FLF, Alm.del - 2013-14 - Bilag 99: Henvendelse af 7/1-14 fra Aquamind om gennemførelse af EU's fiskeripolitik

Introduction ............................................................................................ 3Acknowledgement ................................................................................... 3Executive summary ................................................................................. 3A CFP overview ....................................................................................... 6The Basic Regulation ................................................................................ 75.15.25.35.45.55.65.75.85.95.105.115.125.135.14The MSY ........................................................................................... 7Ecosystem integration and habitat protection ........................................ 9Conservation measures ...................................................................... 9Establishment of fish stock recovery areas ...........................................11Full accountability and the discard ban ................................................11Fishing opportunities .........................................................................15Multiannual plans .............................................................................17Regionalisation and advisory councils ..................................................18Fishing capacity ...............................................................................20Data and science for fisheries management ......................................21Developing the CFP .......................................................................22External policy and international cooperation ....................................22Assessment of the reform process ...................................................23Socio economic consequences of the reform .....................................23

Sea basin and fleet structure specifics .......................................................24The market’s role for the CFP success .......................................................25Financial support and science/innovation programs .....................................26Supporting CFP implementation through private philanthropy ......................269.19.2Lessons learned from civil society organisations work ...........................26How can civil society organisations contribute to the new CFP ................27Areas of CFP implementation to build a cluster of grants around. ...............28

Since 2009 the Oak Foundation has funded numerous civil society organisations toengage in the process of the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). This hasincluded a broad range of actors including environmental NGO’s, such as WWF,Pew, Greenpeace and NEF, working with media, small scale fishermenrepresentatives (ICSF), a secretariat for ‘green’ parliamentarians (Globe) andFishFight.The reform was agreed on political level in June 2013 and the Foundation willadjust from an extended phase of supporting advocacy and campaigning projects tosupporting projects aiming to realize and further develop the reformed CommonFisheries Policy (CFP).This study will assist Oak in identifying key areas for Oak’s support of thisdevelopment. Oak will discuss the study with interested stakeholders prior to thedecision on these areas.The study does not give a full account of all aspects of the reform. It is selective indiscussing and choosing the CFP elements where funders, NGO’s and the privateindustry can make a contribution to the implementation of the CFP.The study is based on the CFP compromise, reading 10 October 2013; 2011/0195(COD), 15556/13)

The reformed CFP constitute a fundamentally new policy with clear obligations forfull catch accountability, a discard ban and a commitment to the principle ofMaximum Sustainable Yield (MSY)The reform is agreed as framework legislation and it will enter into force 1stJanuary2014. It requires new implementing acts and repealing or revision of actsimplemented on basis of the existing CFP.The new CFP invites Member States and Advisory Councils to submitrecommendations to the CFP implementation, notably through multiannual plans.This opens a valuable opportunity for regions to influence the policy and to designmanagement solutions that can deliver wealth in fisheries and increased foodsupply from a healthy marine environment. The potential of a sound policy was

estimated by New Economic Foundation to additional revenue of 3 billion € per year(Jobs lost at sea).The challenges to overcome are substantial; three “hinge factors” stand ahead:Acceptance and compliance:Will the industry endorse the principle of full accountability and the discardban?Consistency throughout the regulatory system:Full catch accountability combined with reliable catch documentation makesnumerous rules developed under present management superfluous or evenobstructing the objectives of the CFP. The regulations not yet reformed must bealigned with the new CFP principles in order to allow the industry the choice ofmethod and technology as a way to optimising production.Ability to fish the fish available:Minimising the choke species problem will require strong biological advice, newmanagement solutions and development in fishing techniques and practices.The freedom and building of knowledge and capacity to adjust fishing practicesis an important element for industry support of the policy.The institutional set-up for the reformed CFP will decide who will take the lead inthe process – and on what conditions. The new CFP is a massive turn-around anddelegation of powers must be decentralised to the lowest appropriate level to obtaineffectiveness and equity as decisions will pertain to the interests directly involved.The support of philanthropy to the CFP implementation may prove decisive to itssuccess, as bottom-up processes, pilot projects, documentation and marketalignment schemes may greatly influence the development. The efficient use of ourresources in terms of sustainability and economic performance depends oncontinuous development of technology and best practices.The support from private funding should be based on a strategic approach and afew key areas for action.Strategy must be aligned with the reformed CFP;1. To promote the principle of natural capital utilisation, where industry is fullyaccountable for what and how it harvest.2. To treat fishing as an economic activity and allow it to innovate and to let“best cases” be phased in to management.Results Based Management (RBM) allows for bottom up development, userdriveninnovation and continuous improvement in food production and economic resultwithin the defined impact limits on stocks, protected species and habitats.The transition will be challenging. The key factors for the successful outcome thatphilanthropy may engage in are the following:1. The choke species problem is potentially a “reform killer”. If the problem isnot addressed in all its facets the discard ban will not be enforceable, thefishery will suffer economically and the legitimacy of the reform will crumble.

A bottom-up process of designing solutions through pilots and newmanagement approaches must be prioritised and the EU Commission andlegal framework must support and incentivise this process.2. Regional cooperation will be decisive in bringing about solutions that takesaccount of sea basin and local characteristics. Funding of civil societyorganisations that are directly involved in regional cooperation shouldstrengthen their capacity to engage in building cooperation with strongpowers in producing management solutions that can be adopted as delegatedacts. Models for inclusion of third countries with shared stocks must beexplored to obtain full benefit.3. The efficiency of public control is limited. Aligning fishing practices withmarket requirements is a strong tool. Certification schemes and retailerscommitment to sustainably sources food should be wider spread anddeveloped in terms of better documentation and traceability. Some civilsociety organisations have been very active on an instrumental level in thiswork which may be empowered through private funding.IUU is undermining resources and fair competition. The fight against IUUthrough both lobbying and development of traceability and technologicalsolutions may benefit from private funding.4. Dissemination of knowledge and lessons learned is an efficient way topromote better management and obtain legitimacy of policies. Alreadynumerous studies of pilots and best cases have been published. The bridgingof knowledge with concrete application deserves more focus. Civil societyorganisations may actively engage in feasibility studies in order to identifypromising areas for improvement. Based on experiences from the reformedCFP such knowledge may gradually be applied outside EU.5. Unwanted bycatches must be handled, processed and distributed in aneconomic way to ensure acceptance of the ban and to generate new value.Pilots, analyses and market prospecting may benefit from private funding.6. The reform will have a consequence for fleet structure. Private funding maysupport knowledge building and management designs that allow nationalmanagement to balance economic objectives with societal priorities on aninformed basis.The implementation of reformed CFP is complex with a number of promisingopportunities and a measure of threats. From an organisational point of view it isquestionable whether the EU Commission will be able to propose implementing actswith sufficient speed and applicability. Member States will have not only to dealwith the substance and management consequences of the new CFP, having hithertorelied solely on the Commissions right of initiative they will also have to establishnew structures for cooperation that can produce recommendations for the CFPimplementation.Facilitation from civil society organisations in terms of substance and process maybenefit the reform greatly.

