Science's contribution to the evaluation of halieutic resources and to fisheries management

SENAT

Report n° 132 (2008-2009) by M. Marcel-Pierre CLEACH, Senator (for the parliament office for the evaluation of scientific and technological choices)

Disponible au format Acrobat (822 Koctets)

V. WHAT PROPOSALS FOR AN IMPROVED, SCIENTIFICALLY-BASED FISHERIES MANAGEMENT?

Following this diagnosis, it is now time to formulate possible directions for the improvement of fisheries management based as much upon halieutic as upon economic scientific data.

No solution is a panacea. The history of fisheries and of their management, as well as the limits, even today, of our understanding favour modesty, especially considering the fact that the sector's prolonged crisis renders any reform difficult. However, these precautions must no longer delay the formulation of proposals and the making of decisions.

According to your rapporteur , these proposals may be grouped into five main lines: constructing a shared vision; building decision-making and management tools; placing fishermen at the heart of any responsible fisheries management; demanding that the authorities exercise their prerogatives; and, finally, favouring responsible consumer behaviour.

A. CONSTRUCTING A SHARED VISION: THE DIALOGUE BETWEEN FISHERMEN, SCIENTISTS AND POLITICAL DECISION-MAKERS

Due, no doubt, to an especially demands-oriented culture compared to other countries, France stands out at the international level for the difficulty, if not impossibility, of holding a constructive dialogue between fishermen, scientists and politicians .

This situation, which explains and prevents any sustainable fishery management, must be brought to an end.

1. The French exception

The reopening of dialogue between fishermen and scientists was a ubiquitous theme in the interviews conducted by your rapporteur . Indeed, this request was systematically uttered during every one of my meetings, from the first to the last.

It is also striking to observe that fishermen express even greater interest than scientists in pursuing a dialogue .

Nevertheless, it will take more than a snap of the fingers to gather fishermen and scientists around the same table.

The accumulated liabilities are too great. Every category of marine professionals has its own share of reasons for criticizing scientists , especially those of IFREMER.

To summarize the criticisms heard by your rapporteur , it could be said that fishermen believe the following:

- IFREMER scientists should be at the service of fishermen, rather than pursuing a fundamental science without concrete application. Research operates according to a different time scale than business; for example, is the response adequate when, in order to resolve a problem that has an immediate impact on turnover, a future thesis is proposed, the results of which will not be known before a few years? In this regard, the fusion of CNEXO ^{29 ( * )} and ISTPM ^{30 ( * )} in 1984 seems to be the root of all evil. Fishing was sacrificed during this fusion, with IFREMER losing interest in an economic sector on the decline. Fishermen corroborate this point of view by citing exchanges they have had with halieutics specialists of IFREMER, disadvantaged within their institution. Fishermen regret having but a single representative remaining on the board of directors (instead of the previous two); what is more, this representative feels marginalized, largely ignored and occupying the role of a simple figurehead. The Ministry of Agriculture and Fishing has little influence over IFREMER. Therefore, 1984 signalled the end of a golden age in France for dialogue between scientists and fishermen.

- In addition, scientists are insufficiently familiar with the sea. They are unfamiliar with the fishing trade and do not know how to fish. When scientists do fish, they use outdated equipment in zones devoid of fish. Many skippers believe that if they were the ones to carry out these scientific programmes, they would have much better results...

- Rather than being neutral observers, scientists are the instruments of hidden interests (environmentalists, in particular) or the toy of economic interests, such as aquaculture or foreign industrial fishermen. In order to obtain their desired results, they purposefully underestimate fish stocks so as to compensate for the inevitable corrections made during European or international negotiations. The TACs and quotas are therefore in accordance with their desires and very unfavourable to fishermen.

- IFREMER embodies a certain "official science" that will allow for no contradiction or outside expertise, such as that of marine professionals.

- Finally, fishermen are private-sector entrepreneurs and artisans, while researchers are bureaucrats.

As for scientists, their criticisms are hardly more flattering. They suspect fishermen of being dishonest, of deliberately cheating (and in great quantity), and of consciously destroying the environment, certain as they are of forever being able to fish somewhere else. According to scientists, great complicity exists between fishermen and politicians, resulting - regardless of the scientists' assessments - in the collapse of ecosystems.

Therefore, it must be observed that the gulf separating these two groups is immense, though both are essential for proper fishery management.

Following or in comparison to the above views which combine actual experiences, received ideas and prejudices, another trend is emerging which should only be encouraged.

In private, fishermen accept to consider that they are discredited by such or such a labour leader by his or her extreme or unrealistic positions or lack of reliability. Likewise, they often acknowledge that the scientists' assessment is not completely erroneous and, what is more, that such or such a group of scientists that they are familiar with works honestly. Several also observe that their profession's "radicalization" is to be explained by the repeated crises and the massive reduction of the fishing fleet over the past twenty years.

As for the scientists, identical premises for a rapprochement can be found. One admits that such or such a colleague is inept at dialoguing, despite his or her scientific acuity. One recognizes an incomplete understanding of the sea or of a certain set of issues.

In addition, observations of this kind are not new: the fishing industry and IFREMER have already made certain efforts at bringing together scientists and fishermen .

But without minimizing what has been accomplished, it is clear that these advances have not yet been able to modify the general feeling of distrust and even hostility separating these two worlds.

However, in the opinion of your rapporteur , nothing can be accomplished with regard to fishery management if we do not succeed in reconciling these two groups and making them work together.

IFREMER's four-year contract should clearly set out as its priority in the halieutic domain the reopening of dialogue with fishermen , by basing their effort upon the successful experiments of the past few years.

The fishing industry is undergoing real difficulties, of which it is well aware. Though it does not always admit it, it often realizes that the solution must, in any case, be scientific in nature, if only because of the role played by researchers in the setting of TACs and quotas. It seeks dialogue and greater involvement in the formulation of scientific measures. Numerous fishing professionals are the victims of telluric pollution, environmental destruction and climate change, for which they expect scientists to provide the proof and solutions to allow them to continue their activity.

But your rapporteur met too many skippers who told me they no longer wanted to work with IFREMER, because such cooperation engenders constraints, but never any returns, neither for themselves nor in the form of information on their fisheries. Many are discouraged and no longer want to make any effort, the "first step" they believe they have already made. Some even believe themselves to be deceived by the scientists. One fisherman who accepted to take onboard a scientist eventually had the feeling of having an "inspector" or "spy" collecting data well beyond the announced programme.

Via these collected accounts, your rapporteur does not want to lend judgement, but rather underline the necessity of re-establishing confidence.

I have the feeling that scientists must much more systematically seek to involve fishermen in the process and share with them their results. They must explain their procedures and the manner in which their evaluations are constructed. They absolutely must quit their "ivory tower", where they too often seem to confine themselves. They must be incited to do this. It would be perfectly legitimate for halieutics researchers to be evaluated according to the success of their partnerships concluded with the fishermen and the latter's degree of involvement in the scientific programmes. Given the current state of affairs, this is perhaps even more important than the publications.

As an example, it is striking to note the poor understanding of how scientific programmes function . To be of scientific value, a fishing programme must be perfectly reproducible and it must be systematically carried out in the same location(s), at the same date(s) and with the same equipment each year. Therefore, when one changes boats, it is best to carry out a simultaneous programme using both the old and the new systems, so as to be able to join the two series of measurements. The goal of such a programme is not to maximize the catch, as though it were a fishing boat, but to carry out a standard scientific sampling.

Likewise, your rapporteur very often heard fishermen complain that the scientific programmes were insufficiently frequent to allow for a readjustment of quotas during the same year and to adapt to the resource's real abundance at a given location. For them, the scientists describe an out-of-date reality and impose upon the fishermen constraints that are unsuited to their actual fishing conditions.

While it is necessary to take into account this request on the part of fishermen, for it clearly shows their desire for a scientific assessment that corroborates their experimental observations made at sea, it is also the sign of a certain incomprehension. There inevitably exists a certain time lag between reality and the scientific data. What is more, a new research programme will not immediately provide the expected results, since the data collected becomes completely meaningful only in the long term.

Another example is the case of cod. For fishermen working the English Channel and the North Sea, cod is once again abundant and they should be able to fish it more. This observation by the fishermen is correct, since the current cod population is greater than in previous years. Scientists are not ignorant of this fact, for it is the desired effect of fishing restrictions (an increased population); however, the fact that cod are more abundant does not mean that they are sufficiently abundant. Indeed, when it comes to fishing, man's memory functions according to threshold and habit; one might consider "large" fish and catches that are, in fact, small and modest. This is exactly the case with regard to cod. Cod are more numerous, but the large specimens and schools are no longer present. Previously, one could find cod some 20 years of age that measured nearly 2 metres in length and weighed a little under 100 kg. Such fish are but a distant memory compared with today's "large cod" that measure 50 cm. The same is true with regard to overall catches.

2. The foreign examples

Outside France, your rapporteur would like to cite the example of two countries in which relations between scientists, fishermen and political decision-makers are calmer and more constructive . Indeed, the IRD's French scientists are often the first to be astonished and alarmed by the situation in France, compared with their experiences abroad, where they cooperate not only with other scientists, but also with the local fishermen, in Peru, South Africa and West Africa.

a) Canada

Canada offers a good example of the quality relations that are possible between fishermen, scientists and political decision-makers. Nevertheless, a serious crisis first had to be overcome in order to obtain a change in behaviour. This crisis came about when, in a rather unexpected manner, the Canadian government decided to put a stop to cod fishing in 1992. This decision was all the more spectacular given the fact that the Grand Banks of Newfoundland had been fished for over 500 years. It is likely that this decision would not continue to have as great a repercussion if the resource had been built up again and if the fishery had been reopened, nor would it have such an effect if the stock's collapse were the result of an overexploitation in total disregard for a unanimous scientific assessment.

On the contrary, no one really foresaw this crisis. The scientists that your rapporteur met with in Canada explained that, in hindsight, by considering the data available at the time, they could have predicted the stock's collapse, but they acknowledge that such was not the case. While it is true that the scientific assessments had not always been respected, no researcher can claim to have been right before or against everyone else. Likewise, as has already been pointed out, it had not been expected that the stock would not rebuild itself or even continue to diminish, despite the fishery closure. The hypothesis that is progressively imposing itself as the main explanation - to wit: an irreversible systemic change of the natural environment - is the fruit of some fifteen years of research.

Faced with this situation, your rapporteur met in Canada scientists who are particularly modest and prudent with regard to their assessments, results and predictions. It is certainly no exaggeration to say that they are still shocked by the cultural change they have witnessed in the fishing domain.

In the situation of great unrest, social drama and scientific uncertainty that prevailed in the years following the fishing ban, dialogue between scientists and fishermen became a necessity. The scientists presented this dialogue as having been imposed upon them by the government and by circumstances. They are now obliged to discuss with the fishermen, to explain their results and to take into consideration the fishermen's expertise to complement their data. These exchanges, which are open to everyone, remain occasionally bumpy.

Nevertheless, while it surpasses what they would have preferred, the Canadian scientists met with by your rapporteur recognize the advantage of a trusting relationship with the fishermen. The latter now accept without difficulty taking part in scientific programmes, sharing information on their catches, and backing up or invalidating the scientists' stock evaluations. In particular, one fisherman explained that this is essential in order to have a fine geographic understanding of the fish schools, in particular in order to evaluate their abundance or reproductive success; he underlined the extent to which this dialogue was taking shape on the docks and in the ports and necessitates his not hesitating to move about and be transparent for the scientists concerning his own results.

b) Peru

Peru can be seen as a good example of collaboration between scientists and government authorities.

Once again, wisdom was the result of a crisis : the collapse of the anchovy stock in the early 1970s; this fishery's level of production did not recover until the early 1990s.

As in Canada, the collapse occurred as the result of overfishing combined with unfavourable climatic conditions. All concerned parties then realized that it was necessary to adapt the fishing pressure to the new state of the anchovy fishery.

This fishery is very important. Indeed, it is the world's largest, with less than 2 months of activity accounting for nearly 10% of the world catch, with a daily tonnage during the anchovy season capable of surpassing 120,000 tonnes. The fishing frenzy is, in fact, so great that each year some 25 seiners sink under the weight of too many fish! Indeed, managed by a collective, global TAC, each shipowner is very keen to appropriate the greatest share possible.

