Fisheries Bill

In contrast to a febrile, not to say toxic, atmosphere elsewhere in Westminster, there is something like a cross-party consensus that these powers will be necessary, post-Brexit, as it would be irresponsible to leave a vacuum. The Bill also provides quite wide delegated powers to UK fisheries ministers to amend fisheries law retained from the CFP. Ministers would also use delegated powers and secondary legislation to provide for an adaptive and responsive future UK fisheries policy. This would contrast starkly with the CFP’s cumbersome and dysfunctional decision-making processes. In this too there seems to be a broad cross-party consensus, but with concerns to ensure that there are safeguards to ensure that such discretionary powers are not used in a capricious or perverse way.

Outside these central themes, the Bill is heavily shaped by the devolution settlement. The settlement inarguably makes fisheries management in the UK infinitely more complex and vexed, especially when there are different complexions of government in London and Edinburgh. The main vehicle for cooperation between the devolved administrations – joint fisheries statement – is an untried and untested concept with plenty scope for ambiguity and future conflict.

Likewise, in English fisheries, the Bill provides for powers to auction quota that are novel and likely to be controversial when it comes to implementation. Perhaps less controversially, the Bill provides new ways of mitigating chokes caused by the application of the landing obligation to mixed fisheries.

Given the wide recognition that the Bill is a necessary piece of enabling legislation that will allow the UK to manage its fisheries outside the CFP, the main focus of proposed amendments as the Bill passes through the various parliamentary stages, has been on various add-ons sought by MPs. These have varied from the useful, to the pointless, to the potentially damaging. There is a danger that poorly thought-through amendments and a tendency to seek to overload primary legislation, could, if allowed, replicate the CFP’s rigidity. The Government, so far, in committee stage has fought-off the more potentially damaging of these amendments.

The Bill is now about to face scrutiny and possible amendment in the House of Lords before returning to the Commons for a final vote.

NFFO

The Federation, working with parliamentary specialists, Connect, has:

• Supported the main purpose of the Bill
• Provided written and oral evidence to the Bill’s Scrutiny Committee and the Scottish Affairs Committee
• Provided comprehensive briefing materials to MPs of all relevant parties
• Met and briefed key players in the legislative process
• Built on our two successful lobby day events, each attended by over 60 parliamentarians
• Met with House of Commons library staff, whose role is to provide objective briefing materials to MPs
• Sought a limited number of amendments including:

1. An advisory council to inform ministerial decisions
2. A dispute resolution mechanism to deal with conflicts between the devolved administrations
3. Highlighting the anomaly through which the English fishing sector is denied equivalent representation at ministerial level

Sustainable Fishing

The Government rightly puts sustainable fishing at the heart of the Bill’s objectives and affirms its commitment to manage our fisheries in line with the maximum sustainable yield principle. The arbitrary 2020 MSY deadline has correctly been dropped, mainly because it is unachievable and scientifically illiterate but also because it is an impediment to the practical, sustainable, management of real fisheries. The biomass of individual stocks can slip below MSY for environmental reasons affecting recruitment, and often do. The application of MSY in mixed fisheries often requires trade-offs to secure different but equally important objectives (for example, reducing discards/avoiding chokes or mitigating socio-economic impacts).

MSY is a valuable aspirational marker but as a legally binding straightjacket, it undermines sustainable fisheries management. As a warning, it should be carefully noted that if the MSY objective had been applied as a rigid, legally-binding, requirement at the Council of Ministers in December, most demersal fisheries in Western Waters would now be closed, with frightening consequences for fishing businesses and fishing communities.

It is important therefore that the Fisheries Bill contains realisable objectives and avoids superficially desirable but catastrophically naïve legal requirements.

Lords

The Bill now passes to the Lords and the Federation will be continuing its work by meeting with key figures in the House of Lords and by providing detailed briefing on the purpose and detail of the draft legislation, as required. The Lords’ role is that of a more deliberative, amending role, and so it is equally important that there is a good understanding amongst legislators of the central issues and legislative pitfalls.

Overload and Counterweight

The main danger with the Bill lies not so much with the proposed legislation but with ill-considered add-ons. The lesson was well learnt with the CFP, that overloading primary legislation delivers a cumbersome and inflexible system, incapable of addressing obvious errors, or dealing with new information, including formal scientific advice. In dealing with dynamic natural resources and a dynamic fishing industry, this rigidity has been disastrous within the CFP. As de facto fisheries managers, the Government has learnt this lesson well and foresees an important role for secondary legislation which can be amended relatively rapidly to meet new contingencies (as well as redefining retained EU fisheries law). All those concerned with practical implementation, rather than superficial posturing, will support this approach. In granting wide discretionary powers it is important to have necessary counterweights. Parliamentary scrutiny of secondary legislation will be important but equally, future fisheries policy should be informed by knowledgeable and experienced individuals in the form of an advisory council. The Government has not yet accepted this although there seems to be wide cross-party support for something to be put in place.

Summary

This is the most important piece of domestic fisheries legislation to have passed through Parliament for 30 years. As such, the Federation has devoted a great deal of energy and focus in ensuring that its central powers are adopted, and that it is not deformed by ill-considered amendments. We have suggested a limited number of changes to the legislation.

Fears that the Commission and Austrian Presidency would be deaf to the UK’s arguments because of Brexit, proved to be unfounded. It was not necessary, therefore for the UK to insist on a declaration reserving its position on the Council’s outcomes in the event of a no-deal departure from the EU in March. Nevertheless, the Commission’s consistent emphasis on presentation over practical implementation, will undoubtedly make it more difficult to reduce choke risks during 2019. An overemphasis on optics and a lack of understanding, or care, about practical implementation has been the hallmark of the CFP for many years.

Against this background, the UK has insisted that TAC decisions on choke stocks, should be kept under close review as next year progresses, to prepare the ground for rapid intervention as the need arises.

Chokes and Zero Catch Advice

The scale and location of chokes in mixed fisheries are not easy to predict.

Where chokes can be foreseen with absolute certainty, is where the scientific advice is for zero catch of a particular species, or where a country has no quota allocation for that particular species. This is the case for five important stocks, including Celtic Sea cod, Irish Sea whiting, West of Scotland cod and whiting and Western Approaches plaice. The approach finally adopted is to set the TAC at a level below current catches, to partially cover unavoidable bycatches, and to make up the gap though encouragement for member state to engage in international swaps and additional selectivity/avoidance measures. Member states without quota (notably Spain and Netherlands) would have first call on the reserved bycatch quota by offering swaps of other desirable quotas. This complicated and untested arrangement will apply from 1st January, but the UK has laid down markers that the level of TAC and the swapping arrangements require early review. This fits with the NFFO’s call for contingency planning because of the uncharted territory we are moving into after 1st January.

Bass

Some progress but not enough, was made in allowing fishermen to keep unavoidable catches of bass, rather than discard them dead. Maintaining momentum towards rebuilding the stocks, rightly remains a priority but nevertheless an opportunity was missed, especially in relation to unavoidable bycatch in the trawl fisheries. Increased catch limits and removal of the 1% bycatch constraint will certainly be welcomed by vessels using fixed gill nets. The main problem remains with the Commission’s insistence on the retention of the 1% bycatch limit for vessels using trawl gears. This will ensure that unacceptable amounts of bass will again be discarded next year. Nevertheless, the increase to 400kgs per two months, even within the 1% bycatch percentage, is a step in the right direction. As expected, bass has not been included under the landing obligation, for rather arcane legal reasons.

The elimination of targeted bass fisheries, from 2016, along with a range of other measures, including an increase in minimum landing size, has led to a huge reduction in fishing pressure on bass. Resultant improvements in the biomass are reflected in this year’s scientific advice.

The measures for 2019 are:

Vessels using demersal trawls, for unavoidable by‑catches not

exceeding 400 kilogrammes per two months and 1% of the weight of the total catches of marine organisms on board caught by that vessel in any single day;

(b) using seines, for unavoidable by‑catches not exceeding 210 kilogrammes per month and 1% of the weight of the total catches of marine organisms on board caught by that vessel in any single day;

(c) using hooks and lines, not exceeding 5.5 tonnes per vessel per year;

(d) using fixed gillnets for unavoidable by‑catches not exceeding 1.4 tonnes per vessel per year

South East

Tony Delahunty, NFFO President and South East Committee Chairman

Mixed fortunes emerged from the Council for the South East. It is a hard blow to face a further 25% TAC reduction in Eastern Channel sole, against the background of deep cuts in previous years. On the other hand, the 10% increase in the TAC for skates and rays in area 7 will be welcome. Despite our efforts, it was not possible to secure an increase in the North Sea TAC, despite an abundance of thornback ray in the Thames and the limited number of alternative fishing opportunities. The high survival exemption for skates and rays means that over-quota catches of ray will be returned to the sea during 2019.

The relaxations in restrictions in the bass fishery will be welcome, although they fall far short of the balanced approach that should be in place at this stage in the recovery of the stock. More could and should have been done by the Council to reduce discards of bass caught as unavoidable bycatch, but despite the combined efforts of the UK France and Netherlands only limited progress was made.

Although Channel cod is not considered to be a choke risk in 2019, things can change very quickly with a fast growing, migratory species like cod. Given the UK’s ludicrously low share of the TAC, it will be important to be ready to intervene if signs appear that the fishery will be choked.

North Sea

Ned Clark, Chairman of the NFFO North East Committee

The main North Sea TACs were, as usual, agreed within the context of EU Norway annual negotiations. Although a proposed 47% cut in the TAC for was averted, the 33% cut which was adopted will make cod the limiting species in the mixed fisheries, increasing the choke risk from medium to acute.

Whiting also faced reductions both through a cut to the TAC but also through a de minimis deduction. The Commission’s calculations were challenged and reduced from 40% to 6%.

Major chokes in the flatfish fisheries were averted by the expedient of removing TAC status from dab and providing a (conditional and temporary) exemption for skates and rays and plaice.

By making a fetish of managing stocks at maximum sustainable yield, rather than using it as a helpful signpost of progress to high average yields, the environmental NGOs marginalised themselves from most of the debates at Council and contented themselves with sniping from the sidelines. Ministers, and even the Commission, accept that MSY goal must be balanced with other CFP objectives, as well as the exigencies of practical fisheries management, and much of the discussion within in the Council was about achieving exactly that balance. There is no question of ignoring the science. It is a question of using the very best available science to inform complex, difficult and multi-faceted management decisions.

Farne Deeps nephrops is a very valuable natural resource for the communities on the North East coast and the species is the main economic driver for the local fleets. It is a relief that the fishery has now stabilised after a dip in the biomass and remedial measures.

Paul Trebilcock, Chief Executive of the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation

“Some Progress but Big Challenges Ahead for 2019”

Full implementation of the EU’s landing obligation from the 1 January 2019, meant that more than ever before it was vital that ministers delivered sustainable, workable and effective outcomes for South-West Fishermen.

The UK Government team led by Defra minister, Lord Gardiner in the absence of UK Fisheries Minister George Eustice, were well briefed and committed. There was a clear understanding of our priorities, the challenges, and potential implications for South-West fishermen.

The Council outcomes contained some important gains for the South-West, including significant improvements in quotas like Western hake (increased 28%), megrim sole (increased by 47%) and rollover quotas for pollack and saithe in area 7.