The CFP brings together a range of measures designed to achieve the objectives ofthe policy. The CFP covers resource management including control, external policy,market regulation, subsidies, aquaculture and science issues. This study focuses onresource management.The most important areas of the CFP resource management are:The new Basic Regulation (COM xx/2013) is the foundation for the CFP from 1stJanuary 2014. It outlines the principles for resource management and allocation offishing opportunities among Member States (MS). This regulation is the centerpieceof the reformed CFP. The initial Basic Regulation was adopted in 1983 and has beenrevised every ten years, with the reform in 2013 marked as a fundamental changein policy.The “TAC/quota Regulation” set yearly fishing opportunities in and outside EUwaters on basis of independent biological advice and negotiations with third partieson stock utilisation and sharing.The Regulations of “Technical Conservation Measures” covers the range of rulesgoverning how, where and when fishers may fish. Technical measures include:minimum reference sizes, minimum mesh sizes for nets and rules governing gearconfiguration, closed areas and seasons, limits on by-catches, requirement to usemore selective fishing gear to reduce unwanted by-catch of protected species,measures to prevent damage to the marine environment etc.The “Control Regulation” set out to ensure that the rules of the Common FisheriesPolicy are complied with. The regulation is designed to enforce CFP rules, promoteharmonised sanctions across the EU, ensure traceability throughout the supplychain, from catch to consumer, collect the necessary data for managing fishingopportunities and clarify the division of responsibility between Member States andthe Commission.The regulation on technical measures and the control regulation have not yet beenrevised in consequence of the reform of the Basic Regulation. They are developedgradually under the previous CFP and will have to undergo an adaptation to matchthe reformed CFP in both concept and legal application.The “Marine Strategy Framework Directive” (MSFD) is not a part of the CFP. It isestablished as part of EU environmental policy. While the CFP regulations aredirectly applicable in Member States, the MSFD is a directive where MS are obligedto define and implement specific environmental targets on basis of the MSFDrequirement to achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) in Europe’s marinewaters through sustainable use of marine resources. Member States are required tocoordinate the implementation of the MSFD on a regional level. Integrated MaritimePolicy has MSFD as its conservation pillar and it is assumed to cover sectorialpolicies as the CFP.It is expected that the implementation of MSFD for fisheries will be deliveredthrough existing policies and management mechanisms, including the reformedCFP, existing mechanisms for national fisheries management, and the designation

The Basic Regulation (COM xx/2013) shall ensure that fishing activities areenvironmentally sustainable and managed in a way that is consistent with theobjectives of achieving economic, social and employment benefits, and ofcontributing to the availability of food supplies.In pursuing this objective the regulation introduces a number of tools on strategicas well as on operational level. Objectives related to economic performance andsocial development are mainly expressed in terms of general objectives while theobjective of sustainability and enhancement of food supply are more operational,notably the MSY obligation and the discard ban.In the following the elements of the Basic Regulation will be assessed with a view toguiding philanthropic support for the implementation of the reformed policy.

The legal frameThe CFP shall maintain fish stocks “above levels which can produce the maximumsustainable yield” (BMSY). “The maximum sustainable yield exploitation rate shall beachieved by 2015 where possible and on a progressive, incremental basis at thelatest by 2020 for all stocks” (FMSY).In the regulations “considerants” it is stated that, “Management decisions relatingto MSY in mixed fisheries should take into account the difficulty of fishing all stocksin a mixed fishery at maximum sustainable yield at the same time, in particular incases where scientific advice indicates that it is very difficult to avoid thephenomenon of "choke species" by increasing the selectivity of the fishing gearsused.” Multiannual plans covering MSY for mixed fisheries or dynamics stocksrelations, shall take into account “knowledge about the interactions between fishstocks, fisheries and marine ecosystems”This leaves room for a choice when applying MSY a choice with consequences forrelative stock abundance, realised catches and for the economic result obtained.DiscussionTwo types of balances are relevant when discussing the configuration of the MSYsolution for fisheries, whether they are single species or mixed fisheries.

First; all species interact in a prey - predator pattern. The fish will die from naturalmortality or fishing mortality; if for example natural mortality is high due to a largestock of predators the residual fishing mortality hence TAC/quotas respecting MSYwill be low. The more complex patterns may be studied in scientific literature andthe ongoing work in MyFish:http://www.myfishproject.eu/.Secondly, in mixed fisheries the match between catches and quotas define therealised yield and the economic performance. The capacity to match catches andquotas is central to the function of the CFP. Three factors are decisive here.1. The relative TAC/quota availability for species in mixed fisheries.If there is a disproportion between the TAC/quotas and the fishers’ ability totarget the individual species the restraining quota will result in the plentifulquota not being exhausted (the choke species problem). This problem mayoccur if scientific advice does not reflect the actual stock abundance, if thebalancing of MSY does not reflect fishing patterns or if allowed fishing ofprotected species is restrictive.2. The allocation of the TAC among Member States (Relative Stability) andamong individual fishermen.Relative Stability allocates fishing opportunities among Member States in away that does not reflect fishing patterns or needs to cover by-catches.Rigidity in national allocation schemes has the same effect. Quota transfermechanisms may allow fishermen to meet their catches with sufficient quotaholdings. Thus transferability is an indispensable tool to alleviate the chokespecies problem.3. The fishers’ capability to target the individual species.Selective fishing methods ensuring that catches do not exceed quota holdingsis the other indispensable tool in a management balancing quotas availableand catches taken. Selective fishing employ a range of tools from choosingthe gear for the individual haul to planning the fishing seasons over the year.In the case that selective fishing and quota transferability do not complement eachother a loss in catch opportunities will occur.The setting of TAC/quotas in appropriate MSY balances for the individual regions isforeseen to take place in context of multiannual plans. This does not seem toqualify for private funding.A high utilization of the TAC/quotas requires development of transferabilityschemes and new fishing practices. This seems to qualify for private funding. This isdiscussed in subsequent chapters.