To retain control of this resource essential for Peru's external trade and currency returns, the authorities set up a tight management system for this fishery. Ships are monitored via satellite. Catches are very well monitored and sampled in an almost exhaustive manner, rendering fraud very difficult. Fishing data are used to complement the forecasts stemming from the scientific programmes upon which the catch quota is based; this quota is monitored daily and can be adjusted during the season.

Thanks to these various measures, authorities can decide to close the fishery within 24 hours on the recommendation of the specialized Peruvian scientific institute, IMARPE , and following several back-and-forths between scientists and the ministry.

For this fishery, relations are therefore optimal between scientists and government authorities.

Relations with fishermen are perhaps not as good, for it does not seem that the scientific data are completely taken into account by the shipowners. Firstly, the quota's strict management and its almost exclusively-scientific foundation have not prevented an overcapacity of some 300%, which is only compensated for by an ever shorter fishing season. While the fishery was still open all-year-round in 1987, today it remains open only 50 days during the year. Secondly, this overinvestment does not take into account the extreme volatility of the anchovy resource determined by the natural, cyclical variability of the Pacific Ocean. Likewise, the scientific results tend to show that the Peruvian anchoveta, whose exploitation dates from the 1950s following the collapse of the California sardine stock, is not a permanent resource. Indeed, despite the incredible productivity of this upwelling zone, there have been past periods during which there were no anchovies, such as at the beginning of the 19th century.

B. BUILDING POLITICAL DECISION-MAKING TOOLS

Reopening a dialogue between fishermen and scientists and developing a more constructive and responsible relationship will necessitate renewing the halieutic-research effort and developing an ecosystem-based approach. The newly created Marine Protected Areas could be used as a tool and opportunity for dialogue and management.

1. A new priority for halieutic research

Compared to other marine-science fields, halieutics have seemed to play a secondary role to the exploration of the ocean depths and to new exploitation techniques.

However, present circumstances should lead bodies such as IFREMER to place halieutics higher in their list of priorities. The halieutic resources and the fishing sector are undergoing a serious crisis of long duration. However, any management of these resources and any restructuring of this sector must be based primarily upon the most recent scientific data. We must therefore allow this sector to benefit from adequate support.

For the time being, activity centred around halieutic research and support of the fishing industry is not sufficiently well identified from among IFREMER's various activity and performance indicators in its annual activity report. Neither the inventory of scientific communications, nor that of specialized activities, nor that of scientific programmes allows the reader to have an overall vision of this field compared to the others.

The same can be said with regard to the budget. In the chapter on resources, it is impossible to measure how they are distributed among the great sets of scientific themes.

In the future, it would be especially desirable for it to be possible to know how the resources are distributed and how they evolve in relation to various subjects of interest and to management and supervisory decisions .

Your rapporteur also believes that it would be useful for the dialogue and cooperation with the fishermen to be laid out according to indicators and goals, so as to be able to measure their progress .

2. The "ecosystemic" approach

In both the scientific world and the fishing industry, an overwhelming consensus has emerged in favour of an ecosystem-based approach and which considers as out-of-date a stock-based approach.

Fishermen see themselves as the victims of changes beyond their control and appeal to scientists for proof. Indeed, fishermen believe that the fish stocks' evolution cannot be explained by fishing alone; rather, they cite three other factors: pollution, environmental destruction and global warming.

In their opinion, they are primarily the victims of rising marine pollution due to the waste generated by terrestrial activities, which is carried, above all, by the rivers and includes both nitrates and PCBs. Water quality is obviously essential for the health and reproduction of marine plants and animals.

They are also the victims of damage done to zones in which fish spawn, feed and live. This destruction is linked to the development of estuaries and coasts, the extraction of aggregates, gas and oil, and other activities that drive away resources or prevent fishing in certain zones, such as wind farms and underwater cables. Fishermen feel progressively excluded from the sea, which to them appears to be "nibbled away" by other uses, even while it remains their workplace and environment.

Finally, they believe that researchers underestimate climate change's impact on the halieutic resources, while overestimating the impact of mortality by fishing. According to fishermen, unfavourable climatic conditions explain the poor recruitments of cod in the English Channel and the North Sea, while the same warming trend favours an increase in the red mullet stock which previously was little fished in this zone.

As for scientists, their dissatisfaction is almost as great vis-à-vis present species-by-species management systems. Indeed, the only species to be carefully monitored are those under quota and which are the subject of a scientific assessment, and then only in specific zones. However, it has been clearly observed - in particular, following the collapse of certain stocks - that this monitoring is insufficient. Concentrating solely on demographic statistics does not allow scientists to fully predict the stock's evolution, especially if it is in poor health. Indeed, as has already been emphasized, the overexploitation of an ecosystem element can significantly modify its ability to recover and even lead to its irreversible substitution by another species.

To manage the halieutic stocks, it would appear increasingly necessary to attempt to manage ecosystems in their globality; to do this, one must try to understand them in a global, scientific manner.

This represents a considerable scientific challenge , given the fact that our understanding of the marine environment and the halieutic resources is still incomplete.

For the reader to grasp the stakes involved, this report will now succinctly present what could be considered the issue's three main aspects .

The first such aspect concerns the food chain and is biological and vertical in nature. In the marine environment, size generally determines the predator-prey relationship; this implies various forms of "cannibalism". It is therefore a question of understanding the dependencies between the different trophic levels, from an ecosystem's phytoplankton to its superior predator.

The second aspect is the interface between the physical environment and the biological productivity of a given zone. Here it is a question of understanding how abundance is influenced by the marine environment's physical data: its nutriments and temperature and, of course, their intra- and interannual variability.

The third aspect is spatial in nature and results from the interaction of different zones and environments : the ocean with the coast, or the earth with the marine environment.

This ecosystem-based approach for an integrated fisheries management was adopted by the FAO in 2001 and turned up in the plan issued by the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002.

IFREMER initiated a strategic consideration of and authored a document on this approach in collaboration with international experts. ^{31 ( * )}

The goal of this document was, first and foremost, to specify the contents of one of IFREMER's most extensive research programmes: DEMOSTEM (DEMarche écOSysTEMique pour une gestion intégrée des ressources halieutiques or "Ecosystem Approach for an Integrated Management of Halieutic Resources").

For the authors, the goal of the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF) is, firstly, to help solve the sector's crisis of overcapacity . The failure of TAC-based management has led to overcapacities, which "exert social pressure favouring the adoption of insufficient conservation standards and the insufficient enforcement or control of management recommendations advocated by independent scientific bodies. In addition, with the dominance of short-term interests, the insufficient participation of various actors, the lack of transparency, the incomplete and unorganized communication effort, the often unacknowledged scientific uncertainty and the ineffective system of coercion, all the necessary elements are brought together for a crisis situation of the kind we are currently facing at the planetary level."

At the international level, the EAF is supported by various measures, most of which can be found in the conclusions of the Johannesburg Summit (26 August to 4 September, 2002) : applying the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, established by the FAO in 1995; significantly reducing the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010; reversing the trend toward living-resource degradation; restoring the fisheries to their level of maximum production (MSY or Maximum Sustainable Yield) by 2015 and eliminating undeclared and unregulated illegal fishing in 2004 (!); creating a network of Marine Protected Areas representative of marine biodiversity by 2012; and applying the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-Based Activities.

The third and final aspect is the evolution of the scientific context and the reorientation of halieutic themes toward a more integrated vision of the various elements of marine ecosystems, accompanied by an openness to other fields.

Indeed, for the authors: "Research must now progress toward a better understanding of fishing's impact on all components of marine ecosystems, especially as concerns:

- Ecosystem diversity.

- Biodiversity within each ecosystem.

- Intraspecific genetic diversity.

- Exploitation's direct effects on targeted species and indirect effects on non-targeted species.

- Exploitation's effects on food webs and habitats."

The EAF also bears society's very great demand vis-à-vis research and expertise. Its scope is being considerably broadened, from the narrowly-defined exploited population to the entire ecosystem, from a ternary "fishing-administration-science" relationship to a quaternary "fishing-administration-science-society" relationship, from the operational short-term to the long-term integrating, in particular, climate change, and from a sector's sustainability to this sector's contribution to the sustainable development of coastal societies.

By considerably widening its scope and the number of variables, the EAF runs the risk of "overselling" research's capacity for expertise and management, even though its scientific foundations have yet to be created, or, on the contrary, of carrying out research as a pretext and thereby delaying decisions for which we already have the necessary elements .

Widening its scope will therefore be carried out in stages: the impact of fishing on non-targeted species and habitats, then the interactions between impacted species, and, finally, the interactions between fishing and other anthropic activities. This leads to a grounding of halieutics in the wider concept of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM). But here again, researchers point out the limits: "The attraction currently exerted by this concept is not enough to guarantee its operational fecundity. Indeed, in additional to the previously mentioned ecological and environmental uncertainties, there is also the difficulty of characterizing the potentially numerous interactions between often diffuse uses, whose ecological support is rarely well understood."

Consequently, if the EAF manages to impose itself, it must be considered with a certain pragmatism. One can identify five main fields of knowledge to be applied to societal questions:

Governance

Ø Collective decision-making systems.

Ø Management and access measures, fishery policies.

Ø The performance of established systems.

Ø Possible scenarios of how these systems might evolve.

^{Societal questions}

What is the capacity of marine ecosystems to withstand both natural and anthropic disturbances? Can one predict their evolution?

Ø Vis-à-vis climate change.

Ø Vis-à-vis exploitation.

Ø Vis-à-vis pollution.

Ø Vis-à-vis environmental variations (e.g., El Niño, storms, tsunamis, etc.).

What policies are possible for the management of marine resources?

Ø With regard to structures and mechanisms.

Ø With regard to performance (costs and benefits).

How healthy are exploited marine ecosystems?

Ø With regard to productivity.

Ø With regard to biodiversity.

Ø With regard to health issues.

Ø With regard to services rendered.

How to restore collapsed populations?

How to limit waste and improve the use of exploited resources?

Ø Vis-à-vis rejections and non-targeted catches.

Ø Vis-à-vis taking full advantage of catches.

Ø Vis-à-vis sanitary/health considerations.

How to mitigate the impact of anthropic disturbances (e.g., fishing, climate change, pollution) on marine ecosystems?

Ø With regard to non-targeted species (e.g., sharks, marine mammals and birds, etc.).

With regard to essential habitats.

How to ensure the resources' sustainable exploitation?

Ø To avoid the collapse of over-exploited populations.

Ø To allow for a renewal of the populations to a desirable level.

Ø To maintain/adapt the exploitation systems.

(what is the future of fishing)

^Research

Exploitation

Ø Spatiotemporal dynamics of fishing capacities and their interactions with other uses.

Ø The relation between exploitation methods and the state of the resources and ecosystems.

Ø Evolving markets for fish and seafood.

Ø How exploitation systems respond to technological, economic and institutional changes, as well as to changes in resource availability.

Tools

Risk analysis

Observations, experiments, studies

Statistical and dynamic modelling

Individual markers

EAF indicators

Resources

Ø Spatiotemporal dynamics of targeted species.

Ø Population structuring and stock identification.

Ø Adaptive mechanisms in individuals and populations.

Ø Responses to environmental changes, exploitation and other anthropic disturbances.

Ecosystem

Ø Descriptions and dynamics of populations, food webs and biodiversity.

Ø Spatiotemporal dynamics of non-targeted species.

Ø Resistance and resilience to anthropic and natural disturbances.

Ø Cost and benefit analysis of the ecosystems' various states.

(Source: Ifremer)

3. Marine Protected Areas (MPA)

The creation and promotion of Marine Protected Areas have two main goals: creating sanctuaries and establishing an integrated management of ecosystems (both coastal and non-coastal) .

Generally presented as a European obligation (Natura 2000, Birds and Habitats Directives) or an international obligation (the Oslo and Paris Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic or OSPAR), the creation of such zones is a real scientific and operational need with regard to the situation of the marine environment and of its management .

Indeed, the sea is not a homogeneous area in which the fishable biomass is evenly distributed. On the contrary, 75% of the sea's resources are concentrated within only 5% of its area, usually near the coasts.

This calls for a voluntarist approach on the part of fishing professionals , who should call for the setting up of MPAs and demand that they be among the main actors, rather than a hostile attitude fed by fears of additional constraints. These marine reserves are a prolongation of the autoregulatory measures already enacted by the fishing industry.

