Steve Edwards Mackerel and Cucumber

Negotiations

The talks between the UK and the EU restarted this week and will move from London to Brussels and continue over this weekend into next week. This intensification is typical at this stage in bilateral negotiations. It is clear that fishing will be one of the final issues to resolve before an agreement can be signed. If an agreement can be signed.

Without a trade agreement, it is apparent that the economies of both sides will suffer but the EU, lacking any significant leverage on fisheries, has made an artificial linkage between a trade deal and a framework agreement on fisheries. It’s stance, put bluntly, is that the UK must surrender its rights as an independent coastal state, or there will be no trade deal. There is no sign that the UK is prepared to do this; not least as it would raise fundamental political questions about what the 2016 referendum was for. It would raise fundamental questions over sovereignty. The current impasse arises because of the EU’s reluctance to surrender the advantages that it has held over 40 years, during the period when the

UK was tied into the CFP. Specifically, the EU seeks to retain automatic access to fish in UK waters and quota shares made without reference to that fact that the lion’s share of the resources is located within the UK EEZ.

Independent Coastal State

The strength of the UK’s position is that:

• Under international law, the UK has sovereign rights to harvest the fisheries resources within its own exclusive economic zone, and to control access over who may fish in those waters
• It follows the international norm of how coastal states with shared stocks cooperate on the sustainable management of their fisheries. This point is made more potent because the EU’s fisheries relationship with Norway over 40 years has been based on the same principles. That the EU now seeks something different with the UK has been thrown into contrast by the UK’s recent signature of two fisheries agreements, with Norway and with the Faeroes Islands, which reflect the international norm.

The EU therefore finds itself not only with a greatly truncated area of marine jurisdiction, but its negotiation position is an outlier in terms of international precedents.

Fishing

Every news report on the negotiations in recent months has highlighted the prominence of the fishing issue. It now has an unprecedented visibility. In particular, it is widely understood across the political spectrum, and in the public at large, that the fishing industry was sacrificed in the 1970s, when the UK joined the EU. There is intense speculation over whether there will be a repeat at the end of the transition period. The UK Government has repeatedly stated that, unlike the 1970s, fishing will not be traded for any other objective in these negotiations.

The two national federations have worked hard to ensure that the fishing case is well understood and there is every sign that fishing is:

• A political priority for the Prime Minister
• A key objective for Chief Negotiator, David Frost
• Understood and appreciated as a priority right across the cabinet, the governing party and across Parliament

In short, the UK Government understands and shares the NFFO’s objectives:

• Access to fish in UK waters to be negotiated as part of annual fisheries agreements
• Quota shares which reflect the resources located in UK waters
• An exclusive 12-mile limit to protect our inshore fisheries
• Freedom to develop a tailored UK fisheries management regime free from the constraints of the CFP
• As frictionless trade with the EU as can be secured, without surrendering sovereignty over fishing rights

These will be the criteria against which any final agreement to emerge from the talks will be measured and judged.

No Deal

Only five member states out of twenty-seven benefit significantly from automatic access to fish in UK waters. There are signs both within the Commission and some of the more politically weighty member states, including Germany which currently holds the EU presidency, of a growing impatience that the fishing issue could deny the rest of the EU a trade agreement vital to their economies. If, however, the talks founder at the last hurdle, the fishing issue does not evaporate – it moves to a different forum – the coastal states negotiations for stand-alone fisheries agreements for 2021. These talks, held each November/December, are revving up on the sidelines. The annual agreements will set total allowable catches, along with quota shares, access arrangements and mutually agreed quota exchanges. In other words, the EU will face the same problems on fisheries, with or without a framework agreement: the need for access to fish in UK waters and pressure to move its position substantially on quota shares to secure that access.

To date the EU’s negotiating mandate had called for automatic access to UK waters and the retention of quota shares that were skewed to the benefit the EU fleets when quotas were introduced in 1983. The UK share of English Channel cod, for example, is 9%, whilst the French share is 84%.

The President, to this point, has been the most intransigent voice in the European camp on fisheries. The change in tone is therefore significant, although not, necessarily unforeseen.

He is reported to have said: “If there is a deal, it must allow us to define the modalities of access for our fishermen to British waters. Will the situation be the same as it is today? No, it will not, that’s for sure. Our fishermen know it. We know that too. We are going to help them. We need to have a compromise on access, but we know it will not be of the same nature. It won’t be as ambitious. It will come with conditions, perhaps we will have to pay for it.”

After weeks in which talks on fisheries have all but stalled, this shift lays the foundation for a possible framework agreement between the UK and the EU on fisheries. No doubt much tough talking still lies ahead and the small print is all important, but an important impediment has been removed. The pertinent model now for the negotiations is the fisheries agreement recently signed between the UK and Norway, which reflects the international norms between coastal states which share fish stocks.

Change

There is no disguising the scale of the change coming on fisheries, after the end of the transition period. The advantages which the EU fleets have enjoyed over 40 years, as part of the CFP have been huge. It is significant that the President refers to helping their fishermen to adjust. An EU financial support package is likely and probably already in preparation as part of their scenario planning.

Both sides now understand the distance that the EU must travel to secure a deal on fishing. The UK Prime Minister is dug-in on fishing as a UK priority. A deal on fisheries is, nevertheless, available which would allow negotiated access for EU fleets. It is this and the EU’s high dependence on access to the UK EEZ that provides the UK with its leverage to secure a more balanced and fairer quota distribution.

President Macron can yet ensure that French fishermen are not locked out of UK waters – but that will require, as he now appears to recognise – agreement to quota shares that reflect the resources in UK waters. With no agreement, there would be no access, again following the international norm.

It has been clear for some time that the Commission, and important member states like Germany, have been impatient with the French President’s intransigent and untenable position on fishing. Removing that logjam could now see rapid movement towards a fisheries agreement.

The NFFO continues to engage closely with the UK negotiating team and to reiterate the same objectives which we laid out at the beginning of our campaign.

• Access to fish in UK waters to be negotiated as part of annual fisheries agreements
• Quota shares which reflect the resources located in UK waters
• An exclusive 12-mile limit for our inshore fisheries
• Freedom to develop a tailored UK fisheries management regime
• As frictionless trade with the EU as can be secured, without surrendering sovereignty over fishing rights

These will be the criteria against which any final agreement will be measured.

Unsurprisingly, the EU summit this week has delivered a show of solidarity; but a show that papers over the widening cracks in the EU camp. The mounting unease across the Channel about throwing a trade deal away to defend an indefensible hard line on fisheries is palpable, in Brussels, in Berlin, but even in Boulogne.

The UK has made clear that a deal that would provide access for the EU fleets to continue fishing in UK waters (outside the UK’s 12-mile limit) is on the table, subject to annual fisheries agreements – the international norm.

By insisting on the status quo on quota shares, and arrangements that fail to take into account the UK’s new legal status as an independent coastal state, the EU is tying itself into a hard – but brittle – position. Many EU member states would also suffer badly without a trade deal.

It is increasingly clear that the impasse now boils down to optics, and in particular President Macron’s electoral prospects next year. When even fishermen in Boulogne are reported to recognise that a deal is necessary, and the EU Chief Negotiator is calling for flexibility from the five member states who benefit from the status quo, the EU position looks increasingly ragged and the French President looks increasingly isolated.

If the EU follows through the logic of its position and withholds agreement on a trade agreement, its problems on fisheries do not go away. The absence of a framework agreement would mean that the EU would in November enter bilateral talks with the UK (or trilateral, where Norway is involved) for a stand-alone fisheries agreement for 2021. It would do so facing exactly the same issues as it does now: access and quota shares, with very few cards to play.

President

Tony Delahunty, after a six-year spell as Chairman and President, has stepped aside from the President’s role but by popular acclamation will remain closely tied into the Federation’s top team.

Andrew Pascoe, incoming President, said in his remarks to the NFFO Annual General Meeting held recently:

“On behalf of the Federation, I would like to thank Tony for his selfless work on behalf of the NFFO over the last six years. In these turbulent times, I think that we have all appreciated his calm, drama-free approach and solid wisdom. I am sure that I speak for us all when I say we all hope that the end of Tony’s period as President, will not mean any disengagement from the Federation’s work. To put it plainly we need the kind of experience and wisdom that Tony has brought to the NFFO. That kind of experience and the insights that it brings is not easily replaced.”

In response, the outgoing President remarked:

Covid has forced this scaled down meeting on us, so we have not been able to invite Minister or senior officials to our AGM this year. But there are alternative ways to engage with ministers and officials at the points where it makes sense and the Federation has certainly been doing that this year. My judgement is that, if anything, the level of engagement between the NFFO and senior levels of government is as intense and strong as it has ever been.

The work that has been done on the Fisheries Bill is a good example of where our interventions have had a powerful effect, and as this sets the legal framework for managing our fisheries for the next 20 or even 40 years, this is highly significant

I have been your Chairman for two years and President for three years and I am truly grateful your trust and confidence in me over that period.

The last five years have been one of mixed fortunes for our industry:

Stocks have increased; the trends are good, and this has been reflected in the science

The poorly drafted EU landing obligation has unexpectedly generated many problems and requires a fundamental rethink

Cod and bass have bucked the stock trends, bringing complexities in the management of mixed fisheries and frustrations for our members

The EU referendum has provided an escape route from the CFP and we have embraced that with both arms

I want to mention two specific areas in which the Federation’s influence has given rise two important initiatives:

The Future of Inshore Fishing

The Shellfish Industry Advisory Groups

Both of these are important developments, but they are only at the beginning of their potential, and there is no disguising the work that will be required to make them a success

Finally, I would like to thank all of you for your support, guidance and good humour as we have navigated our way through the complex world that we work in.

