Brussels, 11/10/2012 (Agence Europe) - Among the ideas set out by the rapporteur of the European Parliament on reform of Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is a measure aimed at compelling member states to close down fishing on 10-20% of their waters over three years. According to a study presented on Monday 8 October to the EP fisheries committee, the creation of such sanctuaries (an idea that goes further than what the European Commission is recommending) would be costly due to the controls that would have to be carried out, but it would provide huge advantages for the reconstitution of fish stocks and the protection of habitats. According to the rapporteur, Ulrike Rodust (S&D, Germany), this measure can be used to protect sensitive habitats but also to contribute to increasing the productivity of young fish stocks, for example when spawning areas are closed to fishing. The measure, says Rodust, is particularly effective for areas in which stock management has to date left much to be desired or for which there is not sufficient data available.
Rodust, together with Guido Milana (S&D, Italy) and Kriton Arsenis (S&D, Greece) supported the broad lines of the plan to set up a network of fish stock recovery zones. Such areas, within which all fishing activities are banned, will enable commercially exploited fish stocks to replenish. Fishermen will be able to catch larger quantities of fish. Fishermen should be involved in the choice of the areas.
The expert who presented the study recommends fishing reserves amounting to 20% of waters and considers that the closure of those areas must be total (if they are opened again at the wrong time then all the advantages would be lost). Carmen Fraga Estévez (EPP, Spain) recognises that marine reserves have had good results, especially in Spain. The disadvantage of the measure is that controls are costly, she said. She cast doubt as to fixing precise percentages, saying it is not practical to speak of percentages as, in some areas, there will be a need for more marine reserves and in others less. The situation, she said, is not the same in Malta as it is in the Netherlands. Furthermore, she said, it is appropriate to have an eco-systemic approach by regulating all economic activities (not just fishing) that have an influence on the coastal areas where habitats are vulnerable. Chris Davies (ALDE, UK) asked how the likely resistance from fishermen to such measures could be overcome. He also asked what such a measure would cost. Kriton Arsenis considers the decline in fish resources and the rise in fuel prices mean that fishing is not sustainable. The proposal on marine reserves, he said, would make it possible to turn that tendency around and to create a healthy ecosystem. The percentage should be closer to 20% (rather than 10%), in his view. Isabelle Thomas (S&D, France) is above all in agreement with the fact that areas closed to fishing are an important instrument. She considers it necessary to envisage, with fishermen and scientists, a far more local approach. Rodust does not wish to bring the principle into question but trusts it will be viable, saying that, if Belgium were asked to close 20% that would represent almost all the country's coast. Financial support is needed to implement such an instrument. Raül Romeva I Rueda (Greens/EFA, Spain) welcomes this study and explains why such reserves are so important. Although many MEPs agree in principle, he said, they do not agree on the way such action should be implemented. Financial support is necessary to convince people affected by the recovery areas. Guido Milana considers that such a measure is a first act that will give the CFP back its capacity to plan matters. One also needs to be bold to support this kind of idea, he added, saying it is a question of financing the space where fishing is absent and then gradually diminish the time of no fishing. Ian Hudghton (Greens/EFA, UK) is of the view that there will not be enough money in the new European fisheries and maritime affairs fund to face up to the consequences of such compulsory zones in certain regions. He also fears that the zones closed to fishing (for a duration of five years, one expert suggests) might become permanent. He is opposed to taking binding measures in a centralised manner and to such zones being applied within the limit of 12 nautical miles.
Answering questions put to him, the expert said it will be costly to establish such zones but this will be offset by benefits in terms of fishing and tourism (leisure fishing, diving, etc.). In his view, one can expect costs to fall and advantages to increase. Also, in the first three years, the situation will be difficult for fishermen (who will have to find new fishing areas) and the advantages of stock recovery will take longer to become visible. In time, there will be more fishing possibilities in the areas close to the recovery areas. Percentages, he went on, are somewhat vague in his proposal. They could be 10 or 20% (the scientific community is even pressing for 30%). At present, the protection zones only represent one thousandth of the sea and, as the expert said, it is necessary to extend the recovery areas if industry is to benefit from the measures set in place. He advocates 10% of the sea as a protected area. All countries must contribute to that policy but no country should be more disadvantaged than any other (20% of Belgium is the same thing as 20% of Scotland or of Denmark!). He said that, if those states do not implement that type of zone, then they will not be able to benefit from the local impact this would have. The measures would allow fishing possibilities to be increased by 2-4% year on year, and this would be a good investment in public funding. In California, the protection zone covers 16% of the waters and costs $37 million over ten years. This is a sizeable investment but allows exceptional results in terms of protected areas. (LC/transl.jl)