The myth of the dense wildwood!

George Monbiot’s excellent book “Feral” has re-opened an interesting discussion on the idea of rewilding in the British landscape.  Included within it, however, is the myth of the dense wildwood – the idea that a dense forest once clothed the British landscape from coast to coast such that a squirrel could have covered the whole of the country without ever having to tread on the ground.

An attractive idea maybe – after all if you leave an area alone it develops, eventually, into a wood.  So, natural equals dense forest.  Or so the story goes.  But it is just a story.

The story, however, appears to be backed up by some science.  Pollen deposited in soils can be dated and identified so it should be possible to build up a picture of the species that were present at given times throughout history.  And, hey-presto, we have the answer.  Tree pollen takes over after the ice age finishes and non-tree pollen does not become common again until humans clear the forest for agriculture.  What is more, if you look at evidence from remains of beetles, which again can be identified and dated, then you get a supporting picture – woodland beetles, apparently, dominated throughout the wildwood period “proving” that ours was a land of dense trees before humans interfered.

Fundamental problems start to appear if you dig a little deeper though.  If dense forest was the natural habitat then how come about 50% of our plants and animals need open habitat, and about half of the rest need forest edges?  The traditional answer has it that these species were limited to small, transient patches where they struggled for existence only to emerge when human clearance gave them an opportunity.  A feeble answer but it seems to satisfy some, so, the closed canopy model is often unquestioningly adopted.  Britain should be dense with trees and anyone who tries to do otherwise is simple fighting nature.

Having accepted this model, conservationists then fall in to two camps.  One has it that these open habitat species are just a human artefact and we can do without them.  The other has it that humans have so influenced the natural environment that any emphasis on natural processes is miss-placed and it is human management that is the key tool for nature conservation.  The first is an argument against nature the second is an argument against natural processes. 

I disagree with both as I disagree with the model they both assume for wild nature.

If you look again at the evidence then all is not as it seems.  Indeed wild nature is far more complex, interesting and wonderful than is ever likely to be covered by some simplistic human model.

Look at the pollen evidence.  First there is a history of “fiddle factors” being put into the interpretation.  This is necessary because some plants are insect pollinated so produce little pollen; others are wind pollinated so produce vast amounts.  Understandable, but small changes here can make big differences to the interpretation.

More importantly, however, is the abundance of both hazel and oak throughout the pollen record.  The standard model ignores the fact that neither of these can regenerate under a tree canopy.  Indeed hazel does not flower, so does not produce pollen, even if it does manage to grow in a dense woodland. So we are missing something – how did all that oak and hazel manage to grow if there was very little open habitat for their seeds to germinate in?

How about those woodland beetles?  Well most of these are associated with trees, not woods, and the richest tree for beetles is oak.  Furthermore, when you look at the requirements of the individual beetle species you find that they require not just any oak, but oak that has grown in open conditions – indeed some need sunlight right down to the forest floor.  A similar picture emerges if you examine fly species that are specific to oak.  Today, old open-grown oak trees that get surrounded by dense forest loose all their specialist species and eventually die themselves.   So, in the wildwood we have a picture of common trees that need open habitat in order to regenerate, and their associated insect species that will only survive if those trees grow in the open.  A very different picture to the dense carpet of dark woodland that is constantly promoted.

The only sensible conclusion is that open habitat was present, probably quite common, in the wildwood. 

This is not to say that the wildwood was only open habitat.  Other shade tolerant species (such as lime, hornbeam, elm etc) were also common.  So dense forest would also have been there, probably abundant.  My guess is that the wildwood would have included far more complexity and diversity than we could possibly imagine today. 

How could this be possible?  It is pretty clear that the simplistic “closed canopy” model, which assumes the only significant natural process is the growth of trees, has major problems.  In particular the model ignores the role of natural disturbance; indeed some take it so far as to assume that disturbance is an unnatural, bad thing that should be avoided.  The 1987 storm, however, gave us a clue on the beneficial role of natural disturbance.  Dense tree canopies were opened up, flowers, trees and shrubs were able to regenerate and more species were attracted into a forest.  On top of that is flooding, erosion, insect damage, fungal disease, the effects of grazers and browsers and also the effects of predators on grazers and browsers.

Natural disturbance is not a bad thing that is imposed on an otherwise peaceful nature – on the contrary it is a main driving force within nature.

