Running out of Options

The NFFO’s East Anglian Committee has highlighted the need for a concerted effort to protect fishing opportunities and the viability of the fleets in the region.

Against the background of generally improving stock biomass and TACs for the main commercial stocks in the North Sea, the small-scale fishery off the East Anglian coast is facing a difficult period with starvation fishing opportunities. This situation is a function of the specific species on which this fishery is based and the blunt management measures in place for those stocks. Despite its credentials as a sustainable historic fishery, this small-scale sector faces an existential threat because of a perfect storm of circumstances surrounding the stocks on which it depends.

Spurdog: Differential recovery, local abundance and species displacement. Spurdog traditionally provided a valuable line fishery in this area. According to ICES advice which covers the whole of the North East Atlantic, the decline of the biomass because of overexploitation of a slow growing species from the 1990s has been stabilised and the stock trends are improving, not least because the auto-line fleet which were the main source of fishing mortality no longer exists. Recovery is not uniform across the whole area however, and there are now very large aggregations throughout the year off the East Anglian coast which are observed to be having a displacement effect on other species like cod, sole and ray.

A review of the management regime is underway. The aim should be how to move towards a commercial fishery at sustainable levels consistent with the continued rebuilding of the stock to MSY. Addressing data deficiencies should be an important part of this initiative.

Cod: The genetically separate sub-population of cod in Southern North Sea has not experienced the steady rebuilding of the stock that has been experienced in the Northern North Sea. This may be due to ecosystem change; competition from the dramatic increase in the biomass of plaice in the North Sea; or some other reason.

Bass: Management measures to reduce fishing mortality on bass have reduced fishing opportunities to 5 tonnes per year for liners and 1.2 tonnes for the gillnet fishery. This low bulk but high value species is locally abundant and the constraints on catches removes an important strand of income. An ICES benchmark of bass is underway and its results may inform a route to a management regime with sustainable fishing opportunities.

Skates and Rays: It is well recognised that the current EU approach to managing the skates and rays fisheries through a single TAC is blunt and ineffective, although sub-TACs increases the choke risk when the landing obligation is extended to these species in January 2019. A review of the management approach is underway which may in time offer some relief.

Sole: Although the overall stock of sole in the southern North Sea is harvested sustainably and the biomass is above MSY trigger level, there is concern that the observed spatial change in effort linked to the shift from beam trawling to pulse fishing may be having local effects off the East Anglian Coast. Quota distribution issues are an added impediment to the contribution that this species might make to the local economy.

Holistic Fisheries Approach

The treatment of species in silos without taking account of the overall viability at fishery level, has led to a situation that jeopardises the survival of the small residual fleet off the East Anglian Coast. Unless a more holistic approach is adopted, we fear that this small but locally important fishery will slip through the cracks between different agencies and responsibilities into oblivion.

Task Force

As a matter of urgency, we therefore request that a multi-agency task force comprised by Defra, Cefas, MMO and the EIFCA, work together with the fishing industry to ensure the viability of this small, environmentally sustainable and locally important fishery in the face of bureaucratic inertia, blunt fisheries management approaches and artificial constraints.

“Regarding responsibilities, the UK will continue to manage its fisheries responsibly and sustainably, including joint management of stocks that are shared with other countries. But it is equally important that that the UK’s ability to operate as a legally-constituted independent coastal state is not compromised by any concessions agreed as part of the Brexit deal.

“The EU’s stated preference for a free trade deal in return for access to fish in UK waters and quota shares is an absurd attempt to maintain the current unbalanced arrangement which results in 60% of the UK’s natural fish resources being given away. Acceptance of such an unprecedented and unprincipled link by UK negotiators would be regarded by the entire UK fishing industry as a gross betrayal and have grave electoral consequences.

“Future decisions on total allowable catches, quota shares and access arrangements should be made in the normal way through which coastal states work together – i.e. via annual bilateral fisheries agreements.”

On trade, the federations emphasised that supply chains within the UK and the EU are best served by free, unimpeded trade.

The statement concluded:

“The whole UK fishing industry and its many friends among the general public and in the world of politics, will measure the Government’s negotiating achievements against three criteria:

1. Actual as well as legal authority over all fishing activities within the UK EEZ.

2. Fisheries management decisions on shared stocks made through annual bilateral/trilateral agreements.

3. Free and frictionless trade in fish and fisheries products.”

A spokesman for the group, speaking after the meeting, said:

“The Prime Minister and her ministers have been very clear that when the UK leaves the EU, under international law, the UK will hold the legal status of an independent coastal state. That means that following the transition period, the UK will no longer be subject to the Common Fisheries Policy and will be able to negotiate bilateral agreements with those countries with which it shares fish stocks. “

“Equally, the EU has made it clear that they will fight very hard, using a trade deal as leverage, to maintain the status quo on access to UK waters and quota shares and are preparing to use a trade deal as leverage.”

“Against this background, fishing organisations across the whole of the UK:

1. Are determined that fishing should not be sacrificed to other national priorities, as it was in 1973

2. Are determined to end the asymmetric and exploitative relationship through which EU vessels catch 4 times as much (in value terms) from UK waters as UK vessels catch in EU waters

3. See unimpeded trade in all UK fisheries products as something that supports the economic models of businesses throughout the whole of the supply chain, within the UK but also the EU.”

The spokesman added:

“The measure against which the Government’s commitment and resolve will be judged, after the negotiations conclude in October, are these:

1. Whether the UK has both the legal status, and the freedom to act, as an independent coastal state

2. Whether UK catching opportunities broadly reflect the fish and shellfish resources located within UK waters

3. Whether we have a mutually beneficial trade regime with as few impediments as possible for all UK fishery products.

4. Whether there is scope to develop a domestic fisheries regime tailored to the contours of the UK fleet, based on sound scientific advice and principles of sustainability”

“In many respects, fishing is a litmus test for Brexit. People well beyond the confines of the fishing industry are aware of how badly our industry has been treated and will be looking closely at the final deal presented to Parliament for a meaningful vote. A betrayal would be heavily punished politically. For these reasons we will be campaigning in the coming months to reinforce the key message that there must be no repeat of 1973; no repeat of the sell-out that has denied us the benefits of an independent coastal state for 40 years.

This Statement is supported by the following organisations:

Aberdeen Fish Producers Organisation

Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation

Anglo-Scottish Fish Producers Organisation

Clyde Fishermen’s Association

Coastal Producers Organisation

Cornish Fish Producers Organisation

Eastern England Fish Producers Organisation

The Fish Producers Organisation

Fife Fish Producers Organisation

Interfish Producers Organisation

Isle of Man Fish Producers Organisation

Klondyke Fish Producers Organisation

Lowestoft Fish Producers Organisation

Lunar Fish Producers Organisation

National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations

New Under 10m Fishermen’s Association

North-East of Scotland Fishermen’s Organisation

Northern Producers Organisation

Northern Ireland Fish Producers Organisation

North Sea Fish Producers Organisation

North Atlantic Fish Producers Organisation

Orkney Fish Producers Organisation

Scottish Fishermen’s Federation

Scottish Fishermen’s Organisation

Shetland Fish Producers Organisation

South-West Fish Producers Organisation

Wales and West Coast Fish Producers Organisation

Welsh Fishermen’s Association

West of Scotland Fish Producers Organisation

Western Isles Fishermen’s Association

Chief Executive Barrie Deas said that a recent stakeholder round table meeting with Michael Gove, showed that there was a concerted campaign, led by celebrities like Hugh Fearnely-Whitingstall, to ditch the current evidence-based approach that permits human activities, like fishing, to continue within MPAs, if it can be shown that these activities are consistent with protecting the conservation status of the features for which the MPA was designated.

“The way that the landing obligation came into existence shows the danger posed by an emotive campaign based on distortions and lies and a contempt for solid evidence and science.”

“It is clear that Michael Gove is predisposed to listen to the siren calls of the more extreme wing of the eco-lobby. We have fought for and largely achieved a process based on evidence and dialogue at site and national levels. There is now a real danger that this will now be abandoned in favour of an approach which simply expels fishing and other human activities from MPAs whether the activity has an adverse impact or not.”

“People like Calum Roberts, who are at the forefront of the campaign, are openly contemptuous of the impact that displacement will have on individual fishing businesses. But those impacts are real and can also have serious knock-on effects for other fisheries. This well-funded and well-connected lobby paints a desperate picture of decline and destruction in the marine environment completely at odds with the evidence, using selective examples and exaggeration as the currency to whip up another moral panic. We are still trying to deal with the fall-out from the misconceived landings obligation and the problem of chokes in mixed fisheries. It the Government goes down this road it will be another hammer-blow for our industry.”

“It is worth pointing out that there is no equivalent to this campaign in the terrestrial world. No one is seriously suggesting that we should return out countryside to before the iron age. But that is exactly the objective being voiced for the marine environment. It is extreme, and it is insidious because the pressure is going on behind closed doors.”

“Best-practice world-wide for establishing successful marine protected areas involves a steady, evidence-based approach, based on a continuing dialogue and mutual respect. In fact, this is at the heart of an ecosystem approach, where different objectives require carefully calibrated trade-offs. It will be a serious matter if the UK now walks away from this approach by pressure from eco-extremists.”

“Different fishing gears have had various impacts on the seabed and marine environment over the years. It is important that those impacts are measured and managed now and in the future. But fishing has also fed many millions of people and is the basis of an industry that supports many thousands of jobs. It is important to keep a sense of proportion and balance in working out how to continue to feed people whilst minimising adverse environmental impacts. The fear has to be that another celebrity-led campaign will destroy that balance and commitment to evidence, using emotion and half-digested nonsense to achieve it.”

The NFFO has written in strong terms to the Secretary of State, Michael Gove, to underline the industry’s concerns:

Dear Secretary of State

The Future of the UK Network of Marine Protected Areas

It was unfortunate that you were called away to attend urgent Cabinet business and could not participate in the last part of the round table discussion on Defra’s future programme for protecting the marine environment.

At the beginning of the meeting you posed three questions:

1. What progress has been made in establishing an ecologically coherent network of marine conservation zones?

2. Are the processes involved in establishing the network, rigorous?

3. Is the scale of our ambition at the right level?

Those questions are relevant to a shift, advocated by the environmental lobby to a whole site approach, meaning, as I understand it, abandoning the concept of zoning marine protected areas to permit human activities considered not to be harmful to the features for which the MPA was established to protect.

For our part, the answers to the questions are:

1. Quite a lot.

2. Within the confines of the network design principles established at the outset in 2010, the processes have been, in our estimate, more or less rigorous. However, it is absolutely essential that the process of establishing MPAs is evidence-based and intellectually coherent. In this respect, the process has yet to fully take on board scientific principles on how to best accommodate human use of the marine environment within the design of a network in the most synergistic way.

3. Ambition is good but so is realism. Unlike the marine environment, no one is seriously suggesting that we go back before the age of agricultural improvement, much less the Iron Age, when our terrestrial environment was transformed into what we currently experience as the countryside.

Different forms of fishing have doubtless had their impact on the seabed and marine environment over the years and it is essential that those impacts are managed properly now and in the future. The trade-off for these impacts is that, over that period, fish has contributed to feeding many millions of people; and we have a fishing and fish processing industry that sustains the livelihoods of many thousands of people.