That concludes my opening remarks. Hopefully next year’s AGM will get back to some king of normality.”

Chairman’s Report

In his final act as outgoing Chairman, Andrew Pascoe said:

“Turning to my annual report, I am grateful to those in the office who have put together the summary that you all have before you. This will go on the NFFO website and hopefully it gives a flavour of the Federation’s work over the last 12 months or so.

I would especially like to highlight a couple of themes:

The Federation’s role in addressing the challenges that arose from the Covid Pandemic, the lockdown and the Government’s support measures, gave the clearest evidence of why as an industry we need a strong and effective voice at national level. There was nothing automatic or easy about securing the tailored support package that was so important to so many fishing businesses, as out markets closed down or were seriously impaired. As was pointed out during our Executive Committee meeting, English processors have no national level trade association and they got nothing, unlike their equivalents in Scotland

Secondly, I would like to say that whilst it is true that the political cards have fallen the fishing industry’s way recently, if we are to fully realise the dividends arising from the departure of the UK from the EU and the CFP, we will have to push all the way. There is no room for complacency. We need the NFFO to be active and influential in shaping the outcome of the negotiations with the EU, the first round of annual negotiations as an independent coastal state this autumn, and to build the new UK management regime in the new year and beyond. Put plainly, there is no other body that has the respect and clout.

We need the NFFO to deliver for us. The decisions that will be made within government will affect our lives and businesses for years, possibly decades to come and this is the time when those crucial initial decisions will be made.”

A full version of the Chairman’s Report can be seen here.

Andrew Locker, will be formally confirmed as Chairman at the next meeting of the NFFO Executive but until then will be acting-Chairman.

Aspects of our future remain uncertain. The threat posed by the Covid virus has not disappeared and a resurgence is a real possibility, bringing another health emergency with serious economic consequences. The outcome of negotiations with the EU on the shape of our future economic relationship is at a critical stage. Here. Those talks and the autumn negotiations for the first annual fisheries agreements as an independent coastal state will be hugely significant.

The two national fishing federations have received assurances from the highest levels within Government that fishing is regarded as a matter of principle, deeply intertwined with the notion of sovereignty as the UK leaves the EU. We are therefore confident that the commitments that have been made on fishing will be honoured and reflected in any agreement reached. Europe’s response to the loss of the advantages on fishing that it has held for over forty years whilst the UK was tied into the Common Fisheries Policy, is another moving part in the adjustments currently under way, although it is difficult to see how withholding a trade agreement could do anything other than harm all parties.

The climactic events that we are currently living through bear out the well-worn but nevertheless true adage that in unity lies strength. The NFFO, your national organisation, played a leading role in securing tailored financial support from the Treasury for the fishing industry, as the effects of the virus took hold and markets evaporated. And the prominent place that the fishing industry currently holds in the Government’s negotiating priorities owes much to the concerted lobbying efforts of the NFFO with ministers, within Parliament and across the news media.

We can be proud, therefore, that in these testing times, we as an industry, diverse as we are, have stood united and firm, and have shaped the policy agenda. Balanced, coherent, and well-thought through positions which reflect the diversity of our industry always win in the end over populist rants. We only have influence with government and with legislators for as long as we are regarded as the credible and representative voice of the industry. My judgement is that in this critically important year, we as a Federation, have met those tests.

Independent Coastal State

Whether or not the UK and EU can agree a framework fisheries agreement in time to be ratified before the end of the year, the UK will by default, be an independent coastal state from 1st January and will already be negotiating as such this autumn.

The outcome of the referendum raised the realistic possibility of escaping from the Common Fisheries Policy, and the disadvantageous EC entry terms which have for put the UK at a structural disadvantage. The NFFO has worked solidly since that turning point to ensure that the UK secures the rights and responsibilities of an independent coastal state and the benefits which accrue to coastal state status.

This has meant, above all, working closely with Government on the UK’s negotiating objectives, as well as building a groundswell of support for the fishing industry in Parliament and across the country.

The Federation’s objectives have been and remain:

⦁ Quota shares which reflect the resources located in UK waters

⦁ Access arrangements to be negotiated as part of annual fisheries negotiations

⦁ Regulatory autonomy to allow the UK to develop its own distinctive fisheries policy outside the Common Fisheries Policy

⦁ An exclusive 12mile zone for UK fishers

⦁ As frictionless trade as can be obtained without compromising UK sovereignty and rights as an independent coastal state

Meetings with the UK’s Chief Negotiator, David Frost, the Secretary of State and the UK Fisheries Minister, have provided us with categorical assurances that a good outcome on fishing was amongst the UK’s top priorities and that fishing would not be traded for other priorities, as it was in the 1970s. The NFFO’s role now is to ensure that those unequivocal commitments are delivered.

Fisheries Bill

After 40 years of operating within the Common Fisheries Policy, the Fisheries Bill is necessary to equip UK ministers with the powers to manage fisheries within the UK EEZ after the end of the transition period which ends on 31st December 2020. The Federation has worked with ministers, Defra officials and legislators, to ensure that the lessons of the CFP have been learnt. Overloading primary legislation with too much prescriptive detail creating a rigid, inflexible, structure in which it is difficult to change policy direction, even when the evidence demands it, has been the principal flaw in the CFP. In general terms, the Bill, introduced into the House of Lords earlier this year, showed every sign of having learnt those lessons. In particular the concept of management plans customised for each fishery, promised a flexible and adaptive way to deliver sustainable and profitable fisheries. Well-intentioned but ultimately short-sighted amendments were adopted as the Bill passed through the Lords and the Federation, working closely with Parliamentary specialists Connect, worked hard through parliamentary briefings to overturn those amendments.

That work is ongoing.

Covid-19

The wrecking-ball which came through the world, the UK and our industry from February/ March onwards, amounted to the biggest health emergency since the First World War and the greatest economic shock since the Great Depression of the 1930s. As the scale of the health crisis became clear, lockdown followed and in due course, the Treasury announced a suite of mitigation measures for businesses and for employees. Some parts of the fishing industry were impacted early, notably those parts of the shellfish sector dependent on the Chinese market. As the hospitality and catering markets closed in turn, It quickly became apparent that fishing, frequently fell between the gaps in Government support.

The NFFO made the case very early on for a dedicated industry/government Covid response group and once this was established, it became the conduit for the Federation’s efforts to ensure that the industry received the support necessary to ensure that businesses and crews survived the crisis intact. The inclusion of self-employed share fishermen in the Government’s support measures was welcomed but then a vigorous case had to be made to Treasury for a tailored support package to shore-up fishing businesses which had ongoing costs but no, or severely depleted, income as export, then domestic markets failed. Treasury, perhaps understandably, resisted special treatment for any individual sector but in the end the arguments and the evidence presented by the fishing industry won through.

The financial support scheme was not without its constraints and limitations but was widely welcomed as an important lifeline for many. Although support schemes had previously been announced by the devolved administrations, it is not obvious that a scheme for the English fleet would have been forthcoming without a lot of hard work behind the scenes.

Shellfish

Discussions within a meeting of the NFFO’s Executive Committee provided the germ of an idea that eventually launched a new national initiative to give the economically important crab and lobster sector a voice at least as strong as that as the whitefish and pelagic sectors. Using the model established by the scallop industry working group, the Shellfish Industry Advisory Group has been established and is already gaining traction as one of the first parts of the industry to begin work on the development of its own tailored management plan based on of co-management through which fishers, fisheries managers and fisheries scientists work together towards common objectives.

Future of Inshore Fisheries

Another NFFO inspired initiative, the Future of Inshore Fisheries Conference, brought together fishers, mangers and scientists in October 2019, in a ground-breaking attempt to break out of a cycle of failure, unintended consequences of past policies and to chart a new course. The Conference was judged a major success, putting to bed some a range of myths surrounding the inshore sector and generating many fresh ideas and an enthusiasm for exploring the possibilities of co-management. Taking some of these ideas forward have been hampered by the pandemic but a steering group has been formed to ensure that the momentum will be maintained. The Federation will continue to put its shoulder to the wheel to ensure that this important initiative delivers.

Fleet Diversity

One of the more asinine strands of comment on the fishing industry in recent years has sought to create an artificial divide between large and small fishing vessels and operations. The Federation has consistently made the case that one of the central planks of sustainable fishing is a diverse fleet, targeting a wide range of species with different gears and operations. We need small-scale, medium-scale, and large-scale vessels in our fleets. We need the offshore and the inshore. There is nothing inherently sustainable of unsustainable about both large and small vessels. It all depends on how they are fishing and their impact on target and non-target species. Many small-scale vessels can be rightly labelled as operating in low-impact fisheries. Likewise, large vessels, with a very low carbon footprint per tonne of fish landed are amongst the most environmentally friendly forms of food production on earth.

In many places there is an interdependence between vessels of different sizes: port infrastructures are maintained by the throughput provided by larger vessels which can fish most of the year, whilst smaller vessels landing can benefit from access to both niche and mainstream markets.