The CFP frameThe CFP “shall implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries managementto ensure that negative impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem areminimized”This approach shall manage fisheries within ecologically meaningful boundarieswhich seeks to manage the use of natural resources, taking account of fishing andother human activities, while preserving both the biological wealth and thebiological processes necessary to safeguard the composition, structure andfunctioning of the habitats of the ecosystem affected.The approach is inter alia applied in multiannual plans, through TAC/quotas,conservation measures and protected areas. The ecosystem consideration isrelevant in context of all fisheries activities and the basis for its applicationdevelops with changes in the knowledgebase related to the effect of activities onthe marine environment.DiscussionPrimary ecosystem effects relate to the utilisation of commercial species. MSY isembedded in this. Secondary ecosystem effects relate to non-targeted andprotected species. Habitat effects relate to seabed structures.The development of the ecosystem integration will be driven by science and policydiscussions regarding the balancing of production with protection.The relevance of private funding of ecosystem projects should be considered incontext of the concrete circumstances and objectives for such projects.

The CFP frameThe possible supplementary measures for conservation and exploitation in the newBasic Regulation do not differ much from the present tool box and they include:Targets for the conservation and sustainable exploitation of stocks(TAC/quotas) and related measures to minimize the impact of fishing (effortlimitations a.o.);measures to adapt the fishing capacity;incentives, including economic incentives such as fishing opportunities, topromote selective and low impact fishing;measures on the fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities;measures to achieve the discard ban;minimum conservation reference sizes;pilot projects on alternative types of fishing management techniques and ongears;measures necessary for compliance with environmental directives.Technical measures may include the following:

Characteristics and use of fishing gear especially to improve selectivity andminimise the impact on the ecosystem;limitations on or prohibitions of the use of certain fishing gears, and on fishingactivities, in certain areas or periods in order to protect endangered species,spawning fish, and other vulnerable marine resources.DiscussionUtilising fisheries resources is little more than taking the surplus of fish that thesystem can provide and not wreck the environment in the process.Still, in addition to setting the output targets and protecting the environment aconsiderable amount of prescriptive management has developed over the years.It is helpful to divide the discussion on the application of conservation measure inthe three blocks related to primary ecosystem effects, secondary ecosystem effectsand to habitat effects:1. How to ensure MSY for commercial stocks2. How to avoid catching protected species of fish, mammals and birds3. How to ensure habitat impacts to stay within acceptable limitsWhile the setting of acceptable limits is fundamentally a public interest andresponsibility, the discussion becomes interesting and potentially rewarding when itcomes to the management strategies and methods used to optimise output withinthe set limits.The utilization of quota species is managed by TAC/quotas and a considerableamount of regulations of gear, area and time for fishing, days at sea, minimumreferences sizes, by catch limits, target species limits etc. Most rules have beenestablished over time to curb discards of fish. As full catch accountability and thediscard ban are gradually phased in de-regulation of this micro management shouldbe done simultaneously. This however, is not yet scheduled.Any regulation on the fisher’s choice of gear and method will restrict his potentialnot only to optimise his earnings but also his ability to adapt his fishing to theconcrete circumstances at sea. This may have negative consequences for theutilisation of the varying quota portfolios and for the fishers’ ability to handle thechoke species problem.The reform of technical regulations should take place in respect of the principle offull catch accountability now established. In this context the possible gains inprotection from regulations should be measured against the loss in flexibility andwealth suffered by the fisher. This will have to be established in co-decisionbetween the European Parliament and the Council and it may prove to be difficult interms of conception and timing.As the new CFP encourage Member State cooperation, regional solutions, pilotprojects and also to provide multiannual plans as a tool to implement the CFP thereis an important and promising area for a bottom-up development of the CFPaligning the CFP sustainability objectives with efficient fishing practises andeconomic viability. The development here is highly dependent on public and privatefunding.

Secondary ecosystem effects and habitat effects are regulated through technicalmeasures and stock recovery areas according to the Basic Regulation, the MSFDand in the Natura 2000 regulation. The development of a Results BasedManagement approach in this area is being considered i.a. in context of the SCAR-Fish report on “Science in support of the European fisheries and aquaculture policy”where science is advanced with the aim to optimise output of aquatic food in aresults based management where ecosystem effects are progressively incorporatedin the management framework and internalised in the costs of the production.http://ec.europa.eu/research/agriculture/scar/scarfish_en.htm

The CFP frameThe Union shall “establish protected areas on ground of their biological sensitivity,including areas where there is clear evidence of heavy concentration of fish belowminimum conservation size and spawning grounds. In such areas fishing activitiesmay be restricted or prohibited”. Member States are obliged to identify suitableareas which may form part of a coherent network and to prepare jointrecommendations to that end. The Commission may, in a multi-annual plan, beempowered to establish protected areas.DiscussionThe requirement to establish recovery areas for fish stocks adds to a number of“closed area provisions” notably Marine Protected Areas according to the MarineFramework Strategy Directives’ objective of “good environmental status” andNatura 2000 areas according to the EU nature & biodiversity policy. Thisdevelopment is likely to enhance fish stock reproduction but it will also reduceareas of fishing, put more pressure on other areas and possibly increase costs offishing.The key words in the development is the wording: “fishing activities may berestricted or prohibited” and the issue is whether the regulation is focused on thetypes of fishery and technology allowed or on setting limits for acceptable impactsand leave it to multiannual plans and the industry to find the most optimal way offishing in respect thereof.Management by defined impacts require science based knowledge which is a publicresponsibility while the continuous development of fishing methods and technologyis a case based activity that will benefit from private funding.

Article 15 state that all catches subject to catch limits; in the Mediterranean alsocatches subject to minimum landing sizes shall be “recorded, landed, and countedagainst the quotas”. The implementation is to take place within a timeframe from1stJanuary 2015 to 1stJanuary 2019.A number of exemptions are specified, includingProtected species;Species with a high survival rate taking into account the characteristics of thegear, of the fishing practices and of the ecosystem;Catches falling under de minimis exemptions.The implementation of the landing obligation shall be specified in multiannual plans,including:Provisions for de minimis exemptions of total annual catches of all speciescovered by the discard ban. The de minimis exemption applies where selectivityis very difficult to achieve or to avoid disproportionate costs of handlingunwanted catches. Catches under this provision do count against the relevantquotas.Provisions on documentation of catches