Celtic Sea Cod (ICES area 7e-k)

The principle that zero catch advice could not be compatible with the landing obligation was quickly conceded by the Commission. If followed literally, zero catch advice in mixed fisheries would result in vessels being immediately choked and have to cease fishing in the Celtic Sea early in the year.

Ultimately agreement was reached around a package including:

• 48% reduction from 2018 TAC, to a level below that which would meet by-catch landings in 2018 by South-West fishermen
• A further 6% of the quota having to be made available for quota exchanges with member states that do not have a current quota allocation
• Quota exchanges and further selectivity measures (both technical and area based) during the first part of 2019 as ways of addressing the concerns raised.

This complicated and unsatisfactory outcome presents a potentially massive challenge for South-West fishermen in the year ahead.

In view of the problems ahead, the UK has already called for a review of the 2019 TAC for Celtic Sea cod early in the new-year. The reviewed TAC should reflect the landing statistics in 2018 as applied within the ICES Celtic Sea mixed fisheries model. An upward revision would go some way to mitigating the very real choke risk.

Haddock 7b-k

A welcome increase of 20% was secured but is still likely to be a significant choke risk.

It was made clear from the outset that CFPO members have been and will continue to work with scientists on selectivity improvements and enhanced data collection but this multi-faceted problem will not be solved without a realistic level quota being available for South-West fishermen.

Sole 7e, 7hjk and 7fg

There were mixed outcomes for these important South-West flat fish quotas.

7e sole quota continues to improve with a 3% increase reflecting the health of this stock.

7hjk stock stability was reflected in a rollover of the 2018 quota.

There was less positive news on 7fg sole with the Commission’s original proposal of a 9% reduction in relation to the 2018 quota was agreed, despite clear arguments within the MSY framework to mitigate this reduction led by the Belgian delegation.

Plaice 7hjk

As with Celtic Sea cod, the principle that a zero quota advice was not compatible with the landing obligation was quickly conceded by the Commission. If it had been followed it would have resulted in vessels being immediately choked and have to cease fishing in ICES area 7hjk.

Ultimately, agreement was reached around a 15% reduction from 2018 TAC, to a level below that which would meet by-catch landings in 2018 by South-West fishermen.

This is further compounded by 6% of the quota having to be made available for quota exchanges with member states that do not have a current quota allocation.

The Commission pointed towards quota exchanges and developing further selectivity measures (both technical and area based) during the first part of 2019 as ways of addressing the concerns raised.

Ray 6/7

An increase of 5% on the 2018 quota was a reflection of stable catches experienced by fishermen and was welcomed.

The prohibition on landing common skate and restrictions on small-eyed ray landings remain in place and continue to be a frustration that once again was not addressed.

Bass

Some recognition of improving stock status was reflected in the final agreement:

However the final agreement did not take on board or reflect the strong and credible arguments put forward by the NFFO to alleviate the pointless discarding of dead bass in the ultra-mixed trawl fisheries in the South-west. The 1% by-catch provision that remains in place from 2018 will see a continuation of discarding of unavoidable dead by-catch of bass with little or no effect on mortality of bass in these fisheries.

This was a big disappointment but discussions have already begun with DEFRA on how to address this going forward both in terms of re-visiting this during 2019 and of course in the post Brexit era.

Irish Sea

Alan McCulla Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation

The EU’s December 2018 News Net was a historic occasion. Another step towards the EU’s goal of managing fish stocks to a level defined around the principle of Maximum Sustainable Yield. Negotiations in the context of the full implementation of the EU’s Landing Obligation or discard ban. Finally, BREXIT – and the last December Fisheries Council at which the United Kingdom delegation would play a full part.

ANIFPO/Sea Source has attended every one of the year end Councils since December 1993 – 26 in total. Whilst the memory bank doesn’t recall the detail of everyone one of them, the majority do register for the wrong reasons – a succession of decisions that have resulted in dramatic reductions in many of the quotas available to all British fishermen, including those from Northern Ireland fishermen in the Irish Sea. The list of negatives is too long to mention here; quota cuts further exacerbated by the Hague Preference and cod recovery closures to name a few.

The irony is not lost that since the BREXIT vote, cuts to the Irish Sea’s main whitefish species have stalled and at least to some small extent been reversed, a trend that continued at this week’s negotiations in Brussels.

Of course in advance of the meeting signals around some of the quota figures had been loud and clear. Industry representatives, like officials were eager to minimise the issues tabled at the Council to enable discussion to focus on the critical matter of the discard ban, which for the Irish Sea was focused on whiting and the potential this has to choke the targeted fishery for prawns.

As we leave Brussels and count down the days left to BREXIT one question is will we be back in Brussels this time next year? The answer, which of course remains subject to a deal, would seem to be yes. Given the politics around the subject seem to be changing almost on a daily basis, who knows what the next twelve months will bring? But assuming that there is a plan that sticks, then the UK will at least be consulted and have observer status at the Fisheries Council in December 2019. Any meaningful change should come in 2020, as we look forward to the end of the Implementation Period and the UK becoming an independent coastal state. As the only part of the United Kingdom with a land frontier with the EU, a frontier that extends seawards, our unique geographic location is set to present further complications ahead. From 1 January 2021 we should begin to see real changes, but who knows? No Deal, any deal – a week, even a day is a short time in politics.

As 2018 draws to an end, we have just seen the release of the Government’s consultation on future Immigration Policy. This will be one of the focuses of our attention in the New Year. After all, without crew there is no one to man our fishing vessels – the sea of opportunities that beckons post Brexit could be lost to many coastal communities. Welfare of all our crews be they local, European or non-EEA is paramount and to all of them, especially those who are working away from home this Christmas we wish them a Very Happy Christmas and Peaceful New Year.

NFFO Chairman, Andrew Pascoe

This was my first exposure to the legendary all-night Fisheries Council. As a working fisherman, I was amazed by the intricacy of all the different elements of the final deal, but it seems to me that there is a huge gulf between the design and shaping of the rules in Brussels and where the impact the measures adopted are actually felt – in the wheelhouse and deck of fishing vessels. In particular, I cannot believe that anyone exposed to witnessing the waste of bass caught as an unavoidable bycatch being discarded week after week would allow this waste to continue.

The problem of choke risks generated by the landing obligation was a strand which ran through the Council from beginning to end. It is baffling to me that the CFP has got to this late stage in this flagship policy and is still patching together ad hoc solutions to how it will be implemented in practise.

I was hugely impressed by the Defra team, from Lord Gardiner, pushed into the hot seat at short notice, through to the committed and hard-working officials and scientists who supported him.

If we find ourselves in a transitional arrangement after March, we may find ourselves back in Brussels next December, but without a vote and without a seat at the table. That is a concern. Although this will only last for the 2020 fishing year, there are obvious dangers and it will be important to guard against them. By autumn 2020, we should be negotiating as an independent coastal state, with all that that profound legal change entails.

I would like to take this opportunity to wish all the Federation’s members, its friends and allies, the very best Christmas and a happy and prosperous New Year.

The NFFO team in Brussels this year was:

Bill Brock SWFPO and South East

Ned Clark North East

Matthew Cox, Pelagic

Tony Delahunty, South East

Jim Evans, Wales

Judith Farrell, Pelagic

Andrew Locker, North Sea

Arnold Locker, North Sea

Alan McCulla, Northern Ireland

Linda McCall, Northern Ireland

Andrew Pascoe,NFFO Chairman and Cornwall

Jim Portus, South West

Chloe Rogers, North Sea and External Waters

Jane Sandell, North Sea and External Waters

Paul Trebilcock, Cornwall

Barrie Deas, Chief Executive

At the time of going to press, we are waiting
for the definitive list of TACs and quota changes.

Legislative Design Faults

We can expect that some progress will be made over the next three days but a widespread recognition has built over the phase-in that the landing obligation, adopted as part of the 2013 reform of the CFP, is a deeply flawed piece of legislation. It is also clear that there are there are no easy solutions at hand:

• The problem of chokes in mixed fisheries (where the exhaustion of one quota will preclude a vessel from catching all its other quotas) is by far the problem with the most serious far-reaching consequences
• There remain conflicts with other CFP regulations which either contradict, or are at least not consistent with, the requirements of the landing obligation. These include:

1. The EU technical conservation regulation, currently under revision but so far stuck in limbo between the EU Parliament, the Commission and the member states
2. The EU control regulation is also undergoing revision which will take around two years
3. The absence of a multi-annual plan for Western Waters which could help mitigate chokes by allowing quotas to be set within a range of fishing mortalities consistent with maximum sustainable yield
4. Relative Stability, the EU formula for distributing quota between member states, means that what quota there is, is frequently in the wrong place to deal with chokes. It is not known whether the system for quota swaps and transfers will be adequate to the task, given that fishing groups and member states are likely to want to hold onto quota to deal with their own domestic chokes
5. The 2020 deadline for all stocks to be managed at MSY is both biologically unachievable (because of natural variability) and a self-imposed constraint that will intensify the choke problem in some fisheries

• The means to effectively monitor and enforce the landing obligation are simply not there because the new policy was adopted with inadequate preparation
• Minimal attempt has been made to prepare the fishing industry for the major change ahead through comprehensive guidance, not least because the rules are still being constructed, a fortnight before they are due to come into force

Against, this background of legislative confusion, it is no surprise that many in the fishing industry have adopted a wait and see attitude.

No Magic Wand

Despite its design flaws, because the landing obligation is welded into the basic CFP Regulation, there is little prospect that it could be revisited before the next CFP reform in 2023.

The realisation that the full implementation of the landing obligation “presents serious challenges” is now widely shared amongst fisheries administrators, enforcement authorities, and throughout the fishing industry and throughout the supply chain. All those concerned with the practical implementation of the policy confront the difficult reality that there is no magic wand and that we are about to enter a period of painful and complex adjustment which carries serious risks to fishing businesses, crews and established fishing patterns. Also under threat, are the scientific models which inform stock assessments. These require accurate data and depend on looking backwards to predict forward. This knowledge provides the basis for the sustainable management of our fish stock and anything that undermines its reliability, undermines our ability to manage our fisheries effectively.

In recent weeks, senior figures in fisheries management have described the choke problem as “intractable”, the landing obligation as “unenforceable”, and full compliance with the landing obligation as indivisible from choke risks. The risks are now clearly recognised but solutions are only partially in place.

Commitment to a Workable Discard Ban

Thankfully, despite the cluster of unresolved issues, we detect a maturity and level-headedness within the fishing industry and amongst decision-makers about finding a way forward.

Constructive discussions have been held involving government, fishing organisations, processors and retailers. These talks have provided a common understanding of the issues. There is a commitment and sense of joint responsibility to work towards a workable version of the landing obligation. The NFFO and others have recently given evidence to a House of Lords enquiry into the issues associated with the implementation of the landing obligation. The Committee’s report is likely to bring the issues into stark relief, and hopefully will point to ways in which discards policies have been successfully implemented in other countries.

Period of Adjustment

The magnitude of change represented by the landing obligation would require a period of adjustment, even if the legislators had delivered a coherent and consistent set of rules and prepared the ground properly. The fact that they didn’t, particularly in the failure to provide adequate tools to deal with chokes in mixed fisheries, ensures that the period of adjustment will be more turbulent than would otherwise have been the case.