Not unnaturally, fishers have been, and continue to be concerned that the establishment of a network of MPAs will mean that they will be displaced from their customary fishing grounds. This is, of course, of profound significance for the people and fishing businesses concerned. But displacement, as an issue, is equally significant for the achievement of overall good environmental status in the marine environment. It makes no sense to have a pristine area on one side of a line and a degraded marine environment on the other side.

Without disputing for one second that healthy marine habitats are vital for sustaining commercial and non-commercial marine species, the idea that a network of MPAs could be a primary tool for rebuilding and managing commercial fish stocks has, frankly, been over-sold. There are better more precise and more effective tools for managing fish stocks, namely total allowable catches, fishing vessel licensing and technical measures. On the basis of those pillars the scientists tell us that:

“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

During the meeting, it was clear that there are two narratives competing for your ear. One, the conservation lobby, paints a desperate picture of destruction, decline and government inertia. The other, the fishing lobby, expresses concern over displacement and points to the dramatic reduction in fishing pressure since the crisis of the 1990s, the spectacular success of some of our fish stocks, and the positive trajectory that we are on.

You and your ministerial colleagues are placed in the difficult position of arbitrating between these competing visions. The conservation lobby is powerful, well-funded and supported by celebrities. The fishing industry feeds us.

It is our view that the only way to arrive at a rational judgement against these competing pressures is:

1. To rely on a rigorous, evidence-based approach, using the best available science

2. To encourage and facilitate a genuine dialogue and analysis at site level as well as the national level, that identifies both the synergies in marine use with conservation outcomes as well as those compromises that provide protection for vulnerable marine features and habitats, whilst minimising harmful displacement effects

Much work has already gone into designing management approaches for MPAs which measure the impacts of different fishing gears using objective criteria. Through this means it is possible to design measures that minimise potential displacement effects from the outset, whilst protecting the features concerned. We should build on that good work.

It is important, throughout, to distinguish between advocacy and science.

The key words that we believe should be central to government policy towards MPAs should be: evidence, objectivity, rigour, coherence, dialogue, balance and proportionality.

I hope that you find our views helpful.

Yours sincerely

Barrie Deas

Chief Executive

Andrew is an 3rd generation Cornish fisherman, with experience in the small-scale hand-line sector, as well as operating the 16 metre hake netter, Ajax , and the 12 metre netter Lamorna, which he works with his brother James.

Andrew has been a board member of the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation for more than 20 years and as a result has a good insight into fisheries management and fisheries politics through that route.

NFFO Chief Executive, Barrie Deas, said, “We are all delighted that Andrew has been elected to lead us during this exceptionally important time for our industry. We are very lucky that someone of Andrew’s experience and gravitas is willing to give his valuable time to the industry as a whole.”

Just over three weeks ago, in her Mansion House speech, the Prime Minister couldn’t have been clearer on fishing. As the UK leaves the EU on 29th March next year, the UK would leave the Common Fisheries Policy. Quota shares would be rebalanced.

It is still the case that in March next year under international law the UK will become a coastal state, separate from the EU; but the transition arrangement agreed in Brussels last week will ensure that we will be far from independent during the transition. The status quo on quotas and access rights will continue; the UK fishing industry will be subject to all CFP rules but will not be in the room for crucial decisions on fisheries during the transition.

Binary Choice

In the end it came down to a binary choice.

In the political firmament, fishing has never occupied a higher priority, or received as much attention as it currently does. The Prime Minister, no less, had spelt it out. The UK would be an independent coastal state, outside the CFP. The UK would be in control over who fishes in UK waters and the obscene distortions in quota distribution would be addressed (UK’s 9% share of Channel cod, compared to France’s 84%, in the most extreme example).

But in Brussels, over the weekend of 17/18 March, the UK was given a binary choice: either a 21month transition, largely on the EU’s terms, to smooth the UK’s departure from the EU; or crashing out of the EU, the single market and the customs union, unprepared, just over a year away.

Faced with this choice the UK backed down and swallowed the package as a whole, including patently humiliating and disadvantageous terms on fishing.

The UK as an Independent Coastal State

The legal, ethical, and domestic political arguments on fishing are all in favour of the UK as an independent coastal state.

Under international law, the UK will be an independent coastal state from 29th March 2019 when it leaves the EU.
The UN Law of the Sea, does give exclusive rights to coastal states to manage the fisheries and enjoy the benefits of the fisheries resources within their exclusive economic zones; along with responsibilities and duties to manage those fisheries responsibly and in cooperation when stocks are shared
The Common Fisheries Policy does tie the UK into an asymmetric and exploitative relationship with the EU, hugely to the EU’s advantage and the UK’s disadvantage. (EU vessels take four times as much out of UK waters as UK vessels catch in EU waters)
Our coastal communities have suffered severely through the terms of the UK’s entry into the EEC in 1973; especially by comparison with what could have been achieved as an independent coastal state
The benefits to the UK of operating as an independent coastal state outside the CFP, with balanced reciprocal agreements with those countries with which we share stocks are huge
The current EU/Norway bilateral arrangement through annual fisheries agreements provides a relevant and successful model and precedent for a post-Brext fisheries regime with those countries with which we share stocks
The parliamentary arithmetic does suggest that the government would be severely punished if it sacrificed the fishing industry, in a repeat of 1973

There is no escaping, however, that the transitional agreement is a reverse and a humiliation for the UK on fishing. Annual decisions on quotas will be made next year by the EU with only a notional obligation to consult the UK, although much of the fish will be caught in UK waters and the UK is, by far, the largest net contributor to the pot of resources. Decisions made with the UK outside the room will apply to the UK, in their entirety, for the period of the transition.

Future Economic Relationship

Having settled the issue of the transition, the focus from now to October will shift to the shape of the UK’s future economic relationship with the EU. The concern in the fishing ports has to be that come the end-game in October, the UK will be faced with the same binary choice, and with the same outcome for fishing, as the price that the EU will seek to extract for a preferential trade deal.

UK ministers have been quick to affirm that although concessions on fishing have been made to secure a deal on the transition, the Government’s objectives on fishing, as stated by the Prime Minister in her Mansion House speech, remain unaltered. Holding the Prime Minister and her government to account on that fundamental commitment, which will shape the future of fishing for decades ahead, will be the focus of the main UK fishing organisations and their allies in Parliament, over the next few critical months.

1. We are still trying to obtain the full picture of what has been or may have been agreed in Brussels

2. There will be a lot of concern throughout the fishing industry about what seems to be emerging.

3. We were led to believe that the UK would be as an independent coastal state from March 2019. The Prime Minister told us that only a fortnight ago.

4. This timetable and perhaps much else has been conceded as part of the transition.

5. In fact, under international law the UK will be an independent coastal state from March. But we will immediately tie ourselves into an arrangement with the EU that is worse that we had before – as the UK will not have a seat at the table when the quotas are decided.

6. The UK is to be “consulted” by the EU on setting quotas during the transition period but it is not clear what this would mean:

⦁ Notional “cosmetic” consultation or

⦁ Meaningful participation amounting to agreement (like EU/Norway annual agreement which are styled as consultations)

7. In the meantime the UK’s asymmetrical relationship with the EU on fisheries continues.

8. The UK’s central problem with the CFP has been that EU vessels, in value terms takes 4 times as much out of UK waters as our vessels take out of EU waters. That imbalance – essentially an exploitative relationship – will continue during the transition.

9. The Prime Minister told us that UK would renegotiate quota shares and control access over who fishes in UK waters, and under what conditions. That promise is on hold now and may never materialise.

10. This is being presented as tactical concession that will not prejudice our longer term aims. But it has all the hallmarks of a capitulation.

11. The danger with agreeing to the EU’s terms is that we would be a coastal state in name only

12. But there is also danger in making concessions as part of transitional arrangements because similar pressures will apply when it comes to negotiations, later this year, on the UK’s long term relationship with the EU. The EU, not unnaturally will want to maintain the asymmetric and exploitative relationship that currently exists.

13. In the immediate future, sticking to the existing quota shares (relative stability) during the transition period will cause serious difficulties when the EU landing obligation when it comes fully into force on 1st January 2019.

UK’s Negotiating Position

⦁ UK as an independent coastal state

⦁ Rebalancing of quotas to reflect the resources in our waters

⦁ Control over who fishes in UK waters

EU Negotiating Position

⦁ Status quota on quota shares and access arrangements

⦁ UK has no voting rights during transition

⦁ All CFP rules continue to apply (including new ones over which the UK has no say)

Selectivity and Chokes

The four-year phasing-in period after the landing obligation was adopted as part of the 2013 CFP reform, has mainly been used in an increasingly frantic search for solutions to the choke problem. A lot of effort has gone into developing and trialling more selective gears but the results are variable depending on the technical and economic problems confronted by each part of the fleet. It is generally recognised, at least within the industry, member states and scientific community, that in many demersal mixed fisheries, gear selectivity is not currently at a level sufficient to solve the choke issue in all fisheries. Without political intervention, fleets will face tie ups, possible very early in the year, with extreme social and economic consequences for fishing businesses and crews.

Regional Groups

Following the advent of regionalisation in the Common Fisheries Policy, a heavy responsibility has been placed on member states, working cooperatively in regional groups, to find solutions. The joint recommendations, submitted each year by the regional groups to the Commission, for adoption as delegated acts, specify the high survival and de minimis exemptions from the landing obligation have kept the fleets fishing during the phase-in period. A lot of effort has gone into working with the advisory councils in identifying in which fisheries chokes are likely to occur and the design of such exemptions. Phasing has also been used to avoid applying the landing obligation to the trickier species and fisheries, so that something like a big-bang is anticipated in 2019.

The member states have already made it clear to the Commission that their joint recommendation for 2019, to be finalised by the end of May 2018, may mitigate but will not resolve the choke problem. Additional interventions will be required.

December Council

Following a consultative meeting in Brussels, last November, the Commission is now fully aware of the choke issue’s potential to cause chaos when the landing obligation comes fully into force on 1st January next year. Although the Commission’s formal position remains that member states haven’t tried yet tried everything in the toolbox to avoid chokes, within the Commission, a taskforce has been established to address the issue and examine all options.

The Commission’s proposal for the annual TACs and Quotas Regulation for fishing opportunities in 2019, provides the next level of opportunity to deal potential chokes. Where a multi-annual plan is in place (Baltic and North Sea) a number of new tools are available:

⦁ Use of the full scope of MSY ranges to set Total Allowable Catches for individual target species to mitigate the risk of choke

⦁ Managing the mortality of bycatch species in mixed fisheries in flexible ways not necessarily through the application of TACS; removing TAC status automatically removes the species from the landing obligation

The Commission has already displayed an ability to act decisively, when it in 2015, made the proposal to remove TAC status for Dab, which presented a major choke threat. A scientific exercise to obtain a comprehensive analysis to identify those species that would best be managed by means other than TAC is already under way.