As a derogation from the obligation to count catches against the relevant quotascatches caught in excess of quotas, or catches of species where the Member Statehas no quota, may be deducted from the quota of the target species provided thatthey do not exceed 9 % of the quota of the target species. The provision onlyapplies where the stock of the non-target species is within safe biological limits.For stocks covered by the discard ban, Member States may use a year-to-yearflexibility of up to 10% of their permitted landings.With the aim to ensure the protection of juveniles of marine organisms, minimumconservation reference sizes are established. For species covered by the discardban catches of species below the minimum conservation reference size shall not beused for human consumption.Member States shall ensure detailed and accurate documentation of all fishing tripsand adequate capacity and means for the purpose of monitoring compliance withthe obligation to land all catches, inter alia such means as observers, CCTV andother.DiscussionPresent policy is based on the “discard regime”, where catches in excess of quotasare allowed but must be discarded, where under sized fish must be discarded,where bycatches above a certain percentage must be discarded and wherefishermen have an incentive to discard lower priced fish.The failure of this policy is rooted with the fact that discarded fish do not count onTAC/quotas. It has led to an adverse development in fishing practices and fleetstructures, first and foremost in terms of excess fishing effort but also by favouringfishing practices with high discard rates, as the TAC reductions to cover discards

are carried by all fishermen. At the same time the policy has led to a layer by layerintroduction of micro management and controls which has impeded economicperformance and resulted in adverse incentives.The reformed CFP establishes the principle of full catch accountability – or CatchQuota Management (CQM). This transfer of responsibility for the total outtake ofstocks from the public domain to the individual fisher is a disruptive change inpolicy with a fundamental effect on the industry’s and the fisher’s perception ofmanagement and for the incentives that defines his alignment with the policyobjectives.In consequence of the reform, ICES advice on fish stocks from 2014 will reflect theamount of fish actually caught at sea instead of what is brought to shore.“Advicebased on catches will be more relevant for the current and future political process,as decision-makers have shifted focus regarding fish stocks from commerciallandings to actual catches."(ICES)The fundamental challenges for the new policy are the following:Compliance.Will the industry endorse the principle of full accountability, including thediscard ban and does it have the necessary capability to adjust fishingpractices.Consistency throughout the regulatory system.Full accountability combined with reliable catch documentation makesnumerous rules developed under present management superfluous or evenobstructing the objective of the CFP. The regulations not yet reformed must bealigned with the new CFP principles in order to gain the appreciation andlegitimacy from the industry.Ability to fish the fish available.Minimising the choke species problem will require better biological advice, newmanagement solutions and development in fishing practices and techniques.The list of problems and unanswered questions is much longer, but these threeissues will decide the fate of the new policy.A full uptake of fish quotas within the catch quota restriction require a solution ofthe “choke species equation” The factors relevant for solving the equation can belisted as follows.Complexity of the ecosystem, especially with regard to “mixed fisheries”Quality of adviceQuality of advice is here understood as the alignment between the biologicalassessments and the actual state of stocks when fishing takes place. Time lagand analytical qualities of the assessment may for example fail to take accountof big incoming year classes of fish with the result that quotas are set to lowwith a consequential choke species problem. The advisory system is notdiscussed in this study.

The Basic Regulation provides some exemptions to full catch accountability and thediscard ban. The distinction between the obligation to count fish against quotas andthe obligation to land the fish is important. Not counting catches against TAC’s is ananomaly that reduces the value of TAC’s as a management method to obtain MSY.The discard ban is an ethical issue – whether the fish is brought to land ordiscarded dead makes little difference to the stock.The exemptions differ in type and effect.Protected species are exempted from the discard ban and catch accounting.This is a logic step that might be enforced by a code or regulation providingthese species to be returned to the sea as quickly and gently as possible.The exemption may not offer sufficient protection to the species, and catchquota limits – as used in other parts of the world, may be an interestingconservation tool as an alternative to closed areas or ban on specific typesof gear.Commercial species with a high survival rate may be exempted from thediscard ban and catch accounting on basis of the concrete circumstances. Itseems a sound policy to allow juveniles with high survival to be returned tothe sea. However in order to limit the incentive to discard these small, lessvalued fish and to ensure their survival it is necessary to establish complexregulation and control regarding i.a. the time, place, depth and duration offishing operation, the time on deck etc. An alternative would be combineexemptions from the discard ban with an obligation to count the catchwholly or partially against the quota. This would ensure the fishers’ incentiveto reduce less valuable catches to a minimum and make micro managementavoidable. This approach has been used in trials.The de minimis exemption allows under certain strict conditions that 5-9%of some species may be discarded without even counting against quotas.The exemption from the principle of accountability is limited and conditionedby scientific advice, but still problematic. The substantial uncertaintiesregarding the effects of the new CFP provide a certain political rationale forthe exemption. However, the development of the CFP would benefit from achange towards full accountability.As a derogation from the obligation to count catches against the relevantquotas in catches of species caught in excess of quotas of the stocks inquestion, or catches of species where a Member State has no quota, may bededucted from the quota of the target species provided that they do notexceed 9 % of the quota of the target species. This exemption is

contradictory to basic CFP principles and the MSY objective – even limited asit is. The policy has been agreed, but its use may be constrained, in contextof multiannual plans as fishing practices develop.Species covered by the discard ban may not be used for human consumption if thesize of the fish falls below the minimum conservation reference sizes. The reasoningbehind this provision is fear of creating an incentive to target small fish and fear ofdisturbance on the market if the less priced smaller fish becomes price leading. It ishowever difficult to explain to the public that the fish for ethical reasons must belanded and for other reasons must not be consumed.Furthermore depriving the fisher from the price he could get from the consumermarket will not reduce his incentive to discard the fish. The incentive to fish forsmall fish does not exist in a number of demersal fisheries where prices per kilomay triple for sizes 1 compared to sizes 5 (Common Market Organisation). On theother hand in some fisheries small fish are high priced. This variability suggeststhat solutions are developed on a fisheries basis in multiannual plans. Suchsolutions may range from micro management on gear to results basedmanagement where catches of fish in size 5 count relatively more on vessel quotas.Reliable documentation of catches is the critical factor in the new policy. Extensivetrials with Catch Quota Management and CCTV documentation have proved theCCTV solution to be effective. In the foreseeable future it will not be feasible torequire CCTV documentation from all vessels, and tailored exemptions from smallervessels will be necessary. A number of approaches to such exemptions may betrailed with a view to ensuring sufficient coverage and proper incentivemechanisms.The testing of possible modalities for the implementation of article 15 seems to bea highly relevant area for private funding.

