EU:n ka­las­tus­po­li­tii­kan uudistuksen kysely

Implementation and revision of the CFP with a Baltic perspective

You can name your organisation here: Finnish Association for Nature Conservation.

1. CFP implementation, scientific advice, landing obligation

CFP implementation

• What three things do you want to focus on to improve the implementation of the CFP?

All fisheries – also recretional fisheries – should be taken better into account in the CFP scope.

Inland waters should be taken better to the CFP (migratory fish and inland fisheries).

TACs should be set so that conservation targets can be achieved: let’s stop ministers last night TAC meetings, more power to the scientfic advice, more transparency.

Scientific advice

• Can the process of developing and providing the advice improved?

Yes

• If yes, how? Suggest two ways to improve it.

More integrated view: food web – species interactions, mixed fisheries, recretional fisheries. This needs also more data for GES and other indicators.

More clear advice to decision makers how they can be sure that targets will be achieved (only one figure with preacutionary principle etc.).

LO compliance

• How can the landing obligation work better? Should this be by means of:

Improved control – yes

Technical measures – yes

2. Ecosystem based management

• Please name three major environmental factors that influence the stocks

Euthrophication, which causes e.g. loss of oxygen in water and in the bottom of the sea and changes in habitats and then also species.

Changes in food webs because of Climate Change (lower salinity, higher temperature, more Invasive Alien Species) and other human impacts

Hydropower and other barriers stopping migratory fish.

3. Decision-making, recreational fisheries, subsidies

Decision-making / regionalisation

• Suggest three ways to improve decision-making.

All fisheries – also anglers – better to the CFP scope and management.

Inland waters better to the scope of the CFP (migratory fish and real inland fish).

TACs should be set so that conservation targets are met: stop annual ministers last night meetings, more transparency and more power to science.

• Do you want to keep regionalisation?

Yes

• If yes, what should be dealt with at regional level?

• • Technical measures – yes

  • Fishing opportunities – yes

  • Ecosystem matters – yes

  • Market matters – no

  • Landing obligation – don’t know

• Should the Advisory Councils continue?

Yes

In the long run, BALTFISH and HELCOM fish related work should be integrated and BSAC stakeholders should be taken to the meetings

If Advisory Councils go on as now, the power should be equal 50-50 and consensus principle more highlighted as target.

Recreational fisheries

• Should recreational fisheries be firmly embedded in the CFP?

Yes

This is the only way to get all the fisheries to integrated planning and monitoring.

Anglers should get both duties and access to EMFF money.

Subsidies

• Should subsidies continue

Yes

• If yes, with what priorities?

Restoration and conservation of habitats, species, water quality and migration routes.

Reseach, development, innovations and monitoring.

Lisätietoja