The Commission has also been increasingly explicit recently in spelling out that managing fisheries at maximum sustainable yield is an economic objective that will not be achieved by allowing exhaustion of quota of a minor bycatch species to choke a whole fishery. There is now also a recognition that it is simply not realistic to manage all species in a dynamic marine environment at MSY simultaneously.

Temporarily removing TAC status, with appropriate safeguards, or including interim exemptions from the landing obligation, may also within the Commission’s thinking for the December Council.

Quota Uplifts

Chokes have been allocated to four different categories:

1. Those that apply to a number of member states at sea-basin level where, even after quota uplifts there will be insufficient quota to cover catches

2. Those that only affect only a few member states, and could theoretically, be resolved by moving surplus quota between member states

3. Those that could theoretically be resolved within an individual member state

4. A final category where the issue is not shortage of quota but the sheer bulk of unwanted catch that would have to be taken ashore, making the trip unviable.

The work within the regional groups have so far concentrated on the first category: when there is insufficient quota in the system to mitigate chokes. Celtic Sea haddock and Irish Sea whiting are two prime examples. The value of whiting landed in the UK from the Irish Sea amounts to £50,000. The value of the nephrops (prawn) landed and potentially threatened by a choke on whiting amounts to £25 million.

The idea behind quota uplifts is to cover the catches of unwanted fish previously discarded that will now have to be landed. A problem arises when the quota is directed away from the fleets where the discard problem resides. Quota uplifts are allocated according to the relative stability allocation keys. This is likely to intensify the problem in those chokes caused by quota shortage, when full implementation of the landing obligation arrives in January, unless a solution to misdirected uplift can be found.

For example, the UK’s share of Channel cod is 9%. The main discard problem in this fishery is caused by quota shortage in the English fleet. However, the bulk of the uplift will go to France which holds 84% of the quota share. Unless there is a mechanism to transfer the quota to where it is needed – the UK – a choke will result, as day follows night. Quota shares, swaps and transfers already take place on a large scale but generally depend on currency – holding quota which is both available and the other party wants. Forced redistribution of quota is fraught with difficulties but so far there seems to be little no discussion how this problem will be resolved – and time is running out.

Root Problems and Co-decision

It is widely acknowledged (except amongst the perpetrators) that the way the landing obligation was legislated for in article 15 of the Common Fisheries Policy, lies at the heart of the difficulties in implementing the new regime. Revisiting the CFP would involve a severe loss of face for many involved in that fiasco, including the existing European Parliament and those who which jumped on the bandwagon to advocate the landing obligation in the form that it currently takes. For these reasons, it is unlikely that the CFP legislation will get the overhaul that it needs to make it fit for purpose, at least until a new European Parliament is elected.

That Parliament will not, of course, contain British MPs and Brexit opens a whole plethora of additional questions about how discard policy will be implemented in the EU27 and in the UK. UK ministers have said that post-Brexit, they wish to retain the principle of a discard ban but have also said that they are open to changes that would make it workable.

Enforcement and Consent

Implementing the landings obligation represents a major enforcement challenge, not least because it shifts the focus of monitoring and control from the point of landing to the activity of many thousands of individual units widely distributed across the seas.

On sea, as on land, effective enforcement requires a modicum of consent between the regulators and the regulated as the basis for a culture of compliance. A set of rules that make sense, are rational and just and, at the very least, are not contradictory is a precondition for that level of consent. We don’t so far have those preconditions and the choke issue presents a major risk both to the viability of the fleets and the coherence and effectiveness of the enforcement regime. Most fishermen recognise the need for an effective discard policy to minimise unwanted mortality and waste. The challenge for fisheries managers, enforcement authorities and fishing vessel operators, is how to achieve a practical and workable approach to minimising discards in the context of the current misconceived and poorly thought-through legislation.

Dealing with the choke issue is the first and most important hurdle and time is running out.

Because of the current parliamentary arithmetic, it is not at all clear that the Government would survive a deal that did not respect fishing.

The Secretary of State reiterated his support for the UK as an independent coastal state and for a rebalancing of quota shares. He entirely saw the dangers of tying fishing to a deal on trade and had support from those in cabinet who would oppose any deal that sacrificed fishing in a re-run of 1973, as the UK joined the EEC.

A Brexit without a new deal on fishing would leave many wondering what Brexit was about.

For a variety of reasons, fishing occupies a place at the very heart of the UK’s departure from the EU and will be a litmus test for success.

The Federation stressed that to give way on fishing in the transition period would be to invite a similar capitulation when discussions continue later in the year on the long term economic arrangements between the UK and the EU.

The Secretary of State agreed that the current arrangements are asymmetric, exploitative and to the UK’s profound disadvantage. He reaffirmed his commitment to ensure that the UK fishing was not again sold out and pointed to the Prime Minister’s recently stated strong position which reflected the views of the UK Government as a whole.

Mike Cohen, NFFO Chairman said after the meeting,

“This was an important meeting at a pivotal time. It is clear that the Secretary of State and the Government as a whole, are strongly committed to the UK as an independent coastal state. That is the new legal position from March 2019 and it must not be undermined or devalued by concessions made as part of a deal on the transition period. The Secretary of State fully understands that and his and our aim is to ensure that the Government as a whole stands firmly behind its stated position.”

The representative body for fishermen in England, Wales and Northern Ireland has said that fisheries management decisions within the UK are being compromised by politics and the fishing industry cannot thrive until fisheries management is depoliticised.

“From devolution to the landing obligation, to repatriated powers under Brexit, fishing is being used as a political football and it is to the industry’s detriment.”

“The principle of devolving responsibility to the lowest practical level, within a system of supervision, is absolutely sound. That’s what we have with producer organisations and it works very well. But when devolved responsibility is distorted by a political agenda it becomes toxic and gets in the way of sensible, pragmatic decision-making. “

“Australia has found a way to largely take the politics out of fisheries management decisions and we should do the same in the UK. Devolution has increased the complexity of fisheries management in the UK tenfold but devolution and the fisheries concordat is a political construct that is getting in the way of sound fisheries management. It was not asked for by the fishermen in any of the four countries of the UK. It was imposed from outside for entirely political reasons and is artificially distorting fisheries management in the UK. More devolution in fisheries is not going to improve things – it is going to make matters worse.

“Devolution is getting in the way of normal straightforward business transactions such as buying a boat, or moving quota to where it is needed. It is also being used as lever to secure advantage for one party in allocations and policy decisions .The concordat was supposed to bring clarity to the way fisheries administrations work together but it is doing the opposite. It is being mainly being used in a power struggle to obtain political advantage that has nothing to do with fishing. Fishermen north and south of the border are the losers from this, as wholly artificial barriers are being applied”

“The mess that is the EU landings obligation is another example of rules that resulted from nothing more than political opportunism. Common sense, pragmatism and the principles of sound fisheries management were completely absent when that decision was taken.”

Fishing Industry is Absent

“The fishing industry is absent in this debate – the people whose activities and livelihoods are affected by all of this are being treated like pawns. Their voice should be at the centre, not relegated to the side-lines when their fate is decided.”

“No one is saying that we don’t need regulation in fishing.

But when the design and application of fisheries rules plays second fiddle to political wars of attrition, it is the industry that suffers. We need to reassert the primacy of the principles of fisheries management before more unnecessary harm is done.

We require a clear framework at UK level to replace the CFP framework that will no longer have legal force as EU law in the UK after March next year.
We need to subsequently, revisit the devolution settlement so far as fisheries is concerned. The current arrangement is not functioning.
As we leave the EU and the CFP we need to reassert the principles of sound fisheries management

Management decisions should be based on evidence and science, not emotion and politics
Control of fishing mortality should be achieved through well-constructed harvesting strategies that deliver high long-term average yields; we should seek to maximise the value of our fishing opportunities as we contribute to the nation’s food security
Cooperation is between all the parties is a precondition when stocks and fisheries are shared
We should move to optimum exploitation patterns, accepting that in mixed fisheries trade-offs will be required
We should have practical, workable discard policies that reduce unwanted catch to a minimum
A balance between catching capacity and available resources in each sector is the foundation stone for effective fisheries management
We require an adaptive and responsive management framework to deal with a dynamic resource base and a dynamic industry
Management with the consent of those regulated is a prerequisite for success; this means more than cosmetic consultation exercises; it requires an advisory system that puts genuine stakeholders at the heart of the system with genuine stewardship privileges, responsibilities and obligations
The equal access principle should apply to all UK vessels operating in UK waters
The UK single market should be recognised and supported in policy decisions affecting fish and fishing business operations

Achieving every one of these objectives become more difficult if we are left exposed to the distorting and corrosive effect of a politicised devolution settlement.”

“We are also leaving the Common Fisheries Policy.”

“The UK will regain control over our domestic fisheries management rules and access to our waters.”

“But as part of our economic partnership we will want to continue to work together to manage shared stocks in a sustainable way and to agree reciprocal access to waters and a fairer allocation of fishing opportunities for the UK fishing industry.”

Prime Minister Theresa May, Mansion House Speech, 2nd March 2018

Link to the Prime Ministers speech here

This carefully crafted statement reflects a number of strands within the UK government thinking on fisheries which bear scrutiny.

The first is the wide recognition, across the political and media landscape, that the UK fishing industry was sacrificed in 1973, when the UK joined the EC Common Market. The UK’s departure from the EU provides an opportunity to revisit that historic betrayal and put things right. There is a large and influential political constituency across the UK which wants this dealt with as a priority matter. The symbolism is important. If things can’t be put right on fishing, what assurance can there be that the rest of Brexit can be made a success?

The second is that as the UK leaves the EU it, by default, leaves the Common Fisheries Policy. The UK will, after March 2019, be bound by and operate within the United Nations Law of the Sea, rather than the CFP. International law accords responsibility for fisheries management within a 200mile exclusive economic zone, to the adjacent coastal state. Access to fish in that that zone is determine by the coastal state, subject to a number of qualifications. The UK will have the legal status of an independent coastal state.

Sensible and effective management of shared fish stocks requires cooperation. Cooperation on trans-boundary stocks is also a requirement under international law. Furthermore, as part of the Government’s desire for a close economic relationship with the EU, it will want to work closely with the EU in this area – but on a different basis than when the UK was part of the EU. Elsewhere, the Government has made clear that after March 2019, it will sit as an independent coastal state in negotiations for international fisheries agreements, including those with the EU.

The 4:1 imbalance in the value of fish taken by EU27 fleets in UK waters as against fish caught by UK vessels in EU waters, lies at the heart of the Prime Minister’s reference to a fairer allocation of fishing opportunities to the UK fishing industry. The most extreme example of a lack of fairness in quota allocation is the UK’s share of Channel cod (9%) as against France’s share,( 84%).

The use of the word reciprocal in the speech is important. The Prime Minister is saying that EU vessels, post-Brexit, will be certainly be allowed access to fish in UK waters. The level of that access and the conditions that apply will, however, be based on reciprocity – in other words, mutual benefit. The current EU/Norway annual fisheries agreement is an example of a reciprocal agreement. In annual negotiations, the benefit to each party is carefully calibrated to balance. The current 4:1 ratio between the EU and the UK is not a balance.

