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

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.

The essential elements in the Norwegian vision are:

Future Cooperation: Basic Principles

• 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 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 establish 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 therefore 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.

The annual EU/Norway agreement is an important staging-post in each fishing year, setting total allowable catches, access arrangements and quota shares for the coming year. North Sea cod, haddock, whiting, saithe, plaice and herring TACs are set in this way. In addition quota exchanges between the parties are agreed. The agreement is hugely important for the fleets concerned, largely determining their fishing opportunities for the coming year.

The Norwegian Head of Delegation, Ann Kristin Westberg, remarked that the talks had seen their ups and downs over the years but geography and shared stocks meant that there is no realistic alternative to cooperation on the management of shared stocks. However, she observed that this would be the last year in which the talks would take their current form because the UK would leave the EU in 2019 and the 2018 negotiations (for an agreement in 2019) would need to take account of that change.

In fact, post Brexit, the EU’s sea area in the North Sea will only amount to around 20% of the total, with UK and Norway then being the main players. After Brexit, it is expected that the UK will participate in the bilateral or trilateral negotiations as an independent coastal state. At present, despite contributing the bulk of the EU’s sea area and fish resources, the UK is only one of around 15 member states who are coordinated by the European Commission. Coordination of the EU position often swallows as much as half of the time allowed for the talks.

Although, over the years, the negotiations have seen bad tempered breakdowns and walkouts, they are currently in a relatively calm businesslike phase.

The talks continue and are expected to be concluded by the end of this week.

The Commission has proposed the replacement of the old technical rules (EC 850/98) with a framework that provides for member states to develop their own technical rules through regional policies (e.g. North Sea or Western Waters), with baselines round about the present levels as a baseline safeguard.

Apart from being an example of the discredited top-down prescriptive approach to fisheries legislation, regulation 850/98 had once central flaw which made change absolutely necessary: its catch composition rules made it obligatory for fishermen to discard fish caught outside predefined catch composition percentages (e.g. 5% cod). This approach was and is therefore completely incompatible with the landings obligation, where all quota species must be landed.

In going through the co-decision process, the Commission’s proposal was amended by the Council of Ministers to reintroduce some elements of the catch composition rules; and it is this version that is now under consideration by the European Parliament. Some 733 amendments have been proposed by MEPs, most of whom would not be able to tell a cod-end from a tethered sheep.

It seems increasingly likely that that the European Parliament will follow the Council approach and reintroduce catch composition rules. This would leave the fishing industry facing a continuation of the complex mesh size and catch composition rules and there will be no real change from the current mess. In other words, the vessel’s master would be legally obliged to both discard and retain fish caught outside the catch composition percentages.

Solution

Leaving fishing vessels caught between two contradictory rules is clearly unacceptable. The possible solutions are:

• Revert to the Commission’s proposal which had quantitative targets for species but not catch composition rules at vessel level; they applied rather at the fishery level
• Leave the question of how to define smaller mesh sizes entirely to the member states at regional level, thus avoiding requiring catch compositions in the European level legislation.

Whatever solution is chosen, we are adamant: skippers must not be placed in the situation of having to meet contradictory legal requirements.

A flavour of the Federation’s work can be seen from the following checklist:

• Withdrawal Bill – direct discussions with Defra and participation in the External Advisory Group
• Fisheries Bill – direct discussions with Defra and participation in the External Advisory Group
• Exit Negotiations – Defra discussions
• Industry Finance post-Brexit – Defra discussions
• Preparation and circulation of NFFO Briefing Notes for the above
• All Party Parliamentary Fisheries Group – Briefing meeting
• UK Fisheries Stakeholder meeting with Secretary of State
• Post- Brexit Fisheries management:

1. Teleconference with Australian fisheries expert
2. Study tour to meet Norwegian fisheries authorities and Norwegian Fishermen’s Association
3. Steering Committee of conference on World Fisheries Best Practice, (forthcoming)

• Breakfast meeting with political editors (forthcoming)
• Meeting with Defra on Trade aspects of Brexit (forthcoming)
• Briefing meeting with EFRA Parliamentary Committee (forthcoming)
• Meeting with Marine Management Organisation on post-Brexit UK landing obligation
• Membership of Defra Legislative and Consultation Group
• Labour Friends of Fishing Group launch (forthcoming)
• House of Lords – Briefing (forthcoming)
• Briefing for Annual Fisheries Debate in Parliament (forthcoming)
• International Fisheries Agreements Defra meeting

The Federation’s positions on the UK’s departure from the EU and post-Brexit management regime have clearly been spelt out over two policy papers, the contents of which have now been thoroughly discussed and analysed.

Our principle focus now in ensuring that fishing is given sufficient political priority to ensure a safe passage through the turbulent waters of the exit negotiations and the smooth establishment of the UK as an independent coastal state, with the rights, and duties associated with that responsibility.

Hartlepool Harbour presence 26/10/2017 7:30am – 12 Noon

SpaldingCurlew Centre, Spalding
31/10/2017 9am – 11am

Sheringham Oddfellows Hall, Sheringham 31/10/2017 1pm – 3pm

GrimsbyGrimsby Fish Market Office 02/11/2017 7am – 11am

BrixhamBrixham Harbour Offices
09/11/2017 10am – 2pm

Looe Looe Harbour Commissioners Board Room 10/11/2017 10:30am – 3pm

Fleetwood Fleetwood port and marina
office 15/11/2017 10am – 2pm

MevagisseyTBC
TBC – late Nov

Further information can be obtained from:

Graeme High

England IB Manager

Tel: 02080 265233

Her Majesty’s Government – Marine Management Organisation
Lancaster House, Hampshire Court, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE4 7YH

Web: www.gov.uk/mmo<http://www.gov.uk/mmo>

Twitter: @the_MMO

Facebook: /MarineManagementOrganisation

The science underpinning this drive to curtail North East fisheries is very spurious and like all fishery science is very dependent on how you interpret it.

The overuse of the precautionary approach in this case is being taken to the extreme (if this might happen, that may happen which could lead to this happening). It is an excuse for saying we really don’t know but we will take action anyway, just in case.

This gives the politically connected and well-funded NGO, angling and riparian lobby to hammer home their 40 year crusade to end commercial fisheries.

