The cod fishery in the Baltic Sea

Transcription

© Peter Dammann/Greenpeace
The cod fishery in the Baltic Sea:
unsustainable and illegal
© Wolfgang Steche/Greenpeace
Contents
Executive Summary
Introduction
Cod fishing – vacuuming the ocean floors
Dwindling stocks
The fishing fleets
3
3
4
6
8
Pirate fishing in the Baltic
Baltic cod travel far on land
The political level
Conclusions and Demands
Bibliography
9
12
14
15
16
2
Executive Summary
The United Nations (UN) states that the main factors determining biodiversity loss in our
oceans are overfishing and climate change. Cod is a case in point. Once so dense that fish
could literally be scooped out of the sea, the majority of the cod stocks worldwide are now
commercially extinct, or very close to it. This is true in the Baltic Sea, particularly for the
eastern stock.
The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES: the scientific advisory
body for the northeastern Atlantic region) is calling for a drastic reduction of quotas, or
even for a cessation of cod fishing in waters of the eastern Baltic Sea.
However, the dire warnings from ICES have been ignored in the past, and there is no reason to be more optimistic this time. For instance, the Council of Fisheries Ministers of the
EU has set the 2006 total allowable catch for Eastern Baltic cod at a level more than
three times that advised by ICES. In addition to the official quota of 49,000 tonnes, a
huge amount of illegally caught cod is landed in harbours around the Baltic Sea for
consumption within the EU market. ICES estimates that in 2005, the amount of illegally
caught cod reached close to 15,000 tonnes, which is 38 % above the official landings.
The Polish fleet, in particular, is fishing above its allocated quota. This report summarises
the disastrous situation, gives an overview of the Baltic cod fleet and markets, and
describes the EU’s political approach to managing Baltic cod fisheries, which may be
viewed as a failure to this point in time.
Introduction
Cod has been an important commercial species for centuries. As early as the 14th century,
it was this species that led Basque fishermen as far west as the east coast of North
America. The once rich stocks provided the Basques’ a bountiful harvest that was dried,
salted and sold all over Europe as the still famous ‘bacalao’.01 The cod stock of eastern
Canada, however, has long since disappeared destroyed by a voracious fishing industry
overexploiting the once immense wild populations. Following the stock collapse, a ban on
cod fishing was introduced in 1992, coupled with aid for fishermen who were put out of
business. However, for political reasons, fishing was allowed again between 1995 and
2003. The stock of eastern Canada has never recovered and there is now a belief that it
never will. The cod stocks in the North and Baltic Seas are similarly overexploited beyond
any sustainable level. These eastern Atlantic populations may share the same fate as the
Canadian stock.
This report focuses on Baltic cod stocks. The Baltic Sea is inhabited by two distinct stocks
- one heavily exploited, the other at the brink of commercial extinction. As in other seas
and oceans, scientists are calling for stricter protection of cod, while politicians continue
to disregard this advice, jeopardising the future of the fishing industry itself, the fish
stocks and the ecosystems in which they live.
3
Cod fishing – vacuuming the ocean floors
Cod (Gadus spp.) is a marine, cold water and mainly bottom-dwelling species. It feeds on
a diversity of animals, including worms, shellfish, squids and also other fish, which may be
their own offspring.
The genus can be found in all areas of the northern Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, including
the Baltic Sea. In the Baltic there are two distinct stocks, viz., the Atlantic or western cod
stock (subspecies Gadus morhua morhua L.) and the Baltic cod, also known as the eastern
cod (subspecies Gadus morhua callaris L.).
here: Figure 1
Atlantic cod inhabits the Baltic areas west of Bornholm Island, including the waters of the
Danish Straits. Baltic cod, on the other hand, can be found only in the central, eastern
and northern parts of the Baltic Sea. The main spawning season is between June and
August. The fishery targets mainly pre-spawning aggregations in late winter and spring.02
Cod reaches the limits of its distribution in the Baltic Sea, where the salinity decreases
from west to east, reducing to almost fresh water levels in the northern and easternmost
areas. This is not much a problem for mature cod, but does affect juveniles and reproductive capacity of the species. At low salinity, the eggs sink out of the oxygenated surface
water (where they are able to mature) into deeper oxygen-poor layers.
In these deep layers, oxygen originates from regular inflows of water from the North Sea.