Elsewhere in the speech there are several references to the UK’s intention to initially mirror parts of EU legislation in its own law, where this makes sense, to smooth the way to a fully functioning and close trading relationship with the EU. In the first instance significant parts of the CFP regulation will be retained in UK law, through the Withdrawal Bill, to be retained, modified or deleted at a later stage. The long awaited, but apparently imminent, Government white paper on fisheries should provide us with an indication on what is on the Government’s mind to keep and what it wants to alter and how it intends to do that.

The fundamental point is that it will be the UK’s choice about what to keep and what to remove. Unless something goes disastrously wrong in the negotiations, the UK will not have tied itself into a CFP replicant by accepting the acquis communitaire, as the Commission and the EU27 would like.

EU and UK Positions

The opening EU and UK positions ahead of the crucial negotiations on a transitional period are now clearly drawn, at least insofar as fisheries is concerned. The aim is to complete this part of the negotiations within March and to use the period between the end of March and October to negotiate the broad shape of a future long-term economic relationship between the UK and the EU.

There is a huge gulf between the positions. There is agreement on the broad principles of fisheries management but little else. If the UK were to accept the EU’s terms for a transitional period, it would have thrown away the only chance in a generation to address the wrong turning of 1973. It would have thrown away the chance to be and to act like an independent coastal state, with all that follows from that. It would have agreed to tie the UK into a subservient relationship, much worse than we currently have. It would have thrown away the strong hand of cards that the UK holds on fisheries.

There is no sign in any part of government, from Prime Minister down, that the UK will do that.

Trade

On trade, the UK’s approach is to mirror EU arrangements as closely as possible, with divergence only in specific areas where this is important for practical reasons, or to meet the expectations set up during the referendum.

Secretary of State

The Federation is working intensively to ensure that the UK’s departure from the CFP is clear-cut and meaningful. We are due to meet shortly with Secretary of State Michael Gove to underline our key objectives.

FN: The NFFO took a neutral stance in the referendum. What is the organisation’s current stance on Brexit?

Barrie Deas: The NFFO did take the decision not to intervene in the referendum. And I believe that was the right thing to do. That was because the NFFO is a trade association set up to represent the whole industry in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is not a single issue political lobby group. But all fishermen, along with every adult in the UK, had a vote, and it would have been patronising of us to say which way it should be exercised; although it was always clear that the overwhelming weight within the industry was to leave the EU and specifically the CFP.

Having had the vote, however, the outcome of the referendum opened the door for the UK to be an independent coastal state and to move away from the Common Fisheries Policy, which was structurally designed from the outset to operate to the UK’s systematic disadvantage.

We have made clear to ministers that we now expect them to deliver:

• The UK as an independent coastal state, managing the resources within the UK EEZ responsibly, managing collaboratively where those stocks are shared

• Quotas of shared stocks that reflect the resources in UK waters

• Access to non-UK fleets only when there is a balancing advantage to the UK fishing industry and under conditions applied by the UK

• An exclusive 12 mile zone to safeguard our inshore fisheries

• Trade arrangements with the EU with as few impediments as possible.

My hope is that the UK will, from March 2019, be an independent coastal state. I do recognise the danger that fishing could again be traded away by our own government for other objectives unless it stands up to the EU on fishing. The NFFO is working very hard to persuade government that there would be a terrible political and reputational cost to them if that was allowed to happen.

FN: How realistic is it for a single organisation to try to represent such a diverse industry?

Barrie Deas: Our industry is incredibly diverse. But I see that as a strength, not a weakness.

Different sizes of vessels and different gears are needed to exploit different species in different ecological niches, inshore and offshore. If you think that only your sector counts, then the NFFO is probably not for you. But there are plenty fishermen who see the sense in working together, speaking with a single voice, compromising a little bit to achieve a strong and united organisation. Despite the individualism; the colourful personalities; and the sometimes conflicting, interests; the NFFO has been at the forefront of fisheries policy since 1977. And it is based on a single, simple, idea: that we are stronger if we speak with a single voice. Many other organisations with a range of exotic names and acronyms, now almost forgotten, have come and gone in that intervening period. The difference lies in that single idea of unity, and in the credibility that that brings to the table. And credibility equals influence.

FN: The NFFO has been accused of being financed and controlled by Flagships. Is this true?

Barrie Deas: It is not true. The UK has been in the single market for 30 years and as with many other areas of the economy, it has seen non-UK investment, as some British fishermen have sold their licences and quota to the highest bidder. The result is a UK fleet in which the ownership pattern has changed somewhat and that is reflected in the NFFO’s membership. We have vessels in membership with Dutch, Icelandic, Spanish and Canadian beneficial ownership. But that amounts to less than 10% of our membership in terms of vessel numbers, and under a third in terms of subscription income. Around 2/3rds of our income comes from our services company anyway, so it is a little hard to see that there is any validity in the claim that we are financed and controlled by flagships.

The POs representing these vessels certainly have a seat at the table and we are glad to have them there but a glance at our policies should be sufficient to convince any reasonable person that our Executive Committee is a cross-section of our membership and our policies reflect that. Of course, there will always be people, with their own agendas, who will maintain that we are in league with the devil.

I should also say, that we strongly support the economic link licencing requirements that ensures that the UK economy can expect a proportionate share of the benefits associated with UK quota, even when some of that fish is landed abroad.

FN: How is policy arrived at in the NFFO?

Barrie Deas: We very rarely vote. Generally, our Executive Committee, which is drawn from all parts of the industry, listens carefully to all viewpoints and tries to navigate a course that keeps everybody, moderately, if not completely happy. In a way, the NFFO is a microcosm of government which is also pressured from all directions. Maybe that is why we have been influential and well regarded by successive ministers over the years. No minister wants to hear a cacophony of voices. If the industry can get its act together to speak with a single voice, we can be immensely influential.

FN: Pulse fishing is very controversial at present. What is the NFFO’s view?

Barrie Deas: I think that it is true to say that our Executive Committee is split between those who think that it should be banned immediately and those who think that new methods of fishing always attract criticism and we should not rush to judgement until the science is available to take a balanced view. But everyone around the table strongly supports our initiative to protect some of the most sensitive areas with voluntary spatial agreements with the Dutch industry – whilst the science and the political machines decide the bigger fisheries policy issues. The issue is not so much the effects of electricity (which hinges on what the scientists tell us about respective impacts) but that pulse fishing has led to a major spatial shift with increased effort by the Dutch fleet in places like the greater Thames estuary. Getting the fishermen most affected into a room with some charts to thrash out an agreement to avoid the most sensitive areas seemed to us like a sensible thing to do. It still does.

FN: Where do you see our industry in 10 years’ time?

I think that we are at a fork in the road. If our fishing opportunities, post Brexit, reflect our new legal status as an independent coastal state, we would have the economic basis to regenerate our those of our fishing communities. Many have been badly affected by the CFP, which has proved to be an over-centralised, largely dysfunctional, approach to managing diverse and complex fisheries.

If, during the transition period and beyond, the EU is allowed to retain equal access to UK waters and the status quo on quotas, it is difficult to see what the difference between the UK and those West African countries who have in the past been tied into an asymmetric and essentially exploitative relationship with the EU. The EU concedes that it currently takes four times the value of fish from UK waters that the UK takes from the EU sector. It is preparing to use the UK’s desire for a transition period and later, a free trade agreement, to force the UK to remain in that essentially exploitative relationship. That looks and smells very like blackmail or extortion. The UK would have to be mad, or craven, to accept that and I don’t think that it will.

Norway and other countries that we share stocks with, are more than ready to work with us as an independent coastal state, and I think that is where we will end up. Only if fishing is sacrificed by our own government to secure better trade arrangements with the EU could that future be snatched away from us. The issues surrounding trade and the issues surrounding fishing rights are very different. That they are bound together now reflects two things: the ambush by the then EC member states on fishing in 1973, and the then UK Government’s decision to sacrifice fishing to secure entry to the EEC. Could fishing be sacrificed again? Yes, it could. That is the danger. But the politics are very different this time round. There is huge support within the country for a fair deal for the UK fishing industry and fishing is recognised as a totemic issue by all sides.

So, in 10 years’ time, we could be witnessing a resurgence in our coastal communities – or we could still be tied into an imbalanced, flawed, incoherent and deeply exploitative relationship with the EU. The choice lies with the British cabinet and the decision time is imminent.

1. Logically, fisheries jurisdiction, access rights and quota shares should be dealt separately with trade arrangements when the UK’s legal status on fisheries changes on 29th March 2019. Norway for example, maintains access to the EU single market under specific agreed arrangements but it manages the fisheries within its own EEZ and enters into annual agreements on the management shared stocks and quota exchanges as an independent coastal state.

2. If the UK accepts that fishing should be part of a 21 month transitional period on the terms specified by the EU (status quo on access and quota shares), it will be because it has again, as in 1973, decided that fishing is expendable and that other, trade issues take priority, despite its new legal status as an independent coastal state

3. Once the principle that the status quo on quota shares and access has been conceded for a transitional deal, it is patently obvious that the EU will use the same tactics and leverage when the UK seeks to negotiate a long-term trade deal with the EU. Fishing will again be a sacrificed pawn, irrespective of its legal status as an independent coastal state

4. It is clear that at the point that the UK leaves the EU, in March 2019, UK ministers and UK officials will no longer be party to decisions within any of the European institutions, including those which set quotas and make other rules on EU fisheries. It is an extreme understatement to say that it would be completely prejudicial to the interests of the UK fishing industry to tie us into fisheries management decisions (as part of the aquis communautaire) in which the UK are mere rule-takers.

5. After the UK leaves the EU, the EU’s EEZ will amount to less than 20% of the North Sea and around 50% of Western Waters. It stretches credibility to understand, in those circumstances, why the UK would subject itself to intrusive control or constraints on its ability to negotiate freely as an independent coastal state, either as part of a transitional period, or a longer-term trade deal.

6. As an independent coastal state the UK would be expected to take its seat in international fisheries negotiations, including those with Norway, other coastal states and the EU. Even the European Commission recognises that separate, bespoke arrangements will be required to include the EU in the decisions when setting TACs in the annual year end negotiations. There is no legal, or fisheries management reason, why the UK should accept any precondition or artificial constraint on its right to negotiate the best deal that it can, including on access arrangements and quota shares. (Clearly a one off, stand-alone arrangements for fishing in 2019 might be necessary given that the UK leaves a quarter of the way through the fishing year.)

7. A clear alternative is available. That is that, from autumn of 2019, the UK will negotiate with those countries with which it shares stocks, on an annual basis, as an independent coastal state, without any preconditions or artificial constraints. The UK is constrained by the UN Law of the Sea, to act responsibly and fairly towards those countries with which it shares stocks.

8. It is of course understood that the EU27 have just outlined their shopping list, insofar as a transitional period is concerned and that the negotiations have not yet begun. But it should be understood what they are asking for: despite the UK’s new status as an independent coastal state, it is the continuation of an asymmetrical and exploitative arrangement with the UK, which vast swathes of the UK population, as well as the fishing industry, consider to be grossly unfair and a distortion of a relationship which should bring reciprocal benefits. A 4:1 ratio of the value of fish caught by EU fleets in UK waters by comparison with the value of fish caught by UK vessels in in EU waters, does not represent reciprocity, it equals exploitation.