The overuse of the precautionary approach has led to technical downgrading in the conservation status of rivers like the Tyne, and others, from ‘Not at risk’ to ‘Possibly at risk’ status, or lower. This brings them into the category of ‘Measures need to be taken.’

This has to be questionable when the river Tyne is experiencing consecutive record runs of salmon, and many other rivers are experiencing a revival of salmon runs, not seen in centuries, certainly in the North East. Our prolific fisheries, centred around North East rivers like the Tyne, are well-managed and there are no reasonable ground to close these fisheries, although we accept there may be grounds for proportionate management measures.

We accept that there are grounds for concern on salmon stocks for certain UK rivers, and the overall survivability of salmon at sea is declining, but the reasons for this have nothing to do with the impact of our fisheries.

The natural mortality rates of salmon is considerably higher than our catches. Even our critics say our fisheries are not the problem but argue to close them down anyway.

The solutions to the problems with salmon are in river habitat restoration, restocking and improving sustainability of salmon smolts in rivers and at sea.

Proposed closures of our fisheries are to treat the symptom, not the problem itself. It may mask a decline for a couple of years but does nothing else than placate opportunistic carpet baggers.

Healthy and prosperous commercial fisheries in the North East should be celebrated as an example of how stocks can be managed well. Certainly, the criteria should not be how many fish an angler can catch.

Fishermen are prepared to restrict their activities to an extent to play their part in any necessary conservation initiative but this should only be temporary because once fisheries are closed they are unlikely to be reopened regardless of the numbers of salmon that may be around. This is entirely due to politics not fisheries management.

I sincerely hope that the Minister, George Eustice, does not follow in the footsteps of Selwyn Gummer and Richard Benyon in consigning our fisheries to the history books simply because of their susceptibility to vigorous political lobbying by our detractors. This would be unfair, unjust and undemocratic but, there again, we are just fishermen.

Ørsted has indicated it wishes to further cement these good relations and has voluntarily agreed to donate a £300,000 Fund that is to be used to support Fishing Community projects specifically within these Fishing Communities.The independent grant-making not-for-profit company, the West of Morecambe Fisheries Ltd, has been appointed to manage the Fund.

Applying

Calls for applications to the fund will be open twice in 2018, firstly between 1st January and 28th February 2018, and then later between 1st September and 30th November 2018.

Further similar calls for applications will be made in 2019 if the fund has not been fully utilised by the end of 2018.

Forms, instructions on how to apply, eligibility criteria and all terms and conditions can be obtained from the following sources from 1st January 2018:

1. Application forms can be downloaded directly from the West of Morecambe Fisheries Ltd website at www.westofmorecambe.com (in pdf format).

2. You may request an application form be emailed to you (pdf format) or posted to you by emailing a request to andy@westofmorecambe.com

3. You may request an application form be posted to you by writing to the PO Box address below. Please remember to include the address you wish the application form to be sent to:

WOMF, PO Box 1395, Norwich, NR13 3YA.

Measures and their consequences

Measures that give particular cause for concern are those which:

⦁ Significantly reduce profitability – the link between profitable and safe fishing vessels is well established

⦁ Create strong boundary issues, with favourable incentives to be on one side of the line rather than the other; we have seen this feature very clearly with the boundary at 10 meters

⦁ Limitations on time at sea increase the likelihood that a vessel will remain at sea (or go to sea) in adverse weather conditions; and increase the dangers associated with fatigue. Pressures to maximize profit during the period an individual vessel is permitted to go to sea, is also a feature of systems that limit time at sea.

Fishing Industry Safety Group

I am strongly of the view that in future, all fisheries legislation should be vetted by the UK’s Fishing Industry Safety Group, where fishing industry and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency can jointly assess and comment on the safety implications of each measure and suggest mitigation measures where necessary.

A growing understanding of how ecosystems work and the gradual integration of this new knowledge into management advice lies behind this new approach. None of this was particularly relevant when our stocks were overfished but the situation has radically changed in the last decade.

According to Dr Sparholt, ICES science confirms that:

• Overfishing has ended in the North East Atlantic fisheries
• The major fish stocks have been rebuilt
• Exploitation is considered to be around one-third of what it was 5-8 years ago

In these circumstances, multi-species and ecosystem interactions – essentially who eats who in the marine ecosystem – becomes much more important and it is therefore correspondingly important that this shift is taken into account when setting harvest rates. Current single species assessment models are unrealistic because they do not take into account predation effects. The project’s aim is to bring more realism into the science and into the management advice – it is then up to fisheries managers what they do with that advice.

In the jargon, a shift to an ecosystem Fmsy is already underway with these type of considerations already being taken into account in the massive and successfully managed Barents Sea and Icelandic cod fisheries. In the former, interactions between cod, caplin and herring are already taken into account, and in the latter, interactions between cod, shrimp and caplin are factored in. Ecosystem considerations are not yet taken into account in EU fisheries management decisions when setting TACs.

Increasing fishing mortality on cod to 50% above single species Fmsy, in order to limit predation on herring or reduce the scope for cannibalism – which can be quite prevalent with cod – is the type of management action that might follow integration of ecosystem factors into management advice.

Dr Sparholt highlighted the costs of under-fishing but also pointed to the drawbacks of harvesting on the basis of ecosystem Fmsy – more year-on-year variability. As major predators, cod and hake are likely to be two stocks that would see the biggest change in such a shift, with mackerel, herring and plaice seeing much less change.

NFFO Chief Executive Barrie Deas said, “We have known for some time that species interactions are important and that these are not yet being taken into account in most management decisions in our fisheries. When fishing pressure was too high, this did not matter so much but this project suggests that consideration of how to use the new knowledge is now becoming a matter of urgency. It is vital to avoid overfishing but equally there is an ethical imperative not to waste fish that could be generating income and feeding people.”

He added, “Scientists and the fishing industry have already begun to consider the implications of rebuilding of the cod stocks in our waters for the populations of high-value crab, lobster and nephrops (prawn) fisheries, which in general have been doing very well during the period when demersal stocks were depleted. The shift from single stock to multi-species /ecosystem, scientific advice is unlikely to be like flicking a switch. It is more likely to involve a progressive inclusion of ecosystem factors into management decisions. For example, the level cannibalism in cod is likely to depend on the extent to which adults and young fish occupy the same marine space.