Any rewilding suggestions that do not consider the role of natural disturbance should not be considered rewilding at all – merely the construction of another human artifact.

There is a huge and fascinating agenda relating to rewilding; this will include the reintroduction (or mimicking) of natural processes – a range of processes not just a selected few.  Rewilding is not the same thing as neglect.

There are flaws in his argument but we owe George Monbiot a great debt of gratitude.  He has succeeded where many of us have failed – he has brought the subject of rewilding into the public consciousness and stimulated a fruitful discussion.  Something that I aim to continue in future blogs.

What has nature ever done for us?

This is the title of a book by Tony Juniper which sets out to show just how vital nature is to us in all sorts of critical ways.  This book should be read by everyone, especially by decision-makers and those in any sort of position of power.  It is well-articulated and readable, and presents an unarguable case for what so many people seem to have forgotten – the indispensable value of nature.

Nature is of intrinsic value and there are moral, ethical and spiritual reasons to conserve it. Therefore nature does not need justifying in terms of its utilitarian value to us.  Nevertheless, there are also extremely strong, informed, self-interest reasons for maintaining a healthy environment.  We need nature, human life would be impossible without it.

The book is packed with stories that give a clue about just how much we rely on nature, often broken down into harsh economic terms. These values are often not realised or accounted for in traditional economic terms, but they are nevertheless very real and an attempt to ignore them as “externalities” is simply false accounting.  Here are just a few examples from the book: 

• In Britain we have 10 billion tonnes of carbon is stored in our soils – that is more than stored in all the trees in Europe.  Peat soil loss in Eastern England, however, is emitting about 6 million tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere every year.  So looking after our soils is vital in terms of climate change, let alone all the other benefits they bring.
• Global forests take up about one third of the carbon dioxide produced by fossil fuel combustion, whereas deforestation causes about a quarter of the climate changing emissions per year.  So clearing trees increases emissions and reduces carbon absorption – a double whammy.  If we halved the rate of global deforestation then the carbon captured would be worth $3.7 trillion by 2030.
• Nitrogen pollution has caused a 10% loss of plant diversity over much of Europe, plus dead zones in the Baltic and Adriatic seas.  The cost of nitrogen pollution is greater than the cost of the bailout of the Greek economy in 2011, and is probably about double the economic value of food production achieved by nitrogen fertilisers.
• Nature is also at the centre of innovation.  27% of the heads of global companies say loss of natural diversity could cut growth in their business.  25 to 50% of the pharmaceutical market is based on natural genetic diversity. 
• Pollination is a vital element in a healthy environment and in food production.  About 90% of flowering plant species rely on animal pollination and two thirds of global crops rely on pollination, worth nearly $200 billion per year. In parts of China 40,000 people have to be employed to hand-pollinate crops because pollinating insects have been wiped out by insecticides. 
• A body of research is building up to show significant benefits from providing boxes for owls and tits (they eat mice and caterpillars respectively), ponds for frogs and toads, and cover for song thrushes (they eat snails) and flowers to attract beneficial insects.  These generally unmeasured impacts have a huge beneficial effect on crop production.
• In Scotland, over-grazing by wild deer due to lack of top predators (bears and wolves) results in a lack of forest regeneration and soils now have a reduced organic content so allowing lower carbon storage in the ecosystem.  Whereas the polar bear is a symbol of damage from climate change maybe the brown bear should be a mascot for part of the solution.
• Healthy natural systems may also be having a fundamental and beneficial effect on weather.  For clouds to form water vapour needs nuclei to condense around, however dust and salt spray is not enough to account for actual cloud formation.  It turns out that cloud formation is aided by micro-organisms in sea that emit chemicals that seed clouds.  Further inland, temperate and tropical forests then also seed clouds effectively recycling water further inside continents.  This keeps continent interiors wetter than if forests were not there.
• The sea is the main ecological engine driving the earth’s environment, a point that is generally ignored.  50% of our oxygen is produced by the sea and 99% of planetary living space taken up by the sea. Micro-organisms in the sea lock up carbon in their calcium carbonate shells to make chalk. This results in the long term sequestration of carbon out of the atmosphere.  However, 30% of the carbon dioxide produced since the industrial revolution has been taken up by the sea, increasing sea acidity causing “the other carbon dioxide problem”.  Last time this form of acidification happened in the sea was about 55 million years ago, and the effect was spread over thousands of years, not just 200.
• Natural systems also provide an insurance policy.  For instance just 1 sq km of mangrove swamp, which grows around coasts, can be worth over $200,000 in terms of flood protection.  In Belize the generally uncalculated value of mangrove forest is worth about 25% of the country’s GDP.
• A healthy natural environment is very beneficial in terms of physical and mental well-being.  The speed of recovery in hospitals is faster when patients can see greenery and people living near greenspace rated their health as better than those who didn't, the greatest impact was on lower income groups. There is lower blood pressure in dental patients, fewer reports of ill health in prisoners, increased self-discipline in inner-city girls and reduced mortality in elderly people with more exposure to nature. 
• Studies have shown positive links between species diversity and psychological benefit.  Diverse habitats reflect improvements in personal identity, plant diversity was linked to an ability to reflect and bird diversity linked to emotional attachment.  Managing urban greenspaces to create habitat mosaics and enhance wildlife variety will enhance psychological benefit.