Strong autumnal storms usually push heavy salt- and oxygen-rich North Sea surface water
into the Baltic where it sinks, carrying oxygen into the deep. However, the rate of North
Sea water influx has declined drastically over recent decades, leading to anoxic (oxygen-
4
deficient) conditions in the deeper layers, with very poor cod recruitment.03 At the same
time, elevated nutrient loading in the Baltic Sea has led to increased phytoplankton
production, with associated reductions in dissolved oxygen during decomposition of algal
cells following bloom conditions. As a consequence, anoxic conditions now prevail in vast
areas of the Baltic seafloor, including the Bornholm Deep.04
This concatenation of circumstances has resulted in the existence of only one functioning
spawning area for cod in the eastern Baltic Sea, the Bornholm Deep, with the Gdansk and
Gotland Deeps being suitable only in those years in which there has been a strong influx of
North Sea water.
Cod and its ecosystem importance
Apart from providing a living for thousands of fishers and workers in secondary industries who supply healthy protein for the human diet, cod is also a key component in the
marine ecosystem of the Baltic Sea.
The food web in the central Baltic Sea is normally controlled by cod and its main prey,
sprat and herring. The decrease in the cod stocks, due to adverse environmental conditions and overfishing, has considerably lowered the pressure on prey species. The main
beneficiary of this has been sprat, which in addition to losing its main natural predator, has never been exposed to heavy fishing pressure, unlike herring. Sprat, in turn,
feeds on cod eggs and competes with herring for food. When the cod stocks were
strong, as in the 1970s and 1980s, so too was the herring stock, both supporting economically significant fisheries. Today, sprat dominates, with cod and herring being
harvested at very low, yet unsustainable levels. The fishery changed from supplying
valuable protein for human consumption to supplying sprat to fishmeal plants.05 The
effects of this change further down the food chain to bottom dwelling or pelagic
species are still unknown for the Baltic Sea. There is also no information on how seals
and harbour porpoises, both already decimated in the Baltic Sea, are affected.
Experience in other regions, however, should be a warning. In the Black Sea, for
example, excessive nutrient loads first led to a fishing boom in the 1970s, but ultimately, overfishing resulted in crashes in fish stocks, paving the way for burgeoning
jellyfish populations that now dominate the system. These coelenterates feed on plankton and small fish larvae, making a return to the previous ecosystem state unlikely.06
© Sebastian Valanko/Greenpeace
© Solvin Zankl/Greenpeace
5
Dwindling stocks
“ICES has advised low catches or a closure of the fishery for several years.
The TAC [Total Allowable Catch] has been set well above the recommended
catches.”07
The western Baltic cod stock is, compared to many others stocks of this species, still in
relatively good condition. However, as the stock has halved since the 1970s and 80s, it is
still considered by scientists to be close to the minimum “spawning stock biomass”.
ICES notes that stock replenishment is currently highly dependent on strong recruitment
each year. Failing recruitment in just one year poses a severe threat to the fishery. ICES
calls, consequently, for a serious cut in catches for the year 2007, amounting to an almost
30 % reduction compared to 2006. This should allow the stock to increase in size, and
thus become less dependent on constant and strong recruitment rates.08
At the World Summits for Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro (1992) and
Johannesburg (2002), the achievement of maximum sustainable yields was set as a target
for all fisheries. The Baltic cod stock is considered overexploited by ICES, and must
therefore be restored to levels where it can provide a maximum sustainable yield.
The eastern Baltic cod stock has been hit much harder. It has been reduced to only a tenth
of its size during the ‘Golden Ages’ of Baltic cod fishing in the 1980s.09 ICES suggests that
this is the result of “increased effort in the traditional bottom trawl fishery, introduction of
a gillnet fishery, and decreased egg survival due to oxygen depletion of deep water layers.”10
ICES further reports a reduced reproductive capacity of the stock and regards the stock to
be harvested unsustainably. Given, that it is close to impossible to improve the environmental
conditions for cod recruitment, e.g., oxygenation of the water, ICES does not expect
improvements in the stock levels.11
For 2007, ICES has recommended that “no catch should be taken from this stock in
2007 and a recovery plan should be developed and implemented as a prerequisite to
reopening the fishery. ”12
In doing so, ICES has sent a stern warning to fisheries managers. Whether this warning
will be heard remains to be seen, however.