9. A transitional arrangement on trade arrangements is important to give time to businesses in the UK, and in the EU 27, time to adapt to the new realities that will emerge after the UK leaves the EU. On fisheries management, however, it is possible to move smoothly and seamlessly into a pattern of annual (bilateral or trilateral) international agreements with the countries with which we share stocks, to replace the CFP’s decision-making processes. That is what should happen and the transitional arrangements should apply only to the trade regime. There is only one reason why the EU would resist that pragmatic solution and that is that the EU benefits from the current asymmetrical arrangements and seeks to find ways to keep them. If the UK seriously wishes to shift to the status of an independent coastal state, with the advantages that that it will have to grasp the nettle. And there is no advantage to deferring that decision.

10. Fisheries jurisdiction and fisheries negotiations were artificially and cynically bound into the CFP in 1973 to the UK’s systematic and lasting disadvantage. Not unnaturally, the EU 27 would like to continue that exploitative relationship because it works heavily to their advantage. There is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to take a different and better path and there is a heavy responsibility on our government not to drop the ball at this crucial point in history.

The Commission statement is here.

As an opening position, in advance of the negotiations that will take place over the next 10 months, there are few surprises. Before Christmas, the Commission signalled that it would not be fighting to retain formal jurisdiction over UK waters. That is a realistic recognition of the UK’s new legal status, under the UN Law of the Sea, after the UK concludes the process of leaving the EU. However, in this new position statement, the Commission signals that it will insist on the status quo for quota shares and access arrangements, at least during any transition or implementation period; and will also press for the UK to be tied umbilically to the CFP for the foreseeable future. For the most part, the UK would become a rule-taker, rather than a participant in the rule-making process and most certainly the UK’s status would certainly not reflect the proportion of fisheries resources in its waters. The Commission intends to use trade as the lever to secure these objectives.

The principles of equal access and relative stability have worked very well for the EU fleets – and to the systematic disadvantage of the UK for over forty years – by comparison with the deal that would have been available to us as an independent coastal state. It is no surprise that the EU will try to cling on to this state of affairs for as long as possible. This new document provides an indication of how they will try to achieve this.

Direct Conflict

The Commission’s position brings the EU into direct conflict with the aspirations of the UK fishing industry, which see the UK’s new legal status after March 2019, as a stepping stone to the normal advantages that accompany the status of an independent coastal state: quota shares that broadly reflect the resources in its EEZ; access arrangements for non-UK vessels only when there is a balancing benefit for the UK; and the ability to determine the shape of the management system to which the UK fleet is subject.

The Commission’s plan is to block any shift in this direction by insisting that access to the EU market, on anything other than WTO rules, would not be available, unless the UK sacrifices its fishing industry, which would continue to be subject to the whole body of EU rules past, present and future.

Clearly, the Commission’s plan for the future relationship between the EU and UK on fisheries is to try to keep the UK tied into an asymmetric, essentially exploitative relationship, with the EU as the dominant party, dictating the all the terms. This approach would not be acceptable in West Africa. Why would it be acceptable here? The UK would have to be bent self-harm to accept such a deal. After Brexit, the EU will control only around 20% of the sea area in the North Sea and in Western Waters about 50%. How could it be fair, realistic, or rational to expect the UK to accept such terms?

So, there are no surprises in the Commission’s stance. It is an opening negotiating position and it is to be expected that opening statement in negotiations present unachievable, maximalist, positions. We have every reason to expect that our ministers will stoutly resist. It would not just be the fishing industry that would punish the government electorally for leading it to expect a better future, only to have the promise snatched away and replaced with bitter frustration. Anything that looks like tying the UK into the present arrangements in the form of a CFP-lite, would be denounced by the fishing industry and its allies as an unacceptable betrayal – because it would be an unacceptable betrayal.

There is an expectation across the fishing industry that we will see a significant step forward on day one as we leave the EU, with a clear step-wise plan to take us to enjoy the full fruits of our status as an independent coastal state.

Against this background, the NFFO Executive Committee, which met recently in York, has reaffirmed its objectives as the UK leaves the EU.

NFFO Chief Executive, Barrie Deas, said:

“As we enter this next crucial phase in the withdrawal negotiations, there is much speculation on what the implementation/transition phase will mean and, as is usual with these kind of talks, postures are being struck in advance.

Our Executive Committee thought it important to restate our Brexit objectives and to make clear that it is against these that any deal will be judged by the UK fishing industry.

Our objectives are:

1 That the UK should, from the point of departure from the EU, have the status of an independent coastal state, with jurisdiction over the fisheries within its Exclusive Economic Zone; along with an independent seat at the table when decisions on fisheries on shared stocks are made.

2 That the UK’s quotas of shared stocks should broadly reflect the resources that are located within UK waters

3 That a 12mile exclusive limit should apply to safeguard to provide adequate protection for our coastal fisheries

4 That access for non-UK vessels to fish within the UK EEZ should be subject to negotiation and should bring balancing benefits to the UK

5 That there should be scope and flexibility for the UK to shape and tailor its domestic fisheries management arrangements to fit with its own fleets

6 That the UK should seek as unimpeded access to EU markets as possible

“These are our objectives and it is against these that progress will be measured and judged as we enter this next phase in the negotiations. We think that it is positive that the Commission’s negotiating position recognises that bespoke arrangements will be needed to reflect the UK’s new legal status after March 2019; and that the EU will no longer have jurisdiction over fisheries in UK waters. This is a welcome sign that there is an awareness that the world is changing and the UK will be an independent coastal state under international law from the point of departure.”

“What would not be acceptable would be, despite that altered legal status, for the UK to succumb to pressure from the EU to tie us into medium or long-term arrangements in which nothing material changes.”

The agreement is without prejudice to any future evidence-based policies which may be adopted by the authorities, or further voluntary agreements.

Pim Visser CEO of the Dutch Organisation VisNed, said:

“We recognise that pulse fishing is new and controversial and has led to changes in the spatial distribution and intensity of fishing in some areas. An enormous amount of scientific work has been undertaken and is being undertaken, to measure the effects of pulse fishing. We also acknowledge the concerns of fishermen on the English side, although in my own view much of what has been said is wildly alarmist.”

“Whilst these scientific studies are being undertaken, and as a goodwill gesture, we met with the inshore fishermen from Ramsgate, the Thames Estuary, Orford and Lowestoft in London. It was a very constructive meeting and the English fishermen put forward a number of concrete proposals. The result is we are prepared to accept the closed areas suggested by the fishermen.”

NFFO Chief Executive, Barrie Deas added:

“It seemed worthwhile to see if a voluntary agreement could be reached quickly, with the people most affected in the room, to ensure that the closed areas are in the right place and at the right time. The Dutch fishermen have responded positively so we have taken a small step forward. I think that it is important not to oversell this agreement. I hope that will help a bit but it is without prejudice to any Government policies that might be adopted in the future on the basis of scientific advice.”

The Agreement will come into effect on 15th February 2018.

See the full text of the agreement

VisNed (Coöperatie Kottervisserij Nederland U.A.)

Postadres: Postbus 59, 8320 AB Urk

Telefoon: +31 527 – 68 41 41

Fax: +31 527 – 68 41 66
Kvk: 32170400#
Kantoor: Vlaak 12, 8321 RV Urk
Website: www.visned.nl
Email: info@visned.nl
Twitter: @visned
BTW nr: NL822229237.B.01

Nederlandse Visserbond

Bezoekadres: Ecopark 42 • 8305 BK EmmeloordPostadres: Postbus 64 • 8300 AB Emmeloord

t:+31 (0) 527 698 151

m:+31 (0) 646 223 090

e:djtberends@vissersbond.nl i: www.vissersbond.nl

National Federation Fishermen’s Organisations

30 Monkgate, York, YO31 7PF

Tel: 01904 635430

e: nffo@nffo.org.uk i: www.nffo.org.uk

In the 1990s, David helped to build up the NFFO South East Committee into a highly active and influential group, with a core group of fishermen’s associations from Folkstone to Selsey. He then shifted to the national stage, whilst continuing to make sure that the inshore fleets in the South East and South Coast retained a strong voice and champion. David was Chairman of the Sussex Sea Fisheries Committee for many years and fought vigorously to ensure that the fishermen’s view was taken into account when new byelaws for the inshore fisheries were proposed.

Elected NFFO Chairman in 1991, David played a central role in the turbulent years through the 1990s, when misconceived fisheries policies at both EU and national levels led to a stocks crisis, followed by equally misconceived remedial measures.

The NFFO, with David Scott as Chairman and Charlie Dawson as President, coordinated fleet blockades by local boats of Teesport, Plymouth, Milford Haven and Liverpool, which resulted in saturation media coverage and a great deal of public sympathy. A mass rally of 3000 fishermen in Westminster followed, along with a flotilla of fishing vessels up the Thames to Parliament and later that year, a fleet demonstration at the Conservative Party Conference in Brighton. The issue was opposition to the Government’s plans to meet EU fleet reduction targets on the cheap by applying days-at-sea restrictions. A train chartered to take fishermen to the London rally from Cornwall alone contained 700 fishermen. It took a referral to the European Court and a change of ministers to put the government’s home grown days-at-sea scheme back on the shelf.

During these turbulent times, David was a central figure, remarkable for his patience during long meetings, working to build a consensus that every part of the coast could support.

During this period, the NFFO produced a document Conservation: an alternative approach, that made recommendations for more selective fishing that in some respects haven’t been surpassed even today. What was remarkable about this process was that every different group of fishermen in the NFFO’s membership was asked to come up with relevant, workable proposals – and every group did. David, by this time, NFFO President, played a pivotal role in forging this new approach.

In addition to his national and regional roles in the fishing politics of the time, David ran the cooperative, the Newhaven Fishermen’s (Sussex) Fish and Flake Ice Society and the day-to-day running of the family boat, which successfully made the transition away from targeting traditional quota species to fishing for non-quota species, which were under less pressure. In this and many other things, David was an innovator.

He will be sadly missed by all his many friends and colleagues. Our condolences go to his family.

NFFO Chief Executive, Barrie Deas, said:

“Over his career Tony has taken on a prodigious amount of work and responsibility as a fishermen’s representative, lifeboatman and now member of the board of the Marine Management Organisation. This award is truly deserved and I am delighted that his contribution has been recognised in this way. It is incredible to me that he has been able to do all that he has done, whilst maintaining a successful fishing business on the South Coast.”

“As Chairman of the NFFO South East Committee, and then as NFFO Chairman and President, Tony helped to steer the Federation and the fishing industry, through difficult waters to a much better place. Two main features have characterised his work: a quiet but steely determination to do the right thing in the right way; and an unshakable belief that all fishermen, whatever their size of vessel, method of fishing, or location on the coast, should have a voice in the way our industry is managed.”

“It is astonishing that Tony has been able to find time to undertake this huge amount of voluntary work over the years, whilst maintaining his fishing business. I know that Tony’s wife, Fiona, has also made a huge contribution to his work and I think that this should be recognised as well in this award.”