Following the best available scientific advice is hard-wired into our fisheries legislation and our political decision-making processes. It looks like in the future we will have to be as concerned as much with controlling under-fishing as we have in the past been about dealing with over-fishing.”

Until that point, we were quite pleased that a petition about something as arcane as Improving the way static fishing gear is marked for the safety of all small craft at sea, had garnered such support. Clearly, our Petition had not been at the top of Theresa May’s agenda. With hindsight she might wish she had consulted us about the timing.

Fishermen will know that the fouling of rudders and propellers, by static fishing gear, is a bit of an old chestnut. It is not only yachtsmen and women who get caught. No matter how well the gear is marked, if the lookout neglects their duties, or one is sailing in darkness, fouling is a possibility. But some of the buoys (‘ends’ to you) are useless for visibility – you know the ones I mean, you will have come across them yourselves.

If there was a simple solution, ‘it would have been found by now’ as Robert Greenwood, NFFO Safety and Training Officer, reminded me when I met with him last week. However, as we chatted around examples where lives had been put at risk, we found common ground in a desire to not give up or to put this in the ‘too difficult’ box.

The problem of marking itself, clearly varies according to depths and tidal conditions. Again, professional fishermen understand this very well. Robert tells me that the regulations are sufficient, but there remains the question of those fishermen who ignore them.

We, in the Cruising Association, have a long history (since 1908) of cultivating positive relationships with those who work at sea. We are not in the business of telling fishermen what to do. However, everyone who respects the sea and the weather understands the risks, and shares a mutual interest in harm reduction and the preservation of life. Incidents that lead to a skipper going into the water, with his wife and daughter left on board, on a cold spring evening to try to cut his yacht free, will, one day, lead to the loss of life. Yes, a true story.

The RNLI attended about 300 fouling incidents in the last 12 months. Not all of these were lobster pots but many were.

So, when I met with Robert Greenwood. I asked for the help of the NFFO in the convening/promoting of a multi-stakeholder consultation to see what creative ideas we could mutually produce. If you think you have some solutions, we would like to hear from you. I am pleased that NFFO and the CA will be meeting again, irrespective of the outcome of the petition or the number of signatures it gets.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank fishermen throughout the UK, who have come to the assistance of yachtsmen and women. Our respect for you all is considerable.

As part of this work, the Federation recently held an extremely interesting, useful and relevant teleconference with Ian Cartwright who was originally a fisherman from Kent but after a varied career in different aspects of fisheries management, for the last 11 years has been a Commissioner within the Australian Fisheries Management Authority. The AFMA is widely regarded a model of successful fisheries management and the Federation considers it important to build our knowledge about possible alternatives for when the UK leaves the EU and therefore the CFP.

Although not uncritical of some aspects of their system, Ian was able to highlight its strengths and main features; and the NFFO participants were able to contrast these with the way our own fisheries have been managed in the past, as well as thinking about options for the future.

Amongst the key features of the Australian system are:

• In general the Federal/Commonwealth government manages fisheries outside 3 miles and individual States manage inside 3 miles. For stocks that occur both inside and outside 3 miles State or Commonwealth jurisdiction to apply for the full range of the stock can be extended by agreement.
• TAC setting has been depoliticised. An independent AFMA Commission of experts with skills in fisheries and related disciplines (economics, governance), appointed by Government, takes the final decisions on quota levels in any given year. Ministers are therefore removed from short term political pressures to increase or decrease TACs, or adopt populist measures that are not in the best long-term interests of the fishery. Anyone directly or currently holding fishing rights (quota) or working for a fishing industry representative body is excluded from the Commission. To ensure industry have a voice it is heavily represented on the Management Advisory Committees (MACs) and Resource Advisory Groups (RAGs) that provide advice to the Commission on management decisions and the science supporting those decisions, respectively. Around 90% of the MACs’ recommendations are accepted by the Commissioners. Where a MAC’s recommendation is rejected, the Commissioners provide a written explanation of why this decision was made.
• The Commissioners, based on scientific advice that is passed up through the RAGs and MACs, set target or limit reference points for each fishery. Target reference points are set to manage the key commercial species at or around the maximum economic yield by using harvest strategies. Limit reference points ensure that exploited stocks are maintained within safe biological limits. Where a stock requires a rebuilding plan, the Australian system eschews arbitrary timetables (such as the EU’s scientifically illiterate requirement to achieve MSY for all harvested species by 2020) and favours instead specific timelines which make sense in terms of the biology of each species and the fishery concerned.
• The knowledge base for managing the Australian fisheries is strengthened and enhanced by the involvement of commercial fishermen in the provision of data and information about their fisheries, primarily through an ongoing dialogue within the Resource Advisory Groups (RAGs).

New draft commercial and bycatch definitions for AFMA managed fisheries are currently out for public comment noting that different management approaches are proposed, in line with this categorisation (see table).

Although defining what is a primary and what is a secondary species can sometimes prove challenging, the Australian system manages bycatch instead of applying a blanket approach, such as the EU landings obligation. The key to the Australian system of managing bycatch appears to be ensuring a sound understanding of what is retained catch and what is returned to the sea – and basing management measures on that knowledge. This information also feeds into and strengthens the stock assessment process.

• In Australia generally only limited distinction is made between larger scale commercial fisheries and genuine small-scale fisheries. In Ian’s opinion there should be a greater distinction between them and there is scope for different management regimes, under objectives that go beyond maximising the economic efficiency of the catching sector.
• Stronger property rights and a higher level of cost recovery for management services generally to apply to the “industrial” fisheries, whereas the genuinely small-scale fisheries tend to be indirectly subsidised. If the real costs of management were applied, it is likely a number of these small scale fisheries would become uneconomic.
• The process of allocating catch or effort to individual license holders and removing excess capacity where necessary, has been controversial. These type of one-off structural adjustments were assisted by government subsidy.

Learning from Experience

Australia is not the UK and it is certainly not the EU. Our complex multi-species, multi-gear and multi-jurisdiction fisheries take place in a more confined and crowded space than the wide open oceans around Australia. Nevertheless, there is much to learn from the Australian system, even if we would not necessarily want, or be in a position to, follow all of it slavishly.

We are extremely grateful to Ian Cartwright for generously contributing his time and experience to enhance the debate in the UK about how best to manage our fisheries in the future.