However, the development of these MPAs - which your rapporteur hopes and prays for - has gotten off to a poor start . Because our country had fallen considerably behind, but wanted to catch up during its presidency of the European Union, its definition of Natura 2000 zones was carried out in extreme haste and almost without consultation. It is not even certain that their scientific foundations have all been perfectly established. All the actors regret that the government repeated the same mistakes it had already made a decade earlier during the definition of its Natura 2000 zones on land. We can expect the same detrimental effect this time round; that is to say, that it will not be before many years that the local actors appropriate these zones as opportunities. Several projects that finally gained consensus took 10 or 20 years to come to fruition.

Nevertheless, 76 marine sites covering a surface area of 24,000 square kilometres off of France's three coastlines were presented in Brussels during a Council of Ministers in early November. Four marine parks and three national parks - including that of the Calanques - are being planned ; the only such park currently in existence in France is that of the Iroise Sea.

Prior to these recent declarations, the situation of France's Marine Protected Areas was as follows:

	Type	Number	Surface area in km²
Created by the Law of 14 April 2006	Natura 2000 sites	208	6.970
	National/Corsica nature reserves	26	1.220
	Nature reserves of the TAAF (French Southern and Antarctic Lands)	1	15.000
	Marine parks	1	3.550
	National parks	1	13
	Public maritime domain of the Conservatoire du Littoral (« Coastal Protection Agency »)	4	55
	Biotope-protection decree	3	13
Not created by the Law of 14 April 2006	Côte Bleue Marine Park (joint association)	1	91
	Special reserve (New Caledonia)	1	86
	Special marine reserve (New Caledonia)	6	96
	Integral reserve (New Caledonia)	1	157
	Specially Protected Areas of the Antarctic	1	2

A Marine Protected Area (MPA) is a delimited marine zone with an objective for long-term nature protection. It is rarely exclusive and often results from a combination of local development and sustainable environmental management.

Different categories of MPA exist, legally defined by the Law of 14 April 2006, which draws up an open list. Other zone types, such as marine mammal sanctuaries ^{32 ( * )} or fishing areas, may be added.

The Law also created an Agency for Marine Protected Areas, a public administrative body placed under the supervision of MEEDDAT ^{33 ( * )} , provided with some fifty staff members and headquartered in Brest. Its mission is to coordinate and, in certain cases, finance and help manage the MPAs that will be created.

Compared to other countries, France is extremely behind in the definition and management of its MPAs. The parks are, for the most part, small and those that are large are of recent creation. Indeed, the creation of the Iroise Marine Park increased the surface area of the French park system overseen by the OSPAR Convention from 270 to 3,800 square kilometres!

Despite this delay, the creation of a complete, representative and coherent network of MPAs in metropolitan and overseas France by 2012 remains a strong political commitment of our country vis-à-vis its international partners. It should be pointed out that France controls the world's second largest maritime zone, with 11 million square kilometres (four times the size of the Mediterranean), of which 320,000 square kilometres are within metropolitan France (equivalent to 60% of France's terrestrial territory) .

The make up of this network will obey the following principles:

- Fit within an overall process of understanding and monitoring the marine environment.

- Cover a representative share of the more remarkable elements of our natural heritage, based upon the lists of habitats and species.

- Protect those ecosystems with important ecological functions, such as the large estuaries, the foreshores and the coastal wetlands.

- Contribute to the maintenance and reasoned economic development of marine activities.

- Manage coastal zones via a land-sea approach.

Several projects are in progress or the subject of "strategic regional analyses". The official studies are concerned with the Vermillion Coast, Mayotte and the estuaries of the Somme, the Authie and the Canche. In the longer term, attention will turn to the Straits of the Charente, Arcachon Bay and the Gironde Estuary. In a less precise manner, projects are also planned for the Norman-Breton Gulf, the tidal mud flats of southwestern Brittany, and around Corsica.

Even if the goal is not to create sanctuaries or "total reserves" which exclude all traditional actors, these projects and studies are the cause of much concern. The MPAs already created will serve as tests for the entire coast.

The oldest nature reserve is that of Sandola in Corsica , in the Gulf of Porto & Girolata. Created in 1975, this reserve covers 10 square kilometres, only 0.8 square kilometres of which constitutes a total reserve. This reserve has been listed a World Heritage Site by UNESCO. Biologically, it is a great success, since a satisfactory natural state has been regained (a reference in the matter for the Mediterranean). In the reserve, all species attain their maximum size. It is also a unanimous success among fishermen, who now really benefit from the reserve.

However, this model - in particular, the existence of a total reserve - could not be transposed to a larger scale, which undoubtedly explains, in part, the slow gestation of the Iroise Sea Marine Park project. Launched in 1989, it did not see the light of day until a decree of 28 September 2007. The park covers 3,550 square kilometres from Porspoder in the north (48°31'N) to Plouhinec in the south (47°59'N) and extending west to the limit of French territorial waters; in addition, the entire southern coastal zone from Douarnenez to Plouhinec is the subject of a deferred public study, with further extensions also under consideration. The Roadstead of Brest is not contained within the park.

The Iroise Sea was chosen for its richness, its diversity, its representative nature, and its quality as a refuge for numerous species of birds and mammals.

The park's management will fall to the Management Council, presided by the President of the Finistère Departmental Council , Pierre Maille. The management plan will be drawn up in 2009. To this day, only two meetings have taken place. As its president explains, while the park's creation was made possible by the rallying of a majority, many remain to be convinced who are either reluctant partners or still opposed to the project.

First and foremost, it was essential to constitute the council in such a way as to allow all concerned parties to be represented and satisfied with their representation. In particular, this was the prerequisite for fishing professionals, who hold a quarter of the council's seats (all categories combined).

The fishermen finally agreed not to oppose the project, for their demands had been met: no total reserve; their involvement in the decision-making process; strengthening their weight vis-à-vis other sea users; and potential for the development/promotion of fishing and the financing of initiative management projects. For the time being, they declare themselves to be satisfied, insofar as the management goals are in accordance with those desired by the fishing industry.

The park has so far defined ten management goals:

- Deepening and spreading our knowledge of marine ecosystems.

- Maintaining the populations and habitats of protected species.

- Reduction of terrestrial- and land-based pollutions.

- Management of material-extraction activities.

- Support of professional coastal fishing (250 ships, mainly fileyeurs or "netters" under 15 metres).

- Sustainable exploitation of the halieutic resources.

- Sustainable exploitation of kelp beds.

- Support of marine activities on the islands.

- Conservation and promotion of the marine architectural and archaeological heritage.

- Reasoned development of water-based tourist and leisure activities.

Much, therefore, remains to be done. With regard to the fishing industry, fishermen readily threaten their disengagement and a violent reaction if the park's management should turn to their disadvantage.

More generally, these MPAs are seen as a new constraint and a non-recognition of the self-regulatory measures already in place. The fishing industry dismisses the idea that MPAs can be used as fishery management tools.

However, your rapporteur believes that MPAs are essential for fishery management, must be actively supported and will most benefit fishermen.

MPAs are, first and foremost, essential in the French context for the reopening of dialogue between fishermen, scientists, politicians and society. It is from this dialogue that an effective fisheries management will emerge. While MPAs alone will not provide a solution, they offer an opportunity to do so around a common project.

In addition, they must receive the authorities' active support, for they represent an opportunity to impose essential environmental protections and to favour stock restoration. They provide hope of maintaining healthier, richer and more balanced ecosystems that will better resist external disturbances (anthropic or otherwise) and that will render fish stocks more resilient.

Finally, it is clear that these MPAs will benefit primarily fishermen. Perhaps, in the short term, a few preliminary restrictions will be resented; but fishermen must not miss the historic opportunity that is offered them. In many respects, professional fishermen are a minority at sea compared to a wide range of other uses: leisure, underwater exploitation, electrical production, cables, etc. Above all, even in regions such as Finistère, they carry little weight compared to the land-based economic interests that are to blame for most of the pollution and destruction of the marine environment. Likewise, careful observation of marine ecosystems will allow for a better understanding of fishing's role in stock fluctuations, compared to global warming and other causes.

In fact, your rapporteur believes that the fishing industry's defiant attitude with regard to MPAs is unjustified and counterproductive . It cannot be a partner if it threatens to quit the management councils as soon as its recommendations are no longer followed. This attitude runs contrary to the very functioning of such a council and risks marginalizing the industry. It is time for professional fishermen to abandon their register of protest for one of responsible management.

C. FISHERMEN: THE PRIMARY ACTORS OF RESPONSIBLE FISHING

Fishermen are the primary actors of responsible fishing. Contrary to the impression that certain NGOs or expert declarations may give in the media, nothing is possible against them . Furthermore, nothing is possible without them, without their consent and active collaboration.

Setting up a sustainable form of fishing is certainly a planetary and global-food issue, but it also represents fishermen's very livelihood and means of survival .

During his meetings, your rapporteur became convinced that fishermen would be ready to commit themselves to sustainable, reasoned fishing if they could only be presented with a coherent framework.

Such an evolution is no doubt attained via three other evolutions: reducing the catch capacity, abandoning the culture of "free-riding", and the ability of fishermen to manage their own resource.

1. The inevitable reduction of capacity

Following a period during which it supported increases in fishing capacity, Europe rapidly changed course in favour of reduction and restructuring measures, though so far without any significant success.

Particularly unpopular, reducing fishing capacity is nevertheless necessary, for two fundamental reasons. Firstly, the state of the halieutic stocks , even if overfishing is not the principal cause, would necessitate reducing capacities to allow for their restoration. Second, the poor economic state of the fishing industry , no matter the price of petrol or fish, which are only cyclical indices. Indeed, this is clearly illustrated by the industry's extremely high level of government aid, to the tune of some 73% of turnover.

Once again and contrary to what is most often declared publicly, your rapporteur is convinced that the greater majority of fishermen are fully aware of the economic-environmental equation that applies to their sector . The exchanges I was able to have certainly point in this direction. Furthermore, fishermen "voted with their feet", via their massive response to the fleet-reduction plan proposed by the Minister. More than two times the number of requests were recorded than had been predicted. If fishermen had been confident in the future profitability of their sector, they probably would not have reacted in this manner and would have instead waited. In a port, it was even pointed out to your rapporteur that certain ships to benefit from the plan should not have been selected for they were too old and destined for the scrap yard; their removal, therefore, did not constitute a real reduction in capacity and provoked jealousy on the part of active fishermen or those whose requests had been denied.

Up until now, fleet reductions have always been compensated for by a modernization of the remaining ships; this practice has been encouraged by the European system and the lack of confidence between countries.

Indeed, the Common Fisheries Policy maintains a vicious cycle that combines historic rights and a "race to the fish". On the one hand, quotas are attributed based on past catches for the same zone and species. It is in the interest of each country to defend and effectively fish its quota-share, out of fear of seeing it reduced in the future. At the same time, the "Europeanization" of European waters means that, in principle, each country's waters are open to other EU members, in a regulated manner only for those fish under quota. As a result, any national reduction in capacity that is not collectively applied at the European level will benefit the home industry's competitors, rather than the resource's sustainable management. Therefore, a priori, there is no wiser national policy at the European level than advocating the reduction of others' fishing effort while at the same time carrying out a restructuring of one's own fleet that retains its real fishing capacity . Unless all EU members carry out this policy, overfishing will continue and the situation will only worsen.

2. Abandoning the culture of fraud and "free-riding"

A cultural change must also be carried out . The world of fishing stands out for what is commonly called a "race to the fish".

Fish being res nullius , they belong - like game - to the first who manage to capture them. The entire fishing culture is based upon this principle: knowing where to find the fish and being the first to catch them. This knowledge is jealously guarded and can make or break the reputation of such or such a skipper, as well as determine the wealth of his crew (each of whose members is paid a share of the catch), their income overwhelmingly dependent upon the success of their fishing effort.

This culture was well suited to a context of unlimited resources, although even then - as has already been pointed out - it led to excesses and resource crises.

Within the framework of the Common Fisheries Policy and even at the world level, this culture has remained largely the same or even been amplified.

Firstly, the management of European waters has been Europeanized and historic fishing rights in foreign waters have become established rights. While in accordance with proper management, this new rule has unfortunately resulted in a decreased sense of responsibility vis-à-vis the resource. In the mouths of fishermen, the abuses (overfishing, nonregulation devices, undersized catches, excessive rejections, etc.) are usually to be blamed on foreign boats which "catch everything" and are not concerned with our coast's future. The definition of rights and regulations seems to take place at a level beyond the fishermen's influence or control. To fishermen, these regulations seem unfair, incoherent or incomprehensible. They often fluctuate, encouraging fishermen to buy new boats but "preventing them from working" and therefore strangling them financially, even while others are given free reign to "scrape" the sea floor. Fishermen, therefore, try to make the most of things by giving priority to their short-term interests.