Safety, Crew Welfare and Training

Nothing is more important than bring our vessels and crews back to port safely after a trip. For this reason, the Federation has a dedicated safety and training officer who works within the context of the UK Fishing Industry Safety Group to build a strong safety culture within our industry. Building on the sterling work of his predecessor, our current Safety officer is currently deeply involved in the implementation of ILO 188, which amounts to the most radical transformation of the rules governing fishing vessel safety and crew welfare for a generation.

Cod Recovery

Ecosystem changes are underway and have dramatically affected the distribution of cod, which in UK waters are at the southernmost extent of their species. Scientists tell us that cod populations are moving north at around 12km per year. This observation coincides with fishers’ experience in the Channel, Celtic Sea and Southern North Sea. How fisheries management should adapt and respond to these changes is one of the central challenges facing both the fishing industry and fisheries administrators today. The difficulties of selecting out a large-bodied fish like cod, in a mixed fishery, the reliance to date on short term reactive measures rather than a coherent rebuilding plan, the shortcomings of the EU landing obligation and jurisdictional changes associated with the UK’s departure from the EU, all make this currently a highly complex policy area but one which cannot be ignored. The industry has shown itself willing to engage with scientists and administrators to develop an approach which avoids the pitfalls and deals with the biological and economic realities, and it is that engagement that will ultimately deliver a path forward.

Marine Plastics

Barely a week goes by without a member of the public enquiring what the fishing industry is doing to reduce plastic in the marine environment. Marine litter therefore represents a practical and reputational risk to the fishing industry that we cannot ignore.

The NFFO website spells out the many initiatives under way, including the well-established Fishing for Litter Campaign.

Fishmongers Company Support

The Worshipful Company of Fishmongers is an ancient London livery company, which has taken the decision to use its resources to support the UK fishing industry achieve its full potential as the UK leaves the EU. Generous financial support from the Company has supported a series of parliamentary events, media briefings and conferences focused on getting the best deal and implementing best practice in the post-CFP world.

I would like to express my personal gratitude to the Company and hope that the productive relationships now established will continue long into the future.

Unwanted Catch

The Federation played its part in puncturing the pretensions, mistruths and distortions of Hugh’s Fish Fight but not before the campaign had led to the deeply flawed and unworkable EU landing obligation. The intervening years have seen an endless struggle to make the requirement to land all quota species fit with the realities of managing mixed fisheries, within a system of TACs and quotas and quota shares based on Relative Stability. Discards in some of our main fisheries had been reduced by up to 90% before Hugh’s Fishfight belatedly appeared on the scene.

Nevertheless, there is across the industry, a wide recognition that reducing unwanted catch is a priority for both economic and reputational reasons.

Developing a workable version of the landing obligation, tailored to conditions in UK fisheries is therefore likely to be one of the fishing industry’s priorities in using the powers enshrined in the Fisheries Bill to amend retained EU fisheries legislation.

Marine Protected Areas

After working for several years on a methodical, evidenced-based, approach to managing fishing activity in marine protected areas, the Federation was blind-sided by the establishment of an “independent’ panel, chaired by former fisheries minister Richard Benyon. The panel’s task was to pave the way for Highly Protected Marine Areas, an idea which had previously been rejected. The NFFO was not invited onto the panel which was heavily weighted towards the environmental lobby. The lack of clarity about what HPMAs were supposed to achieve and the lack of fit with everything else that was going on within Defra (reform of inshore fisheries management and co-management in particular) suggested that this initiative was helicoptered in after lobbying in high places. The issue of fishers displaced from their fishing grounds and livelihoods was treated dismissively in the report.

The NFFO recognises that vulnerable habitats and species require protection which we have put so much effort into working with government and scientists in developing a methodology that identifies the fishing gears incompatible with sensitive habitats, and mitigation measures so that fishing compatible with conservation objectives could continue.

A battle therefore looms. At stake is whether the Government is truly committed to co-management or, when it suits will revert to the failed command and control approach usually associated with the CFP.

NFFO Services Limited

The hard work of our services division, NFFO Services Limited, continues to play an absolutely central role in managing the co-existence of fishing and other marine users, as well as generating income which supports the Federation’s activities.

Salmon

After an unequal struggle with the powerful angling lobby over forty years, the North East drift net fishery was finally closed. Tribute for this monumental feat (the Scottish drift net fishery was reserved for anglers in the 1960s) must go to the heroic work of the NFFO Salmon Committee and in particular, its chairman Derek Heselton. The Committee’s work continues on the compensation front and to maintain the commercial net fisheries for seatrout.

Bass

A run of low recruitment year classes and over-exploitation led the seabass stocks to dip a few years ago. Remedial measures, including the closure of the two directed fisheries from 2015 onwards, dramatically reduced fishing pressure and the stock biomass is showing good signs of recovery. Bass is also caught in a range of gears as an unavoidable bycatch and restrictive bycatch limits have generated a significant increase in regulatory discards as a result. Bass is not a TAC stock but is a shared stock, suggesting that bilateral negotiations between the UK and the EU will be required to maintain momentum the rebuilding of the stock, whilst minimising the level of discard that are a by-product of the current approach.

Advisory Councils

One aspect of the withdrawal of the UK from the EU and therefore the CFP, will be that the Federation will refocus its efforts and energies on international fisheries agreements and domestic fisheries policy, rather than the EU’s policy formulation and decision-making institutions.

From their establishment in 2004/5 the NFFO put a great deal of effort into the EU regional advisory councils, as one of the only means available at the time that fisheries stakeholders could shape fisheries policy. The Federation was centrally involved in the establishment of the North Sea and Western Waters RACs and were involved in the Long Distance RAC and the Pelagic RAC from the outset. In some respects, the RACs (later to become ACs) were an expression of the decentralisation of the CFP which the NFFO had campaigned for as a bulwark against the inherent over-centralisation of the CFP. NFFO members and officers held several key positions in the ACs, including chairs of key committees. The Federation will end its membership of all the advisory councils at the end of the transition period. In any event, in recent years, the Commission has failed to distinguish between fisheries stakeholders and groups who merely hold opinions about how fisheries should be managed, leading in turn to a downward spiral of compromised advice, and a loss of respect and influence. The Commission continues to pay lip service to the ACs, but they are no longer seen as a central reforming feature of the CFP.

Conclusion

The Chairman’s report can only hope to skim the surface of the Federation’s activity on behalf of its members. I could mention the NFFO Training Trust and dozens of other areas in which the Federation is active. I would however like to draw attention and offer my thanks to the many members – of our Executive and regional committees and on the boards of our member POs, who give up their time and energy to work within the Federation for the common good. Without these individuals, unpaid but committed, there would be no Federation, or it would be only a shadow of the vigorous, influential, body that we see working for all of us today.

Speculation is rife about a deal on fisheries that would unlock a wider UK/EU trade and partnership agreement.

The issue has now come down to the essentials: whether the EU will move a sufficient distance on quota shares that will allow the UK to grant a level of access to UK waters and to sign a deal. Both sides are politically committed to finding an agreement but the distance between the parties is vast. Conventional wisdom would suggest a split the difference approach could resolve the matter but that would be to miss the essential point.

Quantum and Principle

For the EU this about quantum – how much access their vessels will have to fish in UK waters and how much of their advantage on quota shares can be retained. For the UK it is about quantum too – but it is also about principle – and that is why I do not believe that the UK will back down on fisheries.

The principle involved is the UK’s unhampered ability to act as an independent coastal state in line with its rights and responsibilities under international law, after the end of the transition period. The UK government is acutely aware that it cannot surrender those rights without having to face the question from the people who voted to leave in the referendum: “What was Brexit for?”

Change is Coming

Undoubtedly, the change that will come – with or without a framework fisheries agreement – will involve a huge challenge for the EU fleets. The scale of that change is a reflection of the scale of the advantage that those fleets have had over 40 years, and to what extent the Common Fisheries Policy denied the UK the benefits of its status as an independent coastal state.

President Macron faces an uncomfortable political backwash ahead of an election year if he surrenders on fisheries; but the signs of fissures in the EU camp are already there – in comments made in Berlin – and in rising tensions between the Commission and the five member states who benefit from the current arrangements. The rhetoric is still there but the fishing five are increasingly isolated.

Litmus test

There is a reason that the UK Prime Minister, in his recent call with Commission, underlined the importance of fishing. It is because fishing is an immediate litmus test for Brexit. What Brexit means for the UK’s trade relations with the EU and with the rest of the world won’t be fully known for years – if not decades. We will know, however, if there has been a good or bad deal, or no-deal, on fisheries by the end of this year. Fishing has a political immediacy. It also goes to the heart of the vision of the UK as an independent country outside the EU. That is why I do not believe that we will see a repeat of the 1970s when fishing was considered expendable.

Everything is still in play. The talks continue, and as long as they do, people will speculate.

The NFFO and the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation have made clear what they would consider an acceptable deal with the EU. The final outcome, if there is to be an agreement, will be judged against those criteria and against the fisheries agreement recently signed between the UK and Norway – a model of how two coastal states should cooperate together on the sustainable management of shared stocks.

Barrie Deas, Chief Executive of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations and Elspeth Macdonald, Chief Executive Officer of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, along with other senior representatives, reminded politicians of the promises made to the industry and outlined the steps that must be taken to enable the UK to right the wrongs of the past in order to secure maximum benefit from its new status as an independent coastal state.