6
© Christian Åslund/Greenpeace
Graph 1: ICES advice (red columns) on total allowable catch quota (TAC), quota agreed to by the EU (blue columns)
and the spawing stock biomass (continuous curve) for cod in the Eastern Baltic Sea.13 Note: Where there is no
column for ICES advice, ICES gave no recommendation or recommended a zero quota. Where there is no column
for agreed quota, no data are available.
Graph 1
Graph 1
Past experience does not bode well. As can be seen in Graph 1, in setting the total allowable catch (TAC) for Baltic cod, EU Member States ignored ICES advice in every single
year over an almost 20-year period. In each instance, the states set the actual TAC well
above ICES recommendations. For 2006, for instance, the TAC was set at more than
3 times above the ICES recommendation: 49,220 t instead of 14,900 t.14 Perhaps most
importantly, ICES recommended a complete cessation of fishing for cod in four of the past
13 years, advice that was always ignored by the EU Member States.
For the western Baltic cod stock, the EU generally followed ICES advice, presumably
because the recommended catch limits do not require drastic quota cuts or reductions in
the fleet that exploits this stock. In case of the eastern stock, on the other hand, the poor
management and, consequently, high quota setting seems to be the result of a political
unwillingness to address overcapacity in the fleet. Although the ‘Golden Age of Cod ’
(1980s), when as much as 390,000 tons were taken annually, is long over, the fleet did
not yet adapt to the now much lower catch volume.
In July 2006, the European Commission presented a EU cod fishery “multi-annual
management plan”15 aimed at rebuilding Baltic cod stocks, with 10 % annual reductions
in fishing effort and mortality.16 Specific rules further described how the fishing effort
adjustments are to be made, and how scientific information will be used in setting total
allowable catches that correspond to the effort limits.
It is questionable whether the slow, step-wise reductions in fishing mortality (10 % per
year) will be sufficient to address the looming crises for Baltic cod stocks. Any quota
system further bears the risk of increased discard rates, with fishermen keeping only
the largest cod on board and throwing smaller-sized or otherwise less profitable fish
overboard, thus reserving their allocated quota for better yields.
Another significant problem for the protection and effective management of Baltic cod is
the high level of illegal fishing and lack of effective enforcement of existing rules.
In particular, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU) on cod in the eastern
Baltic is a significant problem. Reduced quotas bear the risk of only increasing the share
of such IUU fishing.
In its report on serious infringements of CFP (Common Fishery Policy) rules in 2004,
the European Commission acknowledges that illegal fishing is a major problem, not least
in the Baltic cod fisheries.17 However, the Commission gives no indication how to improve
enforcement in the EU Member States.
7
The fishing fleets
The Baltic cod fishery involves only a rather small number of nations. While Denmark (53 %
in 2005) and Germany (32 %) share the bulk of the catch in the western waters, Poland
(21 %), Sweden (14 %) and Denmark (13 %) dominate in the eastern Baltic Sea (Graph 2).
Graph 2: Landings of cod in the Baltic Sea by region and country in 200518
Graph 2:
For the eastern area, ICES assumes large volumes of so-called “unallocated” landings
(14,991 tons in 2005), i.e. catches that are not registered officially, i.e. are unreported
(Table 1). These tonnages fall into the category of “Illegal, Unreported, Unregulated” or
IUU catches, and added 38 % to the offical landings (40,000 tons) in this part of the
Baltic Sea. Most of these catches, insiders will admit, are believed to end up in Poland.
Table 1: Landings of cod in the Baltic by region and country in 200519
Denmark
Poland
Germany
Sweden
Latvia
Russia
Lithuania
Estonia
Finland
Official Landings
IUU
Total Landings
Baltic Sea
22-32
tons
19,040
12,762
9,341
9,295
3,989
3,411
2,988
972
280
62,077
15,000
77,077
%
30.7
20.6
15.0
15.0
6.4
5.5
4.8
1.6
0.4
100
24.20
124.20
Western Baltic
22-24
tons
11,769
1,093
7,002
1,555
476
–
–
139
2
22,036
9
22,045
%
53.4
5.0
31.8
7.1
2.1
–
–
0.6
0.0
100
0.0
100
Eastern Baltic
25-32
tons
7,270
11,669
2,339
7,740
3,513
3,411
2,988
833
278
40,041
14,991
55,032
%
18.2
29.1
5.8
19.3
8.8
8.5
7.5
2.1
0.7
100
37.44
137.44
Vessels fishing for cod range from small boats of some few metres in length to large trawlers
of up to 40 m. Most catches are taken by vessels around 17-30 metres. The largest fleet is
operated by Poland, which authorized 663 vessels to fish for Baltic cod in 2006.