A great deal is at stake. Unless we move carefully, livelihoods and the progress that we have made in putting our fisheries on a sustainable footing over the last two decades are now jeopardised.

Against this background, the NFFO has called on ministers to begin contingency planning. Chokes will be difficult to predict with accuracy but tying vessels or fleets to the wall when they have significant quotas left is not a politically, ethically, or socially acceptable option. What will happen then?

It will also be important to guard against unintended consequences, such as disruptive displacement effects, as individual vessels, or fleets, seek to avoid the consequences of chokes.

All this requires contingency planning, with a strong dialogue between the fishing industry, fisheries administrators, control authorities and key players in the supply chain.

Brexit

The full implementation of the landing obligation takes place against the background of the UK’s departure from the EU. If a way is found through the current political turmoil to a withdrawal agreement, the EU landing obligation would be part of the CFP rules that would continue to apply during any transition period. In those circumstances, the UK’s ideas for mitigating choke risks (outlined in the Fisheries White Paper and legislated for in the Fisheries Bill) would have to wait on the sideline. In the case of a no-deal scenario, the UK would become an independent coastal state from 29th March and immediately have more flexibility to vary its approach, although within the context of a legal obligation to cooperate in the management of shared stocks, and against the background of an abrupt rupture with the EU, which would carry its own consequences.

Contingency Planning

Having recognised and acknowledged the profound problems generated by the landing obligation, the immediate priority has to be to prepare to intervene to address the consequences of this flawed legislation as they arise.

⦁ Full implementation of the EU landing obligation (discard ban) from 1st January

⦁ Setting total allowable catches consistent with achieving the MSY objective by 2020 for all harvested stocks

⦁ Avoiding serious choke risks

⦁ Meeting the EU objective of managing fisheries in a way that is consistent with long term sustainability and generating social and economic and employment benefits

⦁ Basing TAC decisions on the most recent scientific advice, including advice for zero catch in specific fisheries

It is clear that not all these objectives can be achieved simultaneously, and so ministers must find a way through to the most reasonable trade-offs.

Chokes could emerge with almost any stock, depending on changing scientific advice, whether TACs have been set at the right level or the rate of quota uptake. The stocks in which these conflicts are at their most acute, however, are:

⦁ North Sea cod

⦁ Celtic Sea haddock

⦁ Irish Sea whiting

North Sea Cod

After more than a decade in which low fishing mortality (pressure) has led to steady increases in the spawning stock biomass, lower than average recruitment and a change in the scientific perception of the stock has led to ICES advice for a 47% cut in the TAC. If fully implemented this reduction would make cod an acute choke risk for haddock, saithe and whiting and other economically important species. As a jointly managed stock, the EU and Norway will probably set the TAC with a lower level of reduction, possibly -33%. This will still present fisheries managers and the fishing industry with a choke risk during 2019.

The TACs for North Sea joint stocks, were agreed at the EU/Norway negotiations held in Bergen and London which concluded on 7th December. The agreed TACs are as follows:

TACs

⦁ Whiting: -22% reduction (MSY Approach).

⦁ Cod: -33% (FMSY).

⦁ Haddock: -31% (MSY approach).

⦁ Saithe: +18% (MSY approach).

⦁ Plaice: +11% (MSY approach).

⦁ Herring: -35.9% (Fpa). The block between Denmark and Norway’s positions on cuts to the industrial bycatch fleet was eventually resolved with a smaller reduction being accepted and a working group established to discuss this further next year. The stock will be stepped back to MSY in 2020 instead of taking the full cut advised by ICES (-51%).

There is an outstanding issue on whiting, relating to the scale of deduction relating to a de minimis exemption for part of the fleet. The magnitude of the Commission’s calculations are being challenged.

Celtic Sea Haddock/Cod

Haddock in the Celtic sea is caught along with cod and whiting and a range of other species. Zero catch advice for cod means, if acted upon in management decisions, vessels would be immediately choked and have to cease fishing in the Celtic Sea. One solution that has been proposed is the introduction of a “Union quota” for cod in which bycatch quota is pooled for use of those who need it to avoid chokes. To date, however, there has been no consensus on how such a system should operate. Discussions continue on how to resolve this dilemma.

The choke risk for haddock lies with the UK’s low quota share and a reduced TAC. The UK share of Celtic Sea haddock quota is 10%. The French share is 66% (although the bulk of the catch is made in UK waters). Industry has been working with scientists on enhanced selectivity but this multi-faceted problem will not be solved without a TAC set at a realistic level.

Irish Sea Whiting

Historically there have been very high discards of whiting caught in the nephrop fishery because small whiting has a very low market value. There has been significant progress in introducing more selective fishing gear but whiting remains as a stubborn choke risk. This is a fishery in which the TAC serves no purpose and does not constrain fishing mortality. Against this background, the only solution appears to be the removal of TAC status or listing whiting as a prohibited species. Whichever of these options is taken, whiting will be returned to the sea in 2019.

Scientific Advice and Management Decisions

It is important to understand the distinction between scientific advice, and management decisions, not least because there are individuals and organisations in the NGO community, who routinely suggest that any difference results from irresponsible ministers and industry pressures.

In fact, ICES scientific advice is the basis for all TAC decisions but catch advice generally includes a range of options for managers to consider. Managers (in this case fisheries ministers) have a responsibility to balance this advice with a range of other responsibilities, including:

⦁ Discard reduction and implementation of the landing obligation, including mitigation of choke risks

⦁ The management of mixed fisheries, where a number of species are caught together and a TAC decision on one species has implications for others

⦁ Socio-economic impacts (a staged approach to TAC reductions, where these are necessary, is a frequently used approach)

⦁ Building stocks to deliver high average yields (usually understood in terms of maximum sustainable yield)

It is important that these management responsibilities and the trade-offs that they necessarily entail and properly understood.

The general stocks picture, across all species groups in the North East Atlantic, is best captured in the following statement:

“Over the last ten to fifteen years, we have seen a general decline in fishing mortality in the Northeast Atlantic* and the Baltic Sea. The stocks have reacted positively to the reduced exploitation and we’re observing growing trends in stock sizes for most of the commercially important stocks. For the majority of stocks, it has been observed that fishing mortality has decreased to a level consistent with Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) – meaning levels that are not only sustainable but will also deliver high long term yields.” (Our emphasis)

Eskild Kirkegaard,

Chair of the Advisory Committee,

International Council for Exploration of the Seas

*Includes the North Sea

Landing Obligation

In the last two weeks, Fisheries Minister George Eustice has described the problem of choke risks as “intractable”. During the same period, a senior CEFAS scientist told a parliamentary committee that the consequence of fully enforced landing obligation would be chokes. Finally, a senior fisheries regulator recently described the landing obligation as “unenforceable”. These comments provide an idea of the scale of the challenge presented by the implementation of the landing obligation. Against this background the NFFO has entered into urgent discussions with the Marine Management Organisation and Defra to prepare for the full implementation of the new regime in the New Year.

Statement of Intent by the the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations

Background

The EU landings obligation comes fully into force on 1st January 2019 and will then apply to all quota species, unless a specific de minimis or high survival exemption applies.

The full implementation of the landing obligation presents a number of challenges for the fishing industry, fisheries managers, and enforcement authorities, on a scale of magnitude not seen before. The problem of chokes in mixed fisheries, and the challenge of monitoring and controlling fishing activities in diverse fleets across a vast marine environment are at the top of the list of those challenges.

The regulatory regime underpinning the landings obligation is still in a period of adjustment, with important decisions still to be made at the December Council and beyond which will have a direct bearing on choke risks in specific fisheries.

There is a recognition that the year ahead could carry a number of serious risks to the economic wellbeing of the fleets and the integrity of the management regime.

Against this background, the Marine Management Organisation, Defra and the NFFO met in London on 4th December to discuss how to deal with this complex of issues in the coming year.

Draft Statement

Dealing with Chokes in 2019

1. We are entering a difficult period of adjustment in which a pathway to compliance is not yet clear

2. 2019 will be challenging in terms of:

⦁ Choke risks

⦁ Potentially low levels of compliance with the landing obligation in some fisheries

3. The fishing industry and fisheries regulators should have a common objective in achieving a workable landing obligation and a high level of compliance

4. There is a need to prepare to deal with contingencies that may arise during 2019

5. Within a collaborative approach, a forum is required to bring together the insight and experience of vessel operators, producer organisations, the MMO and Defra, to deal with implementation issues as they arise. As well as responding to specific current issues, the forum could also provide a space in which new methods of monitoring and control, such as reference fleets and remote electronic monitoring, could be discussed.

6. The overarching principle guiding the group should be that achieving a workable landing obligation and high levels of compliance, is a joint endeavour, with shared responsibility on vessel operators, producer organisations, fisheries managers, enforcement, control authorities and Defra policy officials. All affected parts of the fleet would be invited to participate in the work of the group.

7. It will be important to send a public statement that the group has been formed and is focussed on developing solutions to outstanding problems

NFFO December 2018

We believe we are entering a difficult period of adjustment in which a pathway to compliance is not yet clear. Moreover, important decisions still to be made at the December Council and beyond which will have a direct bearing on choke risks in specific fisheries.

There is a recognition that the year ahead could carry a number of serious risks to the economic wellbeing of the fleets and the integrity of the management regime.

Against this background, the NFFO met with the Marine Management Organisation and Defra in London on 4th December to discuss how to deal with this complex of issues in the coming year.

After extensive discussions in which various aspects of the implementation of the landing regime were discussed, it was agreed that:

1. The fishing industry and fisheries regulators should have a common objective in achieving a workable landing obligation and a high level of compliance

2. There is a need to prepare to deal with contingencies that may arise during 2019

3. Within a collaborative approach, a forum is required to bring together the insight and experience of vessel operators, producer organisations, the MMO and Defra, to deal with implementation issues as they arise. As well as responding to specific current issues, the forum could also provide a space in which new methods of monitoring and control, such as reference fleets and remote electronic monitoring, could be discussed.

4. The overarching principle guiding the group should be that achieving a workable landing obligation and high levels of compliance, is a joint endeavour, with shared responsibility on vessel operators, producer organisations, fisheries managers, enforcement, control authorities and Defra policy officials. All affected parts of the fleet would be invited to participate in the work of the group.

5. It will be important to send a public statement that the group has been formed and is focussed on developing solutions to outstanding problems

NFFO Statement of Intent 5th December 2018

The changes to the Fisheries Bill, currently passing through Parliament, will also make clear that after the UK has left, total allowable catches will be set following annual negotiations with the EU and other countries with which the UK shares stocks.

In addition to these legislative commitments, the announcement commits to public spending on fisheries at least equivalent to that currently received through the EU.

The announcement reads as follows:

Gove announces bolstered Fisheries Bill and £37m Brexit boost for UK fishing industry

Michael Gove today announced a strengthening of the law and new money to ensure the whole of the UK’s fishing industry prospers as we become an independent coastal state.

The Government will table an amendment to the Fisheries Bill which will enshrine its commitment to secure a fairer share of fishing opportunities for UK fishermen.

The amendment would place a legal obligation on the Secretary of State, when negotiating a fisheries agreement with the EU, to pursue a fairer share of fishing opportunities than the UK currently receives under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP).