“I have repeatedly been grateful for Tony’s calm, wise, advice, which invariably strikes the right balance, and I am especially pleased that that same wisdom is now being put to good use in the highest levels of the MMO. It is extremely important for the decision-makers to have unfettered access to the practical grass-roots advice. And that exactly what Tony provides.”

“The other things that have marked Tony’s work, is an unshakable conviction that fishermen and fisheries scientists should work closely together; and that fisheries policy should be grounded in solid evidence rather than emotion and hearsay. This is the opposite of the “he who shouts loudest gets more influence” approach.”

“It is encouraging that this kind of approach, along with the hard work and commitment has now been recognised in this way.”

Tony Delahunty added, “I am honoured to receive this award for my contribution to fisheries management issues, locally and nationally. Whilst I am very pleased to accept this honour, I feel very strongly that the award recognises the importance and value of the work done by all my colleagues in the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations.”

Few, if any, sectors of the economy have more at stake than the UK fishing industry. A future as an independent coastal state was denied us in 1973, when the UK was ambushed on entry conditions to the EEC. Leaving the EU now offers the prospect of revisiting that particular historic fork in the road.

There remain huge questions and uncertainties about the UK’s future relationship with our biggest trading partner. The situation with fishing jurisdiction is somewhat different. When the UK leaves the EU, it leaves the Common Fisheries Policy by default. Biology and geography will continue to tie us to the EU (and Norway and other third countries) for the purpose of managing shared stocks. But the UK will henceforth enter that relationship as an independent coastal state rather than one member state amongst many.

On the current trajectory, the only way this future could be denied us is through a deliberate act of sabotage and self-harm by the British Government during the Brexit negotiations. At present that seems unlikely. Fishing remains high in the Government’s priorities. This is not just because many in high places agree that fishing was treated appallingly in 1973, but also because fishing, in many respects, is symbolic of Brexit. Our industry will be a litmus test for the new relationship with the EU and it will be clear, from early in April 2019, which fork in the road we have taken. The other aspects of Brexit will take years, if not decades, to work themselves out. The change in fisheries jurisdiction will be immediate.

All the signs are that the Government are working on this basis. Although much CFP law will be transferred into UK law through the Withdrawal Bill, the subsequent stand-alone Fisheries Bill will give UK ministers the power to set and agree quotas, and determine access conditions for non-UK vessels to fish in UK waters. Separate work-strands on international fisheries agreements, a workable discard ban and trade-flows are already under way.

NFFO Work Programme

All of this largely pre-determines the shape of the NFFO’s work programme for the year ahead. We have made good progress so far by working closely with government on the process of leaving the CFP and the shape of the UK’s future fisheries regime. Much detail still has to be worked out and discussed but the shape of a flexible, responsive, fisheries policy with a workable discard policy at its heart, is emerging as a shared vision. The Westminster Parliament will have a hugely increased role in fisheries and briefing parliamentarians in both Houses will be a priority for the year ahead.

The UK press and media seem broadly supportive of our aspirations for leaving the CFP. A breakfast briefing for political editors at Fishmonger’s Hall, in November provided an excellent platform to explain our case in detail. Fishmonger’s was also the venue for a very successful conference in which experts from the United States, New Zealand, Australia and Norway outlined what worked and what didn’t in their systems, and what might be relevant to the UK. The content is likely to be extremely useful. A study trip earlier in the year to meet with the Norwegian Government and Norwegian Fishermen’s Association also set the scene for new and important relationships as we leave the EU.

Pressures of parliamentary time may mean that some aspects of the CFP – technical conservation rules, for example – could be with us for some time after we leave the CFP. And it will be important to ensure that UK fisheries management delivers at least equivalence in terms of effect, in order to maintain smooth market access – but that does not seem like an insuperable problem given the current convergence and the UK’s generally positive and innovative approach to managing its fisheries. Outside the rigid strictures of the EU co-decision process a lot more should be possible.

Sustainable Fishing

The CFP has taken us down many blind alleys over the years. Despite attempts, mainly through regionalisation, to break free of prescriptive micro-management) the EU’s institutional framework remains uniquely Ill-designed to provide modern, responsive and adaptive, fisheries management. Co-decision with the European Parliament has served to increase the remoteness of decision-makers from the people affected by the rules.

Nevertheless, despite the wrong-turnings and mistakes, and with one or two species which buck the trend, the general stock trends, right across our fisheries for all of the main species groups, are positive. As we transition from the CFP to life as an independent coastal state it will remain paramount to ensure that this momentum – the basis for our prosperity – continues.

Transition Arrangements

When phase II negotiations reopen in Brussels, early next year, the UK will seek a two year implementation phase during which the UK will remain close to the single market and the customs union. From the perspective of our trading relationship and to avoid an abrupt rupture, damaging to both sides, this seems sensible.

The Commission, on its side, initially signalled that this would mean that the whole aquis communautaire (the whole body of EU law) would continue to apply to the UK during this implementation/transition phase.

This broad initial EU negotiating position was understandable, if unrealistic. But applied to fisheries it makes no senses the all. Taken at face value, it would mean that because during the two year transition phase the UK would not be involved in the EU institutions like the Council of Ministers or the European Parliament, the UK would not be at the table when quotas are set. It is politically inconceivable that the annual rounds of setting TACs and quotas in 2019 and 2020, could be allowed to take place reference to the UK ministers, especially when such a high proportion of the catch is made in UK waters.

As usual, fishing is different and will have to be treated differently. There is a precedent. Norway is in the EU single market, pays a large amount of money for the privilege but has no say on making the EU trade rules and standards which it must apply to its own industry in order to keep trading with the EU. But importantly, Norway is not in the Common Fisheries Policy. The single market is one thing and the management of fisheries is something else.

In its recommended negotiating guidelines to the Council of Europe for the next stage of the withdrawal negotiations, the Commission acknowledges that separate arrangements will be necessary for fisheries:

“Specific procedural arrangements which are compliant with paragraphs 17 and 18 should be found for the fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities (total allowable catches) during the transition period”

(Paragraph 17 says that during any transition period, ECJ rulings would continue to apply and UK ministers would not be involved in decisions made by the European institutions; and paragraph 18 says that there may be occasions when the UK might be invited to participate.)

The most likely scenario may therefore look something like this:

December 2018. The Council of Ministers will meet to decide TACs and quotas for 2019.
Parallel fisheries negotiations between EU and UK will take place in recognition that the UK will leave the EU, and therefore the CFP, in March 2019. The agreed quotas would apply for the whole of 2019 in order to avoid confusion
Autumn 2019, will see a wholly new institutional arrangement, in which the EU and UK enter talks for an annual fisheries agreement for 2020; in the North Sea, these annual negotiations will involve Norway
The UK legal base for this approach will be laid down in the Fisheries Bill during 2018, which will give UK ministers powers to set (and agree) TACs, quotas and access arrangements, in accord with international law

Monitoring Control and Enforcement

Finally, there has been ill-informed press comment about whether the UK will be able to police its waters after it leaves the EU.

The UK is of course, as an EU member state, already responsible for policing its own waters and as every year goes by technological developments like satellite monitoring strengthens our ability to apply a risk-based approach.

Iceland, with a population of 350,000 manages to police its waters. Why would the UK with a population of 65 million and two thousand years of maritime history not be able to do it?

The Council was unusual also, in the sense that it is likely to be the last of its type, as next December, with Brexit ahead in March 2019, will have to mean significant changes in the way decisions are reached on TACs and quotas.

The Commission, then, for the time being, remains the ringmaster, and the UK is the only member state with an interest in 120 stocks but the same status as any other member state.

Celtic Sea haddock is a case study in what is wrong with the CFP. There is widespread discarding of mature haddock in the mixed fishery because of a mismatch between available quota and catches.

Part of the problem lies with the assessment and the TAC; part of it lies with the UK’s relative stability share. Fishermen, utterly fed up with discarding beautiful and valuable haddock, resolved early this year to work with the scientists, fisheries administrators and the NWWAC, to find a better way forward. Catches were validated by CCTV cameras; the NW Advisory Council provided new advice on an innovative approach and the UK opened discussions with the Commission. All of that came up against an obdurate Commission which ignored the fishermen’s efforts; ignored ICES mixed fishery advice; ignored the use of F ranges (that are designed to smooth out mixed fishery divergences); ignored the Advisory Council advice; and ignored the inevitable increase in discards that will result. Instead, only one thing mattered – getting another stock on the MSY list, the only way success can be measured in Commission-world.

The Commissioner can notch one more stock on his MSY legacy belt. But at what cost?

Thousands of tonnes of mature haddock will now be discarded in the Celtic Sea in 2018; disillusioned and angry fishermen will now doubt the value of collaborating with fisheries scientists; advisory council members are left wondering why they bother. A member state, is left thinking there has to be a better way and there is a prospect ahead of taking a different road as an independent coastal state. Wreckage to the left, wreckage to the right.

Part of this sorry tale lies with the EU’s MSY approach that elevates a moderately useful way of benchmarking optimum fishing mortality to the level of a holy grail and legal requirement with zero scope for common sense or flexibility. The NGOs and their distant financiers and their collaborators in the European Parliament, bear some responsibility for this state of affairs.

This was not an intractable, impossible problem. With a bit of good will all round, a degree pragmatism, and using ICES mixed fisheries advice, it was perfectly possible to land and sell the dead haddock; reduce fishing mortality and improve the quality of the assessment.

Instead ideology in the form of a doctrinaire view of MSY got in the way.

South West Mixed Fortunes

Paul Trebilcock

Cornish Fish Producers Organisation

“Finally, after two long days in Brussels and tortuous through-the-night negotiations, fisheries ministers from across the EU eventually agreed quotas for the year ahead, including those important for the SW.

For the 12 months before the Council and throughout the negotiations themselves, the CFPO, working with the NFFO, liaised closely with CEFAS, DEFRA officials and the UK minister to ensure that the scientific, economic and community based arguments were well understood in an effort to deliver the best possible deal for our members.

Celtic Sea Cod, Haddock & Whiting

Although a small increase in the cod TAC (9%) was achieved, nothing should take away from the significant problems the wholly unnecessary reductions in the haddock TAC (11%) and whiting TAC (19%) represent.

Despite the ritual calls to “follow the science” the Commission throughout elected to reject the ICES evaluated scientific advice based on mixed fishery maximum sustainable yield (MSY) range. Instead, it prioritised the arbitrary timetable for achieving maximum sustainable yield. The option was available to continue progress towards MSY in the mixed fisheries of the SW, whilst simultaneously reducing discards in the year before the full implementation of the landings obligation. Bizarrely, the Commission chose to ignore the realities of our ultra-mixed fisheries and, aided and abetted by the NGOs, went for the option which can only lead to a significant increase of discards in 2018.

It is certainly true that the cuts in haddock and whiting were not as large as originally proposed but ultimately this was a missed opportunity to harness the industry’s support and engagement to build the stocks and reduce the level of discards in these complex fisheries.

The Defra delegation in Brussels argued long and hard for the mixed fishery MSY range advice (supplemented and supported by work done by CFPO members working with Cefas during 2017) to be used but the Commission was from the beginning completely intransigent, obsessed with adding to the number of stocks under MSY. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that this Council illustrates everything that is bad about the CFP decision-making process.