Only 93 out of the 663 vessels exceeded 24 metres. The situation is similar in Denmark
with 483 vessels registered, but only 4 over 24 metres, Germany with 364 vessels and
20 vessels over 24 metres and Sweden with 330 vessels and 19 over 24 metres. Most of
these vessels are privately owned, but united in regional associations in charge of distributing the national quota to the individual vessels and of jointly marketing the catch of the
associated fleet.
Gillnets and trawls are used for cod fishing. In 2004, 48 % of the cod in the eastern
Baltic was caught by trawlers, the remainder by gillnets.20
8
© Thomas Haentzschel/nordlicht/Greenpeace
Pirate fishing in the Baltic
In 2005, ICES estimated the true catches
of cod in the eastern Baltic Sea to be
more than 38 % above the officially
recorded landings of around 40,000 t
(Graph 3). These are catches that were
not reported to the authorities and hence
are missing from the official landing
statistics. A peak was reached in 2003,
when as much as 45 % above the official
landings were taken illegally.21 Polish
scientists paint an even darker picture,
assuming illegal catches of 100 % above
the quota.22 The illegal catch is a heavy
burden on an already depleted stock and
renders it almost impossible for fisheries
scientists to produce reasonable stock
estimates.
Graph 3: Unreported vs. official landings in
the Eastern Baltic in 2005, ICES estimate23
Illegal Fishing and Poland
In nearly all fisheries that have a restricted quota, where controls are not tight and punishment does not work as a deterrent, exceeding the allocation seems common. With clear
information scarce (for obvious reasons), illegal cod landings are likely to be common in
all Baltic countries. In 2001, for instance, the Danish fish processing company Espersen
was caught using cod fished illegally in the Baltic Sea. The company was fined € 134,000.
Espersen was caught again red handed in early 2006, this time receiving illegal cod from
the Barents Sea. In the latter case, Espersen claimed to have been ignorant of the true
origin of the cod, and it was not charged.24
In 2006, ICES “Baltic Fisheries Assessments Working Group” listed 3 different, countryspecific factors for converting official landings into actual landings, ranging from 1 (no
illegal catches), to 1.5 and 2 (illegal catches of half or the same volume as legal catches).
ICES did not indicate which factors were to be used for which country, but clearly indicated
through its very detailed proceedings that illegal, unreported catches are not restricted to
just one country, but are widespread across the region.25
According to many stakeholders in the fisheries sector, the worst offenders are to be found
in Poland. The huge fleet has reacted badly to its reduced legally allocated quota, responding with illegal fishing.
9
© Konrad Konstantynowicz/Greenpeace
These unofficial claims are strongly supported by official statistics (Table 2). In 2005,
Poland had cod landings of 12,762 tons, all taken in the Baltic.26 These catches were
supplemented by imports of cod amounting to 22,772 tons27 (converted to catch weight).28
Poland’s catches and imports resulted in a total of 39,522 tons of cod available for processing, export and domestic consumption.
Exports of cod products, however, amounted to 48,015 tons, leaving Poland with a supply
gap of 8,493 tons or 19 % of the total official catches in the eastern Baltic Sea, Poland’s
sole fishing area for cod.
Table 2: Trade balance for cod in selected EU Baltic countries29
Domestic
Landings
Imports
Poland
12,762
26,760
Germany
13,605
Denmark
43,301
Sweden
10,000
122,558
Exports
Surplus/Gap
domestic,
consumption
Estimated
excl. domestic
consumption
Surplus/Gap
48,015
-8,493
9,634
-18,127
74,021
35,596
52,031
25,345
26,686
193,943
231,524
5,719
3,161
2,558
109,832
22,725
6,244
16,481
This calculation does not include domestic consumption of cod. Unfortunately, there are no
official figures on fish consumption by species for Poland. According to Eurostat, total
consumption of fish in Poland was 9.9 kg per person in 200130. Assuming the same share
of cod as in Germany (2.5 %), Poland’s total domestic cod consumption may have been
around 9,630 tons in that year.
Poland’s supply gap may thus jump to over 18,000 tons, or 45 % of the total official catch
in the Eastern Baltic.