Fisheries Minister, Victoria Prentis was in attendance alongside leading politicians from the Labour Party, the SNP, Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru, many representing coastal areas across the UK. The meeting was also attended by prominent members of the House of Lords.

In a joint statement, Barrie Deas and Elspeth Macdonald said:

“We believe that Brexit presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity for the UK fishing industry. We welcome the UK Government’s repeated public assurances that securing a fair deal on fisheries is a matter of principle and not expedience. We expect the UK Government to continue to negotiate on this basis.

“We know that the EU is putting intense pressure on UK negotiators but we urge them to hold firm and not trade fishing away. The UK, as an independent coastal state, is seeking a deal with the EU that mirrors the arrangements it has with other independent states with which it shares stocks, such as Norway.

“We look forward to working with parliamentarians across the political spectrum to secure arrangements for our fisheries that will be fit for the future and will enable our industry and our fishing communities to thrive.”

Following weeks of talks, the two parties must now fully understand each other’s points of view. This will include very different perspectives on a way forward on fishing. We understand that many of the potential obstacles to a partnership agreement have been settled, leaving only the most obstinate gaps to be dealt with. This will require intervention at the highest political level. The talks are moving towards the endgame. As expected, fishing is one of the last outstanding issues.

Independent Coastal State

On fishing, both sides accept that there is a very wide gap. This boils down to the fact that at the end of the transition period the UK will hold the rights and responsibilities of an independent coastal state under international law. The EU has yet to accept the implications of this change in legal status.

The contrast between the UK and the EU positions in the negotiations has now been put in the spotlight by the first fisheries agreement signed by the UK as an independent coastal state. The UK/Norway agreement provides a framework for cooperation in the sustainable management of shared stocks. The terms are broadly in line with how coastal states usually behave towards each other and are in fact remarkably similar to the EU’s own existing fisheries agreement with Norway. This underlines how far what the EU now seeks from the UK departs from the international precedents. That norm is that annual fisheries agreements are used to:

• Set total allowable catches based on the most recent scientific advice
• Agree the terms of access to fish to each other’s waters for the following year
• Establish quota shares reflecting the resources in each country’s respective zone – zonal attachment. As these agreed shares are based on science, they tend to settle down and do not change much, or at all, for extended periods
• Agree quota exchanges, for the following year, where this brings benefit to both parties

The UK has been clear from the outset that:

• It cannot accept a deal that would subvert the UK’s sovereign rights to control access over who is allowed to fish in the UK EEZ
• The UK’s quota shares should reflect the resources located within UK waters. The EU has benefited for 40 years from automatic access to fish in UK waters and quota shares that for many stocks do not come anywhere near reflecting the UK’s zonal attachment share. The UK’s Channel cod quota share, for example, is 9%; the French share is 84%.

The UK has also been clear that there is a deal to be had on fisheries. The EU fleets fish six times as much in UK waters, as the UK fleet fishes in EU waters. Nevertheless, a deal that would grant a level of access to fish in UK waters, outside the 12mile limit, is on offer. The UK could grant (in the context of annual negotiations) sufficient access for the EU fleets to catch their (reduced) quotas in UK waters. The real sticking point is the scale of the adjustment to quota shares that is required to reflect the UK’s new status as a coastal state. For some stocks only a small adjustment, or no adjustment, would be required. But for some the gap is very significant. An example would be Celtic Sea haddock, where the UK current share is 10% and the French share is 66%. Much of the haddock is caught in UK waters. A fairer UK share would be around 50%.

So far, the EU has stuck very close to its negotiating mandate: it seeks the status quo on both automatic access and retention of its current shares. Lacking any real leverage in fishing terms, the EU has made an artificial linkage with a wider trade deal. The threat being made is that the EU will withhold a trade deal, unless it gets its way on fisheries. It is clear, however, that without a trade deal it would not only be the UK that would suffer. Businesses across many of the EU member states would also find trading conditions considerably more difficult. As only five member states benefit significantly from fishing in UK waters, it is possible to foresee that as the endgame approaches, withholding a trade deal to maintain an untenable position on fisheries will cause stresses within the EU camp.

Standing Firm

There are absolutely no signs that the UK Government is about to give ground on fisheries. At the highest levels within government, across Parliament and the country at large, there is an understanding that the UK fishing industry was sacrificed in the 1970s and was forced into disadvantageous terms for 40 years. Failure to use this opportunity to break out of that asymmetric and exploitative relationship would not be acceptable. The political backlash would be enormous. In many respects fishing has become a litmus test for Brexit.

It has been reported that in a spirit of compromise, the UK has proposed a three-year adjustment period, to allow time for EU member states to adapt to their new quota shares. An extended adjustment period would not be acceptable to the UK fishing industry which has already been disadvantaged for over 40 years. The UK must emerge from these talks with absolute clarity that the UK has secured its rightful quota shares.

The current combination of legal changes and political alignments suggest that if there is to be a partnership agreement, the EU will have to back down on fisheries. The UK’s agreement with Norway indicates how far out on a limb the EU is by trying to hang on to a legally and morally indefensible position, simply because it is economically advantageous for five member states. France, a major beneficiary of the current arrangements, and for that reason the most vigorous in the defence of the status quo, despite its rhetoric, seems increasingly isolated on the fishing issue.

No Deal

Whilst working in good faith towards a partnership agreement with the EU, as a safeguard, the UK is also scenario planning for the autumn negotiations as an independent coastal state without a framework fisheries agreement with the EU. In the event of no UK/EU fisheries agreement by the end of the year, there would be no automatic access to fish in each other’s waters from 1st January. Given the dependence of the EU fleets on access to UK waters, this puts additional pressure on the EU to reach an accommodation on fisheries. The outcomes in an annual agreement, without a framework agreement would be much more uncertain and unstable.

The agreement provides a broad treaty framework which outlines the principles of how the UK and Norway will cooperate in the sphere of fisheries after 31st December when the UK fully leaved the EU Common Fisheries Policy. Much of the substance of how the two parties will cooperate will however be decided in annual fisheries agreements.

NFFO Chief Executive, Barrie Deas, said, “This is the established pattern of how coastal states with shared stocks work with each other to ensure that fish stocks are harvested responsibly and sustainably. Annual agreements provide the necessary flexibility to address changes in the stocks and the science, whilst the framework agreement ensures continuity and a framework of cooperation.”

Annual agreements within this framework will set total allowable catches at safe levels, agree access arrangements to fish in each other’s waters, and also agree quota shares. The international norm is that quota shares should broadly reflect the resources in the respective EEZs, and the agreement with Norway recognises that this type of zonal attachment will be an important principle in the allocation of quotas.

Around 80% of the North Sea falls within the EEZs of Norway and the UK, with the EU only accounting for one fifth, after the UK’s departure from the EU.

The Government has rightly defended the framework in its Fisheries Bill that allows for trade-offs between its eight objectives to be made, against those who would insist on one -dimensional primacy for the environmental objective.

Fisheries management requires these kind of judgement calls every day: balancing safe levels of fishing on one species, maximising yield on another, minimising discards, safeguarding the security of fishing businesses and fishing communities, providing food for our populations – all require trade-offs. That is what the Fisheries Bill framework provides.

Another good example of trade-offs comes into focus with Greenpeace’s outrageous decision to dump granite boulders on the Dogger Bank to prevent bottom trawling. Leaving aside that this action is illegal, and in the worse circumstance could lead to manslaughter charges, the Dogger Bank is a very large sand bank, or series of sand banks, in the North Sea. Trawling with bottom gear is the most effective way to catch species like scallops, dover sole and plaice when they are buried in sand. Dover sole can be caught in static nets and drift-nets, but the European Commission has calculated that if bottom trawling was banned, to land the total allowable catch of sole from the North Sea would require an increase of 1300% in the quantity of monofilament netting in use. That in turn would have adverse consequences for cetaceans like harbour porpoise. That is not something mentioned in the Greenpeace press statement.

It is possible to argue that the environmental cost of fishing is too high and that these species should be left in the sea. But fishing has the lowest carbon footprint of any form of food production. Denying people access to high-quality protein from the sea would be self-defeating, relying on alternatives which generate higher emissions of greenhouse gases.

Every fishing method has an environmental impact. The task that we as an industry face is to ensure that those impacts are as low as possible across the piece. There is no benefit in securing trophy scalps, if it only shifts the problem elsewhere.

There is a need for seriousness and maturity in how we manage our fisheries after the end of the transition period. Juvenile gestures, simplistic messaging and superficial understanding will not cut it. There is a reason why the objectives in the Fisheries Bill (five of which relate to sustainability in one way or another) have equal status. It is because fisheries managers have to recognise the tensions between, say, reducing carbon emissions and maintaining a diverse fleet which supplies a range of sustainably caught fish and shellfish.

It is also why one of the Bill’s objectives relates to management measures that are based on the best available evidence. Thought, care, perspective, looking out for unintended consequences: that is where the future management of our fisheries lies, not in futile and infantile gesture politics.

Fishing, along with even playing field issues have been reported as two of the remaining sticking points. The impasse on fishing was inevitable from the outset because the EU artificially linked a trade agreement to the status quo on automatic access for its fleets to fish in UK waters, and maintaining quota shares which are far short of the UK’s right under international law. It is not difficult to see why they have done this. Leaving the EU automatically gives the UK the legal status of a coastal state, with the rights and responsibilities that comes with that status. In these new legal circumstances, the EU has no other leverage to keep the UK tied into the arrangements which have worked to its advantage – and the UK’s disadvantage – for 40 years.

