During our “chat” on Twitter, a couple of weeks ago, some of you asked how I intend to communicate on the reform of the Common fisheries policy and how we can “win allies” to support the proposals.
On my side, I will push for ending overfishing and let those stocks that are depleted grow again. I can discuss with EU Ministers and the European Parliament the improvements that the reform would bring about, making decisions more effective. I can meet fishermen, to find together the best way to ending discards – avoiding catching what cannot be put on the market in the first place.
But, in the end, this will have little impact if consumers do not drive the market towards ever more sustainable practices. It will be them –you– that can make a difference.
And don’t think that you would be alone! Sustainability –the ambition of the reform– is a concern shared by many people already: a few days ago, I met famous chefs, who put on their menu more than forty (!) different kinds of fish, thus giving value to species that are usually discarded and they teach to younger cooks how to follow their path.
Also, campaigns to stop discards are now gathering supporters in several other EU countries, raising people’s awareness about the issue.
Retailers are already very much inclined to offer their clients the opportunity to find sustainable fish on the shelves. The reform will help, with obligatory labelling, allowing for more and more precise information to be provided to the consumers.
Showing the paramount importance of fish for human brain’s development, scientists from the Imperial College and the London Nutrition Policy Unit, highlight the need to integrate fish in our children’s diet. If we want to do so, we need more fish and therefore bigger, healthier stocks and to boost aquaculture, which again is one of the aims of the reform.
The fishermen that, for instance, I met in Genoa, last May, at the Slow Fish fair, know very well that without fish in the sea, they have no future, and, without them, the whole economy of entire coastal communities would be at stake.
So, the supporters of the reform are many already, but we need hold strong together if we want our ambition not to be diluted and make the change happen.
Commissioner Damanaki talks about the Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, right before answering questions on Twitter, on Thursday 14 July
Number of views: 8344
Tags: CFP, common fisheries policy, communication, consumers, Discards, fishing, reform, sustainability
Email This Post
RSS comments feed on this entry
Dear Maria Damanaki,
I feel that all the points made are legitimate but I feel it is also your obligation to make the decision for consumers to make the decision to buy sustainable fish as easy as possible. Now the labelling requirements for sea food already make this much easier but I still believe that with the new CFP reform you are missing one very good opportunity to do so. In COM(2011) 416 final article 45 additional voluntary information it is stated that environmental information can be provided on a voluntary basis. However this is the most crucial aspect that people want to know especially is the stock above safe biological spawning stock biomass (not endangered).
By requiring this information to be put on fish products I suspect the demand for those fish who are endangered would decrease and therefore fishing enterprises will have more economic incentive to protect these species and allow them to recover. I recently bought a fish in the supermarket and wanted to know whether is was sustainable but could not find out till I came home and found out that it is endangered. I would not have bought this fish if I had known.
Once most or all fish stocks are above critical levels the information required can be changed to whether the fish stock is at the maximum sustainable yield.
All species for which the current situation is unknown can be reported as conservation status unknown. This might also decrease demand for these stocks and therefore incentivize fishing enterprises or nations to invest or demand stock assessments for these species.
Finally this can give European Fishing enterprises a market advantage over imported fish for which this information is lacking.
It is likely too late now but this I believe is a very easy approach that could have a big effect. The information is there
http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/atlas/maritime_atlas/#extent=-71.5_3_123.5_92.6&theme=themeFisheriesAndAquacultureSectors.subthemetest_fish_eea
now just put it on the package.
ps. If I have overlooked or by accident misunderstood any of the policy I apologize which does cover this I apologize.
Mr. DAMANAKI, when you come to Turkey.
Because, there are a lot of work to be done in the field of water products in Turkey.
Turkey is surrounded by three seas, Fisheries engineers are unemployed.
I know that there is more to do with it.
Answer if you are happy.
Best regards.
I would like to thank Mr Roskilly and Mr Gilbert for their comments, which allow me to clarify that –as I stated already– the problem of discards should be solved avoiding catches that cannot be put on the market in the first place.
Discarding is a multifaceted issue. The reasons leading to this wasteful practice are many and diverse. But for those fish that are thrown back just because they are less valuable than others, I believe that changing our habits and finding a place for them in our diet is indeed a solution.
We are talking here about fish that is dead and under the new proposal has to be landed: we must avoid throwing away edible fish.
Dear Commissioner
Fine words and sentiment from yourself, but what about the entirely foreseeable, but still unintended, consequences of developing markets for currently unpopular species as pointed out by Mssrs Roskilly and Gilbert? European fisheries management is littered with problems caused by foreseeable but unintended consequences of well meant policy. Look at bass in the UK. A very high economic value recreational species is being sacrificed for short term (but comparatively very low value) gain for trawlers looking for ways to boost their incomes. Demand (and price) has been driven over recent years by celebrity chefs endorsing the eating qualities of bass! Before new policy is introduced, all the effects on all stakeholders and all economic value streams must be considered. Let’s not repeat the mistakes of the past.
Given that species for which there is abundant science have still been depleted, just how sensible is it to start promoting the consumption/targeting of species for which there is little , if any, science? What happened to the precautionary approach? – let alone acting responsibly!
Celebrity chefs urging that the public should broaden their tastes in the species of fish that they consume have little understanding of the vulnerability of other species to targeted commercial effort.
Nor the value of these species to the overall ecosystem, or other sectors such as tourism or Recreational Sea Angling which in some cases dwarfs their commercial value considerably.
The risk is that the latest fishy food fad could be very quickly depleted with disastrous consequences for both the marine environment or other stakeholders.
Before considering an alternative species, such issues should be carefully considered, not wait until unrecoverable damage has occurred.