the high seas under the governance provided 
by RFMOs? 

•  How  can  objectives  such  as  investment  promotion  (creation  of  joint-ventures, 
transfer  of  know-how  and  technologies,  investments  and  capacity  management 
for  the  fishing  industry  …),  creation  of  jobs  (on  vessels,  in  ports,  in  the 
processing  industry)  or  promoting  good  maritime  governance  be  pursued  in  the 
framework of future international fisheries agreements? 

•  Are the FPAs the best instrument to achieve sustainability beyond EU waters or 
should  they  be  replaced  by  other  forms  of  cooperation?  Should  the  regional 
perspective  be  explored  and  either  substitute  or  complement  a  streamlined 
bilateral one? 

•  How could we make scientific research to assess the sustainability of fish stocks 

and the control of the fishing activity more transparent and efficient? 

•  How  can  we  assure  better  cooperation  and  compliance  with  new  regulations  in 

developing countries? 

•  Should EU operators cover all the costs of their fishing activities in third country 
waters or should the Community budget continue to support part of these costs? 

•  How could we contribute to increasing the fisheries management capabilities of 

developing countries, e.g. through targeted assistance? 

•  Should the integration of European fishing fleets and interests in third countries 
be actively pursued as an objective of the external dimension of the CFP with a 
view,  in  particular,  to  support  the  development  of  the  concerned  partner 
countries? 

•  How can we reinforce the synergies between the different forms of support and 
the  different  partners  in  the  fisheries  sector  reinforced  and  the  development 
strategies of coastal states? 

•  Should aquaculture be included in future partnership agreements? 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
•  How  could  the  potential  of  small-scale  fisheries  in  third  countries  for 

sustainability, ecological and social benefits be enhanced? 

5.9. 

Aquaculture 

Aquaculture  represents  a  growing  contributor  to  the  production  of  aquatic  food 
worldwide.  In  the  EU,  aquaculture  production  is  an  important  economic  activity  in 
many  coastal  and  continental  regions  but  has  remained  stable  in  recent  years.  The 
Commission  has  addressed  the  specific,  short  and  medium  term  problems  of 
aquaculture  in  a  separate  communication13.  It  is,  however,  important  to  discuss  the 
role of aquaculture in a reformed CFP. 

•  What role should aquaculture have in the future CFP: should it be integrated as a 
fundamental pillar of the CFP, with specific objectives and instruments, or should 
it be left for Member States to develop on a national basis? What instruments are 
necessary to integrate aquaculture into the CFP? 

6. 

THE NEXT STEPS 

Work on the reform will not stop work on making the CFP more effective within its 
existing  framework.  Much  can  and  will  be  done  during  the  time  leading  up  to  the 
implementation of the reform. This includes: 

–  reforming  the  control  policy  to  ensure  that  decisions  are  properly  implemented 

and that there is a level playing field across Member States; 

–  continued drive to combat Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported fisheries, in order 
to combat such fisheries in European waters and the importation of any products 
originating from such fisheries; 

–  new initiatives to eliminate discards and protect sensitive species and habitats; 

–  continued integration of the CFP within the IMP, including support to implement 
the Marine Strategy to ensure environmental protection of marine ecosystems; 

–  a new strategy on aquaculture addressing the bottlenecks that prevent this sector 

from developing; 

–  establishing and implementing additional long-term management plans to reduce 

the fishing pressure on overexploited stocks and restore them to MSY; 

–  enhanced transparency for consumers and further improvements to the traceability 

of production along the market chain. 

These initiatives will aim at fixing urgent short and medium term problems while the 
reflection  on  the  longer  term  review  of  the  policy  framework  takes  place.  To  the 

13 

Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament:  Building  a 
sustainable future for aquaculture - A new impetus for the Strategy for the Sustainable Development of 
European Aquaculture- COM(2009) 162. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
                                                 
extent possible, they will be developed in line with the emerging orientations for this 
reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. 

Together with contributions from stakeholder organisations, the research community, 
Member State governments, civil society and third countries, this Green Paper should 
form  the  basis  of  a  public  debate  on  the  future  CFP.  The  Commission  wishes  this 
debate  to  engage  a  wide  array  of  policy-makers  and  citizens,  ranging  from  those 
directly involved in the fisheries sector to other policy areas to European citizens at 
large,  as  consumers,  citizens  and  taxpayers.  Representatives  and  stakeholders  from 
developing  countries  are  encouraged  to  contribute  to  the  discussion  from  their 
perspective as well. 

Taking into account the outcome of the Budget Review and without pre-empting the 
future discussion on the next Financial Framework, the Commission will sum up the 
debate  by  first  half  of  2010  and  produce  conclusions  on  the  direction  of  the  CFP 
reform. An impact assessment will then be conducted and after further consultations 
with  stakeholders,  the  Commission  will  draft  a  proposal  for  a  new  basic  regulation 
which  will  be  presented  to  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  together  with  all 
other legal base proposals in the context of the new Financial Framework after 2013. 

7. 

HAVE YOUR SAY 

The  purpose  of  this  Green  Paper  is  to  trigger  and  encourage  public  debate  and  to 
elicit  views  on  the  future  CFP.  The  Commission  invites  all  interested  parties14  to 
comment  on  the  questions  set  out  in  this  Green  Paper  and  to  urges  them  to  submit 
them with any additional comments by 31 December 2009 to: 

European Commission – Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries 

"CFP Reform" 

B-1049 Brussels 

Belgium 

or by email to: mare-cfp-consultation@ec.europa.eu 

Contributions  will  be  published  on  the  Internet.  It  is  important  to  read  the  specific 
privacy statement attached to this consultation for information on how your personal 
data and contribution will be dealt with. 

Supporting  documents  and  further  information  on  the  consultation  are  available  on 
the following website: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/reform 

14 

Professional  organisations  are  invited  to  register  in  the  Commission's  Register  for  Interest 
Representatives (http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regrin). This Register was set up in the framework of 
the  European  Transparency  Initiative  with  a  view  to  provide  the  Commission  and  the  public  at  large 
with information about the objectives, funding and structures of interest representatives. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
                                                 
8. 

ACRONYMS 

CFP ………………………… Common Fisheries Policy 

ACFA …………………….... Advisory Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture 

CMO ………………………. Common Markets Organisation 

EFF …………………….…... European Fisheries Fund 

EEZ ……………………….... Exclusive Economic Zone 

FPAs …………………….…. Fisheries Partnership Agreements 

ICES… …………………… International Council for the Exploration of the Sea 

IMP ……………………..…. Integrated Maritime Policy 

MSY …………………….… Maximum Sustainable Yield 

POs ………………………... Producers Organisations 

RAC …………………..….... Regional Advisory Council 

RFMOs ……………………. Regional Fisheries Management Organisations 

TACs ……………………… Total Allowable Catches 

EN 

27 

   EN