This would overhaul the current system where UK fishermen have received a poor deal that is based on fishing patterns from the 1970s. On average between 2012 and 2016 other EU Member States’ vessels landed in the region of 760,000 tonnes of fish (£540 million revenue) annually caught in UK waters; whereas UK vessels landed approximately 90,000 tonnes of fish (£110 million revenue) caught in other Member States’ waters per year in the same time period.

As well as strengthening the law, the Environment Secretary announced £37.2 million of extra funding to boost the UK fishing industry during the Implementation Period. This is in addition to the existing European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) funding, which at €243m over seven years is broadly equivalent to £32m a year. The Government and Devolved Administrations have already committed to match the EMFF funding with around £60m, so the extra funding will support more projects and the sector will benefit by a total of £320m.

Mr Gove has also committed that the Government will put in place new, domestic, long-term arrangements to support the UK’s fishing industry from 2021, through the creation of four new schemes comparable to EMFF to deliver funding for each nation. The Devolved Administrations will lead on their own schemes.

Environment Secretary Michael Gove said:

“We are taking back control of our waters and will secure a fairer share of fishing opportunities for the whole of the UK fishing industry as we leave the EU. The amendment to the Fisheries Bill will give legal weight to this commitment.

“New funding will boost the industry as we become an independent coastal state, preparing it to receive a greater share of future fishing opportunities.”

The new schemes will be introduced after EMFF has closed in 2020. Details of these will be set at the 2019 Spending Review. In England, the scheme will:

• support innovation – in technologies to enhance economic growth, reduce environmental impact and improve fishing safety
• improve port infrastructure – so more fish can be landed in UK ports, and help the sector take advantage of new export opportunities after exit
• boost coastal communities – by providing benefits to areas that depend on a vibrant and profitable industry, and
• help the sector adjust – to new arrangements on access and fishing opportunities by improving capacity and capability to exploit new export opportunities and markets.

Independent Coastal State

When the UK leaves the EU, under international law, it will automatically assume the rights and responsibilities of an independent Coastal State. The Political Statement, agreed last weekend recognises this change in legal status, subject to a 21 month transitional period. References are made to:

• Regulatory Autonomy
• It is accepted that the UK would negotiate as an independent party to manage shared stocks sustainably
• Access to fish in UK waters, or for UK vessels to fish in EU waters would be subject to negotiation

Trade and Fishing Rights

The EU27 in its original negotiating mandate, and in statements made subsequently, have said any future trade deal will be contingent on the continuation of the status quo on access rights and quota shares. The UK, on the other hand, has been equally adamant that:

• There should be no linkage between an agreement on trade and fishing rights
• Access to UK waters for EU fleets will not be automatic
• Quota shares will have to change to more closely reflect the proportion of fish that are in UK waters (as the EU already recognises in its dealings with Norway)

The EU is occupying an uncomfortable position on this because there is no example of a trade deal current anywhere in the world which includes terms which require one party to grant free access to the natural resources of the other party. The EU’s position if applied to, say, a West African country, would rightly be regarded as a form of exploitative neo-colonialism.

Fishing and Politics

Fishing rights are already highly politically charged in the context of Brexit. The fishing industry sees Brexit as an opportunity to righting the wrong done when its interests were sacrificed in 1974. Fishing, perhaps easier to understand in its essentials than complex trade issues, has become a litmus test for Brexit. The parliamentary arithmetic since the last General Election has served to intensify the focus on fishing rights. With a Government that does not hold a majority in Parliament, fishing has become critical for the survival of the Government. In this context it will be important for the Government that any new fisheries agreement with the EU could not be portrayed as another sell-out. The symbolism of fishing is huge.

On the other side of the Channel, France, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Ireland and Spain, stand to lose a very great deal because the CFP and the principle of equal access has worked heavily to their advantage for 45 years. Quota shares are a zero-sum game.

EU vessels catch around six times as much in UK waters as UK vessels catch in EU waters. The CFP’s quota share formula Relative Stability, agreed in 1983, enshrined many examples of extreme distortions that have worked systematically to the UK’s disadvantage for 45 years, the most extreme example being Channel cod where the UK’s share is 9%, whilst France’s is 84%). This asymmetrical and exploitative relationship is now under threat.

No Sell-Out

A crystal ball is not required to foresee that the issue of fishing rights will remain in the political and media spotlight until a new equilibrium is found. The EU will apply maximum pressure to keep the current arrangements on access and quota shares, for the simple reason that these work massively to the EU’s advantage. The only scenario in which that is likely to happen is if the UK choses to remain within the EU (and therefore the CFP) in a second referendum.

Politically, the UK Government can’t afford not to deliver on fishing. From an economic point of view both sides want and need an ambitious free trade deal. The politics however will take priority. The EU will not agree to a trade deal which gives the same benefits to a non-member. The UK has its own internal political dynamics in which fishing will remain as a visible symbol of Brexit, perhaps the only aspect of Brexit where there is utter clarity. Whatever their other differences, there is cross-party consensus that the UK fishing industry has been appallingly treated by the Common Fisheries Policy, and that leaving the EU opens the prospect of doing something different – the one area in which the UK has an unambiguously strong hand to play.

The fishing issue will not diminish in significance whilst these political dynamics are in play and whilst the UK fishing industry and its allies seek justice.

Legal Shift

Beneath the politics, there is no disguising that there has been a seismic legal shift. As the UK leaves the EU it, by default, becomes an independent coastal state. It would take a betrayal of biblical magnitude for any British government to voluntarily cede its legal rights (and the benefits to exploit the natural marine resources in its own waters, which come with those rights) by buckling to EU pressure. It did happen before. Deft manoeuvring by the EU and a UK Government desperate to join the EEC fishing, delivered an asymmetric and exploitative relationship on fishing for 45 years. The political and legal dynamics are, however, very different this time round.

The Political Statement makes provision for a deal to be struck on fishing before July 2020, in preparation for the usual autumn fisheries negotiations. Both parties are legally obliged to cooperate on the management of shared stocks. But for the UK, the status quo on access and quota shares is not an option.

What do we want?

To understand what is at stake, it is only necessary to look across the North Sea at the EU’s current relationship with Norway on fishing.

• Norway is an independent coastal state, outside the Common Fisheries Policy
• EU and Norway successfully cooperate on the sustainable management of shared stocks
• Annual fisheries negotiations, within a framework agreement, determine total allowable catches, access arrangements and quota shares
• Respective quota shares are based on an objective assessment of the resources in each other’s exclusive economic zones (zonal attachment)
• If the annual negotiations fail to achieve agreement by the end of each year (as sometimes happens) EU vessels do not have access to Norwegian waters from 1st January and Norwegian vessels do not have access to EU waters, until a new deal is struck sometime in the New Year
• Unutilised quotas are exchanged annually on a balanced and reciprocal basis

This is what we want. And it should flow naturally from our new legal status as we leave the EU.

Political Statement on the UK/EU’s Future Economic Partnership

XII. FISHING OPPORTUNITIES

73. The Parties should cooperate bilaterally and internationally to ensure fishing at sustainable levels, promote resource conservation, and foster a clean, healthy and productive marine environment, noting that the United Kingdom will be an independent coastal state.

74. While preserving regulatory autonomy, the Parties should cooperate on the development of measures for the conservation, rational management and regulation of fisheries, in a non-discriminatory manner. They will work closely with other coastal states and in international fora, including to manage shared stocks.

75.Within the context of the overall economic partnership the Parties should establish a new fisheries agreement on, inter alia, access to waters and quota shares.

76. The Parties will use their best endeavours to conclude and ratify their new fisheries agreement by 1 July 2020 in order for it to be in place in time to be used for determining fishing opportunities for the first year after the transition period.

The key passage on fisheries reads:

FISHING OPPORTUNITIES

The parties agree to:

● Cooperation bilaterally and internationally to ensure fishing at sustainable levels, promote resource conservation, and foster a clean, healthy and productive marine environment, noting that the United Kingdom will be an independent coastal state. While preserving regulatory autonomy, cooperation on the development of measures for the conservation, rational management and regulation of fisheries, in a non-discriminatory manner. Close working with other coastal states and in international fora, including to manage shared stocks.

● Within the context of the overall economic partnership, establishment of a new fisheries agreement on, inter alia, access to waters and quota shares, to be in place in time to be used for determining fishing opportunities for the first year after the transition period.

Recognition that the UK will be an independent coastal state, carries with it the important implication that the automatic right of EU vessels to fish in UK waters – the principle of equal access – will end. Similarly, quota shares between the UK and the EU member states will no longer be governed by the 1983 agreement known as the principle of relative stability. The reference to regulatory autonomy, likewise, is weighted with meaning because it is a recognition that after any transition period, the UK will determine the rules for all vessels, domestic and foreign, which fish within the UK exclusive economic zone. The European institutions – the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament and the European Commission – will no longer determine the rules under which vessels fish in UK waters. The implied corollary is that UK vessels fishing in EU waters will be subject to EU rules.

It would be hard to overestimate the seismic significance of this shift. The agreement binds the parties to work cooperatively to ensure that fishing remains within sustainable levels. It concedes, however, that under international law, the UK will negotiate as an independent coastal state, with the rights and responsibilities of that new status under UN Law of the Sea.

Future Agreements

Much of the content on fisheries in the withdrawal agreement follows by default from the UK’s altered legal status. The parties agree to cooperate and the substance of any future agreement between the EU and UK on access and quota rights will take place in time to take effect after the end of any transition period. The EU, in its initial negotiating mandate, made clear that it would seek to make an agreement on a future EU/UK trade deal contingent on maintaining existing access to fish in UK waters and status quo on quota shares. The explicit reference to future fisheries negotiations between the UK and EU taking place within the context of the overall economic partnership, signals that this is where the EU will seek to maintain its negotiating leverage, albeit with a much-weakened hand to play.

The most relevant reference point here is Norway, which maintains its own fisheries policy outside the CFP. Shared stocks are managed jointly with the EU and other countries through annual reciprocal fisheries agreements. These annual agreements set the overall level of total allowable catches on the basis of scientific advice. They also agree access arrangements and quota shares (based on an objective assessment of the fish resources by species in each respective zone.) Quotas are exchanged annually on a reciprocal basis. Unlike many other Norwegian goods, Norwegian fisheries products do not have unfettered access to the European single market and are subject to various tariffs.

Setting aside the complex and controversial questions surrounding parliamentary approval for the withdrawal agreement, much still hinges on the negotiations ahead. The UK’s legal status has altered and its leverage in fisheries negotiations has dramatically changed but unless that new status is used to address the gross distortions in quota shares, fishermen will question what it has all been for. English fishermen in the Channel who have struggled with a 9% share of the cod quota (compared to France’s 84% share) have a legitimate expectation that this will be addressed – and quickly. This is only the most extreme of many examples of where the UK has been systematically disadvantaged by the CFP over 40 years.

To deliver the fair share of fishing opportunities that they rightly see as theirs, British fishermen, in this second round, will expect our negotiators to be as tough, astute, and hard-nosed as they need to be to realise the benefits of our new status as an independent coastal state.

Step-Change

Inshore VMS, and the associated plans to enhance catch reporting by the under-12 metre fleet, represents a step-change in the level of monitoring, scrutiny and surveillance of the activities of inshore fleets.

