The North Sea is under pressure of pollution, most of the time, due to human activities. Due to this pollution, fish stocks decline. Not only human activities cause this decline in fish, also extreme nature events can disturb a fish population in see. Some scientists, for example Tim Daw says the decline in fish stock is due to the failure in Common Fisheries Policy. He says “Closer co-operation between policy makers, scientist and fishers; the integration of social and fisheries sciences; and the realignment of research objectives towards usable management goals, would greatly improve the relationship between the politics and science of fisheries management” (T. Daw & T. Gray, 2005). The EU fisheries management approach is shifting. The landing obligation, how it is called, is focussing on under which catches of regulated species of fish must be counted and landed against quotas of each member of the policy. The landing obligation started on 1 January 2015 for pelagic fisheries, and from January 2019 it is also focussing on other ways of fisheries. For our Ministry of the Netherlands it is very important that you as a new minister will focus on this policy, in respect to the North Sea.
The policy process
The CFP is the policy behind the landing obligation. The landing obligation is focussing on discarding fish by fishermen. Discarding fish is the process where caught fish, dead or alive is thrown back in the sea. The fish could be too small; it could have a very low value or the fish is for example damaged. The landing obligation, also called “discard ban”, is mostly focusing on the banning of discards (discarded fish). The shift from focussing on the fish that has been landed, to focusing on the the fish that is caught will happen due to the landing obligation (Damalas, 2015). The discard ban is the ultimate goal of the new policy of the CFP and the LO can be seen as an intermediate policy. The LO has three instruments. The first instrument is that fishermen get a small amount of money for their by catch. This will ensure that they will not throw back the fish. The second instrument is that fisherman will get a fine, when they are not following the rules. (Fear of landing obligation, 2015)
The CFP discard ban is based on the fact that we do not want to waste fish. Discarding is a “substantial waste of resources and has a negative impact on the sustainable exploitation of resources as well as the economic viability of fisheries” (European Commission, 2014c). This is what the European Commission said about the policy but is any scientific used? The answer is no. The public consensus about the problem was enough (Brookhuis, 2015). So the CFP launched their landing obligation due to public consensus in the member states. The reasons for this public consensus were for example overfishing and possible environmental problems with the discard of fish. K.H. Mikalsen argued in 2001 in his paper, that the more stakeholders are in the process, the better the policy for the fisheries sector will be (Mikalsen, K. H., & Jentoft, S, 2001). This what the CFP wanted to establish with the LO. There is also a lot of criticism on the LO. Some scientists say that “The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) of the European Union has neither lived up to its aim of enhancing the sustainability of fish stocks nor that of improving the economic competitiveness of the fishing industry” (Khalilian, S., et al. (2010).
The policy structure is a policy cycle. First the there had to be raised awareness of the public. There was already a consensus about the problem as mentioned before, so this awareness was already part of the policy formulation and preparation. The problem is that with the formulation and the preparation, that fishermen and scientists were not included in this process. Right now, we are in the implementation phase. Due to that fishermen and scientists are not included in the preparation and formulation, the implementation is having some issues. The Policy enforcement is not thought through yet, as well as the last part of the policy cycle, the evaluation, feedback and termination.
Policy Content
The goal of the landing obligation following the European Commission is the end the discard of fish. The European Commission stated four goals as the primary goals of the landing obligation (European Commission, 2014). They want to stop the waste of resources within the process of discarding. They want to avoid by catch and due to this reduce the fish mortality. (Brookhuis, 2015)
These goals came out of society. Many scientists were naming the problem of discarding fish and overfishing the ocean. It was a major environmental problem. Especially in The Netherlands the discarding rate was very high (van der Reijden et al., 2016). The survival rate of these discarded fish is very low. So also in The Netherlands it was a major problem because of fish that died for no reason (STECF, 2012). The situation in the North Sea is still under investigation but if the discarding process keeps going, the fish stock will decline and this will have consequences fort he income of fishermen (R. Verkempynck & M.A.M. Machiels, 2015). The strange thing is that overfishing was a major public concern as a result of these scientific papers and the news and this the reason the CFP created the LO. Fishermen and stakeholders were however, not involved in formulating the policy. According to Vos et al. (2016) there is a very big difference in the perception between the Dutch ministry and the fishermen. This is a problem for the outcome and the implementation of the LO.
Within the policy there are two sorts of fish where the LO is focussing on. There is the pelagic and demersal fishery. Pelagic fishing is the collection of fish or seafood at the surface of the ocean. Demersal fishing is the collection of fish on the seabed of the ocean (Brookhuis, 2015). The average by-catch in pelagic fisheries is very low. In comparison to demersal fisheries, 2% of the pelagic fisheries is by catch and 40 % of the demersal fisheries is by catch. That is why the LO is only focussing on the demersal fisheries (Brookhuis, 2015). The consequence for the pelagic and the demersal fisheries is that the by catch will be decreased. Especially within the demersal fishery.
Of course there will be side effects within the LO. The LO will probably turn out in more effects than only the discard ban. The LO will trigger new innovations. The LO can probably lead to more data on discards and on the behaviour of fisherman at sea. The biggest advantage of the LO is that it will prevent the caught of undersized fish (Brookhuis, 2015).
These are the positive effects but there are also some negative implications. Stakeholders will for example not benefit from the LO. The benefits will not go to the stakeholders themselves. A side effect might be that the LO exists on paper but not in reality. The trust between government and fisheries industry can diminish due to the LO. There is also fear for the ecological consequences of the LO for the future quota of fish and the economic fear for the costs that are involved with the implementation of the LO (Brookhuis, 2015).
Conclusion
As read, the LO is a new policy to ban the discarding of fish. The reason for this, is the environmental impact of the discarded fish. Especially in the Netherlands the discard rate is very high. At the moment the LO is in the process of implementation. That is the reason why, especially now, The Netherlands has to focus on the implementation of the LO. There are negative side-effects, but all these side-effects are not insurmountable. It is necessary because there is a public concern about the fisheries sector and you as a minister can take away this public concern. An example of this could be the concern about overfishing in the North Sea. The recommendation and conclusion for the new minister if the Netherlands, is to focus and implement the LO with rephrasing and tackling the current problems with the policy.