Secondly, the system of national quotas - even if the subject of a subsequent distribution among producer organizations and among professionals - seems only to amplify the "race to the fish" phenomenon. In a nutshell, it is in each fisherman's interest to appropriate as quickly as possible the greatest share of the quota. Everyone your rapporteur met with in the fishing world regretted the impossibility of freely managing his or her quota according to the reality of the fishery and of the market, so as to ensure an optimal economic outcome. But how can they wait for the opportune moment if the entire quota has already been caught by the others?

In the system as it existed until recently, there was almost no cultural framework nor any regulatory incentive to develop sustainable practices. On the contrary, many elements encouraged an attempt to profit from other fishermen and other countries carrying out the management efforts (a form of behaviour termed "free-riding" by economists).

This state of mind is aggravated by the fact that within several European countries - though this is also true at the international level - it is still believed that the fishing sector has no need of extensive management. Numerous reasons for this view are put forward, with the sector's economic weight and socio-political importance placed in counterpoint to halieutic resources that are deemed inexhaustible (or at least in the short-term), and with the protection of the national fishing industry in counterpoint to foreign fishermen who are presumed to be pirates and guilty of fraud. So, based on the conviction that a too-tight fishery management would only disadvantage one's own local or national fishermen to the benefit of others, a culture of fraud has developed, both at the local level vis-à-vis the national level, and at the national level vis-à-vis regional, European and/or global authorities.

One can cite numerous examples, such as: allowing for the fishing of all fish leaving a national exclusive economic zone and headed toward that of another country; closing the eyes on under-declared catches (of up to more than 50% of the national quota); not sanctioning shipowners practicing illegal fishing in the EEZs of friendly countries; judging as credible a reduction of the national fishing capacity even though the ships did nothing more than change flags, etc. Though incomplete, this list of leniencies, non-interventions and laxities sufficiently illustrates the need to regain control of this sector and the seriousness required for the management of a finite resource.

Such an evolution is not impossible. Most fishermen are ready, but feel caught within a system and rightly call for a more coherent implementation of the regulations and desire that national, European and international rules be applied to everyone in the same manner.

3. Fishermen who own their resources

To escape this "race to the fish", this short-term culture of every man for himself that maintains overcapacities and over-exploitation, " we must put an end to competition between fishermen and therefore limit individual access to the resource . If a share of the stock is guaranteed, a race for ever more efficient and technologically-advanced ships is no longer necessary". ^{34 ( * )}

The establishment of individual quotas was also mentioned by the Poseidon Report as one possible solution for the French fishing industry; it had also been proposed by the Grenelle Environment Round Table for the bluefin tuna fishery. Moreover, the European Commission went beyond the Grenelle recommendations, by imposing individual quotas via the Council Regulation CE 1159/2007 of 12 December 2007.

For the other fisheries, the Grenelle Round Table and Operational Committee no. 12 ("Integrated management of the sea and coast"), the only principles retained were those governing CFP revision and the definition of management territories considered coherent with regard to the fisheries and local realities.

Nevertheless, Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQ) systematically reappear at the international level as a solution to promote for the improvement of halieutic resource management.

Fundamentally, two advantages are put forward: ^{35 ( * )}

- Ending the "race to the fish".

- The exploitation of capital by fishermen-managers.

Stopping the race-to-the-fish phenomenon should enable putting a stop to overcapitalization and excess equipment, and therefore significantly increase the sector's profitability. It should also allow for an increase in the duration of the fishing season, while at the same time decreasing the fishing pressure.

In fact, economically speaking, the establishment of ITQs should put an end to the economic overcapitalization of stocks. The exploitation of a natural resource produces a profit or income which, for the fishing industry, is the difference between the total catch value and the total cost of the fishing effort. A stock is economically under-exploited as long as its income has not been maximized. Continuing beyond this optimal amount constitutes over-exploitation; in other words, for a rising cost, income first increases less rapidly, then diminishes, is cancelled out and, finally, becomes negative.

The interest of ITQs resides in their being individual and transferable. By putting an end to the race-to-the-fish phenomenon, the individual nature of ITQs allows the fisherman to stop seeking to capture the largest share possible of the collective quota and to shift instead toward a situation in which his goal is to minimize the cost of catching that share of the halieutic resources already attributed to him . The transferable nature of ITQs increases their economic efficiency , because the least efficient fishermen or those incapable a given year of fishing their quota can dispose of their fishing rights. Therefore, ITQs imply a voluntary concentration of the sector.

The second advantage of ITQs is environmental in nature. ITQs are meant to encourage fishermen to treat their resource carefully, for as owners, it is in their best interest to manage the resource like a business in order to increase its value and thereby increase their income and eventually resell it at a higher price.

This would represent a very profound cultural change. It has the support of numerous fishermen who would like to be able to fish more freely and optimize their fishing effort by basing it upon current market values. The individual quota would allow fishermen to fish less and better and to sell their catch at a higher price.

A recent study published in the magazine Science would tend to support the hypothesis that Individual Transferable Quotas are liable to create incentives for an improved fisheries management. ^{36 ( * )} Basing their analysis on a database of 11,135 fisheries from 1950 to 2003, the authors demonstrate that the adoption of such management methods would allow for a cessation of stock collapses and a facilitation of their recovery. According to their study, in 2003, fisheries subjected to ITQs were twice less likely to collapse, which the authors judge a conservative estimate, given the recent adoption of this management method. Furthermore, they estimate that if this system had been brought into general use starting in the 1970s and not limited to only 121 fisheries, only 9% of stocks would have collapsed, as compared to 27%. ^{37 ( * )} However, the authors voice certain reserves for the proper understanding of their results, which must not be taken as "a carte blanche endorsement", for they only considered a single form of ITQ and did not take into account other aspects of fishery management.

ITQs are often seen as cure-alls , essential for any proper management system. However , when emphasized, they also turn away many French fishermen .

In the opinion of your rapporteur , one must take things into consideration. Individual quotas are not the universal solution and collective quotas are not synonymous with poor management. One of the most convincing examples is that of the Peruvian anchoveta fishery, one of the best managed fisheries in the world. During the fishing season (open from 30 to 60 days each year), catches are monitored in an extraordinarily precise manner by both scientists and government authorities. Each ship is monitored via satellite. The president of the Peruvian equivalent of IFREMER who follows the catches is provided with a direct line to the fisheries minister, who can close the fishery within 24 hours, depending on scientific assessments. This very effective management system is based upon TACs and collective quotas, but it has several characteristics that allow for its success. The fact that the fishery is national, monospecific, industrial and seasonal makes it all the easier to monitor. This rigorous management has not prevented a very great overcapacity. What is more, in Peru, with the same actors, the exemplary nature of its anchovy management does not extend to all of the nation's other fisheries, in particular, those of the demersal species.

Then again, many French fishermen are distrustful of the implementation of Individual Transferable Quotas, for they fear a capitalization and a "financialization" of fishing . A typical example is that of Iceland , where, it is argued, the implementation of individual quotas has led to the fishing industry's being greatly concentrated in the hands of only a few non-fishing investors. Via an unexpected process, many small fishing outfits seized upon the opportunity to sell their quotas; however, by doing so, they lost their right to fish. Their suppliers and the fish-processing companies that relied on them then disappeared, contributing to the desertification of coastal zones whose livelihood had depended upon fishing.

This example is a cause of concern. First of all, it signals the end of a principal considered eternal, that of free and open access to the fishing trade. The sea is free and the fish belong to whoever catches them; therefore, everyone has the right and the freedom to become a fisherman. But this mythic vision, though often resuscitated, no longer rhymes with reality. In developed countries with fisheries management, not only must one have capital and equipment, one must also solicit an operator for the right to a production quota. In developing countries, its application constitutes a veritable poverty trap. As soon as quotas are attentively followed and respected, each ship situated outside this management system suddenly finds itself operating illegally and therefore subject to, at least in principle, prosecution by the authorities or wronged fishermen, as in Iceland. Not taking into account ITQ systems, it has been demonstrated that in France, the value of a used ship increases 30-50% depending on its associated fishing rights (according to estimates by Deputy Hélène Tanguy and IFREMER). In developing countries such as Senegal, free access to the sea is, in fact, the cause of very considerable overfishing by smaller, more traditional outfits, itself a source of poverty and social and interethnic tensions.

The fear of a concentration of the fishing sector is also shared by elected officials along the coast, who worry about the fleet reduction and its implications for the sector further down the line, as well as the geographic mobility of investors who will no longer feel any attachment to a particular port or even country.

In addition to these criticisms, environmental organizations point out the risk that large financial groups consider fishing concessions as they would mining concessions: to be exploited as quickly and profitably as possible until the resource is exhausted; according to these NGOs, only coastal communities are capable of carrying out a long-term management of their resources. In general, economically speaking, the interest of protecting a fishery's capital depends on its resale value as compared to the profitability of its over-exploitation. Indeed, it can make economic sense for an individual or group to over-exploit a natural resource in order to then invest in other - particularly industrial - economic sectors.

Though these fears are not unfounded, they are certainly exaggerated. The establishment of individual quotas does not automatically entail the uncontrolled or uncontrollable concentration of the sector. In Europe, Denmark has shown that it is possible to implement them while at the same time setting up safeguards according to fishery type.

While individual quotas may appear to be an ideal management tool, they nevertheless remain difficult to define technically at the European level.

Indeed, in a monospecific and well-delimited fishery, it is not very complicated to share out the catches. But many European fisheries are multispecific and spread out over different zones. In addition, fish are not like cattle in a field or stall; they migrate freely over the course of one or several years. This is the case with the herring of the North Sea, which carry out - depending on their age - a long migration from the coasts of Norway to Iceland. Although long considered separate populations and the subject of specific fishing traditions, these herring in fact belong to a single stock. What is more, the movements of certain species remain unexplained. So, how to share out ownership?

These difficulties can be overcome, in part, if one takes into account the variety of methods for the privatization of halieutic resources. Quotas can be attributed to individual fishermen or ships, but they can also be attributed on a larger scale, to communities or cooperatives. Likewise, they can be more or less spatialized and target one or several species. Furthermore, their transferability is not necessarily without limit. The most frequent form is even that of a limited transferability, which depends upon the type of fishing and the targeted species. All of these variables seek to adapt the system to the fisheries, the structure of the fleet, and the authorities' willingness to maintain a fabric of more traditional, smaller-scale fishing or, instead, favour a concentration of the sector. Finally, opting for a system of individualized quotas does not imply abandoning TACs; on the contrary, the setting up of ITQs is meant to better enforce the overall catch volume that is fixed in a scientific manner.

Therefore, it is not at all a question of a rigid system or a panacea, but rather a remedy to be applied by adapting the "dosage" to the diagnosis, with a strong emphasis on experimentation.

Finally, one must not forget that this privatization of resources and the delegation of their management to fishermen cannot succeed if the authorities do not fully assume their share of responsibility. Indeed, in Europe and in France, the current system of quota distribution is rather similar to a cooperative or community-based quota system with individualization; however, this system by itself is insufficient to ensure the fisheries' sustainable management.

If fisheries under ITQ have the reputation of succeeding so well, it is undoubtedly because the adoption of this management method signals a modification of the actors' culture and a new involvement on the part of authorities.

In any event, this is shown by foreign examples (see ibid. , MEDD 2007).

In Iceland, New Zealand and the Netherlands, it is not possible to establish a connection between this management method and the state of the fish stocks. In Iceland , where the ITQ system was extended from 1975 to 1990, the herring and haddock stocks are healthy, as opposed to the cod and capelin stocks. It would appear that, for cod, before the institution of ITQs, scientific recommendations were not followed and systematically exceeded by first the attribution of TACs then real catches. Nevertheless, the institution of ITQs has not allowed stocks to rebuild, either because the quotas' adoption is too recent (1994) or, more likely, due to warmer waters. However, the haddock TAC is at its highest level in 40 years; but is this really due to ITQs? After all, this fish from the south benefits from the warmer waters. Iceland's rate of rejections is much lower than the estimated international rate: 6% compared to 35%.

However, the impact on the sector's economic health is certain. The catch per fisherman greatly increased between 1988 and 1998, from less than 300 tonnes to over 380 tonnes, illustrating the sector's concentration and reduction in the number of fishermen.