The CFP FrameThe principle of Relative Stability established in 1983 is continued with the reform.Thus, fishing opportunities allocated to Member States“shall ensure each MemberState relative stability of fishing activities for each fish stock or fishery”.As the discard ban is being introduced, fishing opportunities shall be set to reflectthat all catches count against quotas and that discarding will no longer be allowed.Member States may request the Commission to alleviate a disparity if scientificevidence shows that fishing opportunities that have been fixed are in significantdisparity with the actual state of the stock.It is the prerogative of Member States to allocate its Member State quotas amongthe vessels flying the flag of the Member State. It shall inform the Commission ofthe allocation method. Member States may establish a system of transferablefishing concessions.

For the allocation of fishing opportunities in mixed fisheries, Member States areobliged to take account of the likely catch composition of vessels participating insuch fisheries.When allocating the fishing opportunities Member States shall use transparent andobjective criteria including those of an environmental, social and economic nature.The criteria to be used may include, inter alia, the impact of fishing on theenvironment, the history of compliance, the contribution to the local economy andhistoric catch levels. Within the fishing opportunities assigned to them, MemberStates shall endeavour to provide incentives to fishing vessels deploying selectivefishing gear or using fishing techniques with reduced environmental impact, such asreduced energy consumption or habitat damage.Member States may, after notifying the Commission, exchange all or part of thefishing opportunities allocated to them.DiscussionArticle 16 is setting the framework for the allocation and use of fishingopportunities in line with article 15. Full catch accountability entail that a fisherycannot take place if it is not covered by a quota. In mixed fisheries theconsequence is that a fishing vessel must be able to cover all caught species in thefishery with a quota holding. If this is not possible we have a choke speciessituation, and the mixed fishery must stop, which will entail a loss in catches, inearnings - and in support for the policy. This predicament for the reformed CFPshows on three levels.1. The quota allocation between Member States and among fishermen in theindividual Member State does not reflect the composition of catches2. Biological advice and resulting fishing opportunities (TAC/quotas) may notreflect the actual strength of fish stocks.3. Fishermen have a limited ability to target the speciesRelative Stability remains a cornerstone of the CFP; however that does not excludeMember States from a prudent application of the right they enjoy. A number ofdesigns for transnational quota exchange can be devised from nation-to-nationschemes to limited fisher-to-fisher in-year leasing in pool systems.Member States will have to consider TFC systems on a national basis in order toavoid the choke species problem. TFC system can be designed in a number of waysreaching from fully fledged individual quota shares to community based in-yearleasing solutions. The important thing is to align the design with national prioritiesand to take account of the transferability mechanism in relation to relevantpriorities, especially to address a potential choke species situation.When designing TFC systems the Member State has a considerable amount ofchoices to make in order to ensure national priorities for example regarding smallscale fleets. An assessment of the consequences of the reformed CFP and possiblecounteractions or supportive measures should enter into deliberations on TFCsystems.

The measures and the timescale in multiannual plans shall be proportionate to theobjectives pursued and the plans shall take account of their likely economic andsocial impact.Multiannual plans may contain specific measures to address problems of mixedfisheries in relation to achieving MSY in cases where scientific advice indicates thatincreases in selectivity cannot be achieved. Where necessary, the plan shall includespecific alternative conservation measures for relevant stocks covered by the plan.A multiannual plan shall include:Conservation reference points consistent with the MSY objectivesquantifiable targets such as fishing mortality rates and/or spawning stockbiomass;clear time frames to reach the quantifiable targets;objectives for conservation and technical measures to be taken in order toachieve the targets set out in Article 15 and measures designed to avoid andreduce as far as possible unwanted catches;safeguards to ensure that targets are metA multiannual plan may also include:Other conservation measures, in particular measures to gradually eliminatediscards taking into account the best available scientific advice or to minimisethe negative impact of fishing on the ecosystemDiscussionThe multiannual plans are the instrument that regions must address in order toinfluence and adapt the implementation of the CFP to regional priorities. The scopeof the plans is however limited as long as the prescriptive rules of the pre-reformregulations prevail.The establishment of multiannual plans poses difficult decisions to be made.Decisions regarding policy interests as well as technical issues. The MSY balance

The CFP frameThe Commission may adopt measures compatible with multiannual plans by meansof delegated acts based on joint recommendations from Member States with adirect interest.Member States concerned shall cooperate with one another in formulating jointrecommendations and they shall consult the relevant Advisory Council.Member States shall ensure that joint recommendations on conservation measuresare compatible with the objectives of the Union conservation measure.If Member States do not succeed in agreeing on joint recommendations to theCommission the Commission may submit a proposal for appropriate measures inaccordance with the Treaty: This entail the use of Council and Parliament co-decision.Where the conservation measure applies to fish stocks shared with third countriesthe Union shall endeavour to agree the necessary measures with the relevantpartners.Advisory Councils are established for geographical areas with a balancedrepresentation of all stakeholders in order to contribute to the CFP objectives. Thecouncils may submit recommendations and suggestions on matters relating to themanagement of fisheries and the socio-economic and conservation aspects offisheries and aquaculture to the Commission, and to the Member State concerned.In particular, Advisory Councils may submit recommendations on how to simplifyrules on fisheries management.The advisory councils shall be composed of organisations representing the fisheriesoperators, representatives of the processing and marketing sectors and otherinterest groups affected by the Common Fisheries Policy, for example,environmental organisations and consumer groups.The Council, the European Parliament and the Commission have not yet agreed away forward that respects the legal position of both the Parliament and the Councilto facilitate the development and introduction of multi-annual plans. In effect thisstalls the progress in regional discussions on the implementation of the CFP with anobvious risk that the deadlines of the discard ban will not be met.

DiscussionArticle 18 refers to cooperation between the Member States while article 43-45refer to Advisory Councils.The new regional approach entail a formal cooperation between Member States tobe established if regionalisation is to succeed. If such cooperation is not establisheddecisions cannot be taken by delegated acts but will have to be taken in accordancewith the treaty – typically in co-decision between Council and Parliament. This willinvalidate the formation of a regional policy, the legitimacy of the CFP and it willslow decision making processes to a level that forbids a development ofmanagement aligned with best knowledge, technological progress and developmentin market forces.Equally risky is the inter-institutional discussion on the legal positions onmultiannual plans. An obvious solution would be to establish a two-level process formultiannual plans; a first level defining the bare minimum requirement that followsfrom the Basic Regulation and decided in co-decision and a second level leavingconcrete implementation and continuous adaptation to the regional level.If so done the CFP boundaries for regional cooperation will be relatively open. Mostimportantly regions should submit recommendations for multiannual plans includingproposals for the concrete implementation of MSY and the discard ban.Another problem however, is that regional cooperation cannot promoteconservation measure less stringent than those existing in Union legislation; thisrestriction will severely narrow the opportunities of developing fishing methods andtechnology as long as the outdated regulations on technical conservation measuresand control has not been revised.Advisory Councils may recommend simplification of rules:“In particular, AdvisoryCouncils may submit recommendations on how to simplify rules on fisheriesmanagement”.This opportunity will have to be used actively in order to phase outmicro management and establish a results based management where a regionalprerogative to choose the ways to obtain MSY and the discard ban is de factoestablished.“The industry can be given more responsibility through self-management. Resultsbased management could be a move in this direction: instead of establishing rulesabout how to fish, the rules focus on the outcome and the more detailedimplementation decisions would be left to the industry”.(Commission green paperCOM(2009)163 final)The reformed CFP supports initiatives that facilitates the transition from micromanagement to results based management; among such initiatives are pilotprojects on alternative types of fishing management techniques and on gears andand pilot projects on new control technologies and systems for data management.The establishment of regional cooperation and the work to align the chain ofregulatory measures with the reformed Basic Regulation depends to a large degreeon Member States. Member States have not yet established a cooperative structureto deal with this while the present Regional Advisory Committees have established