Mike Cohen, NFFO Chairman said, “This was an excellent opportunity to learn at first hand how the Norwegian system of fisheries management works and the philosophy behind it. I cannot praise the hospitality that we received enough. Government officials, fishermen’s representatives, fisheries managers, coastguard and fisheries scientists were incredibly open and eager to share their experience with us.”

“It is difficult not to admire the Norwegian system of management. Clear about its objectives – sustainable and profitable fisheries – pragmatic, flexible, tough, a strong partnership with fishermen.”

“The results confirm that the Norwegians have managed their fisheries well. They are reaping the benefits with high yields and profitable fishing vessels. Not everything is the same in our waters as in Norway, but there is a lot that is relevant and it makes a great deal of sense to learn from that wealth of useful knowledge.”

“It is significant that over 90% of Norwegian stocks are shared with other countries but this hasn’t hampered the building of effective harvest rules that have demonstrably been effective. The key to cooperation with other countries is the annual fisheries agreement that sets TACs, access arrangements and quota shares.”

“The Norwegian Fishermen’s Association is an integral part of the decision making process and with that level of influence come responsibilities.”

“The shape of a new quota regime, still under discussion was described and the centrality of a structural policy to their management system was explained.”

“Naturally we were very interested to hear how Norway has developed a workable discard ban that fits within a comprehensive set of management policies that are mutually supporting.”

“It is going to take some time to digest all we have learnt but our whole delegation was very impressed.” The diversity of the NFFO’s membership was reflected in the composition of our delegation. Some of our members were primarily interested in North Sea joint stocks, others in inshore fishing, others in pelagics or quota exchanges. All were eager to understand how the Norwegian system fits together.

“Given geography and biology, the UK and Norway are fated to work together on fisheries management forever. Given recent politics, the nature of that relationship is likely to change and intensify in the future and this was a good start on that journey together.”

We may be approaching one of the last December Councils that the UK will be part of, but the decisions taken just before Christmas still have direct and significant consequences for our industry. It is important, therefore, that the UK remains fully engaged until the point that it leaves the European Union and decisions on TACs and quotas are made elsewhere.

Because of its geography and the sheer number of stocks within our waters, the UK has always had to fight on a very broad front at the December Council, by comparison with those member states that have only a handful of priorities.

The lesson has been learnt over the years that being well prepared with evidence-based arguments is the way to achieve the best outcomes from the Council that decides Total Allowable Catches and ancillary measures for the following year. Further meetings will be held with officials and Ministers during the autumn, after the Commission’s proposals are published, and throughout the December Council itself.

We know that the Commission will make its proposals for next year’s catch limits on the basis of achieving maximum sustainable yield in a single year. But ministers, as defacto fisheries managers, also have a responsibility to balance mixed-fishery dimensions, discard reduction and socio-economic consequences, as well as the scientific advice.

The general picture on our stocks for a number of years now has one of steady progress towards achieving high yield fisheries, with low levels of fishing mortality and increasing biomasses. This year’s ICES science has again been broadly very positive, reflecting the scientific view that not only are we fishing sustainably but we are well on track to achieving high average long term yields.

But within this broadly positive picture, there are some tricky issues to deal with and these provided the main focus of the meeting. These included (non-exhaustive):

• Bass: how to shift from blunt measures that generate a discard problem where none previously existed, to a more intelligent long term plan to rebuild the biomass, without crippling those dependent on bass for an important part of their livelihoods
• Skates and Rays: how to provide realistic fishing opportunities on those ray species that are abundant, whilst simultaneously providing adequate protection for those individual species that are struggling.
• Spurdog: how to permit sustainable levels of fishing whilst reducing the level of dead discards and continuing to rebuild the stock
• Maximum sustainable yield: how to continue progress towards high yields, within the context of an arbitrary deadline (2020) and EU legal requirements that are based on political posturing rather that scientific literacy; how to phase the introduction of reductions in fishing pressure where this is necessary within this impossible legal structure
• How to best handle the important annual fisheries agreement with Norway and other bilateral and multi-lateral fisheries agreements
• Mixed fisheries issues: the NFFO and CFPO have been working on an innovative approach to the problems facing Celtic Sea haddock following a meeting of fishermen, scientists and administrators in Newlyn in February
• How to manage the quota uplifts associated with the implementation of the landings obligation. The issue of the quality of the discard estimates being the critical issue here. (Separate meetings are being held on the other aspects of implementing the discard ban)
• Devolution: how to best manage the tensions within the UK’s unique constitutional arrangements
• Nephrops in the North Sea and Irish Sea: the best outcomes for these economically vital fisheries
• Best outcomes for the pelagic fisheries, bearing in mind that the main decisions are taken through coastal states agreements
• Long term management plans

The assessment, currently under way in Cefas, ICES and through a Commission research project, of which stocks it makes sense to manage through total allowable catches, and how to ensure that secondary species continue to be managed and fished sustainably.

This meeting provided a snapshot of the ongoing work within the NFFO, DEFRA and Cefas all focused on those crucial decisions in December.

The packed meeting was a cross section of the CFPO and NFFO’s diverse membership in the South West: under-10s, over-10s, skippers and company interests, shellfish, whitefish and pelagic; all with a deep interest in securing a good deal from the UK’s departure from the CFP and in the shape of the post-Brexit fisheries regime.

The Minister was clear that when the UK leaves the EU, under international law, responsibility for managing fisheries within the UK’s exclusive economic zone will fall to the UK.

His aim is to secure an ambitious Brexit for fisheries “but with a soft landing”, meaning that non-UK vessels fishing in UK waters would be treated in a decent, fair and honourable way. Equally, it was made clear that the access conditions for non-UK vessels to fish within the UK zone would in future be determined by the UK, again in line with international law, and following discussions with the EU.

An immediate priority is to secure quota shares for the UK that reflect the resources located in UK waters, rather than through a 40 year old formula that has led to UK vessels being obliged to discard hundreds of tonnes of fish each year. Once settled, the new arrangements could be reviewed every 5 years or so to ensure that quota distribution keeps up with dynamic changes in stock distribution and fishing patterns.

Negotiations on the fisheries aspects of Brexit had yet to begin but a huge amount of preparation is under way. The political significance of fishing within Brexit was underlined by the fact that the Fisheries Bill is only one of seven new bills outlined in the Queen’s speech. It will be necessary and important for the UK to have the ability to determine access conditions and quotas from day one after Brexit. That is understood across Government and is why parliamentary time is being set aside to deal with it.