Given the economic damage that a no deal would inflict on both sides, both sides are politically committed to finding agreement. The UK Government is, however, acutely aware that fishing was sold out in the 1970s. Across Parliament and across the country, fishing is a kind of litmus test for Brexit. Without a departure from the EU acceptable to the fishing industry, the Government cannot sign an agreement without breaching repeated and explicit commitments that have been given by the Prime Minister and the cabinet as a whole. The intention to rebuild coastal communities, mentioned so often last week as the Fisheries Bill passes through Parliament, will not be achievable without the additional fishing opportunities that would follow liberation from the Common Fisheries Policy.

Cautioned by the experience of the 1970s, for two years now the NFFO’s Fishing: No Sell-Out flags have flown from the masts of fishing vessels large and small. Nothing in anything said by the UK Government to the fishing industry would indicate that it is about to surrender on fishing. The opposite in fact. Privately and publicly the UK Government has said that it is prepared to walk away from an agreement unless it reflects the UK’s sovereign rights as an independent coastal state.

It bears repeating that what the UK industry and government seek is nothing extraordinary. It is only what every other coastal state in the world – Norway, Iceland, Faroes, or Canada and the United States for that matter – holds by right. It is only the scale of the imbalanced distortion caused by the Common Fisheries Policy over the last 40 years that makes the change seem so large.

On the EU side, those member states with significant commercial fisheries have worked hard to ensure that the EU negotiating mandate allows for no change in access arrangements or quota shares.

So, as we enter the final stretch of the negotiations, the stakes are high. Preparations are under way on both sides for a no-deal. This would mean trade with the EU on WTO terms – unfavourable for all parties but very far from no trade. On fishing, with or without a fisheries framework agreement, talks with the EU and other coastal states will begin this autumn on a stand-alone fisheries agreement for 2021. These will aim to set total allowable catches, access arrangements and quota shares. Without an annual agreement – following the well-established precedent between EU and Norway – there would be no reciprocal access to each other’s waters from 1st January. EU fleets fish around six times as much in UK waters as UK fleets fish in EU waters and so, at that point, the pressure would then be on the EU to make concessions on quota shares to secure access for its fleets.

The question is whether an agreement on fisheries that respects the UK’s new status as an independent coastal state can be signed before things get to that stage.

“The only satisfactory means of ensuring that this is achieved is for the UK, as a sovereign coastal state, to maintain full control over access to our waters.

“That does not mean denying EU vessels access to fish in the UK Exclusive Economic Zone. Rather, that such access would be negotiated annually – as is the norm for the EU and Norway and other non-EU fishing nations.

“Under international law, this will be the default position if a Fisheries Agreement cannot be reached.

“Evidently, it would be preferable if the right deal could be agreed, meeting the industry’s objective of control of access to fish in the UK EEZ and fairer quota shares based on zonal attachment, but if an acceptable deal cannot be reached then the catching sector would prefer these issues to be addressed through the annual negotiations process. This is in line with the government’s negotiating position, which we fully support.

“Ultimately, it is up to the EU which of the two routes it wishes to take towards the UK becoming a coastal state – through a stable framework agreement that respects UK sovereignty and follows similar arrangements that the EU has with other coastal states in the north-east Atlantic, or via a more uncertain route for the EU where everything is done through annual negotiations with no framework agreement in place.”

In view of these huge uncertainties, the UK is already making preparations for stand-alone arrangements for 2021 – in which access for EU fleets to fish in UK waters would be one element within an overall annual agreement. Other elements would be setting TACS, and quota shares. In the event of no agreement either in this set of autumn negotiations, there is a possibility that the UK and EU would set their own autonomous quotas for 2021, although this is a departure that no sensible party wants.

It is worth recalling that in the current EU/Norway annual agreements, without an annual fisheries agreement there is no access to fish in each other waters from 1st January.

NFFO

Leaving the EU, means that the UK’s legal status on fisheries has radically changed. The UK will hold (after the end of the transition period) the rights and responsibilities of a coastal state as defined in the UN law of the sea (UNCLOS) and it is imperative that these sovereign rights are not diluted or given away in any agreement with the EU.

Against this background, the NFFO has reiterated its central objectives for the end of the transition period:

• Quota shares which reflect the resources located in UK waters
• Access arrangements to be negotiated as part of annual fisheries negotiations
• Regulatory autonomy to allow the UK to develop its own distinctive fisheries policy outside the Common Fisheries Policy
• An exclusive 12mile zone for UK fishers
• As frictionless trade as can be obtained without compromising UK sovereignty and rights as an independent coastal state

These are the criteria against which any deal to emerge from the negotiations will be measured and judged.

Talks

In the meantime, the talks with Brussels continue, with sessions planned for the weeks commencing 17th August, 7th September, and 28th September. That is approaching the last possible deadline for an agreement to take effect on 1st January 2021 as time is required to go through the Treaty ratification processes

Although shellfish markets collapsed domestically and globally as a reaction to Covid lockdown measures, the Group’s work has continued, in preparation for a return to something approximating normality. A recent meeting of the Group (held remotely) reinforced the view that the shellfish sector remains determined to break out of its poor cousin status by comparison with the attention given to TAC whitefish and pelagic fisheries. Although, because of the virus, it had not been possible to invite Fisheries Minister Victoria Prentis to witness the work that is underway within the Group, the foundations are nevertheless being laid for a strong and dynamic initiative that will shape the future management of the shellfish fisheries for generations ahead.

It seems likely that the shellfish group will be at the cutting edge of developing the first of the fisheries management plans envisaged in the Fisheries Bill currently passing through Parliament. That is certainly the ambition.

Foundations

The recent work of the SIAG has been focused on building solid foundations on which to base future management plans. Barrie Deas from the NFFO, who was confirmed as chair of the Group, said:

“We are focused on answering three straightforward questions:

1. Where are we now?

2. Where do we want to get to?

3. How do we get there?

Our efforts at the moment are directed towards building a solid understanding of our sector before moving to the next stage. It is important to have solid foundations. We are moving quite fast, but it will be essential that we retain the widespread support of the sector.”

The Group has:

⦁ Agreed a set of governance principles which stress the consensus basis of the group’s work

⦁ Set up two species working groups, one for whelks and one for crab and lobster (chaired by Aoife Martin and Tony Delahunty, respectively)

⦁ Worked with Cefas to understand the current strengths and weaknesses of stock assessments for crab, lobster and whelk – to build a realistic picture of the resource base along with identification of the dominant trends, including regional variations

⦁ With the help of Defra and the IFCAS, mapped the complex regional and national regulatory framework currently governing shellfish

⦁ With the support of Seafish, undertaken an economic analysis of the sector

⦁ Discussed a draft management plan which provides a skeleton of what a final plan might contain

⦁ Established a website where anyone can examine the Group’s work (work pending – this should be available later this month)

Co-Management

The appointment of Seafish as secretariat for the group has meant that there is momentum between meetings and steady progress is being made. The Group has been consciously formed in the spirit of co-management, with Central Government policy officials, (Defra, DEERA and Welsh Government), Cefas scientists, Industry representative bodies and individual fishing businesses all represented. The Group already has some representation from the IFCAs and discussion is under way on how to bring IFCAs and the MMO into the discussions, whilst maintaining a manageable group size.

The group remains open to more members who share its aims.

Future of Inshore Fishing

There is obviously a big read-across between shellfish management and policy, on the one hand, and the big initiative surrounding the future of inshore fisheries on the other. It will be important to dovetail these initiatives together, but to avoid duplication. Together these separate but interlinked initiatives will hopefully guide the industry to a profitable and sustainable future.

International Dimensions

At its most recent meeting the Group also gave consideration to international factors that the shellfish sector will have to take into account. This would include:

⦁ Overseas markets: Understanding the implications of international trade on shellfish markets in Europe and beyond

⦁ The changes associated with the UK’s departure from the EU

⦁ Replacement arrangements for the EU western waters effort regime

⦁ Access arrangements and safeguards against an expansion of effort in non-TAC fisheries

⦁ Dialogue with those shellfish interests which remain in the EU

Next Steps

One of the Group’s priorities is to open up its work to anyone who is interested via a website. Further details will be available shortly

Comments from across the industry spectrum emphasised that there is much in the report to concern the fishing industry, both in the content of the report and the way it came about.

Questions were raised about the independence of the Chairman, the balance within the panel, and why organisations representing the fishing industry had been excluded. The Chairman’s past judgement as a leading proponent of the EU landing obligation, and in his subsequent action in joining the Blue Marine Foundation were also highlighted.

The confusion at the heart of the report about what Highly Protected Marine Areas would be for was commented on. Was the purpose of HPMAs to:

• Provide a scientific control area? In which case, no rigorous case had been made that would stand up to scientific scrutiny
• Or were HPMAs being pushed as part of a wider advocacy campaign for No Take Zones? – a back-door way of managing fisheries – or more extreme – a romantic project for rewilding the seas.

Fears

The meeting confirmed that there is a lot for the fishing industry to be fearful about in this report – especially for small-scale inshore fisheries – where the operating range of the vessel is limited and impacts on livelihoods would be severe.