well-functioning organisations with a broad stakeholder basis. They may relativelyeasy transform into the new Advisory Councils. These councils may in effect serveas the supplier of policy solutions on basis of a broad stakeholder cooperationsupported by concrete projects demonstrating the opportunities for managementand fishery.The establishment of results based management throughout the CFP systemrequire development of organisational and institutional cooperation, trials anddocumentation of fisheries techniques, development of control and traceabilitymethods and an array of best cases to demonstrate the potential for economicperformance on a fisheries basis.Regionalisation can be put on a formula as below:EU level institutions set clear principles and long-term objectives, e.g. stocksexploited at MSY level and the discard ban.This may be done in co-management by consultation: e.g. with the AC’s, but with all decisions taken atEU level.Regional level institutions develops implementation plans (input to multiannualplans a.o.) and guidelines tailored to regional conditions, which mustdemonstrate to EU that implementation plans are in accordance to principlesand long-term objectives. Co-management can be encouraged by partnerships:where regional member states, stakeholders and users cooperate in developingimplementation plansResults based management to make implementation plans into realities andusers/industry more accountable. Industry self-management with reversal ofthe burden of proof.The private funding of regional activities may greatly influence and accelerate thedevelopment and underpin the legitimacy of the policy.The Basic Regulation does not foresee that regional parties align their policy withthird countries prior to handing the recommendations to the Commission. Thepreliminary discussion between Member States on regionalisation has apparentlynot considered this issue. The increased complexity of the CFP decision system,first by the introduction of co-decision and now by regional cooperation makesmanagement of stocks shared with third countries increasingly difficult. A situationcausing concern in partner countries outside EU.Private funding facilitating discussions on cooperative models that include thirdcountries, especially Norway and Faroe Islands with whom EU share importantstocks, may prove helpful in making the CFP regional policy work in practice.

Member States may establish a system of transferable fishing concessions (TFC) asa means to adjust fishing capacityDiscussionThe virtue of catch share systems is that they are effective in adjusting fleetcapacity and fishing effort to fishing opportunities. TFC’s are a contentious issuehowever, and the far reaching TFC system in the Commissions first proposal for thereformed CFP shipwrecked. The issue of capacity remains, and the measures forcapacity is the alternative approach that could gather the necessary politicalsupport. Member States may choose to control capacity through a TFCmanagement on a national basis.In this study the question of transferability is linked to the discard ban and thechoke species problem. Some type of transferability is necessary to match thechallenges set by the discard ban. The design opportunities of a system arenumerous whether it be individual or community based, based on permanenttransfer of rights or in-year leasing and adjustments of catch opportunities betweenvessels.

The CFP frameAvoidance and minimisation of unwanted catches is an area of priority in order tofacilitate the discard ban. Member States may conduct pilot projects with the aim ofexploring all practicable methods for the avoidance and minimisation of unwantedcatches in a fishery. Member States may also produce a "discard atlas" showing thelevel of discards in each of the fisheries.Measures to establish a sustainable exploitation of marine biological resourcesinclude pilot projects on alternative types of fishing management techniques and ongears; and new control technologies and systems for data management may beprovided through pilot projects.DiscussionThe Basic Regulation encourage Member State and private initiatives to develop theCFP through fishing techniques, management approaches and data bases. This areamay greatly benefit from private initiatives and funding.

The CFP FrameEU shall conduct its external fisheries relations in accordance with internationalobligations and policy objectives and the objectives and principles set out in theBasic Regulation.EU shall actively support and contribute to the activities of internationalorganisations dealing with fisheries, including regional fisheries managementorganisations (RFMOs). EU should seek to lead the process of strengthening theperformance of RFMOs to better enable them to conserve and manage marine livingresources under their purview.DiscussionThe EU engagement in fisheries agreements does not seem relevant as a target forprivate funding. However, EU might consider engaging in global development ofbest practices and management systems in fisheries with a view to developsustainable global food supply and ensure sourcing of fish to EU from viable globalproducers. This approach would require the conceptualization of a commonframework and working platform between DGDevco and DGMare. Given a situationwhere EU through a successful implementation of the CFP brings order in its ownhouse it would seem to be a Union obligation to engage more actively in globalmarine policies. Such a step would benefit from cooperation and practices alignedwith the results and “best cases” obtained through private funding to NGO’s andother.

The reform of the CFP took place in a difficult political situation; the reformed BasicRegulation entails a gradual transition to the new principles of full accountabilityand the discard ban. Transition will take time and the intermediate patchworkcharacteristics of management may obstruct a sense of direction and coherentapplication of the policy. If the very clear and understandable policy of fullaccountability is not recognised through a coherent management the loss oflegitimacy may invalidate the reform.The implementation of the CFP must establish a clear policy. Equal focus on theinstruments and the process to achieve this is necessary. At present questionsregarding the consequences of the reform are piling up. It is necessary to establisha clear sense of direction or a clear “mandate” for Member State and regionalcooperation to deliver solutions. Very few Member States are prepared for their rolein the CFP and the bottom-up process must be prioritised and accelerated. Takingthe initiatives for a prudent implementation of the policy is no longer theCommission responsibility alone. It may be taken or driven by any stakeholder, andregional initiatives it is a sine qua non for a successful reform.