The book ends by exposing flaws in our economic system.  We simply don’t count these things so imagine they are not there (that is like building up a huge debt but imagining it isn't there because you haven’t measured it!).  A basic misunderstanding in our economic system treats nature as a set of flows, or dividends, rather than as capital.  Hence natural capital is liquidated to make profits. This is perceived as using dividends, whereas in fact it should be viewed as asset-stripping.

By presenting a large number of well-researched real-world examples, this book puts life into the discussions that are taking place in the National Ecosystem Assessment, the Natural Capital Committee, the Ecosystem Markets Task Force and the international project ‘The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity’. It is extremely timely and I encourage everyone to read it.

To conclude I would just like to correct Bill Clinton’s well-known phrase – “It’s the economy, stupid”.  Clearly this should now read “It’s the ecology, stupid”. 

An economy going in the wrong direction

The idea of a second runway at Gatwick Airport is building up a head of steam, promoted in particular by local business associations.  This is a great worry to the Wildlife Trust.  Gatwick Airport at present has a huge ecological impact and adding an extra runway will make this worse.  More than this, however, it is the sign of a local economy heading in completely the wrong direction.

The Sussex Wildlife Trusts opposes the construction of a second runway at Gatwick, a position we have held for many years.  Aviation strategy should be based on a planned programme of a significant and continuing reduction of its environmental impact.  This should have two elements: first the reduction of its direct impact from land take for the airport itself and any associated development, and second a programme of continuous reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to reach an 80% reduction by 2050 in line with government targets.

The direct impact of expansion on the environment would be unacceptable, causing significant damage to wildlife in the area.  A recent press release from the Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign (GACC) indicates the level of threat that Sussex is under.  A study by independent consultants jointly commissioned by the West Sussex County Council and the Gatwick Diamond business association indicated that between 30 and 45,000 new houses would be needed if a new runway is built.  The number of jobs created in the area would be far in excess of any available labour and so require a substantial influx of workers from other parts of the UK and the EU.  

This equates to a new town in Sussex about the same size that Crawley in now and could mean the urbanisation of much of that part of Sussex, possibly resulting in the towns of Horsham and Crawley combining and ending up as one continual conurbation.

However, one of the greatest threats to wildlife and the environment is climate change.  The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report presents even firmer evidence of the cause and effects of climate change and is an even stronger impetus for action to be taken.  Aviation is a major source of greenhouse gases and is also the fastest growing contributor to climate change.  This clearly needs to be reversed. Current improvements in the technology may deliver some increase in fuel efficiency, but it is difficult to see a situation where 80% reduction targets will be achieved against a background of airport expansion. 

If aviation is not able to reach its 80% reduction requirement then it will be necessary for the rest of industry to achieve a still greater reduction to compensate for the environmental failure of aviation.  We have seen little evidence that the rest of industry will even meet this need for an 80% reduction, let alone offer far greater reductions in order to compensate for the climate change effects of air travel.

In this way air travel is competitive with, rather than complementary to, other forms of business development. 

The situation with air travel may be an example of a wider issue for business development in the South East.  Attempts to continue business as usual whilst ignoring environmental limits, as well as being environmentally damaging in the short term, becomes damaging to business development and the economy in the not too distant long term.  In future green economic growth will become the only economic growth and this is the area in which the South East could excel.