The Minister outlined the type of bilateral negotiations that might be expected to replace the CFP.

The model of an annual fisheries agreement was already there in the way that the EU currently relates to countries like Norway, Faeroes and Iceland.

An agreed scientific formula of the resources in the EU and UK’s respective waters, would be the starting point for a shift from Relative Stability to rebalanced quota shares. But the actual trajectory of change would be part of bilateral negotiations.

Although parts of the CFP, like technical measures, will be transferred through the Withdrawal Bill into UK law, the idea is to simultaneously secure powers to shape and amend that body of legislation to the contours of UK fleets as soon as practicably possible. It would be important to have a responsive and adaptive regime, very different from the inflexible and unresponsive CFP that had proved incapable of dealing rapidly with unintended consequences of legislation.

The work being done by CFPO and the NFFO in working closely with officials on the content Brexit negotiations and the post-Brexit was acknowledged and would continue as the Fisheries Bill passes through Parliament.

George Eustice acknowledged that it was extremely useful to have a heavy hitter like Michael Gove who had a personal commitment to fishing, in the Cabinet. Securing a good deal on fisheries was one of the Environment Secretary’s top 3 priorities.

The Minister was sanguine about the trade deal that would eventually emerge from the Brexit negotiations on the grounds that both the EU and UK ultimately needed a good trading relationship with as few barriers as possible.

Voices from the floor reiterated the industry’s view that there should be an exclusive 12 mile zone to protect our inshore fisheries. A good start had been made by the high profile announcement that the UK would withdraw from the London Convention. In places like Cornwall, an exclusive zone would lay the foundations for a sustainable, profitable inshore fishery, acknowledging that a mix of static and mobile gear operate in this zone.

The Minister was keen to make clear that in moving to achieve the UK’s objectives, it would be important to prioritise and to ensure a smooth transition. It would not be in anybody’s interest to have a chaotic departure from the EU. The media, naturally tended to focus on conflict, but the aim was to make the shift as seamless as possible without losing sight of ultimate objectives.

He had no intention of overturning the domestic quota system at this critical juncture, when there are so many other important issues at stake, although he was always open to look at various options for the future. The idea of putting additional incoming quota into a “quota bank” to incentivise positive fishing practice was raised from the floor. The need to maintain a facility for international quota swaps was also stressed, although this would also be determined by the rebalancing of quota shares to reflect the resources in UK waters.

The Minister was asked bluntly about the industry’s fears that securing a fair deal on fisheries could be sacrificed to much more powerful economic interests, not least the City of London financial services. His reply was that Brexit had to deliver a fair deal for all parts of the UK and that fishing was very much in the political spotlight.

DEFRA officials signalled that their trip to Newlyn was part of an industry wide programme of visits to the coast over the summer, to gauge the views of grass roots fishermen.

The UK’s federations proposed the development of a voluntary safety management system (SMS) to help co-ordinate the preparation of the ILO C188 Work in Fishing Convention due early next year. The Convention will apply to every fisherman and owner in the UK with requirements for the first time on items such as medicals, crew agreements and safety management.

David Dickens, Chief Executive at the Fishermen’s Mission stated; “The Fishermen’s Mission welcomes ILO C188, particularly for the focus on appropriate terms and conditions for those working in the UK fishing industry, which it is hoped will improve the overall welfare ‘offer’ and reduce deprivation and suffering.”

The FISG Project Group will develop a Safety Management System that can be self-audited, and as all owners and crews will need to make significant changes to their current practices, the code will ensure that the UK’s fishermen will have the support of an organised and structured system to help make the necessary changes required.

David Fenner, Head of Fishing Safety at MCA said; “ILO C188 is perhaps the biggest change to safety that the Industry has encountered in a generation. Because of this MCA and Industry have been working together to ensure any legislation and guidance is practical and realistic. Most of all, however, it must be as straightforward as possible to comply. By developing a Safety Management System, we aim to help fishermen do this.”

The introduction of similar codes in the Merchant Navy and for domestic commercial vessels have reduced accidents significantly. Development of a safety management code for fishing vessels will hopefully mirror the benefits of these existing codes, but may also benefit from learning from the burden imposed by them also.

“We see no value in increasing paperwork, we want to focus on increasing safety and welfare. At every stage we will be ensuring that actions speak louder than words in safety, but with any process there will be paperwork, but this will hopefully be helpful to the owners and crews,” said NFFO safety officer Robert Greenwood.

The project involves maritime charities the Fishermen’s Mission and Human Rights at Sea, both of which are known for their welfare and human rights support, advice and contributions to the industry as well as the ILO C188 preparations.

Typically, the work of FISG has been around the materials of fishing, such as machinery, vessels and PFDs but the Convention will affect the way people work and the project seeks to get a clear understanding of all the complexities of law and will focus on delivering what is right for the individuals involved.

“The addition of explicit reference to the need for welfare support and associated policies in terms of both legislative inclusion and action points for formal auditing under FISG’s lead as part of the Safety Management System is a key improvement that should not be under-estimated,” said David Hammond, CEO of Human Rights at Sea.

This SMS will give every fishing vessel owner in the UK the support needed to help them become compliant with the ILO C188 changes by February 2018. Two UK-wide schemes, the Responsible Fishing Scheme and the free SafetyFolder.co.uk website are already involved in this project to ensure that they can align with the SMS. The Safety Folder has already started to trial its SMS with Sea Source in Northern Ireland, and will be discussing it with the Welsh Fisherman’s Safety Committee in August.

“For our fishermen in Wales and hopefully the rest of the UK, the SafetyFolder is a great way to deliver the ILO C188 requirements in a staged and sensible manner,” commented Trevor Jones, Safety Officer for the Welsh Fisherman’s Association.

The ICES advice was discussed by the NFFO East Anglia Committee at its latest meeting in Norwich on 17th July.

Fleet Pressures

Despite a general upturn in North Sea stocks, the inshore finfish fleet in East Anglia is facing unprecedented pressures on the 5 stocks; cod, sole, bass, thornback ray and blonde ray – that the fleet has customarily depended on. Cod has failed to show up on the local grounds for the last 2 years. EU bass measures are biting hard. Industry recently fought off a further tightening of measures by Eastern IFCA that had proposed an extension of the closed season for liners, but the proposal was subsequently withdrawn when the impact to the fleet was made clear. Successive cuts to skates and rays under group TAC management have also constrained landings despite rapidly increasing abundance of thornback ray in the area.