The reform lends policy but no practice to the socio-economic issue:“contribute toa fair standard of living for those who depend on fishing activities, bearing in mindcoastal fisheries and socio-economic aspects”.In one very important area thereform will benefit the small scale fishery. Vessels fishing with passive gear to-daysuffer the same TAC reductions necessary to take account of discards as dotrawlers. The consequence of full catch accountability is that this adverse effectmay stop. In a number of other areas the small scale fishery will meet challengesthat are more easily handled by the “professionalised” fishery with larger vessels orfrom larger ports.Private funding of national management solutions, cooperative initiatives, valueadded products and new market outlets may play a decisive role in benefitting thesmall scale fisheries. A very direct way of safeguarding the small scale fleet is toestablish quota pools which can be accessed by small scale vessels only.In some Member States the small scale fleet counts a vast number of vessels withthe Mediterranean as the most prominent example. Constructive engagement withthe small scale fleets should be considered in comprehensive solutions, for examplein context of the fish stock recovery areas to be established. Marine reservescombined with TURFs (Territorial User Rights Fisheries) properly designed withresponsibility shifted to the fishermen, are a way to address the CFPs’ Fish StockRecovery Areas’ obligation, to build a better database for small scale fisheries andto address mixed fisheries problems.

The CFP principles apply across EU waters. At the same time the policy invitesregions to cooperate in order to complete and develop the policy. This is not merelya question of division of powers; it is an opportunity to device regional policies toregional interest and to the specific biological systems and industry structures inthe regions.The complexity of the biological systems and fleet structures is extensive – evenwithin the individual region. It goes far beyond this study to account for thesituation. For the sake of illustrating the variability in context of the main CFP toolsand challenges, three marine areas are used as a crude typology with a focus oncatch accountability and the discard ban.North-Western Waters; North Sea; Skagerrak/Kattegat; Baltic SeaThe area is characterized by single species and mixed species compositions ofcomplex order, reaching from the Baltic with virtually no mixed fisheries to thesouthern part of the region where species composition is more complex. The issueof matching available quotas with actual catches will prove challenging in somefisheries and may especially in the South be difficult to overcome as more speciesare being included as quota regulated species.Relative Stability pose important challenges in several fisheries notably in area VII,and solutions reaching from pool systems to Member–to-Member State agreementsmust be considered without delay. This is a Member State interest – andresponsibility, that must be addressed.Fleet structure is very diverse in type and size and small scale vessels predominant.However, the large vessels account for the major part of catches and this group ofvessels may well move ahead of the rest of the fleet in pursuit of a “production”,where all fish are accounted for and documented throughout the traceability chain.South-Western WatersThe area is characterized by single species and mixed species compositions of avery complex order. The issue of matching available quotas with actual catches willprove challenging in most fisheries and may be difficult to overcome in the shortand medium term, especially when more species are being included as quotaregulated species.Fleet structure is very diverse and there is no significant fleet segment accountingfor the majority of catches.While the CFP deadlines must be respected it is similarly important that viablesolutions dealing with the consequences of the discard ban are found with a speedthat allows the policy to gain the necessary level of compliance. In this context theimportance of compliance in relation to market access should be considered as animportant element. Successful marketing and acceptable price margins require thatretailers have a legal and fully traced and documented product to sell. CFPimplementation and compliance may be supported by market requirement andcertification schemes such as MSC.

The MediterraneanThe area is characterised by mainly mixed species compositions of a very diverseand complex nature. The scientific basis for analytical assessment of stocks is weakor lacking, and a number of species, including by-catch species cannot be properlymanaged by TAC and quotas in the medium term.A number of stocks are regulated by TAC’s. In some fisheries it is probably moresensible to establish an effort management combined with indicators and referencepoints to ensure sustainability for all caught species in the mixed fisheries – even ifthere is no analytical stock assessment for these species. Effort management mayfor example take place in TURF systems.The fleet structure is very diverse and consists predominantly of small and verysmall vessels.This situation of a very diverse sector makes it difficult to roll out generalmanagement solutions across fisheries and fleets and a general appreciation ofcompliance principles is equally difficult to establish.In respect of the CFP principles, notably that of full accountability, communitybased cooperation and development of management may be a way to bridge theCFP principles with a sustainable and economically viable use of the resources.

The backbone of an efficient fisheries policy is documentation and transparency.Compliance with public rules, consumer trust and fair competition all depend onthis. It is a public responsibility to ensure this, however if market forces areproperly aligned with policy objectives they may well prove stronger than publiccontrol. Certification schemes and the commitment of some big retailers tosustainability is a suggestion to that effect.Traceability of fish from catch to consumer is already an EU obligation, although ithas not yet been properly implemented in Member States. When implemented, itwill allow the market to match the ambitions of being sustainable withdocumentation and marketing initiatives. Furthermore combined with full catchaccountability traceability will allow third party certification schemes such as MSC tostreamline and reduce costs of certification.Public control may be reduced and expensive inspection vessels possibly bereplaced by inspectors control of retailers.Traceability is an IUU fighter. The European Commission have given priority tointernational cooperation in the fight against IUU and traceability may; combinedwith certificates and DNA analysis allow both the authorities and retailers sufficientknowledge. Fighting IUU will furthermore pave the way for sound externalpartnership agreements to the benefit of EU fishermen.

The knowledge bases and science – innovation programmes feeding theimplementation and running of the CFP are numerous and extensive. They are interalia supported by the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF), FrameworkProgramme 7 and the upcoming Horizon2020.The strategic working group SCAR-Fish has advised on priorities for science andinnovation in CFP context. The report can be found athttp://ec.europa.eu/research/agriculture/scar/scarfish_en.htmPublic funding is often slow and bureaucratic in establishing the desired frameworkand implementing the concrete schemes. A number of projects aimed at CFP issuesand already financed by EU funding suffer from a high science content and littlecontact with management and the industry. The “trickle-down effect” from scienceto applied management and further on to a viable fishery is poor.Civil society organisations based on private funding should consider their work incontext of existing programmes and they should consider the option of gearing theprivate funding with financing from public funds.A dialogue meeting with relevant organisations and programmes dedicated to theCFP implementation could be useful to balance expectations and forces (see annex)

The preceding chapters have identified areas where civil society organisations maycontribute to the direction and acceleration of the CFP implementation. How dothese organisations and other stakeholders relate to the result already obtained bycivil society organisations and how do they see the future role of theseorganisations in context of the CFP implementation?This study has gathered information about stakeholder views through literature,questionnaires and interviews. Information has been gathered from Member States,the European Parliament, the EU Commission, Norwegian officials, RAC’s, fisheriesorganisations, science institutes, ICES, and NGOs.