The current reliance on air travel, let alone any increase in this reliance through airport expansion, will drive a highly vulnerable local economy that lacks resilience to likely future change.  The economy of the area around Gatwick now has the opportunity to develop in ways that support the environment rather than damage it.  A campaign for an expanded Gatwick Airport is to head in the wrong direction and promote an economy that is not fit for purpose.

“Fracking” – is there a good side to it?

Well no, actually, I don’t think there is.  But I’d like to look at one of the arguments in favour of fracking to see if there is bigger picture here that we need to take account of.

An argument often used is that fracking provides us with a short-term, interim energy source that buys us time while we develop non fossil fuel based forms of energy generation.  Burning natural gas produces less carbon dioxide for the energy it provides, it is claimed, than other forms of fossil fuel so, as an interim fuel it could be a good one.

Let us put to one side all the other problems with this energy form.  Forget that this could industrialise Sussex, ignore the amount of water that is needed, the transport footprint from the lorry movements, the land needed to treat polluted water and the risk of air and water pollution and so on. 

If fracking gives us more energy for less greenhouse gas emissions then it has to be taken seriously. This sounds persuasive; it is often repeated and rarely challenged.  But there are problems.

Fracking gas is methane, which does indeed produce more energy for less greenhouse gas than, for example, coal.  Methane, however, is itself a very potent greenhouse gas.  An often quoted figure is that methane is 25 times worse than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas.  This, however, is a 100 year long term average, as it does not remain in the atmosphere for long.  In the short term, say 20 years, methane is about 70 times worse than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas.

This means that you only need a small amount of gas leakage to completely negate any greenhouse gas emission advantage that burning methane has.

Whilst they have been criticised, there are some peer-reviewed studies that indicate a leakage of around 10% of methane from wells in the USA.  So let’s play with some figures to see just how relevant this might be.

Instead of 10%, let’s be generous and say that only 2% of the methane is lost to the atmosphere.  And instead of 70 times as bad as carbon dioxide let’s say it’s 50 times as bad (it makes the sums easier!).  If my maths is correct this means that a 2% leakage of methane has the same greenhouse effect as the other 98% burned and emitted as carbon dioxide.  In other words (and even if my maths is not spot-on) it doesn't take much leakage to make exploiting fracking gas twice as bad as it appears in terms of climate change.  This could make it as bad or worse than coal and as such could not be considered an interim fuel.

Another problem with the interim fuel idea is that I've heard it before.  I am old enough to remember similar arguments when North Sea oil was developed.  Yes we were talking about wind and wave energy in the 1970s and it was said that North Sea oil would buy us the time to research and develop this properly.  Ideas quickly forgotten in the rush to develop. 

I am also unconvinced that an apparently lucrative gas supply will be abandoned before it is fully exploited as renewable energy sources are developed.  It is far more likely that, as with North Sea oil, attention will turn away from any thoughts on long-term sustainability and focus entirely on the apparent benefits of apparently cheap energy.

There are now highly emotive arguments being presented by the pro-fracking lobby: from dire warnings of the lights going out, to unchallenged claims that fracking will save the planet, that it is supported by the science, that it is good for the economy or that it will bring us out of recession.  Perhaps the worst thing, however, is the way that fracking has taken over a far more important agenda about developing an economy that is fit for purpose, delivering real prosperity while maintaining and improving the environment on which we depend.   

A new body to look after the nations forests

Following the governments welcome change of heart over the sell-off of Forestry Commissions woods, an independent panel was established to look at how the estate could be managed.  The panel reported last year – a good report probably indicating the minimum of what we should expect from government if it is serious about looking after this public asset.  Since then government has produced a forestry policy and now a consultation summary for a new Public Forest Estate Management Organisation (PFE MO).  This is essentially government’s response to the independent panels report.  So what is the progress?

Unfortunately, in my view this government response falls at the first hurdle. 

In its very first recommendation the independent panel called on government “to pioneer a new approach to valuing and rewarding the management, improvement and expansion of woodland ecosystems for all the benefits they provide to nature, people and the green economy”.  It was clear from this that new ways of accounting for all the benefits provided by forests should be adopted.  Furthermore, at the same time the National Ecosystem Assessment (NEA) and the Natural Capital Committee (NCC) were providing the tools to do this. 

This “Governance Premises Summary”, however, falls back to a traditional approach of simply “maximising economic opportunities whilst maintaining public benefit” – a phrase that would not have looked out of place 50 years ago.  What is written in the governance summary is old fashioned language reflecting flawed economic thinking and is a huge missed opportunity.  It will mean that the Forestry Commission may just revert back to a narrow role of selling timber in the hope that a surplus can “pay” for other public benefits. 