East Anglia Committee Chairman, Steve Wightman, said: “While not explicitly targeted, spurdog is inevitably an unavoidable part of the mixed fishery for the East Anglian liners. It makes no sense to be discarding dead bycatch and the fleet could be generating data that would help to improve the detail and reliability of the assessment.”

ICES Advice

The latest ICES advice highlights that current estimated discard levels of around 2,500 tonnes, if translated into a landed bycatch, would be consistent with the recovery of the stock similar to assuming a zero catch. The advice shows that after a long period of decline in biomass, the spurdog population has been recovering for over a decade, but would take another three decades to fully recover to MSY Btrigger due to the biology of the species.

A zero TAC for the stock was introduced in 2011, and this year, in order to avoid the stock from inevitably becoming an ultimate choke under the Landing Obligation, it was moved to the prohibited species list. Both measures have had the effect of removing catch information from the scientific process. On a more positive note, a UK derogation was introduced last year to allow for a limited trial of spurdog avoidance measures by the South West trawl fleet, the culmination of earlier efforts by the Federation and the Cornish FPO to make inroads into the issue.

Steve added: “Let’s do what we can to keep fishing mortality at a minimum as the stock continues to recover, but let’s not forget there are other objectives in fisheries management too – minimising discards, getting away from data poor fisheries and maintaining viable fishing livelihoods. If we follow the latest ICES advice there is an opportunity to progress beyond the initial trials in the South West to get a more sensible management strategy in place for the stock as a whole.”

For something like 17 years fishermen in the Irish Sea have not been able to square the scientists’ bleak outlook with their own direct experience. In recent years, ICES has tied itself in knots on Irish Sea cod and established a working group WKIRISH, to try to understand why, even after fishing pressure on cod had been reduced to minimal levels, the stock, according to its assessment model, had not responded by rebuilding. As part of that process of re-evaluation, a benchmark review has now come up with this startling but very welcome reversal. This is reflected in this year’s ICES advice.

Fishermen’s Knowledge

Fishermen have a very direct interest in the scientific recommendations that underpin decisions on total allowable catches. These do, after all, to a significant extent determine the industry’s earnings in the following year. Because of this level of self-interest, too often in the past their views have been dismissed by scientists, fisheries administrators and ministers. That has been a mistake.

Hindsight, the companion of I told you so smugness, is of course a wonderful thing. But it is instructive to reflect on how many times the industry’s views have flown in the face of orthodoxy but have proven in the end to be closer to the truth.

A few examples:

• The industry in the early 2000s pointed out that automatic 25% cuts in the TAC required by the EU cod recovery plan to achieve biomass targets failed to take account of the fact that Mother Nature might have other ideas. This is now accepted.
• They also pointed out that draconian reduction of TACs in a mixed fishery would generate a problem of large scale discarding of mature fish. So it proved to be the case.
• The case was made that punitive measures would cause significant displacement effects in adjacent areas/fisheries. Many of the management problems we face today have been caused by displacement effects
• Fishermen opposed effort control as part of the cod recover plan on the grounds that it would generate unhelpful fishing behaviours. STECF eventually came to the same conclusion

It is now well understood that we can control fishing mortality but not biomass; that once fishing mortality has been reduced it can take some time for stocks to respond; that divergent TACs in a mixed fishery will generate serious levels of discards; that displacement and unintended consequences will follow draconian measures, as night follows day; and that “there is not a linear relationship between a reduction in fishing effort and a reduction in fishing mortality.”

This all suggests that taking the industry’s views into account during policy formulation should not be regarded as an optional extra, or consultative lip-service, but a prerequisite for a realistic understanding of the issues and therefore an integral part of a successful fisheries policy.

But it is important that we don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. The scientists may be eating humble pie on Irish Sea cod but the general outlook this year on stocks is extremely positive. Hake and North Sea plaice are at levels beyond anything seen in the historic level. Stock after stock is on the up. To quote ICES on the general picture:

“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.” Eskild Kirkegaard, Chairman of the Advisory Council of ICES

The position since ICES made this statement, in July 2015, has only got better. In fisheries management terms, that is a sweet place to be.

Where we do still have problems, they tend to be those associated, not so much with the science but with the EU management framework: with getting the balance right in mixed fisheries; with the arbitrary timetable for MSY in all fisheries; and with the implementation of the EU landing obligation.

The NFFO will be active on all of these fronts during the autumn, as we head towards the quota negotiations for TACs in 2018, the last full year that the UK will be subject to decisions based on proposals made by the European Commission and adopted at December Council of Ministers.

This comes at a time when critically important fisheries legislation, associated with the UK’s departure from the EU, passes through Parliament imminently.

As part of this new initiative, a meeting with key fisheries stakeholders, including the NFFO, was convened recently in Westminster by Shadow Environment Secretary Sue Hayman MP, and Fisheries Shadow Holly Lynch MP. The purpose of the meeting was to begin a dialogue between Labour and the fishing sector to ensure that the opposition’s interventions during the passage of the Great Repeal Bill and the Fisheries Bill, are well founded. Given the electoral arithmetic following the general election, Labour in both houses of Parliament could have a direct and important influence on our future as an industry.

It is not unprecedented for opposition parties to become more serious and informed as they get closer to exercising power, and as they move beyond the realm of gesture politics.

At the meeting, there was a frank admission that Parliament’s knowledge about fishing, generally, was not high. The fishing sector organisations, NFFO included, have to take some of the blame for this as our attention for the last thirty years has been, perhaps understandably, firmly focused on Brussels – because that is where the key decisions on fisheries have been made.

The UK’s departure from the EU and therefore the CFP, changes all that. The Westminster Parliament, going forward, is going to be of singular importance in shaping the type of fisheries management regime applied in the UK, beginning with the Repeal Bill and the Fisheries Bill.

Both the official opposition and the fishing industry organisations therefore have a deep interest in developing a quality dialogue that parallels our dialogue with Government.