Light touch monitoring for the inshore fleets has in the past been a double-edged sword. Minimal bureaucracy and relative freedom from restrictive measures have been welcome by the small-boat fleets. However there have been a number of downsides:

• Erosion of quota rights,
• A precautionary approach to regulation, carrying more severe measures than if the necessary data had been available
• Displacement from customary fishing areas by marine protected areas, or offshore infrastructure projects
• A general lack of political visibility, due to the absence of hard spatial and catch data

One difficulty has been the sheer diversity of the inshore fleets. Apart from often being geographically peripheral, the scale of fishing operations within the “inshore” fleet can vary considerably. The under-12 metre category can embrace vessels of considerable catching capacity, as well as vessels that are minimally active. It can include operations of considerable commercial and technological sophistication, as well as vessels operating on a basis that would be recognised as artisan, traditional, low-impact, fishing. Even the term “inshore” can be misleading, with operations for some under-12 metre vessels extending 50 or 60 miles from the coast.

Against this background, a means of providing solid data on the spatial dimension of small-scale fishing operations, the appeal of iVMS for fisheries managers is obvious.

It is hard to make the argument that the more active component of the below- 12 metre fleet is operationally so radically distinct and separate from vessels at the lower end of the over-12m category, that they should be treated in a wholly different way.

On the other hand, there will be vessels in the under-12m category that because of their limited range and type of operation, a requirement to fit and pay for iVMS equipment, will be seen as serious overkill.

It is for this reason that we consider that from the outset, the management approach towards iVMS should contain an element of discretion where an evidence-based case for exemption can be made. In other words, a risk-based approach to the requirements should be built in to the regulatory requirements.

Low-Impact Fishing

The inshore sector stands on the cusp of major change as when the UK leaves the EU and CFP. In this context, the UK authorities will be able to develop a customised, fit-for purpose, management system for the coastal fisheries.

The argument made is that iVMS and accurate catch reporting could provide a robust foundation for such future management measures.

In particular, iVMS could:

• Allow access for inshore vessels to fish in parts of marine protected areas from which they would otherwise be prohibited
• Provide definitive data to resolve gear conflicts
• Provide part of the documentation that could allow parts of the fleet to be treated as low-impact, low regulation vessels

The trade-off is that such vessels, defined as low-impact, and therefore eligible for low levels of regulation, would have to continually demonstrate that, individually and in aggregate, they do indeed merit that status. It is within this context that iVMS is likely to have a role. Remote monitoring may prove to be a low cost means of providing documentary evidence to under-pin low impact status.

New Technologies/New Challenges

It is beyond doubt that satellite and mobile phone spatial monitoring systems can also provide a powerful enforcement tool. By directing enforcement activities to where offences are most likely to occur, resources can be deployed more efficiently and effectively. It is important, however, to appreciate their limitations. Recent case law (Devon and Severn IFCA) has underlined that courts take the view that an electronic indication of the location of a fishing vessel requires corroborative evidence if it is to be used to secure a successful prosecution. In other words, a dot on a screen, which requires further and expert interpretation, does not carry the same weight as a physical sighting by a reliable witness. Nor, in our view, should it.

Furthermore, the retrospective identification of offences, using electronic monitoring can allow sequential prosecutions to stack up, where prior to VMS, the enforcement authority’s intervention through an educative role might have allowed for a change in behaviour, increasing the possibility that offences could be prevented in the first place. This is particularly significant where multiple offences are ratcheted up (whether through ignorance or deliberate intent), escalating the multiple offences to the category of serious criminal behaviour, carrying automatic penalties such as licence suspension with consequences for crews, the master, owner and all dependent on that the fishing business.

These examples illustrate that the new technologies can generate new challenges that require careful and sensitive understanding, if a proportionate, balanced and fair approach to prosecuting fisheries offences is to be maintained.

Data Protection

iVMS will raise issues of commercial and privacy that will under recent legislation, carry significant legal implications for all involved in the supply and operation of the apparatus. We require assurance that these sensitivities will be respected and that future arrangements will provide adequate protections.

Practicalities

If there is to be a legal requirement for large numbers of under -12m vessels to fit iVMS, a number of important preconditions should be met:

• The equipment should be fit-for purpose, taking account of limited wheel-house space, or no wheelhouse
• Given the remote locations of many small vessels’ operations, a degree of tolerance should be built in to allow vessels to keep fishing when there is equipment breakdown, bearing in mind the logistics of repair in such locations
• Care should be taken to ensure that legislative requirements do not expose fishing vessels to exploitative maintenance contracts. Increased reporting requirements associated with fishing within MPAs could make under-12m vessels particularly vulnerable to large cost increases under single supplier contracts.
• Replacement costs could represent a significant financial challenge for some operators at the lower end of the scale for some under-12m vessels.
• EMFF will be used in the first instance to cover the cost of installing iVMS. However, some fishermen still face difficulties in accessing EMFF and this is clearly a matter of concern.

Summary

In summary, we can see the attractions of iVMS for fisheries managers. Linked with more accurate catch recording, iVMS can offer powerful tool both to aid enforcement but also to provide data that would allow for more effective and sensitive management. It could be used as a way of exempting large numbers of smaller vessels from some of the more onerous regulations, without sacrificing rigour or the sustainable management of fisheries.

On the other hand, remote monitoring carries with it inherent legal, operational and ethical challenges, outlined above, which require sensitive handling.

All this points to the need for a risk-based approach with a degree of flexibility to provide exemptions, tolerances where the evidence suggests that this is the right course of action.

Experience suggests that with any major change to the monitoring and enforcement regime, especially one involving new technologies, a strong dialogue is required at national, local and if necessary at vessel level to deal with initial issues and to resolve outstanding problems. Such a dialogue should not be considered a desirable add-on but should be considered as integral to the whole roll-out programme.

The aim of this study is to evaluate grant delivery including enablers and barriers to grant funding and the initial impacts of the fund as a whole. The work shall consider why applications have or have not been made and what issues have arisen. It will focus on social impacts, complementing the mid-term evaluation of the EMFF to be commissioned by the MMO.

The approach to the evaluation will include engagement with relevant stakeholders to gather their views on the EMFF. This engagement will be undertaken over the next few months and will include focus groups and interviews. To this end, we have selected a number of locations where specific grants will be evaluated in greater depth. Agreed case study locations to date include Cornwall/Devon, East Riding and Grimsby, Norfolk/Suffolk and Northern Ireland.

RPA will be contacting a selection of grant recipients between November and February as part of our evaluation. However, we would also welcome your views of the Fund more generally. Please feel free to provide us with your opinions on the grant-making process, and how receiving a grant has helped you and your business. Equally, we would welcome views where you have chosen not to apply to the Fund.

If you would like more information about the project, or would like to tell RPA about your views on the EMFF, please contact Elizabeth Daly by email (Elizabeth.daly@rpaltd.co.uk).

You can listen to the programme by following this link.

Fishermen in the UK have waited for 40 years to address the imbalances within the CFP. These have worked systematically to the UK’s disadvantage and this Bill is an important part of that rebalancing process.

Under the UN law of the sea, we will be able to apply our own fisheries policies in our waters and negotiate fisheries agreements as an independent party, in the way that countries like Norway already do.

The Bill will provide the basis for an adaptive and responsive fisheries policy, capable of dealing with a dynamic industry and resource and evolving scientific advice. This contrasts starkly with the cumbersome CFP decision-making process which has proved so difficult to work with.

Parts of the Bill introduce new measures and will require scrutiny and discussion. Getting the balance right between an overall UK framework for fisheries and the authority delegated to the devolved administrations will be important and there is much still to be discussed in this area.

Likewise, the Bill’s provisions for charging fishermen require further explanation.

Overall, however, we consider that this Bill is an important and welcome gateway to a better future for the UK fishing industry.

Bill content

• Automatic access rights of EU vessels revoked
• Foreign boats required to be licensed to fish in UK waters and will follow the UK’s rules
• New powers for the UK to set catch limits, revoking the EU’s powers to set UK quotas
• Equal access for UK fishing boats across UK waters
• Sustainability objectives committed to on the face of the Fisheries Bill
• UK government and DAs will agree a Joint Fisheries Statement setting out how those objectives will be met
• UK government will prepare and publish a Fisheries Statement setting out how a further set of objectives will be met in England
• New powers for the UK and Devolved Administrations to protect the marine environment
• Reforms in England
• New powers to update technical regulations, respond to science and meet our international obligations
• Updated grant making powers
• New scheme to help fishermen comply with the discard ban

Other key features of the day were:

• 60 parliamentarians and researchers attended the event with representation from all political parties. This included, 25 Conservatives, 10 Labour, 1 Liberal Democrat, 5 SNP, 1 Plaid Cymru, 4 DUP, 2 Independents and 12 Peers.
• We had a number of prominent MPs and Peers there including the Secretary of State which demonstrated a strong commitment from the Government on this issue. Luke Pollard, Shadow Minister for Flooding and Coastal Communities is also influential amongst the Labour front bench. Peter Grant, SNP Spokesperson for Exiting the European Union was also in attendance (as Deidre Brock, Shadow EFRA Spokesperson was unable to attend), as well as Hilary Benn, Chair of the Select Committee on Exiting the European Union and Lord Grantchester, the shadow front bench lead in the House of Lords for Environment and Rural Affairs. Lord Owen, former Foreign Secretary, took a great interest on the day, and is likely to be a good ally in the House of Lords for the Fisheries Bill. Lord Teverson, who served on the board of the Marine Management Organisation also attended, as did Lord Wallace, who leads for the Liberal Democrats in the Lords on fisheries issues.
• We’ve had a number of commitments from parliamentarians to help in further, practical ways, such as by speaking with their colleagues and front benches. The majority of those who attended signed our ‘pledge board’.
• Key civil servants from DEFRA attended, and commented they were impressed to see the strength of political support. We were also joined by the Clerk to the House of Commons EFRA Select Committee, along with the fisheries specialist from the House of Commons Library. These will all be key people to liaise with throughout the Fisheries Bill.
• The lobby was highlighted very publicly in the House of Commons to the Prime Minister in Prime Ministers Questions, with support for both the NFFO and SFF. Two questions were asked, with the first coming early in PMQs from Alistair Carmichael.
• The lobby day was highlighted in the House of Lords, by Lord Grocott, name checking the SFF and NFFO and asking for support for the aims of the lobby day. You can read the text here.

Press

• Our efforts included a comment piece in Red Box on the morning of the event (which is very influential and widely read by ministers, MPs and advisers in Westminster)
• There was a full media turnout at College Green with three TV crews present, filming for the BBC and ITV, with multiple interviews that were shown in different news programmes nationally and regionally.
• Interviews about the even were live on Sky News on the day and for Farming Today (influential in the sector, DEFRA and with the general public)
• There was also radio coverage, including an interview with on talkRADIO with Julia Hartley-Brewer and an interview for Radio Ulster.

At the main lobbying meeting in Parliament, a wide range of journalists attended including:

• Chris Hope, Chief Political Correspondent, Telegraph
• Laura Hughes, political correspondent, FT
• Jennifer McKiernan, Westminster reporter, Press Association
• ITV News
• Regional BBC reporters

We also have a number of parliamentarians who have requested private meetings, including:

• Sue Hayman, Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
• Sheryll Murray, Co-Chair of the Fisheries APPG
• Rt Hon Lord Tebbit
• Rt Hon Tom Brake MP
• Brendan O’Hara MP

Driven, no doubt, by the realisation of the public outcry that would follow photogenic and valuable bass destined for fishmeal, member states and the Commission are looking hard at ways of avoiding this PR catastrophe.