Furthermore, governments play a very important role. Controls are numerous and rigorous, with significant financial sanctions. For example, when the authorities observe a repeated discrepancy between catches and declarations, they can force a shipowner to take onboard an inspector for one year. This management and sanctioning system is reinforced by measures for the protection of spawning and juvenile-fish zones.

In New Zealand , the ITQsystem was set up between 1986 and 2004 and now covers 85% of the commercialized catch. It has resulted in a very marked concentration of the fishing industry, with 80% of quotas being owned by 10% of allottees. The loss of fishing jobs has been more than compensated for by the creation of jobs further downstream. The system's positive impact on the resources' sustainability has yet to be really proven, especially considering the fact that the sector's concentration has strengthened its influence and ability to obtain higher TACs.

In the Netherlands , the IQ system dates from 1976, but it has greatly evolved since then. It concerns only the largest fisheries. It seems to rely heavily upon self-management organized by nine co-management groups representing 98% of Dutch fishermen due to heavy financial sanctions.

In France, Article 1 of the Loi d'Orientation de la Pêche ("Framework Law for Fishing") of 18 November 1997 describes halieutic resources as a "collective patrimony" and reaffirms the non-patrimonial nature of access rights. There are no TACs or quotas for the Mediterranean. ^{38 ( * )}

If the national quota fixed at the European level can be divided up into smaller quotas to be attributed to producer organizations (POs), with these quotas then being distributed among PO members, this distribution is based upon precedence and the quotas remain non-patrimonial in nature. They can be exchanged, but only at the PO level and subject to ministry approval. If a national quota is exceeded, France can carry out an exchange with another country for the same or a different species. This hybrid system lacks clarity. It does not put an end to the "race-to-the-fish" phenomenon and does not allow for individual sanctions, because there is no individual attribution of quotas.

Therefore, your rapporteur considers that a more serious fisheries management must rely upon two principles:

- A stricter limitation of access to the resource.

- Making the various actors accountable.

They should result in a reduction of fishing capacity and the progressive and experimental development of fishery-management systems based upon Individual Transferable Quotas.

These evolutions will entail a reform of the Law of 1997, bringing to an end the ban on the "patrimonialization" of access rights.

This reform could be introduced upon examination of the first bill of the implementation programme for the Grenelle Environment Round Table.

D. AUTHORITIES WHO EXERCISE THEIR PREROGATIVES

At the international level, the creation and extension of exclusive economic zone since the Second World War has transferred to coastal states control of 90% of the world's halieutic potential . Only the great oceanic migrators escape state legislation. Piracy in international waters and a few defaulting states cannot exonerate the states from assuming their responsibilities with regard to fisheries management , especially considering the fact that those countries who manage best their fisheries are not necessarily the wealthiest or most developed.

Following his investigation, your rapporteur is convinced that the difficulties met with in France and Europe stem, in large part, from the authorities not exercising their prerogatives due to weakness or complicity . The current situation calls for a clearer position on the part of the Ministry of Agriculture, a firmer exercise of power, and an effective war on piracy.

1. A ministry of fishermen or a ministry of fish? Combining the "social" with the "sustainable"

Today, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fishing is at a turning point ; this is the feeling shared by several of its managers and several outside observers.

Put simply, the Ministry of Fishing must choose between being the "ministry of fishermen" or the "ministry of fish". This Manichaean choice is obviously false, for there can be no fishermen without fish. But it has a deeper meaning than this.

The great majority of ministers in charge of fishing have up until now considered that their role was primarily social in nature . It consisted of taking charge politically of a population (to wit, fishermen) with a reputation for being rowdy, protesting and even aggressive. For this reason, their success could be judged by the level of social satisfaction achieved and, especially vis-à-vis the Prime Minister or the President, their capacity to avoid port blockades and other violent demonstrations. The long-term vision of the industry and the management of halieutic resources were relegated to the background. What was important was to obtain good quotas in Brussels, cover up known frauds, and supply the industry with the tax exemptions and subsidies it desired using French or European funds. With regard to fishing, the authorities had the habit of not lodging complaints against damages linked to violent actions, of managing weakly, and of often closing their eyes. "Avoid making waves" was an order followed as well at the local level as issued at the highest level.

This attitude went hand-in-hand with a rather pronounced paternalism that is sometimes still present. For instance, several interviewees indicated to your rapporteur that the maritime authorities' mission was to "manage" the profession. The local maritime authority was seen as something of a "father figure" for the fishermen, with the latter leaving to the authority and to their wives all financial and administrative questions.

This well-oiled machine would have kept on going if a few grains of sand had not been thrown into the works.

These first came from the industry itself, which became alarmed at having an ever greater number of politicians and bureaucrats as contacts, including in the coastal regions, who considered it suitable to jointly manage with the fishermen and socially accompany the industry's unavoidable decline. Many also became concerned with being represented by the most radical elements and thereby running the risk of losing public support.

They then came from the European Commission which, by questioning France in its fisheries-control mission and by obtaining from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) an important fine and penalty, forceably brought about a certain awareness and a change of practice. The Commission also exerts necessary pressure with regard to the restructuring and respect of quotas.

They also came from "civil society", NGOs, public opinion and supermarkets that communicated or reacted with regard to the fisheries crisis.

Finally, within the ministry, a new vision - which should not be underestimated - emerged of its mission, taking into account the new context.

Although not yet universally shared, this vision undoubtedly enjoys majority support.

It is based upon the idea that the fisheries must now be managed "seriously"; in other words, that scientific management criteria, the respect of TACs and quotas, of minimum catch sizes and of authorized techniques must now be universally applied (which is in the fishermen's best interest) and enforced by the state.

Generally speaking, this means that, while it is still necessary to support the industry, the fishermen's future can no longer be considered without also taking into account the resource's future and anticipate future economic evolutions .

It is no longer taboo to discuss the possibility of ending the fishing industry's subsidies and making it sustainable and economically profitable in and of itself. As an example, the Poseidon Report states: "The high level of government aid accorded this 'small' sector naturally leads one to question the pertinence of its maintenance: more than €800 million - including social assistance, more if one also includes temporary economic aid linked to the rise in oil prices - compared to the sector's first-sale turnover of €1.1 billion in 2004." In the long term, no economic sector can depend to such an extent on government assistance. The fishing industry must regain the path of economic development free from state aid.

2. Monitor and sanction

Although assessing fisheries management by the state was not the mandate of your rapporteur , this task proved inevitable. It should be tackled in a succinct manner.

Firstly, as has already been pointed out, the European Commission's legal action against France was the initial cause of a growing awareness that continues to spread. It has led our country to recognize its having exceeded its bluefin-tuna quotas and to impose individual quotas for this fishery.

Secondly, it is the fishermen themselves who are hoping and praying for such an assessment . Your rapporteur noticed that, in private, they were the first to denounce their less scrupulous colleagues' behaviour that is banned or harmful vis-à-vis the resource and which they are able to witness at sea. For while professional solidarity prevents denunciations, many are aware of the excesses and the danger posed by such behaviour to the future of their profession. Those who respect the rules feel disadvantaged compared to their less scrupulous colleagues who remain unsanctioned.

What is more, even if they generally desire greater autonomy in the management of their fisheries, praising the merits of a local management system aware of the at-sea realities, they recognize that monitoring and sanctions are, first and foremost, the responsibility of the authorities and that it would be all the easier for them to monitor their own practices if such state control were firm and sanctions were applied in a fair and equal manner .

Finally, it must be pointed out that such an attitude is essential to ensure a certain local and international credibility . Here, your rapporteur simply echoes the feeling of helplessness expressed by researchers who explain the extent to which foreign observers can be surprised and shocked by certain French laisser-faire practices.

3. Fighting piracy

Directly linked to the state's responsibility with regard to fisheries management is the fight against piracy.

The seriousness required for fisheries management and the discipline called for on the part of fishermen can only succeed and be understood and shared if such a policy fits entirely within a coherent framework .

However, everywhere in the world, illegal, undeclared and unregulated fishing, carried out in good and bad faith, is denounced as a scourge and the cause of numerous evils. Particularly in the Mediterranean - due to the absence of any exclusive economic zones and with regard, in particular, to the bluefin-tuna fishery - piracy is a powerful incentive to continue free-riding . Why make any effort, when it will only benefit some pirate who, what is more, has often been identified and is well known?

Yet states are not powerless, even if total control is impossible.

First of all, states can close their exclusive economic zones to pirates. In France, the most telling example is that of the Patagonian-toothfish fishery in its southern waters.

The southern-water fisheries

The main resource of the French Austral and Antarctic Territories (TAAF), amounting to some €5 million, is the sustainable management of the Patagonian-toothfish fisheries of the Crozet and Kerguelen Islands (around 6,000 tonnes) and the crayfish fisheries of Saint Paul and Amsterdam Islands (around 400 tonnes).

The Patagonian-toothfish fishery alone represents some €30 million. It is managed within an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of nearly 1.8 million square kilometres, equivalent to three times the size of metropolitan France. The prefect is responsible for fixing the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and attributing quotas. Scientists - in particular, from the Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle ("National Natural History Museum" or MNHN) and the Chizé laboratory - serve as scientific advisors for the evaluation of fish stocks, the definition of fishing methods, and the reduction of the accidental fishing of protected species.

Confronted with very considerable illegal fishing - certainly double the authorized quota - the government decided, beginning in 1996, to call upon the military means of the French navy. The prefect of Réunion is responsible for state intervention at sea in the southern zone of the Indian Ocean. He has overall authority of the French coastguard and is responsible for law enforcement, the protection of French sovereign rights, the maintenance of public order, and the protection of people and property. The High Command of the Réunion navy lends the prefect its support in carrying out these missions. For fishery surveillance, the navy relies upon three vessels: the frigates Nivôse and Floréal and the patrol boat Albatros , for a total of 250 days at sea in the EEZ. An additional patrol boat, the Osiris , is financed by the TAAF and the regional council. This boat had been inspected and confiscated in 2003 by the navy, out of a total of 23 boarded for inspection since 1997.

The navy's operational effectiveness has been greatly improved with the setting up, in February 2004, of a satellite surveillance system. The Radarsat satellite, which allows for photos to be taken from space, enables its users to count the number of ships at sea, to identify and locate those ships operating illegally, and to rapidly intervene. While illegal fishing has greatly diminished within our zone, it has moved toward the international waters bordering the EEZ. This success now opens the way to international cooperative efforts with those countries facing the same difficulties: South Africa (Marion Island) and Australia (Heard Island and McDonald Islands), with whom an agreement was signed on 23 November 2003. This cooperation is a real success, for it allows both countries to jointly plan their actions, with French vessels even being allowed to patrol Australian waters. A similar agreement should be signed with South Africa.

This mission is carried out effectively to great benefit of Réunion's shipowners and the local jobmarket, with a turnover of €45 million and 250 fulltime jobs. Six outfitters (eight boats) are authorized to fish. The southern high-sea fishery now represents the island's second largest export sector.

Illegal fishing also had a significant impact on animal life. Birds greatly suffered from long-lining, because they came to eat the bait on the hooks when the lines were let out into the water and were carried down and drowned as a result. It was therefore necessary to require that lines be set only at night. Unfortunately, certain species, such as white-chinned petrels, fish at night and are therefore still victims of this technique. Other solutions must therefore be found.

In the case of killer whales, the situation is of great concern. These very intelligent animals have discovered that they can feed off of long-lines when these are pulled to the surface, leaving only the heads attached to the hooks and causing very considerable losses (over 30%). Now, less scrupulous fishermen are eliminating killer whales; dynamite used to this end has even been discovered on boarded pirate boats! This practice is obviously banned for all fishing boats operating legally within our EEZ. However, around the Crozet Islands - whose entire killer-whale population had been identified and monitored during successive programmes starting in 1964, thanks to photographs taken of their dorsal fins which, with their notches and scars, serve as a sort of ID card - a sudden drop has been observed. From 1988 to 1989, there were 93 individuals, but only 43 from 1998 to 2000. Likewise, between 1981 and 1990, nine juveniles had been observed, compared to only one between 1991 and 2000. The population has been seriously destabilized and the reduction in the number of females threatens its complete disappearance.

Source: Report by Senator Christian Gaudin on polar research, OPECST, 2007.