The independent panel report itself showed that whilst the cost of the Forestry Commission was about £20 million, the public benefit it produced was valued at a minimum of about £400 million.  A 20 to 1 return on investment - if you actually did the sums.  To ignore this is like a business ignoring its income stream and then being surprised when the books don’t balance!

The governance summary appears to have been written as though the NEA and the NCC did not exist.  Many of the ecosystem services provided by forests are quantifiable, timber production is just one.  Many others are of such fundamental importance that they underpin all other values.  Forestry, as with any valuation from now on, must fully account for all these services.  Indeed forest management should be the natural cause célèbre for this new approach to valuation.  Only by doing so will we start to properly value forests – and foresters.

Forest economics must therefore be fundamentally reformed to reflect full natural capital accounting.  The full range of public benefits must be properly accounted for, with a hefty contingency allowance for all the essential services which cannot be easily reflected in financial valuation.  This is a requirement that flows from the independent panel report and should be a strong theme that runs through any proposals, yet there is no hint of this in the governance summary, its supporting “review of functions” or in the Forestry Policy.

The governance summary also assumes the PFE MO will be of similar size to current Public Forest Estate.  What is the basis for this statement?  This provides an answer without addressing the question.  The public forest estate should be led by its objectives and then the size would come out of that.  The question then should be “what size should the estate be in order to deliver its functions?”, rather than “it’s this big, what shall we do with it?”

I have worries about the phrase in the Mission statement “for the benefit of people, the economy and nature”.  This implies a balance between three competing elements which, on the contrary, should be complementary rather than competing.  This is reflected in the overarching objective - “the sustainable management of the estate to balance and maximise the benefits to people, nature and the economy”.  This is more a bland catch-all than an objective.  In practice it is meaningless – is it “sustainable management” (in which case what does it mean?) or “balance” (in which case of what for what?) or “maximising” (in which case of what?), you can’t have all three.

The Annex then gives fairly predictable, second-level objectives under economic, social and environmental.  The wording and organisation of these fail to get over recent thinking on how it is ecosystems and ecosystem services that underpin everything else.  Without healthy forest ecosystems there will be no economic and social benefits yet as it is ecosystems only appear in a rather confused last bullet point in the list.

In my view the overarching objective is not overarching.  It starts from the perspective of “here’s the Public Forest Estate, how are we going to manage it?”  An overarching objective should actually start from the perspective of “what is the purpose of the Public Forest Estate and therefore how should we manage it?”

Therefore, an overarching objective, I suggest, should read something like:

The purpose of the Public Forest Estate is to contribute to realising the full potential of England’s current and future ecological network, so that it provides an enhanced level of the full range of ecosystem services.  In particular the Public Forest Estate should deliver those aspects of ecosystem services that are not adequately valued in traditional economic terms and/or not as easily delivered by the private or charitable sectors. 

The sub-objectives in the Annex should then articulate how it will deliver high quality forest ecosystems, rich in wildlife and how is it going to deliver benefit for people.  Economic objectives must then be articulated in terms of delivering benefit for people whilst maintaining and enhancing the natural capital on which it depends.  It also means that any economic approach or valuation will have to rise to the challenge of saying how it has accounted for everything and how value is being provided to people.  At present “economic growth” is presented as a catch-phrase without any hint on what it means, how it will be measured or how it indicates benefit to people.

The administrative structures for the PFE MO are secondary to what it is actually required to do, we do not want the ideal structure delivering the wrong things.  Nevertheless, the right administrative structure should provide the capacity and legitimacy for a PFE MO to deliver public benefit.  There is a fear that the independent panel’s requirement for a Charter has been weakened and that the proposed role of “Guardians”, who should be accountable to parliament, has been toned-down.  One of the greatest benefits that the PFE could deliver is by providing the resource (i.e. the public land) for vibrant and diverse community and public engagement in forests.  I can see no reference to this so far but maybe it will appear in later detail.

I hope I am wrong, and I hope that people engaged in this can tell me so.  Maybe the bland phrase “maximising economic opportunities” does hide a far more sophisticated approach which really does mean proper accounting for all of the vital services that we get from healthy forest ecosystems.  I see nothing yet to give me any confidence though.