These estimates for illegal activities in Poland may account for a large part of what ICES
presented as unreported landings in 2005 (14,991 tons), or even exceed it. In Poland, these
illegal catches are combined with legal supplies and cannot be recognised on the consumer
marketplace. Poland has become a major country for cod processing, exporting huge
amounts of mainly frozen fillets to western markets (led by the UK, Germany, Denmark
and Belgium). But even the US receives significant amounts reaching to over 1,000 tons
in 2005.
The figures above could well be an underestimate as it is unlikely, that Poland is the only
offender. Even ICES ‘daring’ estimates of 38 % unallocated (illegal) landings, may be too
low.
10
Enforcement is a slap on the wrist
Fisheries management continues to suffer from a lack of control and enforcement, allowing for large amounts of illegal catches. Even when perpetrators are exposed, penalties
are generally too small to deter the offenders. This has been recognised as a problem, not
least in the European Commission’s 2006 Report on the level of non-compliance in EU
fisheries:
“… most of the penalties imposed on offenders are clearly insufficient to have
a real deterrent effect.”
(European Report on Serious Infringements under the CFP, July 2006)
Even though the European Community’s Common Fisheries Policy requires EU Member
States to supply detailed information about their fishing vessels and other aspects of fisheries management, this information is often supplied late or not at all. For instance, there
is an obligation to monitor and report catches, but the Commission notes that only “three
Member States – Denmark, Sweden and the UK – complied fully with the rules by submitting all the required catch reports on time, while three others – Cyprus, Malta and Slovenia
– failed to submit any reports at all”31. Moreover, only 10 of the 20 coastal EU Member
States transmitted their regular monthly reports on catches within the established deadlines, and the submission of quarterly reports continued to be unsatisfactory in terms of
overall response. Spain, Italy, Cyprus, Lithuania, Malta and Slovenia failed to submit any
quarterly reports. According to the European Commission, fishing effort declarations in
2004 regressed compared to 2003. Only two EU Member States (Belgium and Sweden)
met their obligations on fishing effort declarations in 2004.
The Commission further summarises that “[the] number of serious infringements detected
and reported to the Commission rose to 9,502 in 2003, compared to 6,756 in 2002. As in
previous years, the commonest form of serious infringement was “unauthorised fishing”.
Importantly, the Commission concludes that “the level of fines being applied across the
Community for wrong-doings in the fisheries sector is not acting as a deterrent and, basically, more needs to be done to deter lawbreakers”. In fact, penalties imposed by Member
States accounted for only 0.2 % of the landing value in 2003 and may simply be considered as part of the running costs by the industry. The Commission further noted, that the
situation is worsening, with the average level of fines halving between 2003 and 2004.32
The report calls for stronger application of drastic measures, such as the suspension of
fishing licenses, noting that few Member States actually use this tool.
The Baltic Sea states, despite the obvious problem of large scale illegal fishing on cod, are
amongst those with the weakest law enforcement and lowest penalties. In 2004, for example,
only Denmark and Germany withdrew fishing licences in a limited number of cases, while
Poland and Sweden reported no such cases to the Commission. The average fine imposed
by these 4 countries ranged between € 375 and € 538 per infringement, while the
European-wide average was at € 2,272.
The UK, for example, regards falsifying or failing to record data in logbooks as a serious
breach of regulations, imposing a fine of € 18,900 on average. It did so in 59 cases. The
average fines imposed in Germany (€ 97), Denmark (€ 307), Sweden (€ 593) and Poland
(€ 401), by contrast, suggest a very lax attitude towards one of the main methods of
concealing illegal catches.
11
Baltic cod travel far on land
Most of the cod caught in the Baltic Sea is landed in Denmark, Poland, Germany and
Sweden. Poland, Sweden and Denmark dominate the larger eastern landings, and
Germany and Denmark dominate in the west. Little of the cod is consumed where it is
landed, however.
Sweden and Germany export a large part of their cod catches, with Denmark, the
Netherlands and France being the major destinations.33 In 2005, Germany exported
7,400 tons34 of whole cod, equivalent to 80 % of its whole cod catch.35 Sweden exported
even more whole cod than its own fishery had landed, due to larger imports of fresh cod
from Norway. In both countries, industrial capacities for filleting fresh cod are small these
days. Decreasing catches by home fleets have destroyed this industry sector, and cod is
now being shipped to neighbouring countries for the first processing step (filleting). In
recent years, Poland has emerged as an important cod processing country, supplementing
its own large catches in the Eastern Baltic with imports of over 23,000 t (catch weight)
of whole fresh or frozen cod,36 mainly from Russia and Denmark. In turn, Poland supplied
over 41,000 t (catch weight) of cod filets to Western Europe, with the UK taking the bulk
(44 %), followed by France (15 %), Germany (13 %), Denmark (12 %) and Belgium (9 %).37
Cod from illegal fishing, landed and processed in Poland thus reaches most of the major
European markets for cod products.