Other comments were that:

• Environmental zealots seem to be in the driving seat and there is an insouciant attitude throughout the report to real people and their lives and livelihoods
• If the report recommendations are accepted by the Government, they would drive a horse and coaches through any idea of co-management, as the scene would be set for endless local and national conflicts as fishermen are displaced from their customary fishing grounds
• The report talks about an evidence-based approach and dialogue with those impacted: But it makes sure:

1. to include and emphasize the precautionary override
2. and to assume that whatever legislative route is chosen, NTZs will be bulldozed in

• The report references to spill-over effects and overexploitation suggests that:

1. the authors of the report haven’t noticed that the stock trends in ICES advice have been strongly positive for two decades – there are other and better tools available to manage our fisheries
2. evidence from tropical reef fisheries may have limited relevance to more widely distributed fish stocks found in temperate waters like ours

• There is bad faith in setting up a parallel process to that which, as an industry, we have been engaged collaboratively in for over a decade in designating MPAs and deciding proportionate management measures; fishermen who had been involved in the Lyme Bay MPA, felt that they had now been duped and betrayed
• Without trust, there could be no assurance that whatever NTZs are established wouldn’t be expanded in future years; in fact, it would be a reasonable presumption that they would be expanded
• This report has been helicoptered in after pressure from the powerful and well-connected environmental lobby; that is in itself a disturbing development
• It needs to be recalled that human use is part of any ecosystem approach
• Above all, the report glosses over the displacement of fishing activity

1. the havoc that displacement would bring to those ejected from their customary fishing grounds
2. the knock on-effects and unintended consequences in other fisheries: have no lessons been learnt from past experience?

NFFO

During the course of the meeting, the NFFO made clear that:

• We are not and never have been against marine protected areas or doing what is necessary to protect vulnerable conservation features and sensitive marine habitats.
• The fishing industry recognises that we have a responsibility to ensure that our ecological footprint is as small as possible
• We have been jointly working with government on the best way to achieve that protection, using an evidence-based, measured and proportionate approach
• Fishing contributes to feeding the nation and provides incomes and livelihoods for many
• Providing adequate protection for marine ecosystems and fishing livelihoods and communities is therefore a question of:

1. Balance
2. Knowledge about what we are doing
3. A sense of proportion

• The establishment of MPAs deserves a calm, thorough, and respectful relationship between the fishing industry and the Government – that’s what we thought we had
• But if the recommendations of this report are accepted, and implemented, we will be on course for years of conflict – when we could be doing something much more constructive
• Leaving the EU provides an opportunity to do things better. Replicating the EU’s top-down, centralised, and blunt approach would not be a good start – especially if it caused irreparable harm to what many inside and outside Parliament consider to be an iconic industry
• The Federation paid tribute to Nathan de Rozarieux’s efforts on the panel to bring some sense of rigour, balance and sense of proportion to this report.

Government Response

Fisheries Minister, Victoria Prentis MP, who participated in part of the call, emphasised that the Benyon Report, was not government policy. A process was now underway, to develop a government response to the report. That would be published in due course and would inform future policy. In the meantime, Defra would be engaging with the fishing industry to understand its concerns and perspectives.

Overview

There was nothing independent about this “independent” review. From the outset it has been driven by politically well-connected, socially privileged, environmental zealots, with an agenda that bulldozes aside the fears and legitimate concerns of those who depend on fishing for their livelihood. It seeks to bypass the established process for designating marine protected areas and designing appropriate management measures to protect vulnerable habitats in a careful and proportionate way. One would have to be extremely naïve to believe that it is anything other than a trojan horse for large-scale no take zones – despite scanty evidence that NTZs are relevant for the sustainable management of our fisheries, or the best way to protect marine habitats.

In the weighting of the panel, its terms of reference, the derisory access given to the views of the fishing industry – all give reason for alarm across the fishing industry. There is an acknowledgement within the report that the fishing industry, and especially small-scale vessels with limited range would be displaced from their fishing grounds. A truly independent and balanced group might have explored a bit deeper into what displacement would mean. Instead that task it has been left to Government.

The Benyon Report has managed to unite the fishing industry in opposition to a badly-timed, ill-judged, initiative of dubious provenance and confused purpose.

It is another thing, however, to give primacy to one aspect of environmental sustainability over all other objectives; and to prioritise environmental purity in the short as well as the long-term, whatever the cost. Yet, this is the force and intent of an amendment sponsored by the opposition parties in the House of Lords.

Accepting this amendment would carry serious consequences for practical fisheries management. In particular, it would tie ministers’ hands when setting quotas each year. The government would be required to set all quotas at levels which (theoretically) would deliver maximum sustainable yield, in all circumstances. No ifs, or buts. And irrespective of the costs.

The rest of this article explains what this would mean in the real world, but the core message is clear: accepting this amendment would provide a fundamental impediment to practical and effective fisheries management. We do not think that this is what the authors of the amendments intended.

Setting Quotas

Sound, pragmatic, yet principled, fisheries management decisions often require that a particular TAC (total allowable catch) to be set below MSY. This is not, as is sometimes suggested because ministers are cowed by the “powerful fishing lobby” but because it is necessary to secure the best overall fisheries outcomes.

Scientific advice on setting TACs according to MSY is presented annually on the basis of single stocks, not as they relate to one another in mixed fisheries settings. It is the responsibility of fisheries ministers (acting as fisheries managers) to balance out the tensions between different stocks in the advice. Responding to this, even the EU had to develop the concept of MSY Ranges to cope with the real world, where fish swim and are caught together, and stock abundance of individual species vary naturally in response to environmental signals. This kind of flexibility would be proscribed in the UK from 1st January, by prioritising short-term sustainability in all circumstances and under all conditions – if the amendment was accepted. Ministers would find themselves repeatedly subject to judicial review if they used their judgement that the best outcomes required a trade-off between different objectives listed in the Bill.

Mixed Fisheries

In mixed fisheries, where a range of different species are caught together, the conservation status of the individual stocks often varies. One stock, for environmental or fisheries reasons, might need to be rebuilt, whilst the others are already fished sustainably – at or around maximum sustainable yield. In these circumstances, fisheries managers might consider that a three to five-year rebuilding plan, with supplementary measures to rebuild the weak stock, would be the best way to bring that stock back up to MSY, without causing undue socio-economic harm. This pragmatic, staged, approach would be ruled out if there was a legally enforceable environmental priority.

If we still have a landing obligation along current lines, the situation would be worse. Ministers would be faced with the unpalatable choice of tying up whole fleets, when the quota for that species was exhausted – or breaking the law.

This is not an abstract theoretical argument. We currently have a real-life example in the Celtic Sea where cod, which represents less that 0.1% of the catch, threatens to close down the demersal fisheries in the South West of England, denying the fishing industry access to their main economic quotas for hake and monkfish worth respectively £7million and £19 million in landings and hundreds of jobs in fishing. The scientists confirm that hake and monkfish are harvested sustainably. Nevertheless, the fisheries for these species are jeopardised by the very low TAC set for cod to meet MSY.

Rebuilding the cod stocks in the North Sea, whilst continuing to fish for the abundant haddock and whiting stocks, presents the same challenge. Cod in all of our waters is facing a distributional shift, probably caused by warmer sea temperatures. Cod, already at its southernmost extent in our waters, is moving northwards by 12km per year. This presents a management challenge.

Similarly, whiting in the Irish Sea, which could potentially close down the nephrops (prawn) fishery worth £25 million and on which whole communities depend.

These examples illustrate that sustainable management of mixed fisheries requires necessary trade-offs between the short and long term, between different species caught together, and between the biological and the socio-economic. These necessary compromises would be impeded by giving primacy to environmental over all other criteria. It would remove our ability to apply a careful balanced approach to harvesting which takes care of both fish, and fishers, along with their communities.

Three-Legged Stool

The sustainable use of natural resources is generally understood to require three pillars: environmental, economic and social. Like a three-legged stool, if one of the pillars is missing the policy will fall over. There is abundant experience from the last 40 years which illustrates the truth of this insight. Blunt and unimaginative fisheries management measures have time after time, foundered, or generated unintended consequences. People require livelihoods and economic security as well as long term sustainability. Measures which ignore this will condemn themselves to failure one way or another. The original Fisheries Bill suggested that this important lesson had been learnt. It would be desperate if that lesson was now unlearnt.

Unintended Consequences

We have learnt that top-down, blunt, management measures in fisheries tend to generate unintended consequences, which are often of the unwelcome variety. Displacing fishing activities into adjacent areas, or other fisheries, is one of the most common knock-on effects. Increasing the level of discards and driving discards underground is another. One way of reading the history of the Common Fisheries Policy (and quite a bit of domestic UK fisheries policy) is about constant efforts to mitigate perverse side effects of well-intended legislation.

International Negotiations

In the future, we can expect that bilateral (or trilateral) international negotiations will be the main vehicle for managing shared stocks. However tough these negotiations become, they must be rooted in mutual respect for the rights and sovereignty of all of those involved. It would not be acceptable for one party to enact domestic legislation and then expect international partners to bow to it, whether they agreed with the thrust of the measures or not. That is not how international negotiations work, yet that is what the EU has brought to the table in recent years with its unilateral but mandatory requirement to set TACS at MSY by 2020. During EU/Norway negotiations, independent coastal states like Norway, with much stronger credentials on conservation of fish stocks than the CFP, have made plain their scorn for a crude attempt to shoehorn unrealistic, poorly drafted, EU domestic legislation into international negotiations. If every country insists that its domestic legislation takes priority, international fisheries negotiations would be stuck in a perpetual impasse.