The emerging view seems to be that because the emergency measures introduced in 2016 comprise a prohibition, followed by a number of derogations/exemptions from that prohibition for a number of gear categories in which bass is caught as an unavoidable bycatch, the catch limits applied to bass are legally of a different order from the catch limits defined in the CFP basic regulation. This interpretation would allow the Commission and ministers to swerve the multiple problems which would arise by the inclusion of bass under the discard ban.

Apart from a PR disaster, these problems would include:

• As bass is subject to catch limits rather than quota limits, member states do not have recourse to a range of flexibilities provided in the regulation designed to ease the implementation of the landing obligation
• The bycatch rules for bass which are based on catch compositions would have to be revamped because they are incompatible with the landing obligation (vessels having caught bass over their permitted limits would be both prohibited from discarding and from retaining bass)
• Irish national legislation which bans the landing of bass from commercial fishing vessels would become inoperable because vessels would be required to both discard and retain bass caught as an unavoidable bycatch

Although to outsiders this solution seems to hinge on a rather arcane interpretation of the rules, it would allow some common sense to prevail and to avoid one of the knottiest problems associated with the implementation of this blunt and poorly thought-through legislation.

Of course, this still leaves us with a problem of discards of bass caught as unavoidable catch in a number of commercial fisheries. The advisory councils are preparing advice which, if adopted, would at least reduce the level of bass discards to a minimum by providing greater flexibility for boats to land bass that they cannot avoid catching. The trick here is to maximise flexibility whilst avoiding creating an incentive to target the species.

Science

Overall, the picture on the bass stocks looks much brighter, although bringing the biomass up to optimal levels is likely to be a long haul, dependent largely on incoming recruitments. The science has been updated and re-evaluated and shows a dramatic fall in fishing pressure, which is to be expected from the ban on the two main fisheries targeting bass (the pair-trawl and drift net fisheries). The Commission and member states are unlikely to take the brakes off any time soon but the scientists this year have recommended a small catch of bass rather than a zero catch and that is certainly progress.

Council

In the meantime, if the options being discussed are taken up by the Commission and member states, the worst consequences of applying the landings obligation to bass will be avoided. We will have to wait until we see the Commission’s TAC and Quota proposal in late October, and then the decisions taken at December Council, before we know whether this pragmatic approach has been adopted.

The most important of these is that, whatever the rights and wrongs of disputes over fishing rights, it is never permissible to resort to intimidation and violence. There have been many fishing disputes in the past and doubtless there will be many in the future. The correct place to resolve these is around the table, not on the high seas using flares, bottles, stones and shackles to intimidate crews. Our vessels were forced to withdraw from the disputed area, despite having the legal right to fish there, as skippers feared for the welfare of their crews.

Every day of the week many French fishing vessels fish within UK waters, sometimes as close as 6 miles from the coast, much to the annoyance of British fishermen. On many occasions, UK fishermen have been tied up, quotas exhausted, as French vessels with their much more generous allocations have continued to fish in sight of land. The French share of Channel cod is 84%. The UK share is 9%. This has been intensely frustrating but at no time have British fishermen resorted to intimidating or violent tactics. Only last week, French trawlers (not for the first time) towed away crab pots set Cornish fishermen only 8 miles from the UK coast. This provocation was met with fury and protests but also with restraint.

The UK’s departure from the EU, and therefore from the Common Fisheries Policy, will be a game changer. It is true, as the local French fishermen engaged in the Baie de Seine dispute claim, that after Brexit UK vessels will have no longer have an automatic right of access to fish in this area because it is located within the French Exclusive Economic Zone. Their French colleagues along the coast will not, however, miss the much bigger implication. As the UK will (automatically) become an independent coastal state when the UK leaves the EU, French vessels will no longer have an automatic right to fish in the UK EEZ. As the European fleets currently catch around 6 times as much in UK waters as UK vessels catch in EU waters, they rightly understand that the writing is on the wall for the grossly asymmetrical arrangements that have existed under the Common Fisheries Policy. Under UN law of the sea, the coastal state has responsibility for managing the resources within its EEZ and to determine who will be allowed to fish in its waters and under what conditions. The EU will, of course, have the same rights to exclude or apply conditions to UK vessels fishing in French waters. But their pool of resources is much smaller and our effort in their waters, by comparison, is tiny.

The scallop wars last week were a local spasm that will have embarrassed the Government in Paris. France, and all of the other EU fishing nations are intent on keeping something as close as possible to the status quo on access to fish in UK waters and quota shares. Their cause is not helped by a bring it on attitude within parts of the French industry.

Controlling access to our waters and rebalancing quota shares to more closely reflect the resources located within UK waters are a centrepiece within the Government’s White Paper of Fisheries.

Doubtless, there will be a period of adjustment with more or less turbulence, but things will settle down. There is a legal obligation on all countries which share transboundary fish stocks, to cooperate in their management and sustainable exploitation. The most likely future model for management of shared stocks is annual bilateral agreements – as currently happens between EU and Norway. Safe harvesting rates are agreed on the basis of scientific advice, and levels of access to fish in each other’s waters, along with quota shares, are agreed during autumn negotiations each year.

The French authorities have primary responsibility for ensuring that there is no recurrence of the anarchic and troubling scenes witnessed last week. If such events were to take place in UK waters, doubtless a police investigation would be underway and there is no dearth of evidence, supplied on video by the perpetrators themselves.

On the political front, a meeting is to be held in London next week involving government officials and fishing representatives from both sides to try to resolve the dispute.

Scallops are a valuable resource and it is vital that they are fished only at sustainable levels. There is no fundamental reason why in a spirit of reconciliation and compromise, a deal acceptable to both sides cannot be reached.

And in the meantime, the UK continues to head for the door, leaving the CFP behind. This rather than the events of last week is the bigger game in play.

“As you will already be aware, we are exerting a huge effort to secure the best outcomes for the UK fishing industry, as the UK leaves the EU.

Meetings have been held and assurances received from the Prime Minister, as well as secretaries of state at Defra and Dexeu, that the UK will become an independent coastal state outside the Common Fisheries Policy, as the UK leaves the EU.

We know that the EU will strongly resist this change and, as part of any withdrawal agreement, will seek to tie the UK back into the current access arrangements and quota shares.

It is extremely important, therefore, that the UK Government stands firm on fishing. To that end we have met with all the main political editors and held a very successful lobby day in Parliament attended by around 50 parliamentarians from right across the political spectrum.

To back up these efforts, we feel that it is important that there is visible support in the ports, and to that end we have produced a large number of flags, banners and stickers to display on your vessels, fish-markets and wheelhouses.

Hopefully, the flags and show of support will be amplified by the media – a picture can tell a story of a 1000 words.

If you require additional flags or stickers, these can be supplied.

Thank you for your support.

Yours

Andrew Pascoe

Chairman

National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisation”

Seals eat catches from fishing gear in areas throughout English waters, particularly in the south west, north east and east. This is costly to the industry both in terms of loss of catch but also in damaged gear.

ABPmer, a marine consultancy based on the south coast, is working with the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO) to gain an up-to-date understanding of the issue, and to identify and trial possible seal deterrents with the fishing industry.

Suzannah Walmsley, project manager, said; “Current government advice is that other deterrents must be tried before shooting. However, when you’re on a fishing vessel in open water, alternative viable options are limited.”

“We would like as many fishermen as possible to complete our online survey about their experiences of interactions with seals, whether they experience an issue or not.

We want to know about the extent of the problem, the impact on the fishing industry, and any experiences with or ideas about possible seal deterrent options. There is even the chance to win a £50 Amazon voucher for completing the survey!”

Following the data gathering exercise, ABPmer will review non-lethal measures, gear modifications and fishing tactics currently available to reduce seal interactions. Field tests of the most promising non-lethal deterrent options will then be undertaken within one or more of the fisheries where seal interactions are a significant issue.

The project is being implemented by ABPmer and NFFO for Defra and the Marine Management Organisation.

To get involved please take our online survey.

Or to register your interest, email or call Suzannah Walmsley on swalmsley@abpmer.co.uk or 02380 711 858.

See the White Paper here

Priority is given to the pursuit of policies which promote sustainable exploitation of fish stocks. However, the Paper makes clear that the UK will control access over who is permitted to fish in UK waters and under what conditions. Rebalancing quota shares to more closely reflect the fisheries resources located in UK waters is also a top-listed priority.

The Government underlines its commitment to working cooperatively with those countries like Norway and the EU with which it shares fish stocks. However, the paper also makes plain that trade issues and fishing rights and management are separate issues, by international comparison and EU-third country precedent. This is important because the EU has signalled, in its negotiating guidelines, that it will seek to use an EU/UK free trade agreement as leverage to maintain the current asymmetric arrangements on access and fishing opportunities. The scale of those quota distortions, which work systematically to the EU’s advantage and the UK’s disadvantage, is spelt out graphically in an annex to the White Paper.

Comment

Overall, the Government has not been noticeably coherent or cohesive in its preparations for a negotiated Withdrawal Agreement with the EU. On fisheries however, its broad position is clear, cogent, and apparently uncontroversial – within the UK anyway. This White Paper will have required support across Whitehall, and it spells out what the UK wants and expects. This aligns quite closely with what the UK fishing industry wants and expects. The high attendance and level of interest at our recent NFFO lobby day in Parliament confirmed that there will also be very wide support across the parties for the broad approach outlined here.

Doubtless this unity reflects the widespread understanding in and beyond government that the entry terms in 1973 worked systematically and significantly to the detriment of the UK’s fishing interests – and have continued to do so over the intervening forty-five years. The UK’s departure from the EU gives us the long-awaited opportunity to address the distortions that arrived with the CFP.

The Federation has been working closely with Defra since the referendum and has submitted papers on all the policy main areas. It is encouraging, therefore, that our principal objectives are shared in the White Paper. These are:

1. The UK operating sustainable fisheries as an independent coastal state, with quota and access arrangements agreed in the context of annual fisheries agreements

2. Rebalancing quota shares to reflect the resources based in UK waters

3. Control over access to fish in UK waters

4. An adaptive management system tailored to the contours of our fleets

5. Unimpeded trade flows

The White Paper also reflects other industry priorities, including:

⦁ A flexible and adaptive national fisheries policy with the fishing industry closely involved in the design and implementation of policy. The frequency of unintended consequences of policy decisions and the need therefore to for a responsive management system post-CFP appears to be well understood

⦁ That safety considerations should be hard-wired into any new fisheries legislation has been taken on board

⦁ The need for a workable discard ban is emphasised

⦁ The removal of the artificial boundary between the under and over-10metre fleets is flagged

⦁ A measured and step-wise approach to trialling alternatives to quotas where this makes sense, is described

⦁ Producer Organisations will continue to deliver decentralised, tailored quota management in the ports

⦁ Throughout, there is an emphasis on a close partnership between the fishing industry and government

More Work Areas

However, below the headlines setting out the Government’s broad orientation, there remains much to discuss and work on. In particular:

⦁ How to operate a system of devolved responsibilities within an overall UK framework is underdeveloped in the White Paper. Discussions continue and is unlikely that arriving at a satisfactory agreement will be easy or straightforward, given the toxic politics involved.