Chart showing major destinations of cod caught in the Baltic and major exports and
imports of unprocessed and semi-processed cod likely to originate from the Baltic
Note: Most countries either fish on cod also in areas outside the Baltic and/or import from there.
These flows have not been included here.
(figure 2)
12
Denmark has a raw material supplier role somewhat intermediate between those of
Sweden and Germany on the one hand and Poland on the other. Denmark imports and
exports large amounts of whole cod, but retains enough to be a major producer and
exporter of fillets to countries such as the UK (22 %), France (21 %), Germany (14 %)
and Italy (12 %).38
Amongst the four major nations cod fishing in the Baltic Sea, Germany has by far the
largest domestic consumption. This consumption, however, also includes cod originating
from areas outside the Baltic Sea and includes fish further processed into convenience
products also for exports such as battered cod fillets, fish burger, fish finger etc..
Three of the major international companies producing deep frozen fish products are located
in Germany. German factories of Unilever (Iglo), Frosta and Pickenpack supply the whole
European market. Deep frozen convenience products, however, have lost their importance
for the cod fishery in recent times. The success story of the ‘fish finger’ was based for a
long time solely on North Atlantic cod. With fierce price competition in this sector, and a
general scarcity of cod leading to higher prices, cod can no longer compete with cheaper
substitutes from the Northern Pacific Ocean (Alaska Pollack), Chile (hake) or New Zealand
(Hoki). Cod today remains available mainly as natural or battered deep-frozen fillets in
this market sector. Several companies such Pickenpack and Frosta (Germany),
Fjord Seafood (Netherlands), Västkustfilé (Sweden) and Royal Greenland (Denmark) supply
fillets from Baltic catches.
Most cod caught in the Baltic is now sold as fresh whole fish or fillets, either retail, or
directly to restaurants. One notable exception remains, however. Espersen A/S of Denmark,
one of Europe’s largest processors of fish for the deep frozen convenience market, claims
to use up to 25 % of the total annual catch of Baltic cod.39 The Baltic and Barents cod
processed by Espersen is sold in supermarkets, for example as fish finger under the COOP
brand “Xtra”, the “Euroshopper” brand of ICA (Sweden) and Kesko (Finland), and the
“Rainbow” brand in Finland.40 Through Espersen, McDonald's Europe41 receives Baltic cod,
besides cod from the Barents Sea and Hoki from New Zealand for their “FishMäc®” or
“Filet-O-Fish®” sandwich.
With a turnover of over € 130 million Espersen is regarded as the largest cod processing
company in the world.42 Originally founded on Bornholm, Denmark, Espersen started
recently to produce cod fillets in Klaipeda (Lithuania) and Koszalin (Poland). Thus it can
profit from cheaper production costs and easy access to these countries’ cod quotas.
Other international giants of fish processing have discovered Poland as a location for their
business, including Royal Greenland and Frosta. Both companies have Baltic cod in their
frozen fish product range.43
13
The political level
Since the enlargement of the European Union (EU), most of the Baltic Sea is governed by
the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) of the European Community. Under the CFP, fisheries
management is under the exclusive control of the Community, which must regulate fishing
activities through joint decision-making in the Council of Ministers or through the administrative powers of the European Commission.
Fisheries management in the territorial or inshore waters of EU Member States are an
exception to this rule. For the inshore zone, some powers to control fishing have been
delegated back to the Member States.
The CFP sets out detailed management measures, including access conditions, as well as
control and enforcement rules relating to fisheries. It includes explicit reference to the
precautionary principle and the ecosystem-based approach, with its main objective being
the sustainable exploitation of living aquatic resources, conservation and the minimisation
of fishing activity impact on marine ecosystems. For the Baltic Sea, a number of technical
measures affecting the cod fisheries are in force. These measures include closed areas/seasons
to limit fishing effort, and gear-specific measures to enhance selectivity in the fisheries.
In the Commission’s own words, “[these] technical measures have, however, not been
sufficient to address the problem of unsustainable fishing levels”.44
The stock data presented in this report, however, suggests that the CFP has consistently
failed to conserve target fish stocks (in this case, Baltic cod) and prevent their collapse.