If the UK wishes to avoid putting itself in the same position, this amendment must be allowed to fall.

More Rigid than the CFP

In fact, prioritising the sustainability objective would, if accepted, mean that UK law was more inflexible and less balanced than the CFP. The first objective of the CFP reads:

“The CFP shall ensure that fishing and aquaculture activities are environmentally sustainable in the long-term and are managed in a way that is consistent with the objectives of achieving economic, social and employment benefits, and of contributing to the availability of food supplies.” Article 2.1 of the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation EU 1384/13

At least the authors of the CFP recognised that there are three pillars, not one, to sustainability and these must be balanced carefully.

In-built Accountability

With a balanced portfolio of objectives, the government would remain accountable for its obligation to meet sustainability objectives. The five interrelated sustainability objectives would be given force through the Joint Fisheries Statement and Fisheries Management Plans. These instruments will provide for a more refined interpretation of the management objectives for particular circumstances and include inbuilt prioritisation of particular elements of sustainability, including:

⦁ Provisions to specify policies for restoring or maintaining a stock at sustainable levels (section6(3)(a))

⦁ Improve evidence to assess a stock’s maximum sustainable yield (section 6(3)(b)(ii)).

⦁ The requirement to follow the precautionary approach (in line with the objective) where evidence is not sufficient to assess a stock’s maximum sustainable yield (section 6(4)).

Reporting requirements will ensure that government decisions are scrutinised and that the various objectives relating sustainability are upheld over the long term (section 11).

Commons

The Bill returns to the House of Commons on the 1st September and it is at that stage that these amendments will be considered. The House will have to decide whether it prioritises virtue signalling over truly effective sustainable fisheries management.

Notes

Fisheries Bill

Fisheries objectives

The fisheries objectives are—

1. (a) the sustainability objective,

2. (b) the precautionary objective,

3. (c) the ecosystem objective,

4. (d) the scientific evidence objective,

5. (e) the bycatch objective,

6. (f) the equal access objective,

7. (g) the national benefit objective,

8. (h) the climate change objective.

Amendments introduced in the House of Lords

The “sustainability objective” is that—

1. (a) fish and aquaculture activities do not compromise environmental

sustainability in either the short or the long term;

2. (b) subject to subsection (2)(a), fishing fleets must— 15

(i) be managed to achieve economic, social and employment benefits and contribute to the availability of food supplies, and (ii) have fishing capacity that is economically viable but does not overexploit marine stocks.

The sustainability objective is the prime fisheries objective. 20

The “precautionary objective” is that—

(a) the precautionary approach to fisheries management is applied, and

(b) exploitation of marine stocks restores and maintains populations of harvested species above biomass levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield.

Financial support measures from governments across the UK have been significant in scale and delivered with a rapidity and efficiency that has matched the urgency of the moment. Of necessity, these schemes have been broad-brush, including in the case of the fishing industry, where stand-alone schemes to cover unavoidable business costs were agreed by the Treasury and devolved administrations. Inevitably, some fishermen have fallen through the gaps.

The period of extreme emergency is slowly receding, although there is a risk of a second wave of infections, as lockdown measures are relaxed. Markets are tentatively returning but not in all areas. Some will take a long time to fully recover. Having survived the last few difficult months, the focus is now on how to get through the slow and possibly prolonged recovery period. This at a time when financial resilience for businesses and crew will be low. With no reserves put aside, large parts of the industry are highly vulnerable. The challenges of debt management as Government support schemes end will affect many fishermen and their families.

Identified areas of risk

There have been those who have fallen through the gaps in the support measures. Whether this is because of personal circumstances, or the criteria used to frame the different support schemes, it is important that these people are not left behind.

We, collectively feel a responsibility to:

• Identify those at risk from the loss of their business and/or personal difficulties.
• Analyse the nature of the difficulties they are now facing.
• Develop and provide adequate solutions, that will help fishermen who are struggling through this unprecedented and challenging time.

An array of support agencies, including government, private and charitable already exist. Their role is to support those in the fishing sector who are facing genuine difficulties.

Navigating these different agencies to find the right kind of support can, however, be daunting. There is now an urgent need for a single point of contact to be established so that fishermen can be directed to the support appropriate to each individual case.

The Fishermen’s Mission has agreed to operate a ‘one-stop shop’ for all matters relating to welfare and the wellbeing of both active and retired fishermen and their families. Their contact information is: Freephone 0800 6341020 or landline 01489 566910; e-mail: enquiries@fishermensmission.org.uk or via their website: www.fishermensmission.org.uk by using the Need Help button. The Fishermen’s Mission also have a strong presence on Twitter @thefishmish and Facebook Fishermen’s Mission where they can receive direct message. It is our hope that the Fishermen’s Mission become the first point of contact for all fishermen when they need this kind of support and that this information is widely available to them.

Tough Months Ahead

We anticipate that the next few months will be tough. There is both economic and financial uncertainty, as well as fear and concern about a second wave, should the pandemic return in force. In these difficult conditions, it is our collective intention to ensure fishermen (and their families) are guided to available sources of support where and when it is needed. If, in order to for this to happen, we need to make further government intervention, we will not hesitate to make that case. Our intention, with this initiative, is to ensure as far as possible, that appropriate assistance is available to everyone who need it and to ensure that we return to being the strong, resilient, industry we were before this crisis and that we can be again.

Barrie Deas CE

National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations

Elspeth Macdonald CE

Scottish Fishermen’s Federation

David Dickens CE

The Fishermen’s Mission

END

Further information:

Barrie Deas CE said:

“We know that the Covid-19 virus and subsequent lockdown has stripped resilience out from many parts of our industry. The very least we can do is provide an adequate safety-net for those who find themselves in difficulty. Having a single contact point will, we hope ease access to the support systems that are available.”

Elspeth Macdonald, Chief Executive of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation said:

“This has been an extremely difficult time for many in our industry, and indeed continues to be so for some, as the recovery from the Covid lockdowns slowly takes shape. It is important that fishermen can readily access the help and advice that they need over the weeks and months ahead, and this initiative will help to do that.”

David Dickens, Chief Executive of the Fishermen’s Mission comments:

‘This has been one of the busiest times in history of the work of the Fishermen’s Mission. We have worked closely, for many years, with the NFFO and SFF and it is vital that all fishermen understand that we are here to help with any issues that they may be facing. We have port staff covering the whole of the UK coastline and while currently we may all be working from home – we are still able to provide an extremely effective service. We welcome this initiative and statement as a declaration of our commitment to continue to support our fishermen and their families’.

The Fishermen’s Mission is the national charity that provides practical, financial and welfare support to both active and retired fishermen as well as their families. A Christian charity that works around the whole of the UK coastline helping anyone who works on a UK fishing boat or works in the water in the aquaculture sector. Since the beginning of the Covid 19 restrictions the Fishermen’s Mission has accessed grants totalling more than £250K to assist fishermen and their families as well as providing emotional support and arranging for other services to assist where and when necessary.

Contact for the Fishermen’s Mission

Ali Godfrey, Director of Business Development

07884 188323

Alisongodfrey@fishermensmission.org.uk

Social Media for the Fishermen’s Mission

Twitter @thefishmish

Facebook fishermensmission

Instagram @thefishmish

After the meeting NFFO Chief Executive, Barrie Deas, said:

“We were hugely reassured by this meeting. It is clear that for the UK negotiating team and the Government at the highest levels, getting the right deal on fishing is a not a matter of expedience but a matter of principle. The UK’s right to act as a fully independent coastal state is deeply intertwined with the UK’s sovereign rights after the end of the transition period. There will be no sell-out. Fishing is an absolute priority for the UK.”

FishSAFE
Mk3 includes major improvements such as a high resolution touch screen and
trackball option.

FishSAFE
updates its internal hazards database automatically from the internet and there
is also an online messaging facility. The internet connection uses cable or
WiFi, including via mobile phones on tether.

These
enhancements, among others, will make it even easier for fishermen to obtain
and view the latest oil and gas related data. The feedback from skippers who
have trialled the new units has been very positive.

FishSAFE
displays a map of relevant information showing what is on or above the seabed
and incorporates an audible and visual alarm, activated when a boat approaches
offshore infrastructure or a safety zone.

Crucially,
FishSAFE contains information on pipeline spans which, standing proud of the
seabed, create an even greater risk of the snagging of fishing gear.

The new
unit has been developed by FLTC Services, the operational part of FLTC, the
charity which promotes the distribution of vital data to fishermen. It is
available only to fishermen in the UK fleet.

To
purchase a unit, download and complete the purchase order form on the FishSAFE
website (www.fishsafe.eu) or alternatively, contact the SFF at accounts@sff.co.uk.

New Technologies

Remote monitoring using electronic equipment has an important role to play in the future management of UK fisheries. In various forms, it is already widespread in other industries and new applications are developed every year.

Vessels over 12m already carry transponders which provide data on vessel location via satellite when at sea. This is a strong aid to effective monitoring control and enforcement. Likewise, electronic logbooks for vessels over-10 metres in length, and a mobile phone catch-app for under-10m vessels, have strengthened the flow of information necessary for the effective management of our fisheries.