Civil society organisations have successfully contributed to the reformed CFP. Theyare considered to have played a decisive role for the result obtained. The policylobbying was in general effective, helpful and constructive and it was noted that theforming of Ocean2020 had developed a useful unified position for the policy level.NGO support for individual EP frontrunners was also noted.Public campaigns from civil society organisations were seen by industry and scienceas influential but at the same time often with adverse effects. A scientist noted thatNGO’s need to change from campaigning to qualitative input to management

processes. For example red/yellow/green campaigns are blunt instruments hittingunsustainable as well as sustainable fisheries.NGO’s help in reforming national fisheries management and in improvingcooperation and the basis for self-management was mentioned as useful results.Stakeholders across, from policy, industry over science to NGO’s expresseddissatisfaction with the professional level of NGO participation in RAC’s and sciencegroups. It was noted, that NGO representatives often engaged on basis of policyheadlines, failing to align these with the concrete management or science issuesbeing discussed. A number of science programmes with direct CFP relevanceinclude financing of stakeholders travel and accommodations, but NGO’s often donot have money to put in the necessary working hours. This makes discussions onscience finding difficult as NGO’s often do not know the reasoning and are not ableto deliver a well-argued position.NGO’s and civil society activities do not have a formal political responsibility or adirect economic interest in production. The responsibility they have assumed isderived from interest. No stakeholders questioned this as a legitimate basis forparticipating in the CFP process. However directly and indirectly it was questionedwhether the number of NGO’s and their struggle for space reflected substantialdifferences or if improved collaboration might offer a more cost efficient NGO work.The main instrument of CFP implementation will take place as multiannual plans.These must be portfolio solutions aligning environment and business to succeed.They rely on professional dedication and skill to succeed.

Stakeholders were in broad agreement of the need to focus the future work onmaking the CFP work in practise and that this will require professionalised andunified approaches in a commitment to especially multiannual plans.Policy representatives pointed to a continued need for lobbying on specific areassuch as IUU and market alignment, e.g. though traceability systems and publicawareness.An NGO found that the follow-up to the 2002 reform was neglected. The risk for“institutional inertia” letting things fall back to normal bureaucratic processes wasobvious. NGO’s would need legal expertise to qualify discussions on acts used forimplementation not the least in relation to delegation of powers to the regionallevel.In general it was considered that NGO’s could contribute to CFP implementationover a broad range of measures and that philanthropy could be instrumental for asuccessful CFP. Initiatives that could benefit from philanthropic support included:Capacity building for Advisory Councils. It was suggested that AC’s will haveto deliver the major part of regional input to multiannual plans, and that thishas to be take place in context of broad stakeholder interests.

Support for external facilitators to help AC’s on professional issues or inguiding the process of making the AC’s work was mentioned and the needfor support in developing well-grounded position papers for multiannualplans was underlined.Support for fisheries science partnerships to counteract tighter governmentbudgets.NGO cooperation on a back-up secretariat could benefit the CFPimplementation in terms of both influence and in sharing the workload, andan NGO suggested that philanthropic funding might be conditioned by NGOcollaboration. An industry representative pointed to the need for unificationof all stakeholder forces in order to unfold a constructive implementation ofthe CFP.Support to transparency and good governance in EU and in internationalwaters. Support for the tuna transparency initiative was mentioned, and theneed for market transparency highlighted. In relation to markettransparency the wish to evaluate cost and function in relation to MSC wasmentioned.Support for the development of transferable quota management in order tocounteract consequences of the discard ban.Development of best practices, fisheries management and technology.Assessment of societal cost as a consequence of the CFP, inter aliascrapping of fishing vessels.

Based on the preceding assessment of the CFP challenges and input fromstakeholders regarding main challenges and need for help and funding to acceleratethe CFP implementation, the following clusters of CFP reform issues could beconsidered for philanthropic funding from Oak:1. Facilitating subsidiarity and regional capacity buildingThe Advisory Councils cover all stakeholders on a regional level and they arethe only organisations that may be able to deliver a comprehensive input toregional CFP management. The development of the AC’s and the stand theymay eventually enjoy will benefit from:Facilitation of AC’s development of organisation and key CFP positionsNGO in-depth professional capabilities and NGO sharing of policies andthe burden of work across AC’s and science programmes.Lobbying for devolved responsibility to regions with Commission,Parliament and Council

2. Making the discard ban workPhilanthropic funding areas are seen as follows:Address the choke species problem throughi. national and transnational transferability solutions, including TURFsolutions and designs to safeguard societal prioritiesii. fishermen’s real time sharing of knowledge regarding species and sizecompositionsiii. Pilot projects and development of “best cases”iv. assessing and preparing for incorporation of “best cases” in CFPmanagement e.g. through developed multiannual plansAddress the incentive problem related to landing fish with little or novaluei. valuate economic consequences and opportunities of the discard banin general and in context of supply chain trialsii. develop supply chain solutions for the “discard fraction” (the fish thatwould otherwise be discarded)iii. develop solutions for small harbours capacity and logistics

3. Transparency and market appreciationCompliance with the discard ban depends on the economic incentives, oncontrol and on market appreciation and requirements. Philanthropic fundingmayCampaign and dialogue for implementing traceability systems includingreliable documentation of full catch accountability. Campaign for levelplaying field on all EU importsSupport dialogue on simplified and cheaper certification schemes fordocumented and traced productsCampaign for a retailer policy supporting the sale of locally caught fishand less consumed fish speciesSupport trials of new market solutions e.g. internet based allowing a moreseamless alignment of supply and demand.

EcoFishMan is a multidisciplinary project, involving scientists and stakeholders inactivities relating to biology, stock assessment, technology, economy, sociology andlegal aspects of fisheries management. It seeks to develop a Responsive FisheriesManagement System (RFMS) based on results-based management (RBM) principlesfor the European fisheries.EcoFishMan will be an ecosystem-based sustainable management system that willdefine maximum acceptable impact (outcome target), maintaining economic andsocial viability. Additionally, this project measures the outcome targets throughrelevant indicators, develops a GIS based decision support tool and evaluates theassociated cost and benefits of the RFMS. Finally a roadmap will be produced forthe implementation and maintenance of recommendations in the system, validatingthe results in four case studies (Iceland, Portugal, North Sea and Mediterranean).

on common programmes and launch joint calls among its 26 partners from 15countries, within the three sectors: Fisheries, Aquaculture and Seafood ProcessingThe objectives are to contribute to exploitation marine living resources according tothe precautionary principles and to enhance innovation in and competitiveness ofthe entire value chain from harvest to the consumer as well as contribute todefining the science, information and data necessary to underpin theimplementation of the CFP e.g. by designing complementary national researchprogrammes and outlining monitoring and information/data sharing systemsneeded.5.GAP2http://gap2.eu