Therefore, suitable means of surveillance (via satellite) and intervention, military means included, allow authorities to get the better of pirates in the most remote areas of our EEZs. There is little reason to believe that identical measures will not allow for tighter fisheries control.

In this regard, in Peru, the French company CLS has been chosen by the government to monitor the region's fishing boats via satellite. Even if this requires a permanent educational programme and an unfailing capacity to monitor and sanction illegal fishermen, it is possible to enjoy a very complete vision of the fishing fleet's activity and to use these data for research. These measures run contrary to the fishing culture, which revolves around maintaining good "fishing holes" secret. Therefore, fishermen are little inclined to accept this "informer" or this "black box" onboard their ships. What is more, not all technical possibilities have been fully exploited to avoid conflicts with the fishing industry. Nevertheless, it constitutes an essential system for a modern monitoring of the fishing effort, for identifying ships and, therefore, for fighting piracy .

These satellite-surveillance measures are spreading to the fisheries of all large migratory species, such as tuna. They were just recently adopted by the Comoro Islands to monitor the activity of European seiners and longliners operating within their waters, as well as the activity of their own fishing fleet.

In addition, in the TAAF as in many other fishing zones, illegal fishing is carried out not by ships from defaulting states, but rather by ships from developed and, for the most part, European and Asian countries .

At the opposite end of the chain, it is essential to prevent the pirates' products from reaching the markets . Once again, a complete closure is impossible, without carrying out a DNA test on each fillet of fish. But effective management is not all that difficult, if a real monitoring of commercialized catches is carried out and if the main markets close their doors to catches that are known to be illegal. The bluefin-tuna fishery is obviously the best known case, as well as the most characteristic of the disproportion between officially authorized quotas and commercialized catches. But this is also the case for other stocks, such as the Patagonian toothfish in the past.

Therefore, the state's mission must be reaffirmed and coherent:

- Actively promote a sustainable form of fishing, which entails the continuity of both an economically-profitable fishery and healthy fish stocks.

- Fully and unflinchingly carry out its mission of monitoring and sanctions.

- Actively fight piracy, including that carried out by its own nationals.

4. Greater monitoring on the part of Parliament

While preparing this report, your rapporteur realized that few members of Parliament attentively followed those issues relative to fishing, aquaculture and halieutic-resource management.

This weakness is a handicap as much for the fishing professionals, administration and government as for our country at the European level.

That is why your rapporteur proposes the creation of a joint marine fisheries and aquaculture committee gathering together European and national members of Parliament, both deputies and senators .

Its objective would be to encourage sustainable, responsible fishing.

E. BETTER-INFORMED AND MORE RESPONSIBLE CONSUMERS

To steer the fishing industry toward greater responsibility and sustainability, the signals delivered by consumers to professionals are of the utmost importance.

Without diminishing in any way the responsibility of authorities, fishermen and wholesale fish merchants, consumers can act by privileging those species whose stocks are not over-exploited and, when shopping, favouring small-scale fishing or eco-certified products; consumers can also abandon certain forms of behaviour, such as eating juvenile fish, and sport fish in a more environmentally-responsible manner.

1. Educating consumers

a) The risk of losing the "halieutic culture"

Consumer education is an important issue for the fishing sector. We risk witnessing a cultural abandonment of fresh fish that are too complicated to buy and prepare, in favour of ready-to-consume products; this would constitute a real break in the culinary transmission from one generation to the next.

More generally, in a rural country such as France, the ability to appreciate quality, seasonal fish has always been uncommon; however, it has been weakened further by the internationalization of trade, which provides consumers with all, or almost all, species all year round. In this respect, the consumption of fish is undergoing the same evolution as that of all other food products.

Combined, these two evolutions produce fish that are ready to consume and of standard quality all year round, the equivalent of industrial, standardized and inexpensive meats. In this market, a frozen or fresh aquacultural product is fully at home in the form of a fillet or steak, for catering professionals as much as for individual consumers.

Yet any initiative to improve the quality of halieutic products necessarily entails a break from this purchasing mechanism thanks to increased public awareness and appropriate labelling.

b) Initiatives for the promotion of a sustainable consumption

During my investigations, I have noticed that several initiatives of this type have already been carried out in the form of purchasing guides for consumers.

In this case, an association publishes a list of fish and seafood to either favour or avoid.

Certain are produced by NGOs, such as the list published by the WWF : (See English Table next page)

This type of guide, already relatively complex, is not very easy to use. Yet, it has been greatly streamlined and is presented in the form of a small brochure the size of a credit card. It fits within a purse or wallet. Specialists, however, would undoubtedly find fault with its recommendations in favour or against certain species.

Other initiatives also exist. Some are the fruit of local collaborative efforts between fishing professionals, researchers and an oceanographic museum, such as at Boulogne-sur-Mer. Nausicaa is undoubtedly one location where this initiative has been taken the furthest in connection with the local fisheries committee and the IFREMER laboratory for the English Channel and the North Sea.

English Table

TO FAVOUR WITH MODERATION TO AVOID KEY

Spider crabs Wild sea bass Pacific cod Alaska pollock Shrimp Wild black sea bream Herring Oysters Wild pollack Coalfish Mackerel White hake from the Cape Mussels Queen scallops Sardines Pacific salmon Sole from Hastings Pout Wild albacore Tilapia Crabs Trout Turbot

BB/EC BB/EC North Pacific North Pacific EC/NS BB/EC NEA France BB/EC NS NEA South Africa France Patagonia NEA North Pacific England BB/EC BB Europe BB/EC Europe Europe

Sea bass Squid Jack mackerel Scallops Tropical shrimp Gilthead bream Haddock Lobster Ling Langoustine Monkfish Whiting Panga Nile perch Octupus Red mullet John Dory Atlantic salmon Cuttlefish Albacore tuna Tilapia

France NEA NEA Various countries Various countries All countries NEA BB/EC NEA NEA NEA English Channel Asia Various countries Various countries BB NEA Various countries NEA All countries Other countries

Eel Sea bass (trawl-caught) Cod Red sea bream Rosefish Emperor Swordfish Atlantic halibut Greenland halibut Grenadier Ling Seawolf Hake Plaice Skates Sharks Cutlassfish Atlantic salmon Sole Bluefin tuna Turbot Silk snapper

Europe NEA NA NEA NA NEA Various countries NA NA NEA NEA Various countries NEA NEA All countries All countries NEA NA NEA Various countries NEA Various countries

Farmed fish & seafood Wild fish & seafood The MSO logo identifies sustainable-fishing products NEA: from the Northeast Atlantic BB: from the Bay of Biscay EC: from the English Channel NS: from the North Sea NA: from the North Atlantic To favour: No overfishing, well-managed farming. Minimal or limited environmental damage. To avoid: Overfished species, some of which are threatened with extinction. Their fishing or farming is very harmful to the environment.

The published list contains only recommended species; there are no "prohibited" species. These recommendations are presented by season and updated according to the fishery. Scientific descriptions present each species in a succinct manner. Finally, recipes are also proposed ( www.nausicaa.fr/liste-pour-la-saison-article-233-fr.htm ). The only thing lacking is a link allowing Internet users to sign up to automatically receive the updated recommendations each new season.

These pages "Agir pour la planète" ("Take action for the planet") are presented in the following manner for winter 2008:

List for the season

Your passport to correct fish and seafood consumption
	Winter 2008-2009 Valid until 31.01.2009 We recommend (list created with advice from the IFREMER laboratory for the English Channel and the North Sea):

These examples show that consumer-education initiatives in favour of a more sustainable form of fishing already exist and find a certain echo.

c) Launching an initiative in favour of small-scale, sustainable fishing

In addition, it should be pointed out that, to my knowledge, no initiative equivalent to the AMAP exists in the fishing sector .

The Association pour le Maintien d'une Agriculture Paysanne (AMAP, also known as Community-Supported Agriculture or CSAs in English-speaking countries) is based upon experiments carried out in Japan and Switzerland in the 1960s and 1970s. This movement then spread to the United States in the 1980s and finally to France starting in 2001, upon the initiative of the ATTAC committee of Aubagne. Today, there are some 50 AMAPs in France.

The goal of this movement is to establish a direct-sales link between peri-urban, organic farmers and groups of consumers who sign up in advance to receive a weekly "basket" of seasonal produce. The system functions similarly to the sale of nouveau wines; in other words, the farmer enjoys a guaranteed income, with each consumer pre-purchasing a share of the upcoming harvest. This community-based model promoting a community-based economy has proved truly successful, well beyond the movement's original activist circles and in and outside the greater Paris region, due to a combination of values, pricing and quality.

Launching a similar project for the fishing sector would be an extremely useful and practical initiative in the coastal departments, where small-scale fishing is still considerable , while being careful not to disadvantage the areas' small, local shops.

The sustainable nature of and the need to preserve small-scale fishing are intuitive convictions for anyone intimately familiar with the French coast. This intuition was recently confirmed by a Canadian study that shows that small-scale fishing (with boats under 15 metres) is more selective and less destructive thanks to the tools and devices used. ^{39 ( * )} Its carbon footprint is also smaller (8 times less fuel than industrial fishing). It also ensures a more complete commercialization of its catch, with a maximum number of species directed toward human consumption. However, subsidy mechanisms and the cost of quality-label procedures tend to penalize this form of fishing.

It could be suitably supported by strengthening its integration into the local economic fabric and by measures to guarantee fisherman income, as well as the quality and sustainability of consumer food supplies.

Therefore, the proposals of your rapporteur are as follows:

- Develop citizen-based initiatives to inform consumers regarding their consumption of fish and seafood, in cooperation with both fishing professionals and researchers, while relying on oceanographic centres open to the public.

- Launch community-based projects similar to the AMAPs for organic agriculture, with the goal of providing consumers with fish from small-scale, sustainable fishing operations, thereby forming Associations pour le Maintien d'une Pêche Artisanale Durable ("Associations for the Maintaining of Small-Scale, Sustainable Fishing") or AMPADs.

2. Ecolabelling

a) Why label fish and seafood?

The rising awareness over more than the past ten years of the critical situation facing the marine fisheries has led NGOs, private groups and international institutions to promote and set up a labelling system for fish and seafood.

This initiative is based upon a simple set of principles. The world's fisheries are in poor health, often poorly managed and little monitored. Pirate-based fishing activities known as INNs ("Illegal, Non-declared or Non-regulated") are numerous and difficult to eliminate. Consumers, who are increasingly aware of this situation, are also increasingly concerned and risk turning away from fish and seafood. The sector's professionals are increasingly fearful of the actions carried out by environmental NGOs and the boycotting of their products, as has already happened in the United States for the Patagonian toothfish and for tuna, fishing for which killed dolphins and tortoises in great number.

It is now necessary to "separate the wheat from the chaff", by indicating to consumers which products they can buy without contradicting their civic convictions.

Indeed, the large industrial groups have been the first to commit to this approach, aware of the risks in the medium and long term of a break in supply or a loss of consumer confidence as has already been seen during past crises, some of which they were unable to overcome until many years later. For them and not to deny a real commitment on the part of their managers in favour of the general interest, it amounts to enjoying a competitive advantage by adopting a pioneering approach. Labels are a powerful tool to improve a product's standing and image and to increase or preserve profit margins, especially vis-à-vis supermarkets. They may also allow for market-share gains vis-à-vis competing products.

The attitudes of the large French and foreign distributors (e.g., Wal-Mart) and large fish buyers also raise the fear that certification may become essential for product referencing.

The very existence of a label is today seen as a national competitive advantage. Their especially strong development in the Anglo-Saxon countries and, to a lesser extent, in Germany and northern Europe serves as an advantage vis-à-vis foreign companies in both their domestic and export markets.

So, for the French fishing industry, the absence of a national label and the possible dependence on foreign labels seems increasingly like an ever greater disadvantage .

The reluctance on the part of authorities and the industry and the lack of recognition vis-à-vis the stakes involved and of a strategic vision mean that, today, France is behind in the world market, potentially placing the national industry in a vulnerable situation .

This explains the converging interests of NGOs and various industry actors: producer bodies, large shipowners, wholesale fish merchants, processors and everyone else involved in the international fish and seafood trade.

b) A commitment of the Grenelle Environment Round Table

It is therefore logical that the ecolabelling of fish and seafood starting in 2008 proved one of the few fishing-related commitments of the Grenelle Environment Round Table .

Its implementation was handed over to Operational Committee no. 12 "Integrated Management of the Sea and Coast", presided over by Deputy Jérôme Bignon, who presented his conclusions in July 2008.