Cuts in the 2018 TAC for hake and megrim were driven by single stock MSY advice. Although the cut for hake was mitigated (from 19% to 7%) it was not possible to make any further progress on these stocks. This will have a negative impact on SW fishermen, particularly those working from Newlyn.

Positives

There were more positive outcomes for SW flatfish. Bristol Channel sole (7.fg) and Western Channel sole (7.e) saw increases of 9% and 2% in TACs respectively, whilst for sole7.hjk a rollover of the 2017 TAC was secured.

There were also increases in TACs for Plaice in the Bristol Channel and English Channel as well as a rollover secured for 7.hjk plaice from the Commissions initial proposal of a zero TAC.

The ray TAC in area 7 saw a welcome overall increase of 15%, although specific small-eyed ray restrictions remained in place that are problematic.

A rollover in the TACs for ICES area 7 pollack, saithe, ling and monkfish were all welcomed.

Bass

The Commission’s approach on bass is difficult to understand. In SW mixed trawl fisheries where bass are taken as an unavoidable by-catch, the Commission has chosen to ratchet down the by-catch provision. The only possible outcome will be to increase dead discards with no effect on bass mortality. Surely this approach represents the exact opposite of sound fisheries management and it is difficult to understand the logic of an approach that will only increase discards.

A promised review of the science on bass during the first part of 2018 offers some hope that the measures agreed can be subsequently amended. Hopefully, a more sensible and practical approach can be introduced then.”

Overall

Although the overall package for the south-west fisheries was a mixed bag in terms of TAC increases and reductions, the way the negotiations were conducted, and the outcomes on the Celtic mixed fisheries and bass, will do nothing to convince the vast majority that the sooner we can leave the CFP, and its dysfunctional way of reaching management decisions, the better.

North Sea TACs follow positive stock trends

Arnold Locker

The steady rebuilding of the North Sea stocks has been reflected in this year’s scientific advice. This has, in turn, been translated into the quotas agreed between EU and Norway in the annual fisheries agreement negotiations, after a single round in Bergen. With top-ups for those stocks included in the EU landings obligation in 2018, and some transfers from Norway, whiting will be increased by 40%, haddock by 24%, saithe by 8% and cod by 10%.

Separately, monkfish was increased by 20%, nephrops by 22%, skates and rays by 15% and turbot and brill by 20%. Plaice, despite being at historic levels will see a reduction of 13%, sole minus 3% and megrim minus 4%

The UK avoided being in the strange position of arguing for a poorer deal than could be available, by agreeing to a balanced approach on the use of blue whiting in both the directed fishery and for currency to secure more valuable species.

Overall, the positive stock trends, the package of TACs and the efficiency of the negotiations, made this one of the easiest, most streamlined EU negotiations over the 40 years that EU and Norway have managed shared stocks jointly.

Norway outlines its Post-Brexit Vision for the North Sea: Sustainability requires cooperation

During the annual EU/Norway negotiations, the Norwegian delegation gave a presentation of its preliminary views on the type of joint management arrangements for the North Sea that it thinks will be necessary to accommodate the UK as an independent coastal state after March 2019.

The presentation, entitled Future Framework for management of joint fish resources in the North Sea, was not a formal agenda item but it is clear that Norway considers that it is important to begin thinking now about what format the new arrangements should take.

Future Cooperation: Basic Principles

The essential elements in the Norwegian vision are:

Relevant modern management principles
Goal: increasing long-term total out-take
Goal: utilisation of all fish; and all of the fish taken out of the sea
Respect for the different starting points for the management systems of the parties

The new tripartite setting after the UK leaves the EU, and therefore the CFP will require the establishment of new legal and institutional structures. To this end, Norway proposes a joint EU, Norway, UK Fisheries Commission, responsible for managing the joint stocks in the North Sea. The North Sea Fisheries Commission would be responsible for an annual agreed record; it would also make decisions on total allowable catches for shared stocks; and decisions on what stocks to include in the agreement.

Norway made the point that quota exchanges are the glue that holds the agreement together and these could be included as (bilateral) annexes to the annual agreement. Permanent sub-groups could work on areas such as monitoring control and enforcement, technical regulation and the development of management plans.

A new framework agreement would:

Define the geographical scope of the Agreement
Outline the main principles for cooperation
Shape the institutional framework for negotiations etc

There is a question-mark over the appropriate legal status of the Agreement. This could take the form of a legally binding document according to the internal procedures of the parties, or a less formal type of agreement.

Sharing and Access

Crucially, the Agreement would also cover the important areas of future sharing of the stocks (which are currently not codified) and access arrangements. These could be included in the form of bilateral annexes to the framework agreement, or agreed record, or could take a trilateral form. The EU/Norway agreement in 1979, pioneered zonal attachment as the basis for establishing the resources in each exclusive economic zone and therefore the basis of national quota shares.

Skagerrak

As the UK has no fishing interests in the Skagerrak, a separate agreement would be required for that sea area.

Significance

This was a brief but highly significant intervention at a crucial juncture, as the UK seeks to disentangle itself from the EU. It acknowledges, as we do, the biological, geographical and legal realities that shared stocks must be managed cooperatively and managed well if we are to optimise the benefits.

This was a welcome and timely intervention which may shape the way our North Sea fisheries are managed for years to come. It will also be important to begin thinking about similar but not necessarily identical arrangements for our fisheries in Western Waters.

A New Beginning for the Irish Sea

Alan McCulla, Anglo North Irish FPO

“The EU’s December 2017 Fisheries Council has just concluded in Brussels with one of the best results for Northern Ireland’s fishermen in many years. Some Total Allowable Catches (TAC) in the Irish Sea have been set at their highest level in almost 20 years

Whilst starting from a historically low baseline, the TAC for Irish Sea cod has been increased by 376%. The amount of herring that can be harvested from the Irish Sea has been increased by 70%, haddock by 23% and nephrops, which is Northern Ireland’s most economically important catch has been increased by 15%. Taken together, these increases will contribute additional catches for Northern Ireland’s fishing fleet valued at several million pounds.

The vast majority of fish taken from the Irish Sea are now harvested according to internationally recognised sustainability rules and whilst there is still a long way to go to return fisheries like cod to what they were in their heyday, decisions taken overnight in Brussels represent a very significant step in the right direction.

However, contradictory European fishery rules remain in place for 2018, typified by the loss of nearly 50% of the additional cod that should have been available to United Kingdom fishermen in the Irish Sea to the Republic of Ireland under the EU’s Hague Preference quota allocation mechanism.

Alan McCulla OBE, Chief Executive of the Kilkeel based fishermen’s co-opertaive ‘Sea Source”, who was part of the Northern Ireland delegation in Brussels for the Council said,

“Northern Ireland’s fishing industry strategy is starting to pay off. This positive outcome comes as a result of a much closer and better working relationship between the industry and AFBI’s fisheries scientists in Belfast, as well as fisheries officials in DAERA.”

“As part of this annual round of fisheries negotiations, the European Commission had at the last minute, also proposed a technical conservation rule that could have had far reaching consequences for the fishing fleet in the Irish Sea. However, evidence was presented to the Commission showing that Northern Ireland’s fishermen, together with AFBI and DAERA were continuing to work on measures designed to minimise unwanted catches. As a result the Commission withdrew their proposal.”

“Decisions made in Brussels early this morning certainly lay a good foundation for the future of the fishing industry in Northern Ireland and around the Irish Sea. By increasing the allowable catches for fish stocks, this allows us to carefully diversify some of our trawlers away from their dependence on nephrops. This will slowly allow us to rebuild a mixed fishery in the Irish Sea, which was successful in the past both for the sustainability of fish stocks and the economic viability of the industry itself.”

“There remain challenges, but this is an exciting time to be involved in the fishing industry in the Irish Sea. Brexit is looming closer and whilst clearly we have to manage shared fish stocks with our European neighbours, we are looking forward to the day when the United Kingdom becomes an independent coastal state, leading to the removal of discriminatory quota allocation rules being removed and UK fisheries managers wielding much more influence over decisions concerning allowable catches in our own waters.”

Channel Prospects Better/ Bass Measures unhelpful

Tony Delahunty, NFFO President

“Progress was made during the Council on skates and rays, with a 20% increase in the TAC for area 7 and a 15% increase in the North Sea. This is a step in the right direction, starting to repair the damage from repeated 20% reductions in the past when the Commission insisted on an over-precautionary approach to data-limited stocks. The composite TAC for skates and rays does no one any favours: neither allowing sufficient scope for a sustainable fishery on the individual species like thornback, that are abundant or affording adequate protection to the species that are more vulnerable. Work has been ongoing throughout the year on a more flexible regime and hopefully will bear fruit next year.

The outcome on bass is a travesty that will contribute nothing to rebuilding the stock. It would have made much more sense to have address this in the New Year when we will have more solid science to work with. The bass fishery is closed during the first part of 2018 anyway, so there is little scope for harm in this approach. Instead we have measure that we know will lead to increased discarding.

Otherwise, the 25% increase in sole in the eastern Channel is welcome, as is the small (3%) increase in plaice. We were expecting an increase in cod in the eastern Channel in line with the North Sea and were surprised by the 16% reduction, which we suppose is related to the methodology for calculating the landing obligation uplift. We are checking with Defra on this.

Recognising that it is not possible to have Zero TACs and a landing obligation, the Commission in a declaration made at the Council, has vested responsibility for squaring this particular circle with the regional member states and the advisory councils. They have 12 months to come up with a solution. The options seem to be to add the stock to the prohibited species list (not what the list was for), a high survival exemption (if there is sufficient evidence to justify it), or remove TAC status from the stock and replace it with an alternative form of management. This is likely to be high on the priority list next year.

Bass – Wrong Direction

Jim Evans – Wales

Landings of bass from the commercial fisheries have been reduced by around 70% in recent years, as a direct result of the draconian management measures taken, including closed seasons and an increase in the minimum landing size. By contrast the mortality attributed to the recreational anglers has stayed stable or increased.

ICES is scheduled to review the quality of the bass assessment in February/March at which point it would make sense to review whether the management measures are working, what adjustments might make sense and what the prognosis for this valuable stock might be.

It is difficult, therefore, to explain the Commission’s approach at the December Council – to force through restrictions that will do nothing to reduce fishing mortality on bass – but will certainly increase the discarding of bass unavoidably caught in the mixed demersal fisheries. This seems to be gesture politics – but with calculable adverse consequences. The UK strongly opposed this approach in favour of a more balanced package.

After all the push and shove was over, the new measures adopted by the Council, restrict landings from the bycatch fisheries even further and can only lead to an increase in discards. Recreational anglers can only catch bass if they are immediately returned to the sea.

Landing bass will remain prohibited in February and March. From 1st April to the end of the year the following bycatch fisheries will be permitted:

Demersal Trawl: not exceeding 100kgs per month and 1% of total catch in a single day (down from 3% and 400kgs)
Seines: not exceeding 180kgs per month and 1% of total catch in a single day
Hook and Line: 5 tonnes per vessel per year
Fixed gill nets: 1.2 tonnes per vessel per year

The only other thing that I would add is to acknowledge the support and hard work of the Defra and Welsh Government officials who were on the front line on this issue.