The CFP’s failure to prevent the imminent collapse of Baltic cod stocks, however, is based
mainly on the lack of political willingness to agree on drastic quota cuts and lack of
effective quota enforcement, rather than a lack of rules. In particular, the failure of the
Council of Ministers to act according to the strong and clear scientific advice from ICES
and others has had dire consequences for Baltic cod stocks.
By 2001, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) had adopted an
International Plan of Action to combat Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing
(IPOA-IUU), essentially a voluntary pledge of commitment to tackle IUU fishing.
At the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002, world leaders, including those
from the European Community, made a commitment to implement the IPOA-IUU and
eliminate IUU fishing by 2004. In the same year, the European Commission adopted the
Community’s Action Plan for the eradication of IUU fishing (COM(2002)180), listing
15 ‘new’ areas of action which would require Community attention. In 2003, the group of
the eight most developed countries45 made a commitment to urgently develop and implement
the IPOA-IUU. In March 2005, Fisheries Ministers reaffirmed their commitment to
eliminate IUU fishing in the context of the Committee on Fisheries of the FAO.46
Despite this high-level attention, little, if any, effective measures have been taken to
eliminate IUU fishing. Too often, the European Community, through its Member States,
is implicated in the activities of pirate fishers.
A newly proposed EU Marine Directive (COM(2005)505) also misses the opportunity to
ensure better protection for the sea from unsustainable and illegal fishing, and will not
protect dwindling populations of species that are exploited through fishing, unless changes
to the proposed law are made.
14
Conclusions and Demands
Only an immediate cessation of the cod fishery in the eastern Baltic Sea in line with the
scientific advice given by ICES may give the Baltic cod stock a chance to recover.
To prohibit illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, the European Union and the Member
States should establish a central monitoring, control and compliance authority at sea and on
land, including a transparent and mandatory vessel monitoring system for all active vessels.
Furthermore, all ports must ensure, through thorough inspection and verification with
relevant authorities, that the fish being landed is legally caught, before accepting cargo.
Beside overfishing, both legal and illegal, all life in the Baltic is further threatened by
eutrophication, toxic contamination, introduction of alien species and sand and gravel
extraction. In addition, the rise in shipping and oil transportation has increased the
likelihood of a major maritime disaster.
The precarious situation of the Baltic marine environment requires urgent and collective
action to restore and protect marine life. Marine reserves are a proven and accepted
conservation tool, providing full protection for the entire spectrum of species, habitat
and ecosystem diversity, allowing the sea to ‘catch its breath’ and recover a self sufficient
ecosystem balance. The reserves can also provide additional benefits for fisheries, recreation and science. Reserves are also much easier to monitor for illegal activities than the
current patchwork of rules with large differences between member states.
The European Marine Strategy, and the associated proposed EU Directive for the protection of the marine environment, could deliver a mechanism by which large-scale marine
reserves will be established in the Baltic Sea. Furthermore, it would, for the first time,
provide a coherent policy for the protection of the Baltic Sea, together with sustainable
resource management.
It is now up to the governments of EU member states to make the most of this opportunity,
by moving beyond the sectoral approach, by putting the health of the marine environment
and by placing Europe’s citizens at the centre of decision making. Now is the time to
deliver on political promises - to make a network of large-scale marine reserves a reality
in the Baltic Sea.
15
Bibliography
01 For a history of cod fishing see: Mark Kurlansky, Cod. A
Biography of the Fish That Changed the World, 1997.
Walker & Company, New York
02 PROTECT, Review of MPAs for Ecosystem Conservation &
Fisheries Management, February 2006
03 ICES, May 2006, Advise on Eastern Baltic Cod
(chapter 8.4.2. Cod in Subdivisions 25-32)
04 l Merentutkimuslaitos, Finnish Institute of Marine Research
(http://www.fimr.fi/fi/aranda/uutiset/233.html)
05 for more information see, e.g.: PROTECT, Review of MPAs
for Ecosystem Conservation & Fisheries Management,
February 2006
06 see e.g., FAO, 2003, The ecosystem approach to fisheries
(http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/Y4773E/y4773e06.htm)
10 ICES, 2005 Baltic Fisheries Assessment Working Group, Cod
15 Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION, Establishing a
multi-annual plan for the cod stocks in the Baltic Sea
and the fisheries exploiting those stocks, presented by the
Commission, July 24th 2006, COM(2006) 411 final
16 Commission proposes multi-annual plan to rebuild Baltic cod
stocks, EU Press Release IP/06/1055, July 24 2006
17 EU Commission, July 2006, Reports from Member States
on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the
Common Fisheries Policy in 2004, COM(2006) 387 final
18 ICES, May 2006, Advise on Western and Eastern Baltic cod
(chapter 8.4.1 and 8.4.2.)