Roads to nowhere

We've been here before.  Governments at various times in the past have pushed the myth of aggressive road building as the answer to all our economic woes.  Many of us can remember the bitter arguments in the 1990s with the loss of valuable countryside, such as that at Twyford Down.  But here we are again.  The chancellor now proposes to throw over £28 billion of public money at the largest road building programme for half a century.

At a superficial level it seems to make sense.  If we had a bigger road then surely “this” traffic jam wouldn't be here and I could get to work – get products to market – get to the shops or whatever.  But, given a moments thought, it is clear that we can’t just build our way out of the problem.

Bigger roads generate more traffic, the congestion just moves to the next blockage and in practice hold-ups can get worse.  The predicted economic growth rarely materialises. In the process the environment gets severely damaged, greenhouse gas emissions increase and a treadmill develops building an expectation of never-ending growth in transport and so still more roads must be built.  In practice road building becomes a divergence in what should be a far more sophisticated discussion about how we deliver prosperity and well-being in ways that reduce our environmental footprint.

In fact government has less excuse for this approach today than it did in the past.  There is now a huge body of evidence on how the natural environment underpins the health of both society and the economy, and that investment in the natural environment is a cost effective way of addressing many of the UK’s future needs.  Investing in nature offers huge returns, even though those returns are often invisible.  The public value of Forestry Commission woods for example is 20 times the cost of managing the estate.  Other international estimates show that the benefits we get from protected wildlife areas can be 10 to 100 times greater than the cost of protection.  Cost – benefit ratios for roads, on the other hand, seem to have trouble to get much better than 1:1.

The Treasury appears to have conveniently misplaced its own Green Book guidance on assessing economic and environmental benefits.  Road schemes such as the proposed £1 billion extension of the M4 through the Gwent Levels in Wales have little or no economic justification and will cause irreversible damage to wildlife and valuable landscapes.  Instead of supporting the UK’s long-term recovery through investment in rebuilding our natural capital, the Chancellor is concreting over the countryside.  This is not just bad for the environment, its bad economics – bad sums!

Poor planning decisions, for development in general as much as for roads, are inevitable with today’s skew in our value calculations.  Simply by talking about the cost of environmental protection balanced against the benefit of economic regeneration the dice is already loaded against the environment.  The reality is that the environment delivers benefits far greater than the costs and so-called economic regeneration often results in costs that are greater than the benefits.  Get the sums right and then we are more likely to see some sensible decisions.

Earlier this year, an influential business-led Ecosystem Markets Task-force  established by Government, highlighted the “emergence of a new economy: one that fully integrates the real value of nature”.  Government is yet to respond to this but the Chancellor’s position suggests the Government is living in the concrete-led past and not the nature-led future.

In response to this the Wildlife Trusts are joining the Campaign for Better Transport in a rally against road building near Hastings on Saturday 13th July.  See details here.  It is being held on Sussex’s own road building site – the Bexhill to Hastings link road.  The Sussex Wildlife Trust has opposed this for nearly two decades.  It makes no more sense now than it did in the early 1990s.

European Maritime and Fisheries Fund- a step backwards?

Unfortunately it feels like one step forward and two large steps back when it comes to reforming the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP).  Back in February, the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly to reverse thirty years of failed EU fisheries management in favour of an ambitious reform of the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy.  We were ecstatic.  This was a huge step forwards - at last we were putting an end to over-fishing.

However, recently MEPs on the European Parliament’s Fisheries Committee have been discussing the future of the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF).  The EMFF provides funding to the fishing industry and coastal communities to help them adapt to changing conditions in the sector and become economically resilient and ecologically sustainable.  A truly sustainable CFP needs an EMFF that supports the end of overfishing and the rebuilding of fish stocks - one without harmful subsidies.  We are concerned, however, that the Fisheries Committee are considering the reintroduction of public subsidy through the EMFF to build new fishing vessels and engines.  This type of subsidy has been shown to contribute to overfishing and was phased out by the 2002 CFP reform.  You can read more about this here.

It is common sense that public subsidy should help move to a sustainable fishing sector.  Instead of subsidising the capacity to increase overfishing, investment should be increased to enhance control, improve enforcement , improve data collection, and to develop less damaging fishing gear to reduce discards and the environmental impact of fishing activity.

Let’s hope MEPs on the Fisheries Committee see sense before they vote on 10 July. You can help by writing to your MEP (find them here).