Leaving the Common Fisheries Policy

Mike Cohen

The political turbulence associated with the progress of the Withdrawal Bill through Parliament and the EU/UK negotiations on the terms of departure has certainly preoccupied the media of late. Behind the scenes, however, solid work continues on preparing for the UK’s new status as an independent coastal state. In addition to the Federation’s close detailed work with Defra through monthly meetings, stand-alone subjects such as the future of international fisheries agreements and trade in fisheries products are also being addressed systematically.

In the next eight months or so, we will pass two key waypoints – the new Fisheries Bill which will give ministers the power to set quotas and determine access rights over who is allowed to fish in UK waters and under what conditions; and how fisheries will be dealt with in the exit negotiations.

On the Fisheries Bill, the Federation will be working to build a good level of understanding of the issues in Parliament. The UK Parliament will in future play a much more direct role in managing our fisheries and it is vital that MPs have a solid understanding of what is at stake.

It can be anticipated that the EU side will do all it can to stay as close to the status quo as possible. Voices in the Commission have already suggested that a two year transition period will mean the whole acquis communitauire (the accumulated body of EU law) will apply to the UK during that period, including the CFP.

But that ain’t necessarily so. Norway is part of the EU single market but manages its own fisheries and the Prime Minister and Secretary of State have both said that the UK, so far as fisheries are concerned will be outside the CFP from day one.

In this regard, fisheries will be a litmus test for Brexit and from what we hear it remains amongst the top priorities for Brexit within Downing Street. Our job will be to ensure that it stays there. One of our very successful initiatives so far has been a breakfast meeting with the political editors. At a venue provided and funded by the Fishmongers Company, kedgeree was served to the Times, Financial Times, The Economist, Guardian, Reuters, The Express, Press Association amongst others, providing an opportunity for us to spell out the fishing industry’s case

In some cases the ensuing articles came immediately; with others on more of a slow burn but giving them a deeper understanding the fishing industry’s case in preparation for the Brexit issues as they arise over the course of next year.

Another useful event coordinated, in part, by the Federation was a conference in London sponsored by Fishmongers and Blue Marine, which invited fisheries experts from the USA, New Zealand, Australia and Norway to spell out what works and what doesn’t work in their systems and what might be relevant to UK fisheries after the UK leaves the CFP.

The Federation in September also undertook a study tour to Norway, the UK’s closest fishing neighbour outside the EU to speak to government officials, regulators and fishing industry about what is possible as an independent coastal state.

Looking forward, a briefing meeting for UK legislators is being planned for next year. In this way, the Federation is maintaining the momentum in the political sphere and the media towards a good outcome for fishing.

NFFO Team

The NFFO Team in Brussels the year was:

Tony Delahunty (President and Channel)

Mike Cohen (Chairman and North Sea)

Arnold Locker (East of England)

Andrew Locker (East of England)

Linda McCall (Northern Ireland)

Alan McCulla (Irish Sea)

Jim Evans (Wales and Irish Sea)

Jane Sandell (External Waters)

Chloe Rogers (External Waters

Mathew Cox (Pelagic)

Paul Trebilcock (South West)

Barrie Deas (Chief Executive)

Season’s Greetings

May I take this opportunity to wish all of our members, supporters and allies, a very happy Christmas and a healthy and prosperous New Year.

Tony Delahunty

NFFO President

Landings of bass by the commercial fleets have been reduced by 70% since emergency measures were introduced in 2014. By contrast, scientists estimate that the recreational catch of bass has stayed stable or even increased. The NFFO in pre-Council briefings with Fisheries Minister George Eustice, and officials, has made the case for a more intelligent approach to unavoidable bycatch, allowing boats to land dead bass whilst maintaining measures that will lead to the rebuilding of the bass stocks over a reasonable time period.

“It seems incongruous, to say the very least, to suggest that we should implement measures that will inevitably lead to an increase in discards, in the year before bass comes under the landing obligation, on 1st January 2019”, said Barrie Deas, Chief Executive of the NFFO, on route to Brussels.

“There is no substance in the Commission’s assertion that there is a targeted fishery for bass under the current bycatch rules. That is just wild assertion. What there is evidence of, photographic evidence, is of the sheer waste involved in discarding catches dead bass. With a few adjustments to the bycatch rules this fish could be landed for the human consumption market, without undermining the conservation effect of measures in place, one jot.”

The Celtic Sea mixed fishery is likely to provide another contentious issue. The Commission’s obsession with reaching MSY for all harvested species (a legal requirement hard wired into the CFP reform in 2013, notwithstanding its scientific illiteracy) is likely to be problematic. The NFFO/CFPO have been working strenuously since January with scientists and administrators to build the elements of a mixed fishery approach that would allow harvesting of haddock, cod and whiting at levels that would minimise discards and continue to rebuild the biomass.

Skates and rays are another priority stock for the UK. The Commission have recognised that including all skates and ray under a blanket TAC drags down sustainable catches of the abundant species like thornback, whilst doing precious little to protect the more vulnerable species. A new approach will be needed for next year where skates and ray will present a serious and frequent choke. The question for this Council will be: what can be done for 2018?

In the Irish Sea it is difficult to see the Commission’s proposal on Irish Sea cod as anything other than a crude attempt to create negotiating leverage. ICES recommendation was for a 275% increase and it would be a travesty of the outcome was anything other than to follow the science.

In the Channel, the focus again will be on Eastern Channel sole and rays.

The main TACs for the North Sea have been settled as part of the EU/Norway agreement reached earlier this month. The Commission’s strange proposal for a reverse “of which” quota for nephrops is one of the key outstanding issues.

These issues aside, it is important to remember that overall stock trends are positive and have been for some years now. Most of the problems faced at this year’s Council arise from the management

system and past policy decisions, rather than in the fisheries themselves.

The NFFO team travelling to Brussels will ensure that all of the issues of important to our diverse fleets are covered.

Throwback

This Council feels like a throwback to 15 years ago, when governments and fisheries stakeholders, complained that when the Commission put proposals on the table at the 11th hour, with inadequate scope for scrutiny or discussion, it was not surprising when things subsequently went wrong. Since then, things have improved, particularly when the advisory councils were consulted but all of that seems to have been forgotten or abandoned this year. Perhaps a new generation of officials will need to learn the lessons the hard way.

That will not be the UK’s concern in the future, however, as this will be that last full December Council in which the UK will participate if the UK leaves the EU as scheduled in March 2019. For next year, some different kind of arrangement will be required, firstly to set catch limits for the first part of the year, and secondly for the rest of the year when the UK will become an independent state. Some sort of transitional arrangement for 2019 is likely, with new institutions and arrangements emerging in the autumn of 2019 to agree TACs, quotas and access arrangements for 2020.

The UK’s departure from the EU and therefore the Common Fisheries Policy, will mean that the UK will, from March 2019, operate as an independent coastal state. Although shared stocks will continue to be managed cooperatively, this change will provide a range of possibilities for a customised and tailored management regime for our fishing fleets. It makes sense to start thinking about what that will look like, now.

One of the reasons that the CFP took the fishing industry down so many blind alleys over 40 years, including encouraging large-scale discarding, has been its top-down, command and control, approach and cumbersome decision-making procedures.

As we move out of the era of the CFP and enter a new era as an independent coastal state, it will be important to learn the lessons of the CFP and to avoid the more obvious pitfalls.

Management Objectives

It is right to have high ambitions for our fisheries. We should aim for high long-term average yields of commercial species. That provides employment and economic benefits as well as high protein food on the table. We should also ensure adequate protection for vulnerable species and habitats.

In fact, there is rarely very much difference between the fishing industry and environmentalists on high level objectives. It is at the implementation level where the problems arise. The current CFP illustrates this, which at its core confuses objectives with instruments, and lacks coherence between quota-setting rules, the landing obligation, technical conservation rules and approaches to control and enforcement. It also refuses to recognise that there must be inevitable trade-offs between different objectives. The result is growing levels of dysfunctionality that with the arrival of the EU landing obligation and the associated problem of chokes, now threatens to tie fleets up early in the year. It all adds up to a serious mess.

In developing our own alternative approach to fisheries management, what are the principles that we should follow? Here are my thoughts:

A Responsive System

Fisheries management is prone to unintended consequences. We have certainly learnt that over recent decades. We should therefore in future ensure that we are able to change course quickly in order to adapt to dynamic circumstances or after it is recognised that we have taken a wrong turning. We should certainly not follow the CFP into an unwieldy decision-making system.

Parliament should set the broad principles and overall direction. It should not involve itself in technical areas in which it lacks expertise. A system which as far as possible avoids prescriptive micro-management and instead devolves technical decisions to the participants in each fishery has to be the ideal. The trade-off is that the participants must demonstrate that they are delivering the desired objective. This is called results-based management. This should be the guiding principle behind our future management systems.

Cooperation

The most successful fisheries management regimes, worldwide, have at their heart a close working relationship between fisheries managers and those working in each fishery. Trust and confidence follow when it is clear that managers and fishers are both pursuing the same objectives. Sharing information in a highly dynamic industry requires dialogue. We should be thinking now about how our institutions can take the best from the CFP and leave the worst behind. The advisory councils have been recognised as representing a huge step away from a top-down command and control model and we should now think about what advisory structures should be embedded within our own systems, post-Brexit.

Collective Accountability

Where possible we should aspire to go beyond dialogue and advice to delegate management responsibilities to the lowest practical level. Producer Organisations are widely recognised to provide a highly successful model of devolved collective responsibility in the areas of quota management and marketing. With their finger on the pulse at regional and port level, POs have a flexibility and local knowledge which governments could never achieve. The key is collective responsibility and accountability. We should look for opportunities to extend this decentralised model.

Incentives Should Support Management Objectives

Much can also be achieved by creating the right incentives for individual fishing businesses. A steady flow of data and information, reduction of unwanted bycatch or other environmental impacts, can all be shaped by creating the right form of incentive structures. Enabling compliance should be the primary objective of the fisheries regulator and in the long term this will be much more effective than an exclusive focus on catching out the unwary in a web of top-down complexity.

What Not To Do

I have tried above to sketch out what a modern, effective, dynamic, post-Brexit management regime might look like.

The ingredients for a fisheries management dystopia that have stymied the CFP are sadly being promoted by some environmental NGOs, including WWF, which should really know better. Blanket CCTV, recently advocated by the NGO, goes hand in hand with a top-down big-brother mentality that should really have no place in modern fisheries management. Various kinds of remote sensing will certainly have their place in fisheries management in the future – but only where it makes sense as part of a voluntary means for vessel operators to demonstrate its practices, as part of a system of incentives and audits.

We have seen in the CFP, that in the final analysis, top-down prescription doesn’t work. Even with big-brother on board it will not work. What in my view will work, is clever management measures designed and implemented with the industry’s involvement and cooperation, which follow the grain of fishery profitability, not run against it. The principles of good governance should be the standard against which we should measure our future fisheries management arrangements, because in the final analysis, good governance is effective governance.

« Previous 1 … 13 14 15 16 17 … 47 Next »