⦁ Cost recovery before the institutional arrangements are in place to give the industry shared responsibility, as discussed in the White Paper, would be premature, unjustified and very controversial

⦁ Auctioning incoming quota is a new concept with some obvious disadvantages; it will need detailed scrutiny

⦁ The practicalities of a workable system of overage (permitting bycatches to be landed even though quotas are exhausted with a charge to disincentivise targeting) to address the problem of chokes under the landing obligation, will require close attention

⦁ Remote sensing undoubtedly has a future role to play in monitoring fishing activities: the question is how and where and how does it fit into a partnership approach based on trust and confidence?

Summary

On the big-ticket issues, the White Paper is clear and confident. To be sure, the EU27 will seek at every turn to blunt its application but in truth the EU only has one weapon in its armoury and that is the nuclear option of denying the UK a free trade deal unless the UK caves in on fisheries. That would hurt many businesses in the supply chain in the EU – at least as many as in the UK. Politically, such is the parliamentary arithmetic, that the UK government could not agree to a capitulation on fisheries and survive.

It is self-evident that the Government has much work to do on its own positions before the next rounds of negotiations. On fisheries, however, as the White Paper spells out, the big issues relating to jurisdiction, access and quota shares, are already settled by international law: the UK becomes an independent coastal state. Everything else flows from that.

“I realise that I am very new to this position”, said Andrew Pascoe, “But from where I stand, I can see fishers of vessels of all sizes and classes of vessel, putting aside differences to ensure that we speak with a single voice and work together to secure a common goal – the UK as an independent coastal state.”

“The NFFO has seen a surge in membership over the past 12 months which must be a sign that we offer a credible and vigorous voice for the Industry in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. New members have joined from all of the main sectors: producer organisations, non-sector, under-10s and non-quota. It’s good to have the South Western FPO back in the fold but equally it is good to see that non-quota crab and lobster and scallop fishers see the importance of working together. We all have something at stake in this.”

“I see the meeting of a wide range of UK fishing industry organisation, in Manchester a couple of months ago, as another sign of a growing maturity and seriousness and unity of purpose. And the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation and the NFFO have recently reaffirmed that they hold a set of common objectives. All this is very positive, very welcome. It is one in the eye for the naysayers who say that our industry will always be fragmented and divided; and to those who seek to divide us.”

“Our recent lobby day in Parliament demonstrated how we can get our central messages across to ministers and parliamentarians, without diluting the diversity of views from the different parts of the coast and different sectors in our fleets.”

During the meetings, held at Fishmongers Hall in London, the Commission indicated that the British members of the Regional Advisory Councils would be permitted to attend AC meetings as “active observers” but would not be permitted full membership of the ACs.

This would mean that during the transition period:

• Although EU fisheries law will continue to apply to UK fleets and continue to evolve, AC advice would formally reflect the views of only stakeholders based in the EU 27
• UK members could not be officeholders (at present UK members hold a number of significant posts including chairs of key working groups)
• The North Sea AC will have to move its secretariat from Aberdeen to an EU27 member state before the end of March, if it is to continue to receive EU funding
• The UK government and UK stakeholders will no longer make financial contributions into the ACs, but neither will UK stakeholders be reimbursed for the travel and subsistence costs associated with attendance at AC meetings

It is unclear whether this surprising development is a tactical manoeuvre to increase pressure on the UK during the withdrawal negotiations; a logical interpretation of EU law; or fumbled mishandling by the Commission. Either way, if the UK members are forced out of the advisory councils during the transition in this way, it will create an obstacle to the smooth transition both parties have aspired to. It also raises important questions about the UK’s membership of the regional groups of member state authorities who are charged with making joint recommendations, including those relating to the landing obligation.

The areas covered by AC advice in the North Sea and Western Waters overlap to a large extent with the UK’s area of jurisdiction, which will come under UK sovereignty from March 2019. The Commission’s stance raises question marks about the future purpose of EU advisory councils without the involvement of third countries like the UK and Norway. In the North Sea, only around 1/5th of the sea area will remain under EU jurisdiction after March, although EU law will continue to apply during the transition (unless there is no Withdrawal Agreement). The area in Western Waters is around 50%.

The draft transition deal will be part of the overall Withdrawal Agreement which is expected to be concluded in October or November.

AC membership status is only one of a number of questions about how the transition period will apply to fisheries in practice. Others include, the nature of consultation with the UK during next year’s quota negotiations, the UK’s status as a member of the regional groups of member states, and international quota swaps after the UK becomes a third country in March.

Roundup

• Approximately 45 parliamentarians and researchers attended the event with representation from all political parties (excluding the SNP). We had a number of prominent MPs and Peers there. Dexeu minister, Steve Baker, who agreed to speak is very influential in the Conservative Government. Holly Lynch, Shadow Minister for Flooding and Coastal Communities is also influential amongst the Labour front bench. Neil Parish, Chair of the EFRA Select Committee was a key parliamentarian who attended, as well as Lord Grantchester, the shadow front bench lead in the House of Lords for Environment and Rural Affairs.
• Political representatives from Northern Ireland were particularly well represented, with both DUP and Sein Fein attending in numbers
• We’ve had a number of commitments from parliamentarians, with over 30 parliamentarians signing our pledge board. There were also a number of MPs who agreed to write to the Secretary of State in support of the fishing industry. Nine MPs have currently signed the EDM tabled by Ben Lake. More are expected to sign.
• Press

1. We placed a comment piece in Red Box on the morning of the event (which is very influential and widely read by ministers, MPs and advisers in Westminster)
2. The NFFO was interviewed for Farming Today which went out on the morning of the event (influential in the sector, DEFRA)
3. Chris Hope, Chief Political Correspondent, Telegraph – a prominent member of the Westminster lobby was in attendance at the lobby day.
4. Mark D’Arcy, Parliamentary Correspondent, BBC Today in Parliament was also at the event – an institution of Parliament, and his show is listened to by most MPs and Peers
5. Camilla Tominey, Political Editor, Sunday Express was at the event – who has covered NFFO issues before, and very keen to get stories from the Federation going forward
6. Lisa O’Carrol, Brexit Correspondent was also in attendance and has written her piece in The Guardian – which is good for covering the Labour Party and its membership across the country

The Federation had private meetings with:

• Steve Baker, Brexit Minister
• Holly Lynch, Shadow Minister for Flooding and Coastal Communities and Labour Friends of Fishing MPs Luke Pollard and Melanie Onn
• Alistair Carmichael, Liberal Democrat lead on Fishing
• Future meetings have been set up with:
• Jenny Chapman, Shadow Brexit Minister
• Michael Gove, Secretary of State, DEFRA

The lobby day has been judged a great success by all those who participated, and the Federation plans further events through the summer and autumn to remind the government that fishing is indeed a totemic issue for Brexit.

Andrew is an active fisherman from Cornwall who operates a operates a 6m hand-line vessel, a 12m inshore netter as well as being owner of the 18m hake netter, Ajax.

The new Chairman said: “I am both honoured and humbled by the confidence shown in me by the whole NFFO Executive. Being at the helm of the NFFO is an important responsibility at the best of times; but to be taking over just as we approach some of the most momentous decisions that our industry has faced for many decades and which will shape our future for many more, is a little daunting.”

“On the other hand, I know that I will have the support and guidance of the whole Executive Committee and I am confident that they will keep me on the right track.”

“My own experience reflects the diversity of our industry and I am determined that everyone in it should have the opportunity for their voices to be heard. Wherever on the coast you operate from and whatever the size of your vessel, or the gear that you use, your place is in the NFFO as part of a strong organisation fighting for our collective interests. ”

“I would like to pay particular tribute to our outgoing Chairman, Mike Cohen, who has brought an eloquence and dazzling intelligence to our industry that will be sorely missed. I personally hope that his departure from the industry will be temporary and that we will see home back playing a central role before long.”

I would also like to thank our President, Tony Delahunty, for agreeing to stay on as President. I know that I can will be rely on Tony’s wise counsel in the months and years ahead.”

As unwelcome as this is for me, it does have some advantages. Not least, the opportunity to speak to you all today with a certain freedom. The proper version of the Chairman’s speech is in your meeting packs and, having been written by Barrie, is more comprehensive, more coherent and more cogent than anything that I could produce.

That is the real message and I agree with every word of it. I can devise no better summary of the state of the fishing industry and the NFFO’s achievements, than that.

So instead I am going to indulge myself in some valedictory remarks that are entirely personal. What follows is from me and me alone: uncensored and, indeed, unchecked by anyone. It is, after all, far too late to sack me.

And so, as Barrie contemplates with mounting horror the prospect of a Chairman gone rogue, with nothing to lose, I leave you with the following:

We stand at a crossroads.

This is the sort of thing that you are supposed to say to kick off a Chairman’s speech. It has the right sort of ring about it. A certain gravitas. I said it last year and it will do just as well today. Partly because I am a lazy and couldn’t think of a less trite opening line, but partly because it is still true.

Perhaps this is because we do not appear to have gone anywhere in the intervening time. There is, to be sure, no more certainty about where the future management of our fisheries will leave our industry than there was then, or indeed than when I first took the Chair two years ago.

OR perhaps we still stand at that crossroads because that is where we always stand.

Life is change. There will always be another crisis. Always another opportunity. Someone else will always be wanting to stake a claim to the seas: MCZs, gas rigs, gravel dredging, wind farms. And there will always be an chance to argue for better access, more catching opportunities, less bureaucracy.

If we perennially stand at a crossroads, then – if you will permit me to torture the metaphor a little further – we had better stand together.

I could reach for the cliche again and say that now, more than ever, we need unity. I won’t say that, because that’s not true.

The truth is that fishing industry must ALWAYS stand together. Let me explain why. In a 24 hour, 365 day business like ours, it is very easy to develop the sort of monomaniacal focus that blinds us to what is happening in the real world.

The real world is not the front page of the Daily Express nor the aggressive and paranoid echo chamber of a Facebook page. The real world is a country of 70 million people, the great majority of whom are facing economic turmoil and uncertainty of their own.

Last year, the British fishing industry could boast total landings valued at around £996m.

£996 million. Just think of that.

It’s almost as much as the export value of farm tractors.

Or sales of Peppa Pig merchandise.

It’s almost equivalent to half of Tesco’s last profit statement.

At the last census, 11,618 people described their occupation as being in fishing or aqauculture.

11,618 people. In a working population of 32 million.

There were 14,000 refrigeration engineers. 65,000 sewing machinists. There were over 50% more commercial pilots than commercial fishermen.

Fishing accounts for less than one twentieth of one percent of Britain’s GDP. We are a rounding error.

THIS, more than any one transitory event, however important it may seem at the time, is why the fishing industry NEEDS unity and NEEDS the NFFO.

Because there are many very good reasons to support the British fishing industry.

In a western world dominated by the service sector, fishing still involves producing something physical and real.

Fishing can provide sustainable and healthy food to a nation increasingly facing a health crisis caused by bad diet

It provides income and an escape from the hopelessness of unemployment and poverty in communities that are on the margins of modern Britain in every sense and which have been comprehensively abandoned by self-absorbed politicians of every stripe.

It provides continuity with the past and identity with that best part of our national spirit, the part that is about fortitude, self-reliance and a spirit of enterprise and adventure.