A subgroup to the committee, presided over by the President of the Comité National des Pêches Maritimes ("National Marine Fisheries Committee" or CNPEM), Pierre-Georges Dachicourt, proposed an article for the creation of a fishing ecolabel, whose details would be worked out by OFIMER. The following wording had been proposed: "Fish and seafood from sustainably-managed fisheries can benefit from an ecolabel. A decree fixes the conditions required for fish and seafood to benefit from this ecolabel, as well as the monitoring methods."

The bill relative to the implementation of the Grenelle Environment Round Table, that received its first reading before Parliament in October 2008, includes this proposal in Article 30 (paragraph 4): "France will strengthen its policy of sustainable and concerted management with regard to its halieutic resources by establishing an ecolabelling system for fish and seafood no later than 2009".

c) An assessment of today's labels

While the principle of labelling has been established, the content and scope of labelling raises questions .

Indeed, labelling can only meet the expectations of consumers and fulfil the long-term interests of fishermen if it represents a real standard and constitutes a step forward. However, it is clear that many would simply like to see certified those fisheries which respect current regulations , the management measures being ipso facto considered guarantees of sustainability. This would obviously be a mistake.

In early 2008, OFIMER published a feasibility study for the implementation of an ecolabel for the marine fish-and-seafood sector.

This document, to which your rapporteur will refer to in the following section, presents a particularly pertinent summary of the existing labels, the initiatives undertaken by distributors, and the prospects for certifying two representative fisheries: the langoustine fishery of the Bay of Biscay and the coalfish fishery of the North Sea, western Scotland and Norway.

(1) The international framework of any future creation

OFIMER begins by pointing out that any new label must fit within an international framework that strictly determines its outline .

Firstly, there are the FAO's Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries , published in 1995, and its Guidelines for the Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Marine Capture Fisheries , published in 2005.

Secondly, at the European level, the Council of Ministers, in April of 2007, declared its support for the framing of ecolabels; regulations should soon be proposed by the European Commission.

The FAO's directives today constitute the essential foundations of any certification initiative with regard to method.

This must be carried out in three main steps:

1- The definition of standards; in other words, the definition of specifications by a suitable body.

2- The accreditation of a certifying body. An accrediting body verifies the competence of the certifying body, which will serve as the third party enforcing the standard.

3- The certification of standards. This task is carried out by the third party or a separate certifying body.

The FAO has also specified that the specifications must take into account the following:

- Management conditions: respecting national and international legislation; evaluating stocks; making decisions based upon the best scientific data available, as well as pertinent, "traditional" knowledge; evaluating the impact on the ecosystem; undertaking appropriate measures to ensure sustainability; and implementing a precautionary approach.

- Concerned halieutic stocks, which must not be over-exploited, be preserved for future generations, and benefit from possible restoration measures.

- Exploited ecosystems, on which the negative impact of fishing must be measured and solutions provided.

For this reason, certification can only be applied to specific fisheries (one or a few fishing devices or stocks) that call for it.

The chosen process must ensure universal transparency and participation. It must be perfectly documented. It must also be carried out within a completely independent and non-discriminatory framework.

Certification and the certification standards are not attributed once and for all, but are subject to regular revisions and verifications.

(2) Current ecolabels for fish and seafood

The existing ecolabels can be divided into two main categories: those attributed by NGOs and those attributed by the distributors themselves.

The principal ecolabel is the Marine Stewardship Council or MSC, which certifies 7% of the world catch. This is also the oldest label and the only one to really meet FAO standards, according to OFIMER, for which the MSC stands out for its real scientific approach, independence and transparency.

It is the fruit of a joint study carried out by Unilever and the WWF starting in 1996 and was created in 1999. It has the legal status of an independent NGO and is financed as such; 5% of its resources come from income provided by the licensing of its logo and from private companies. Its headquarters are located in the United Kingdom.

OFIMER believes that the French professionals' fears vis-à-vis the MSC are unfounded: "One also regularly criticizes the MSC for having been created by and being financially dependent upon the WWF and Unilever. However, since 1999, the MSC has opened its board of directors and its board of stakeholders to representatives of many other structures. Indeed, these founding structures are now simply two donors among many others".

The certification process is complex and very complete. For this reason, it is relatively long, varying between 5 and 24 months. Its cost is high, anywhere from €15,000 (wild mackerel from Cornwall) to €200,000 (Alaska pollock). Permission to use the logo costs from €250 to €2,000, depending on turnover, with an additional 0.5% tax on turnover for products sold directly to consumers.

At the beginning of 2008, 22 fisheries had already been certified and 18 were in the process of being certified.

This is the only label to have acquired a high level of recognition and credibility at the international level . The largest American distributor, Wal-Mart , has committed itself to selling only MSC-certified products for the next five years. The company Findus-Foodvest , which is the largest fish-and-seafood group in Europe and represents 10% of world cod purchases and €500 million of fish purchases annually, has also committed itself to a progressive, MSC-certification procedure. It is currently the largest purchaser of MSC products in the world. Its management is betting that within five years, 50% of the fish-and-seafood market will be certified.

This label is still little known in France. OFIMER correctly points out that both the label's acronym and its full name have little meaning for French consumers. However, increasing the label's fame greatly depends upon the Findus company's communication efforts to promote its practices in our country, and so could change rapidly.

While other certification procedures exist, none rival the MSC in scope. Most are rather recent creations (less than five years) and, according to OFIMER, none meet the FAO's standards, often due to a lack of independence, seriousness or transparency.

This is the case of the Friend of the Sea or FOS label, created in 2006 by the same NGO that created the "Dolphin safe" label. It enjoys a certain level of recognition in Italy.

The KRAV label was created in Sweden in 2004. It certifies only a few boats operating within two fisheries.

The Naturland fishing label, created in 2007, has the particularity of essentially targeting developing countries. It was developed by a German NGO.

The second group of labels consists of the industry's own initiatives.

Within this group, the most successful labelling system is that of Intermarché and its outfitter Scapêche, France's largest outfitter , which calls upon the services of a "second party". The principal species concerned is the Patagonian toothfish, which is fished for in the TAAF and whose catches are closely monitored by the Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle.

Your rapporteur believes that this approach represents a real strategic vision on the part of companies having to deal with Europe's evolving fisheries. It provides a real added value and is a clear sign of the sector's need for greater visibility and closer collaboration with researchers.

This trend is fully confirmed by the qualitative study carried out by OFIMER, based on the perusal of 45 different questionnaires. As it turns out, 95% of respondents think that consumers are interested in these labels, even if their readiness to pay more remains unknown; 70% of bodies declare that they considering certification.

However, OFIMER expresses its opinion in a severe, but realistic manner: "Despite the presence of a certifying body, this approach does not meet the standards of the FAO 2005 ecolabel, given the fact that the company sets its own criteria without involving the other stakeholders in the process. For this reason, it cannot be considered an ecolabel."

Other distributors have committed themselves to the labelling of certain products for their customers; however, for OFIMER, these are but "environmental claims". This is the case with Carrefour's Pêche responsable ("Responsible fishing") logo created in 2004, Auchan's Consommer mieux ("Consume better") logo, and Casino's Produit sélectionné pour une mer préservée ("Product chosen to protect the sea") logo.

With regard to these labels, OFIMER is of the opinion that: "It cannot be argued that these labels meet the FAO 2005 standards, because the distributors define their own conditions for the attribution of their logos - generally accompanied with an environmental claim - and they themselves assess the various fisheries' compliance with these same conditions. Therefore, in this case, there is but one party that can create a standard, verify its compliance, and attribute a 'label"; but this is not an ecolabel".

In the end, these "labels" create confusion and blur the message and damage the legitimacy of ecolabels. They remain suspected of being based more upon marketing than sustainable-development objectives, no matter the distributors' sincerity, their desire to meet the expectations of consumers and guarantee their own supply lines, the non-negligible costs engendered by these initiatives, and the educational effect on their customers due to their labels' impact.

The consideration of these factors leads to one conclusion. Our country must choose between three options:

- Rally around an existing label that meets the FAO criteria or create a national variation; in other words, the MSC.

- Create a private, dedicated label for the French fishing industry, possibly in cooperation with an NGO.

- Create a label by government decree.

d) Toward a French government label?

By tradition and by reticence vis- à-vis a foreign or private label, the industry has, for the most part, come out in favour of creating a government label.

Indeed, like other agricultural sectors, the fishing industry desires a unified approach that applies to everyone and dismisses initiatives deemed "unserious", so as to assure consumers.

A large gap remains between the various certification methods and the magnitude that this system will take, which will directly determine the label's cost and weight.

OFIMER has carried out two simulations for the langoustine of the Bay of Biscay and the coalfish of the North Sea, western Scotland and Norway, taking into consideration a complete certification of each fishery (fishing and the downstream sector) and with regard to two levels of criteria: "resource and biodiversity" and "resource, biodiversity, environment, safety, social dimension and product quality".

In the case of the langoustine fishery and for 250 boats:

1 ^st level: €28,000 for initial certification + €17,000 annually

+ living-langoustine chain: €12,000 + €5,000.

2 ^nd level: €50,000 for initial certification + €25,000 annually

+ living-langoustine chain: €12,000 + €5,000.

In the case of the coalfish fishery and for 15 boats:

1 ^st level: €27,000 for initial certification + €11,000 annually

+ guaranteed downstream chain: €29,000 + €15,000.

2 ^nd level: €38,000 for initial certification + €16,000 annually

+ guaranteed downstream chain: €29,000 + €15,000.

Faced with these costs and the difficulty of establishing a certification system, OFIMER also proposes an intermediary solution: the creation of a "responsible fishing" label for wholesale fish merchants, processors and distributors. This would allow more parties to attain certification and would constitute a way forward.

More generally, OFIMER deems it necessary for the sector to choose a certification system that is as closely in line with consumer needs as possible, thereby limiting costs and allowing them to be passed on to consumers. The problem is that, so far, the MSC does not seem to have allowed producers to sell their goods at a higher price.

The limits of a purely national approach are reinforced by the structure of the French market. The French fishing industry supplies only 15% of consumption and the large processing centres function as import-export platforms. Therefore, outside France, the label will have no impact, compared to an international certification system such as the MSC. Likewise, it will not be possible to certify imported products from foreign fisheries (85% of the market) and, once again, a foreign certification system will very likely prove necessary. Therefore, national certification will apply to a limited portion of the sector: that part of the French catch sold in France.

Furthermore, as a tool, certification is meant to instruct consumers, whether groups or individuals. An intermediary solution would undoubtedly be sufficient for the industry, but it would meet neither societal expectations nor the legal requirements.

Therefore, your rapporteur believes that it is desirable to:

- Encourage the certification and ecolabelling of French fisheries, so as to encourage an evolution in fish-and-seafood consumption and, therefore, a change in behaviour on the part of the fishing industry. Certification is now of strategic importance for the industry.

- More precisely measure the interest of a purely national, government certification system, even though the "nationalization" of the existing MSC label or even a European-wide, non-private solution present a number of advantages in terms of speed, legitimacy, efficiency and international recognition.

3. Fighting the fishing and consumption of juveniles: distributing a "fish-meter"

The fishing of juvenile fish represents an important problem for fisheries management. Fishing and eating fish that have not been able to reproduce a single time is the surest means of condemning a species to extinction. This basic principle must be shared by everyone.

In certain countries, such as Spain, or in certain regions, the consumption of juvenile fish is part of the culture. The most famous example is that of elvers, or young eels, caught while swimming up the rivers.

On a wider scale, this consumption of juveniles has spread due to insufficient monitoring by authorities, both at the time of unloading and within the distribution channels, granting free reign to unscrupulous fishermen who are often unaware of the impact of their activity.

Philippe Cury points out that, today, 95% of fish caught in the Bay of Biscay are less than 23 cm in length. Considering swordfish, he observes that specimens over 1.75 metres now represent less than 1% of the population.

In France, certain authorities, like certain fishermen, emphasized to your rapporteur the newness of this culture of complying with official minimum catch sizes, dating from the fine passed by the European Commission in 2006. Up until then, a large scale fraud existed in our country.

Judging by certain stalls, this culture of fishery management and of complying with the regulations is not yet universally shared.

That is why your rapporteur believes it useful to call the consumer as a witness and to give him/her a sense of responsibility .

This raising of awareness is not easy, given the fact that the fish offered consumers have often been reduced to fillets or servings, rendering their identification impossible.