The meeting ranged across the sector’s aspirations for the future, as the UK becomes an independent coastal state. The establishment of an exclusive 12 mile zone and the rebalancing of quota shares and access arrangement, were thoroughly discussed. What type of trade regime will apply after the UK leaves the EU and the scientific underpinning for policy decisions, along with the enforcement regime were also part of the dialogue. The need for a responsive and adaptive UK management regime, post-Brexit, contrasting with the rigidity of the CFP, was also discussed.

This was an important and very welcome meeting at an important juncture in the history of our industry. A deeper understanding of our diverse and complex sector is a prerequisite for the official opposition to function effectively and the NFFO is committed to building on this promising start to a new relationship.

The meeting was attended by the NFFO, the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, the UK Seafood Alliance and a representative of the recreational anglers.

Minister’s were mainly in listening mode and stakeholders were invited to present their views on the process of leading the EU and the shape of a post-Brexit fisheries regime. Broader marine issues such as marine spatial planning and how to achieve and maintain clean seas was also discussed but fisheries were the main focus.

The event provided an opportunity for the industry organisations, including the NFFO, to advance their understanding of the process of leaving the CFP and where we would like to be post-Brexit.

• As the UK leaves the EU it automatically leaves the Common Fisheries Policy
• Henceforth, the UK will operate as an independent coastal state taking its duties and responsibilities under the United Nations Law of the Sea
• Access for non-UK vessels to fish in UK waters will be subject to UK conditions. These will be negotiated bilaterally with the countries concerned, primarily EU, Norway and Faeroes in annual fisheries negotiations
• Quota shares will also be subject to negotiation but the broad principle should be that the UK’s share should reflect the resources located in UK waters

The shape of UK fisheries management post-Brexit was discussed, including the form that the landing obligation should take in the UK in light of the looming chokes problem.

Minister’s were warned that fisheries management seems to be particularly prone to the law of unintended consequences. A Norwegian scientist was quoted as saying that fisheries management is not rocket science. It is much more complicated than that. It will be important, therefore, that the UK’s management system, whilst ambitious and aspirational, does not bind itself in legal structures that prevent a change of course when things go wrong. We need a flexible and responsive management system and in this respect it is important to learn from the (negative) experience of the CFP where it takes years not months to change course. It will also be important that the UK management system is internally coherent, with the component parts dovetailing together. Again, the CFP provides a negative example of the things to avoid.

The diversity of the fleets, fair quota allocation arrangements, the positive role of producer organisations, and enforcement post Brexit were all discussed.

There was broad agreement that sustainable levels of fishing would be the bedrock of the UK’s fishing policies after Brexit. The most recent ICES advice has reconfirmed that not only are most commercial species fished sustainably, but we are on course to deliver high average yields. The high reputation of our fisheries products in the marketplace reflect that positive conservation status and it will be important to maintain the course that was set around 2000 and has served us so well so far, despite the limitations of the CFP.

This was an important first meeting with the new Secretary of State and other key ministers. It will not be the last. The signs are that the Secretary of State, one of the big hitters in Government and Cabinet circles, is personally committed to delivering a good deal for fishing and that cannot but strengthen our industry’s position as we leave the EU.

Barrie Deas

National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations

30 Monkgate

York

YO31 7PF

3rd July 2017

Dear Barrie

I am writing to inform you that, as part of our wider process of becoming an independent Coastal State and controlling UK waters when the UK leaves the EU, the UK will be withdrawing from the London Fisheries Convention. Accordingly the Foreign Secretary has today given formal notice to the depository for the Convention.

This will mean that when we leave the EU we are fully able to control access to UK waters and will have a ‘clean slate’ for our negotiations with the EU on a future fisheries agreement in which we will seek to secure the best possible deal for the seafood sector across all parts of the UK.

The Government is committed to demonstrating that the UK will be a responsible Coastal State and to working with the EU and others to guarantee the sustainable management of fish stocks, in accordance with our rights and obligations under international law including the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea. We are therefore open to negotiating access to our waters as part of an overall agreement on fisheries, but this will be a matter for negotiation and in future be with our consent rather than as of right.

Best wishes

Michael Gove MP

Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

At the end of the negotiations it may still be uncertain how the UK will fare in the world; that may not become clear for some years or decades. But what will immediately be clear is whether UK fishermen still feel that they are shackled into a system that was designed with their disadvantage in mind.

Almost without exception, fishermen within the UK view Brexit as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to break free of an arrangement that in origin and intent was designed to systematically deny them the benefits that would have accrued, had the UK been allowed to operate as an independent coastal state with its own Exclusive Economic Zone.

How fishing was sacrificed in 1973 by the then UK government during the negotiations to join the European Economic Community (EEC) is now part of history. Granting the principle of equal access threw away the potential to manage our own fisheries and to harvest the benefits accordingly, and allowed European fleets to reap the rewards. The empty fishing harbours around the coast of the UK are not exclusively attributable to the Common Fisheries Policy but it has been a huge factor.

As long as the UK was part of the EU there was no political vehicle that would realistically have taken the UK out of the Common Fisheries Policy. That would have required unanimity from all other member states, many of which had a lot to lose. However, whatever else Brexit means, by legal default, the UK will walk away from the Common Fisheries Policy and from the principle of equal access.

What this doesn’t mean is that the UK will also walk away from its responsibilities to manage stocks that are shared with other countries; or from its legal obligations under the UN Law of the Sea; or from fishing policies that are based on the best available scientific advice. But it will mean that sensible bilateral (or multilateral) negotiations between coastal states on sustainable harvest rates or management plans will in future be the basis for management.

The EU Council of Ministers and the European Parliament will be side-lined so far as the UK is concerned. Leaving the EU will also mean that there is no automatic right of access for non-UK vessels to fish in UK waters – or for UK vessels to fish in EU waters for that matter. All will be subject to negotiation – with the UK acting in its interests as an independent coastal state.

Certainly, there are high and legitimate expectations amongst British fishermen that the UK’s quota shares of shared stocks will shift decisively post Brexit to reflect the relative importance of fish resources that are located in UK waters. Nowhere will this be more significant that the English Channel where the UK’s share of the cod quota stands at 9% whereas France’s share is 84%.