CCTV cameras have been successfully used on a voluntary basis in the UK and Denmark, in projects that provide assurance that catches of cod are kept within permitted limits. Other initiatives using CCTV have been used in a similar way to help scientists understand specific catch patterns and provide more useful advice to fisheries managers. Groundfish fisheries in western Canada are the recognised leaders in the development of CCTV technologies and the use of these new approaches to providing transparency for managers, customers and the general public. Link

Universal Control Measure

Some have argued that these examples of the successful applications of modern technologies in fisheries, should be taken to the next step and made mandatory by requiring CCTV on all fishing vessels whenever they leave harbour. This is problematic from legal, ethical and practical perspectives:

• Put simply, fishermen do not want that level of intrusion into their working lives.
• Fisheries control authorities tend to be split between the authoritarians and those who favour policing by consent. The former favour a tool that could be used remotely under all conditions. The latter, currently in the majority, recognise that the route to high levels of compliance lies through dialogue, shared objectives and resolving the management challenges that underlie most examples of non-compliance. Both groups recognise the dangers of pitting the ingenuity of fishermen against any “infallible” method of monitoring and control. A wise fisheries scientist once said, “There are no technocratic solutions.”
• Legal safeguards for citizens exist to protect privacy, personal data and civil rights. Mandatory, universal, CCTV is regarded as a step too far in a world that already bears an uncomfortable resemblance to George Orwell’s Big Brother in the novel 1984
• The UK has inherited retained EU law on fisheries which still contains many examples of conflicts or contradictions between legal requirements. It will take time for these to be eliminated. For example: which takes precedence – catch composition rules which limit the percentage of a certain species in a vessel’s catch, or the landing obligation which requires all quota species must be landed? CCTV would only amplify this regulatory conflict, leaving vessel operators exposed to prosecution whichever option they chose. At the moment this dilemma is managed through pragmatic policing. Cameras would provide solid evidence of repeat infringements day-in and day-out, putting the authorities under pressure to act.
• New technologies generate new challenges. The retrospective detection of repeat area infringements through satellite monitoring have generated not only fines but loss of the licence to fish through accumulated penalty points. The problem here is that the new technology has removed the traditional educative role which effective policing depends on. A warning after the first offence might be all that’s needed, either to dispel ignorance or as a warning shot. Instead, the matter is automatically escalated to the point where fishermen’s livelihoods – both for master/owner and crew are at risk.

All these reasons should give pause for thought before creating a legal obligation to carry functioning CCTV cameras.

Instructive

The examples where CCTV cameras have been introduced successfully on a voluntary basis are instructive. Most importantly, there is a sequence to be followed:

• Ensure that fleet capacity in the fishery is aligned with available fishing opportunities. Without that balance fishing vessels will struggle to be profitable and legal within their quota allocations
• Ensure that there are no regulatory conflicts of the type described above
• Bring those who are subject to the regulations into the process of policy formulation, and the design and implementation of the management measures for their fisheries. The scope for management plans contained in the Fisheries Bill, would provide the space at the fishery level, to deliver co-management, through which fisheries administrators, fisheries scientists and fishers cooperate in the design and implementation of management measures in specific fisheries
• Bring control authorities (in England, the Marine Management Organisation) into the relevant co-management structures and the conversations within them. Fishers and control authorities have a deep shared interest in ensuring that fisheries policy and management measures are practical at the vessel level
• Only when the fundamental fisheries management issues in any given fishery have been resolved, should consideration be given to whether the participants in that fishery would benefit from providing outward assurance to fisheries managers, customers and the general public, by installing appropriately located CCTV cameras. This is a choice for participants in each fishery at the right moment, not for legislators, remote from the practical issues involved

Lazy

Advocating CCTV cameras as a universal panacea, without addressing resolving the underlying fisheries management and compliance issues, is just lazy. CCTV cameras and other forms of remote electronic monitoring have a big future in fisheries, as they do in most other industries. But a mandatory requirement for fishing vessels to carry functioning CCTV equipment is as offensive, provocative and impractical as placing a policeman on every fishing vessel – or in every office or living room.

Post Brexit Landing Obligation

Ministers have indicated that they wish to retain the principle of the landing obligation but are open to refinements in the way that it works in practice. Defra have arranged a meeting/conference call for Friday 5th June, to discuss how the landing obligation might work after 31st December 2020.

In preparation for that meeting we have prepared a draft list of points (below) which amount to NFFO policy in this area.

Address CFP Design Deficiencies

• A requirement to land all quota species in all circumstances (except when an exemption is in place) is unenforceable – a well-designed discard policy focused on reducing unwanted catch, with the understanding and support of the fishing industry, by contrast, is an achievable objective
• EU legislators’ focus was on legislation, not implementation (someone else’s problem); there is a need for a more integrated fisheries management approach in which discard policy has a place but is not the main driver
• The potential for chokes in mixed fisheries remains a deep rooted and ongoing problem
• The LO has led to loss of visibility of catches in some fisheries and in some circumstances – leading to a degradation in the scientific advice and the quality of fisheries management decisions
• The LO depends on extensive use of exemptions – these are temporary and require annual re-visitation – absorbing too much time and effort
• The LO was developed in an artificial moral panic, with inadequate account taken of the views of those who would be subject to the new rules
• Discard policy should not be legislated for in inflexible primary legislation
• Successful implementation requires an ability to adapt and adjust – which is not available within the CFP’s rigid decision-making process

Priorities

• Secure adequate quota to reduce potential for chokes (TAC decisions, UK proportion of shared stocks, internal allocation and transfer arrangements)
• Re-brand the LO without losing emphasis on reducing unwanted catch
• Reposition and reaffirm discards policy as a facet of fishing management (not the priority) – the principle priority/objective should be to maintain fishing mortality within safe limits and maximise sustainable yields
• Recognise the diversity of circumstances in which discard policy is applied
• Maintain high-survival and de minimis exemptions where sufficient evidence is available – replacement for STECF role – but on a more reasonable time cycle
• Re-connect with fishers – policing by consent – this requires dialogue at all levels
• Maintain focus on reducing unwanted catch, through hearts and minds rather than blunt policy instruments and heavy-handed enforcement
• Reaffirm emphasis on the importance of accurate catch information and its connection to sound management decisions
• Remove TAC status where it serves no purpose – eg. Irish Sea whiting
• Muscular positioning on this issue when dealing with the EU during bilateral negotiations – UK discard policy will be separate, distinct and more effective in practice than the CFP
• Further development of gear selectivity and avoidance strategies as practical ways of reducing unwanted catch
• Explore voluntary use of REM subject to safeguards on ethical, legal and practical aspects, where this is a valid option
• Focus on what economic incentives are being created when regulating – minimise scope for unintended consequences
• Management Plans as envisaged by the Fisheries Bill could be the right vehicle for regionally and sectoral sensitive discard policies
• Explore scope in Fisheries Bill for a charging scheme that would allow landing of unavoidable overshoots without creating an economic incentive to target
• Measures to ensure that non-UK vessels fishing in UK waters comply with UK discard policy

NFFO June 2020

The Benyon Review came off the back of a sustained campaign by environmental lobbyists claiming that the UK MPA network amounted to “paper parks” that offered little protection. What is clear is that with a network already totalling 355 sites in UK waters, and many only recently designated, marine managers have had their work cut out to conclude planning processes to put site measures in place. Once all measures are in place, the UK will without doubt have a well-protected network; an independent website tracking MPA protection already places the UK as world leader.

The report downplays the benefits of the existing large network in order to justify a new set of areas that would exclude all fishing activities. In order to identify new sites, it seeks to pit a coalition of conservation, recreation and tourism interests against existing marine users, including small scale inshore fishing communities.

The existing marine conservation zones (MCZs), first identified in 2010-11, had to meet strict ecological criteria but allowed some latitude to account for livelihood needs in their selection. The Review recommends that HPMAs should be targeted firstly within the existing MPA network. This would ride a coach and horses through the finely balanced calculations that coastal communities were forced to make at the time to try to ensure MPA designations did not undermine marine livelihoods. The Cromer Shoal MCZ is one example put forward to the review panel following its public invitation for proposed sites. The site nationally famous for the Cromer crab would, if chosen, see the local industry and its traditions terminated overnight. The review panel was itself preparing to make site recommendations from behind closed doors but had refrained only at a late stage due to delays caused by the Coronavirus pandemic.

During its deliberations, the review panel, which included a number of leading MPA lobbyists, undertook only minimal engagement with fishing bodies. Despite paying lip-service to the need for sustainable management of UK seas and recognising the risk to small scale fishing communities, who are vulnerable to being displaced, the report comes out firmly in favour of weighting any selection process to ecological criteria. If taken forward, this will further marginalise local fishing communities in any consultation process.

Dale Rodmell, NFFO Assistant Chief Executive said: “The fishing industry is already facing considerable loss of fishing grounds as management measures are steadily introduced in the existing MPA network and as a result of the huge expansion of offshore windfarms and cables infrastructure.”

“It is surprising how easily the government appears to be giving way to a conservation lobby rhetoric criticising its own world beating record on MPAs. In the Brexit negotiations it is fighting to secure fairer access to fishery resources for the UK but if it follows the findings of this report it will then be taking away those hard-won opportunities.”