However, with many species still being sold or presented whole, in certain countries, the authorities, scientists and associations have decided to provide fishermen and consumers with the means to verify for themselves if the fish caught or sold had attained the minimum catch size .

This movement originated in Germany , where Rainer Froese of the Institute of Marine Sciences in Kiel perfected a small plastic ruler, indicating the legal catch size for the main species of fish and allowing consumers to boycott undersized specimens. This ruler, called a "Fisch-Max", looks like this:

This initiative was adopted by a large consumer association, rebaptized the "Fish-O-Meter" ( www.fisch-o-meter.de ) and distributed by a German daily, the Hamburger Abendblatt. It looks like this:

In Germany, these small rulers received a cold welcome by fishermen, for they were felt to cast doubt on their profession.

They then spread to Peru in 2006 and to Senegal in 2008 , where the tool was renamed the poisson-mètre ("fish meter").

In Senegal, the initiative is supported by the WWF, in cooperation with the Centre de Recherches Océanographiques de Dakar-Thiaroye ("Dakar-Thiaroye Centre for Oceanographic Research"). It enjoys the authorities' full support for the education of both fishermen and consumers. The poisson-mètre is a cloth, graduated ruler 50 cm long, with the images of six fish species, along with their minimum reproductive size.

Even in France, such an initiative is not completely unknown. A small ruler of this type is provided to underwater fishermen in the Mediterranean, as a sort of "crib sheet" of regulations concerning minimum sizes, protected species and safety measures.

The success and simplicity of this type of measure in educating fishermen and consumers pleads in favour of its wide distribution in France.

That is why your rapporteur proposes that the French government ensure the development and free distribution of its own poisson-mètre .

Failing that, I would like to see this initiative undertaken by the civil society - by an NGO as in Senegal (WWF), by a consumer organization such as UFC - Que choisir ?, or, as in Germany, by a large regional daily such as Ouest-France - and thereby help the public consume in a more responsible manner.

See English Table next page

I am a responsible underwater fisherman. Careful: a speargun is a weapon! To use a speargun, I must be over 16 years old . I must never load my speargun out of the water. When I load my speargun in the water, I take care not to point it at anyone. When fishing, I never point my speargun at another diver. When swimming, I keep my finger off the trigger. I signal my presence with a buoy. I raise the Alpha flag in full view on my boat. These measures are necessary for my safety. For our mutual safety, I never fish alone. For lessons or to learn more about my sport, I contact a club specialized in underwater fishing. An underwater fisherman loves and respects the sea. Free handout

Fishing is my passion! Protecting the environment is my natural reflex! "I don't shoot anything that moves!" I'm only interested in large fish! I know the minimum catch sizes. Decree no. 99-1163 of 21.12.1999. Mullet: 20 cm White sea bream: 20 cm Sea bream: 20 cm Marbled grouper: 23 cm Sea bass: 25 cm Red mullet: 11 cm Sole: 20 cm Scorpion fish: 20 cm Protected species I support the moratorium, I protect the grouper. Grouper Noble pen shell Giant slipper lobster Regulations To fish: I am 16 or older. I have civil responsibility insurance and I have filled out a "declaration of underwater-fishing" form for the Marine Affairs office, or I have an FFESSM licence (proxy federation). I am not allowed to: Fish for shellfish using a speargun. Use a diving suit when fishing with a speargun. Have a diving cylinder and a speargun together on my boat. Sell my catch. Fish within port facilities, swimming zones and Marine Protected Areas. Use a light source. Everyone is expected to know the law. Before going fishing, I familiarize myself with the regulations by contacting the regional Marine Affairs office.

4. Recreational fishing finally regulated

a) A real problem

The Poseidon Report of 2006 tactfully noted that: "A particular case is presented by recreational fishing, whose weight can be economically and quantitatively significant with regard to certain species of great added value, such as sea bass. The debates on Marine Protected Areas note the importance of this activity, which proves quite profitable; this 'false recreation' supports a parallel economy in direct competition with professional fishing, though without being subject to the same fiscal, social or regulatory obligations".

In fact, for sea bass (a species not under quota), it has been estimated that one half of the catch is accounted for by sport fishermen who often sell their fish, though this is completely illegal; indeed, the whole point of recreational fishing is consuming one's own fish.

In fact, this question remains poorly understood. Very few studies are available. The research most often cited, such as that above, comes from a study carried out by IFREMER in 2004 and 2005 within the framework of the "Défi Golfe de Gascogne" ("Bay of Biscay Challenge"). ^{40 ( * )}

The sea bass fishery was seen as emblematic of metropolitan sport fishing and allowing for an initial assessment of this activity at the national level. This study relied on telephone interviews conducted by a specialized institute. The target population consisted of French citizens 15 and older. Based on the "quota method", the survey was broken down into 14 waves. A total of 14,000 interviews were carried out during 2004.

This study estimated the number of recreational fishermen for 2003 at 1.4 million , 900,000 of whom fished for sea bass, with a third of these 900,000 fishing more than seven times per year. Based upon the interviewees' declarations, the recreational catch was estimated at a volume equivalent to that of professional fishermen.

Other studies have been carried out, especially on tuna in the Mediterranean, though in this case the catch seems low (around 10 tonnes).

A wider study requested by the Ministry of Agriculture was carried out in 2007 and 2008; its results have yet to be released.

For certain species under quota, such as cod (for which an IFREMER study is currently being carried out), professional fishermen complained to your rapporteur that sport fishermen now have greater rights than they do . This year, the tension was so great in the English Channel that the prefect of the Haute-Normandie region was forced to issue a specific order limiting the recreational fishing of cod to 10 fish over 35 cm per boat and per outing (Order of 17 April 2008), pointing out the serious risk to law and order if the difference in treatment between professionals and non-professionals was not resolved. Indeed, with quotas used up, professional cod fishing was effectively banned.

On the coast, this parallel activity would appear to be significant and could even be used for the retraining of professional fishermen.

Recreational fishing has long been considered as negligible and the resulting commerce has often been tolerated. However, it has become a problem that needs solving, because, firstly, the constraints weighing on professional fishermen are very great due to the lack of resources and, secondly, professional technology is now available to sport fishermen.

b) Hunting permit, sea-fishing permit: a pertinent parallel

At this stage, it is surprising to consider that an approach similar to that taken with regard to hunting has yet to see the light.

Some believe that "small-game hunting has fallen victim to industrialized agriculture and the freezer". Let us beware of fishing falling victim to the same excesses. Starting off as simply recreational, "sport" fishing changes scale when it becomes a question of filling several freezers, supplying food well beyond one's own household, or even serving as a source of additional income or a non-declared professional activity.

On land, the law has for many years banned a certain number of tools and methods in order to protect land game and maintain the "recreational" aspect and ethical spirit of hunting. Indeed, if the game is given no chance, can it still be considered hunting?

Consequently, it is curious to observe that these principles, so firmly established on land, have not seemed necessarily applicable at sea. While no one would agree to authorize the hunting of large game using infrared detectors, this is exactly the sort of method used in fishing, with the sounders now available to sport fishermen.

The rejection of the sea-fishing licence also provokes a certain astonishment, unless one points out the debate that took place over thirty years ago surrounding the institution of the hunting-permit exam , which is no longer an issue. Indeed, it has become an effective educational and safety tool. Therefore, it is unclear why the fisherman at sea would not also need to be better informed with regard to marine biology and safety rules. This licence could also serve as a useful "classroom" for fisheries management and environmental protection.

In addition, hunting incorporates a variety of management measures which allow for a more precise assessment of each species: population estimations (countings), permitted hunter-kill ratios, species-specific or universal logbooks, etc. Finally, one could also point to the specific regulations applicable to hunting on the public maritime domain.

In fact, the reservations provoked by the possibility of a sea-fishing licence are indicative of a cultural problem : recreational fishermen still all too often consider the resource unlimited and their impact negligible. However, as was also the case when the hunting licence was first introduced, it is the sense of an obligation to manage and the understanding of the limited nature of the resource that are insufficiently shared. It is necessary to recognize , even at the recreational-fishing level, that the sea can no longer be considered completely free; this is not because it would no longer be considered public property, but rather because this public property must be protected for everyone's benefit.

c) The Grenelle Environment Round Table: an insufficient outcome vis-à-vis the stakes

At the end of the Grenelle Environment Round Table and the meeting of Operational Committee no. 12 "Integrated Management of the Sea and Coast" (COMOP 12), "The participants felt that the chosen objectives could, for the most part, be reached by voluntary measures and that it would be up to the administration to judge, based upon the results, if restrictive measures should be imposed by law or via regulations ".

For this reason, the idea of creating a sea-fishing licence was abandoned in favour of a simple, free declaration to be made only once, the marking of caught fish (by cutting or notching the caudal fin) to prevent their commercialization, and the drawing up of a charter between the various industry actors. Deterrent sanctions, such as boat or vehicle seisures, could be applied following infractions. A period of biological rest and new catch-size limits could be defined, and certain species could benefit from specific protections if threatened.

A licence will nevertheless be created for underwater fishing. This exception is justified on two grounds: the large "bag" of an experienced hunter and the safety issues surrounding hunting underwater and the use of a 6 ^th or 7 ^th category arm whose possession must be declared.

Furthermore, the bill relative to the implementation of the Grenelle Environment Round Table retains, in Article 30 (paragraph 4), "the supervision of recreational fishing" as a mere principle, without providing any details.

Your rapporteur has taken note of the work carried out by the Grenelle Round Table and COMOP 12 presented in July 2008. A compromise was found.

However, your rapporteur finds the proposed measures insufficient with regard to protection and management issues, the real competition that now exists for certain species between recreational and professional fishermen and the rising social tensions this engenders. In my opinion, government intervention that goes beyond the consensus found by COMOP 12 is inevitable and desirable, especially as the distortion created between the different types of recreational fishing is inconsistent with the objective of scientifically managing our natural resources.

Your rapporteur therefore proposes a more rigorous regulatory system for recreational fishing, based upon five principles:

- A better statistical understanding , thanks to scientific research and the initiative of NGOs (tagging, fishing logbooks, etc.).

- The eventual creation of an exam-based sea-fishing licence , such as that used for hunting, designed as an educational, management and safety tool and applying to all types of recreational fishing (except shellfish gathering).

- Limiting which devices may be used for sport fishing, in order to preserve its recreational spirit and code of ethics.

- Establishing catch limits and regulation coherency , so that when professional fishing is banned, recreational fishing must also be halted.

- The more frequent monitoring, carried out by government authorities, of landings and the commercialization ban, as well as the systematic monitoring of shellfish gathering during spring tides.

* ²⁹ Centre National pour l'EXploitation des Océans ("National Centre for the Exploitation of the Oceans"), created in 1967.

* ³⁰ Institut Scientifique et Technique des Pêches Maritimes ("Scientific and Technical Institute of Marine Fisheries"), created in 1918.

* ³¹ J.M. Fromentin, B. Planque, O. Thébaud, 2007, L'approche écosystémique des pêches : quelles priorités pour la recherche ? ("The ecosystem-based fisheries approach: what priorities for research?"), www.ifremer.fr/docelec/doc/2007/rapport-2567.pdf

* ³² Such as the Pelagos Sanctuary between France, Italy and Monaco in 2002.

* ³³ Ministry of Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development and Territorial Development.

* ³⁴ Philippe Gros, IFREMER, Libération, 11 and 12 November 2006, p. 35.

* ³⁵ Your rapporteur is here referring to a study carried out by the Department of Economic Studies and Environmental Evaluation of the MEDD, published in 2007, by Maud Barnley and Guillemette Buisson.

* ³⁶ 19 September 2008, Science, Vol. 321, no. 5896, pp. 1678-1681, "Can Catch Shares Prevent Fisheries Collapse?» , Christopher Costello et al.

* ³⁷ The concept of a "collapsed stock" is the same as that used by Worm et al. in 2006; in other words, a stock is considered "collapsed" when a given year's catch is less than or equal to 10% of its historic maximum.

* ³⁸ Except tuna.

* ³⁹ "Funding priorities: big barriers to small-scale fisheries", Conservation Biology, Vol.22, Issue 4, pp. 832-835, August 2008, J. Jacquet and D. Pauly.

* ⁴⁰ "Évaluation de la pêche de loisir en France : l'exemple du bar" ("An assessment of recreational fishing in France: the example of sea bass"), Y. Morizur, B. Drouot and O. Thébaud.