Contributions to GDP are nothing compared to all of that.

But we can only lay claim to public sympathy and acknowledgment of this if we stand together.

No aspect of the fishing industry can call on that support alone. The inshore under 10s can’t claim to provide the amounts of food that the nation needs, or to fish stocks that are unambiguously strong and sustainable. The offshore fleets can, perhaps, but with their foreign investors and overseas crews can’t convincingly pretend to be representing the heritage of disadvantaged fishing communities.

The point is that they don’t have to. Together and seen properly as parts of a whole, these disparate groups ARE the fishing industry that IS all of the things I discussed a moment ago.

I genuinely believe that the NFFO, more than any other group, has the best chance of achieving that essential unity.

I am firmly convinced that the NFFO’s approach: less showy than some, but more influential than any, is the best way that it can serve its members. The NFFO works through patient advocacy and eloquent diplomacy. Never opposing without proposing a well-reasoned alternative.

Tempting though it is, to indulge an appetite for spectacle, we must always ask ourselves “how does this help”? Criticising from a distance and screeching ‘betrayal’ at every suggestion that is made might advance political profiles but it does not improve the lot of even a single British fisherman one iota.

Everything that I have seen during my time with the NFFO has convinced me that it always strives to act genuinely with the best interests of ALL its members firmly in sight. The fishing industry is fortunate indeed to have such able people willing to dedicate their time to make the NFFO what it is and particularly to have Barrie, who leads with such skill and subtlety and who understands supremely well that the true measure of success lies in the results we achieve, not in the credit we take.

One of the great frustrations of my time in the fishing industry has been the continual sight of people jockeying for position, willing to throw one another over the side in order to secure transitory personal advantage. And it is all very well for wiser and more experienced voices than mine to tell me that this is just the way it has always been. But right now we – you – do not have the luxury of that self-indulgent cynicism.

If we do not unite, we will be led down a path from our present crossroads that is not of our choosing. And we will not get to go back and try again.

Britain has something remarkable in its fishing industry and the fishing industry has something remarkable in the NFFO and the people who drive it.

We must believe this if we are going to act on it. Together.

Now you may not agree with the things I’ve said today. You may not like them. But please do at least think about them. To quote George Bernard Shaw: “Those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything”.

Don’t let your assumptions and your past limit your actions and your cooperation for the future.

Thank you all and – at least for now – goodbye.

Introduction

Our industry stands at a crossroads. The UK has an indisputably strong hand to play on fisheries in the withdrawal negotiations currently under way. However, in echoes of 1973, the EU has made it clear that it will make a free trade deal contingent on maintaining something close to the status quo on access rights to UK waters and quota shares. If the UK cabinet accepted those terms, it would be agreeing to maintain the asymmetrical and exploitative relationship with the EU that has characterised our fisheries for the last 40 years. The Prime Minister had unequivocally stated that when the UK leaves the EU, it will leave the Common Fisheries Policy, will control access to its exclusive economic zone and seek to rebalance the UK’s quota shares to reflect the resources within UK waters. All of that is consistent with the status, under international law, of an independent coastal state.

Trade in fish and fish products with the EU are indisputably important but what has not been made very explicit to date is that thousands of businesses in the EU, as well as the UK depend on unimpeded trade arrangements between the UK and the EU. The question is, how far is the EU prepared to harm the economic interests of its own citizens to prevent the UK from acting as an independent coastal state, by raising trade barriers of one sort or another?

The Federation has been working assiduously with our Government, to secure the best possible outcome from the current negotiations. At the same time there is a long list of other issues that require our urgent attention, not least the implementation of the landing obligation, policy towards marine protected areas, along with vessel and crew safety and welfare.

Rarely, has there been a time when it was more important for fishermen, in all their diversity to stand together and to speak with one voice. I am very pleased therefore, to say that our membership has shown a sharp rise over the past 12 months. This suggests that working together towards common goals despite the diversity of our industry, speaking in firm but measured tones to Government and having clear unambiguous policies, is widely understood and appreciated.

Brexit

The process of leaving the EU and therefore the Common Fisheries Policy, is now well under way. The broad terms of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, including transitional arrangements and the shape of the UK’s future trading relationship with the EU are expected to be agreed in October. There remains however, still a considerable degree of uncertainty about what this will mean for the fishing industry in the UK, in relation to trading and fisheries management arrangements.

There are, however, some things on which there is some certainty: The UK’s legal position will change and the UK will become a third country in relation to the EU. The UK will hold the status of an independent coastal state with rights and responsibilities defined in international law to manage the resources within its exclusive economic zone.

Our legal status will change but it can be said with absolutely certain that the EU will simultaneously seek to retain as much as it can of the current arrangements that have worked to the EU’s advantage and the UK’s disadvantage over the last 40 years. The EU is a regulatory superpower and can be expected to exert all the leverage that it can to maintain the status quo on access to fish in UK waters and quota shares. It has already explicitly stated in its negotiating guidelines that a free trade deal between the UK and the EU will be contingent upon maintaining the status quo on fishing rights. Significantly, there no other example world-wide of a free trade deal that allows one party, free access to exploit the natural resources of the other party.

Another certainty is that the key decisions on fisheries will be made within the British Cabinet. The Prime Minister has made clear that as the UK leaves the EU, the UK will leave the Common Fisheries Policy. The UK has also signalled that it will also seek to rebalance quota shares to reflect the resources located within UK waters. The resolve to maintain this position in the face of undoubted EU pressure during the negotiations will echo the position in 1973, when the fishing industry was considered expendable by the then government in London. The political stakes are much higher today. Parliamentary arithmetic, a minority government, marginal constituencies with a strong link to fisheries means that a sell-out of fishing would carry a heavy political cost.

The decision for the UK to remain subject the CFP, during the two year transition period was in line with accepting the whole acqui communitaire for the transition. Although the transition arrangements carry a number of unpalatable features, the critical question is what happens after December 2020.

The NFFO and indeed all UK fishing industry groupings, are united in warning that the government will be measured and judged against four criteria:

1. That the UK will hold the legal status of an independent coastal state and will be free to exercise the rights and responsibilities of a coastal state

2. That quota shares will be rebalanced to reflect the resources located within UK waters

3. Access to fish in UK waters will be determined by the UK’s overall interests

4. There will be unfettered and frictionless trade in fish and fisheries products

Trade

It is a self-evident truth that many businesses within the UK but also in the EU are dependent on frictionless trade in fisheries products. At the level of individual business both sides have a deep interest in keeping resource management issues and trade separate. The degree to which the EU can use trade as a lever will be limited by the extent to which they are willing to inflict pain and dislocation on their own citizens.

The Federation, working closely with the Shellfish Association of Great Britain and the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, and generously supported by the Worshipful Company of Fishmongers, has commissioned a major study of shellfish trade flows post-Brexit, in order to increase understanding and as a platform from which to press for optimum outcomes.

To secure the best possible outcomes as the UK leaves the EU, the NFFO:

⦁ Has been closely engaged with Defra and Dexeu at ministerial and official level.

⦁ Mounted an intensive media and political campaign that has highlighted the key issues for the main political editors

⦁ Lobbied parliamentarians in all parties to ensure that the fishing issue is well understood.

This campaign with Government, parliamentarians, media and in the ports will continue and intensify as we approach the key deadlines in the negotiations and in Parliament

Landing Obligation

In historical perspective, the EU landings obligation, will probably be seen as a spasm in which a media-ego tied to political opportunism, displaced practicality and a sense of proportion and derailed progress that had been made in fisheries policy over the previous two decades.

Our priority at present is to ensure that we move as rapidly as possible to a workable discard policy, avoiding serious chokes in mixed fisheries.

The advisory councils, in which the NFFO has been highly active, have done a good job in highlighting the problem of chokes in mixed fisheries. As we move towards the full implementation of the landing obligation, on 1st January 2019, it is far from clear that the tools are available or the political will at hand to address this fundamental problem which has the potential to tie fleets up prematurely each year, forgoing fishing opportunities, with adverse consequences for fishing businesses, crews, and the whole the supply chain.

Regional seas groupings of member states have recognised that their joint recommendations will not solve all of the choke issues although they have the power to mitigate the problem in some circumstances. The focus will now shift to the December Council of Ministers. A fundamental question that is now moving to the forefront is: Do we need to apply TAC status to all of the stocks that we currently do, to manage fishing mortality sustainably. Radical steps such as removing TAC status on some bycatch species, temporary and conditional high survival exemptions and a way of dealing with high value species destined for fishmeal, will be central to the fisheries negotiations this autumn.

Marine Protected Areas

Our work in the MPA Fishing Coalition, along with other industry groups, played a central role in persuading Government to replace a box-ticking exercise with an evidence based approach to establishing a network of marine protected areas. By highlighting the consequences of displacement and the importance of assessing actual risk to sensitive marine habitats in specific locations, Government was persuaded to adopt a much less gung-ho approach.

That proportionate and balanced approach is threatened by another celebrity led campaign to fast-forward the introduction of an MPA network without the evidence and dialogue of a more measured approach. The NFFO has taken the lead in pushing back and emphasising that the interests of the marine environment and fishermen lies with an approach based on evidence and dialogue.

Safety and Crew Welfare

The Federation has taken the lead in helping the industry adjust to the new requirements contained in ILO188. The free-of-charge Fishing Vessel Safety Folder is a step by step guide to compliance and a safe well-run vessel.

We have also taken the lead in establishing the Welfare Alliance that works to ensure that there can be certainty that all crews are well and fairly treated.

Concordat

The devolution of fisheries powers may have worked when governments of the same complexion sat in London and Edinburgh. The aggressive nationalist agenda being pursued by the Edinburgh in Scotland, has created an unworkable set of circumstances which works to the disadvantage of the industry outside Scotland. Without a champion at ministerial level, there is little prospect of improvement. Equity of treatment would be a start.

There is a clear need for a UK framework for fisheries management that is clear, unambiguous, equitable and does not serve to create utterly unnecessary impediments to fishing businesses going about their trade.

Salmon

The Federation successfully fought back against attempts to close the small-scale North East drift net fishery, which has been the target of anglers’ obsessive hostility for 40 years.

Other Work

The Federation is heavily involved in many areas of work, too numerous to describe in a necessarily short report like this. There is one guiding principle, if the matter is of concern to working fishermen it is of concern to the NFFO.

Fishmongers Company

I would like to take this opportunity to register our deep appreciation for the support of the Worshipful Company of Fishmongers over the course of the past 12 months. The Company has recognised the pivotal importance of our times and provided substantial support to us in a number of important ways. Perhaps the most successful was by hosting a breakfast meeting in Fishmongers Hall for the main political editors, which allowed us a unique opportunity to outline the industry’s case to the most important figures in the media industry.

Conclusion

We all realise that we live in challenging times. As we leave the EU there is undoubtedly an opportunity to address the distortions that came with the CFP in 1973 and our efforts are solidly focused on securing those changes to access arrangements and quota shares.

At the same time, we must work hard to ensure that the trading arrangements with the EU – the destination of much of our catch – are as free and unfettered as possible.

Our future will be profoundly shaped by the decisions that will be made over the next few months. Our Federation will be at the forefront in ensuring that the outcomes are consistent with the promises and commitments given.

June 2018