19 ICES, May 2006, Advise on Western and Eastern Baltic cod
(chapter 8.4.1 and 8.4.2.)
20 ICES WGFAS 2005, chapter 2 Cod, p169
21 ICES, May 2006, Advice on Eastern Baltic Cod
22 Morski Instytut Rybacki w Gdyni, “Czy wiemy ile jest dorszy
w Baltyku”, http://www.mir.gdynia.pl./artykuly/ile_dorsza.php
23 ICES, May 2006, Advice on Eastern Baltic Cod
24 www.dr.dk, 22/08/05 Danish national tv homepage
25 ICES, Baltic Fisheries Assessments Working Group,
Report 2006
27 Eurostat
28 figures were converted into catch weight based on
conversion figures, supplied by the Bundesanstalt für
Ernährung und Landwirtschaft of Germany, taken from
„Das Kabeljau-Dilemma”, WWF, January 2002
29 based on Eurostat trade and ICES catch statistics
30 Zahlen und Fakten über die GFP, Ausgabe 2006.
Eurostat 2006
31 European Commission Press Release on the Fisheries
Compliance Scoreboard http://europa.eu.int/comm/fisheries/
news_corner/press/inf06_04_en.htm 19.01.06
32 Commission: stricter sanctions are needed to deter
infringements to fisheries rules,
EU Commission Press Release, 2006-0733 In 2005, Sweden exported 8,259 tons of whole cod, while
its total catch amounted to 10,000 t. Sweden also
imported 6,624 tons of whole cod, mainly from Norway.
34 coverted to catch weight
35 German trawlers landed also cod filets, which are excluded
from this calculation, that compares whole cod catches and
exports only
36 coverted to catch weight
37 Eurostat
38 Eurostat
39 “Fish Burgers are Fresh Fish from Denmark”, Focus
Denmark, Danish Trade Council, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
June 2002see also: Fiskebranchen frygter ny nedskaering af
torske-kvote, Dagbladet Borsen, September 7, 2004
40 Greenpeace research
41 For Icelandic, a tale of two U.K. subsidiaries, Intrafish,
March 20 2006
(http://www.intrafish.no/global/news/article102914.ece)
42 Oestersoe-regionen som hjemmebane, Dagbladet Borsen,
September 16 2002
43 Greenpeace research, 2006
44 proposed Baltic Cod Multi-Annual Management Plan
(COM(2006)411)
45 USA, Russia, UK, France, Italy, Canada, Japan, Germany
46 http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2005/100200/
Greenpeace International, Ottho Heldringsstraat 5, 1066 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
published by Dr. Iris Menn, September 2006
T +31 20 718 2000, F +31 20 514 8151 www.greenpeace.org
Contacts:
Greenpeace Sweden, Hökens gata 2, Box 151 64, 104 65 Stockholm, Sweden
T +46 8 702 70 70, F +46-8-694 9013, e-mail: [email protected]
Greenpeace Denmark, Bredgade 20, 1260 Cobenhagen K., Denmark
T +45 33 93 86 60, F +45 33 93 53 99, e-mail: [email protected]
Greenpeace Poland, ul. Pluga 3 m. 15, 02-047 Warszawa, Poland
T/F +48 22 659 94 18, e-mail: [email protected]
Greenpeace Germany, Große Elbstrasse 39, 22767 Hamburg, Germany
T +49 40 30618 0, F +49 40 30618 100, email: [email protected]
Design: www.nicolepostdesign.nl

The cod fishery in the Baltic Sea

Transcription

Similar documents

R9008928123 Raaco Dulapuri pentru depozit 928-123

Site Partner Supervision - Christin Marshall, AmeriCorps Cape Cod

Barnstable County AmeriCorps Cape Cod FireCorps

21st Annual Cape Cod Synchronized Skating Classic: Sanction

Great News, Great Discounts!

4959_01_Integrity_Case_Study_Elizabeth Island/Bensonwood.indd

Seared Cod Piperade

Great News, Great Discounts!