The much greater dependence of the EU vessels’ catch in UK waters, than UK vessels’ catch in EU waters (£400 million vs £100million) will give the UK a strong hand to play in a new balance between access to fish in each other’s waters and quota shares. EU fleets have had the advantage for 40 years and it is now time to find a new equilibrium. Revised terms under which fishing can take place should provide for regeneration of our coastal communities, many of which have languished under the Common Fisheries Policy.

The Common Fisheries Policy was once dubbed by the European Court of Auditors as the worst of European policies. Over the years conservation initiatives repeatedly failed to deliver and, ludicrously, the cost of administering some fisheries in some member states outstripped the revenue generated by the sale of the catch. Even though things have improved somewhat over the last decade – most stocks are fished not only sustainably but at a level that will generate high long term yield – it is still a cumbersome and dysfunctional system.

The EU landings obligation – the bastard child of an ill-informed media campaign and political opportunism – is perhaps the crown jewel in the Common Fisheries Policy’s litany of self-harm. Although it makes all the sense in the world to progressively minimise unwanted catch, there is no sign that the Commission, or member states, or Parliament know how to deal with the problem of chokes when the EU ‘landing obligation’, apparently fixed in legal stone, is applied to mixed fisheries. With Brexit, whilst retaining the principle of a discard ban contained in the landing obligation, the UK will be able, if it so decides, to side-step the impending car crash from 2019 onwards when all regulated species are brought under the new EU rules.

In other areas too, the UK can move towards a management regime tailored to its own fleets rather than the one-size-fits-all policy that have characterised the CFP. Workable, pragmatic, policies, shorn of dogma will have an opportunity to flourish. We don’t have to slavishly follow everything that is done in Norway to recognise the benefits of being an independent coastal state – especially one as rich in resources as the UK.

The UK Government will want to spin Brexit as a success from day one, although in truth it could be years or decades before the evidence is available to arrive at a balanced judgement. What will be available from day one will be fishermen on the quayside expressing their view on whether their lives have just got better or worse by leaving the Common Fisheries Policy.

Fishing will therefore be an important and very public test for those negotiating the UK’s exit from the EU, and for that reason alone it will carry a political weight that perhaps its economic significance alone might not justify.

This article first appeared on The UK in a Changing Europe website.

London Convention

Withdrawal from the London Convention removes the automatic right of non-UK fleets to fish within the UK’s 6-12 mile zone after the UK leaves the EU, and therefore the Common Fisheries Policy. An exclusive 12 mile zone has been one of the industry’s red lines and this legal change is a precondition for its establishment.

This change will address the lack of symmetry in inshore access arrangements – apart from Northern Ireland/Ireland, the UK fishing industry has minimal activity in the 6-12 mile limits of other EU member states.

It is likely that the UK, following negotiations, will want to reinstate the voisinage or neighbourhood agreement, that allows Irish and Northern Irish vessels to have access to each other’s waters. The crucial difference is that the conditions for access to fish in UK waters, will become an exclusively UK matter to decide.

An exclusive 12 mile zone should provide protection within which our inshore fisheries can thrive. It is by no means the only ingredient in the mix to provide a sustainable and profitable inshore fisheries but it lays an important foundation.

Fisheries Bill

The new Fisheries Bill is currently being drafted. It is expected to surface early next year. It may be quite short, simply giving Parliamentary authority for the UK to set its own quotas, post-Brexit; along with the power to determine the access conditions for non-UK to fish in UK waters. Short the Bill may be but these are important legal building blocks in the foundations of the new regime.

In drafting the new Bill and designing the UK’s future domestic management regime, it will be important to learn the lessons from what hasn’t and has worked in the CFP and the experience of other countries with relevant experience – Norway is the obvious example.

The greatest failing of the CFP has been its rigidity. Unable to respond quickly and flexibly to changing circumstances, including new science, it has too many times lumbered on in the wrong direction after everyone (almost everyone) recognised and acknowledged the need for change. The EU Cod Recovery Plan (still with us but now defanged after a legal tussle) and the current form of the EU landings obligation (even before it is fully implemented) are the two leading candidates of rules that have passed their sell-by date but live on as zombie regulations. There are many others.

It is important the the legal form of the UK Fisheries Act is sufficiently supple to avoid this pitfall. Things will go wrong with fisheries legislation. The law of unintended consequences seems particularly active in fisheries. It is vital that when shortcomings are identified that they can be fixed within months, not years.

Cooperation

Some have criticised the Government for aggressive negotiating tactics and for undermining cooperation in international fisheries management. This is misplaced. Withdrawing from the London Convention and the new powers that will be taken through the Fisheries Bill, will reflect the new legal order but joint management of shared stocks is both desirable and inevitable given the geo-political realities. This will require close collaboration between the relevant countries on harvest control rules, TAC setting, quota shares and access arrangements. The difference will be that the UK will be at the negotiating table as an independent coastal state, rather than as one of a number of member states whipped into line by the Commission.

Rebalancing

Rebalancing quota shares to reflect the resources within UK waters is likely to be the most testing part of future UK/EU fisheries negotiations. However, the EU already uses the principle of zonal attachment (as opposed to relative stability for internal allocations) when dealing with third countries like Norway, and so by extension, this arrangement will also apply to the UK. It is likely therefore that the focus of future annual fisheries negotiations will be on the scientific information on which to base access and share decisions, and transitional arrangements to ensure compliance with the United Nations Law of the Sea.

UK fishing communities have been in a process of gradual decline and increasing social isolation over the last 40 years, with many suffering profound deprivation. Although there are extensive published papers on many aspects of the industry, there is little by way of a detailed understanding of the welfare need on the ground and the contemporary challenges facing fishing communities across the UK.

This collaborative project will undertake face-to-face interviews with a wide range of people to identify what clear themes and issues need support and resourcing. CRCC will be visiting ports around the UK over the coming months and is keen to identify projects or groups that they should be meeting with. Those interested in having their views captured via a personal interview – or who would like to complete a survey – should email the project team at fishing@cornwallrcc.org.uk or phone 01872 243559.

Individuals, local projects or local community representatives can also find more information on where and when the survey project team will be visiting, by searching for @FishermensVoice on Twitter or Fishermen’s Voice on Facebook. The first two locations that the project team are due to visit are Swansea on 26 June and Milford Haven on 27 June.

Peter Jefferson, CEO of CRCC, said: ‘This community based, interactive project aims to listen to fishing communities around the UK so as to gain a deeper understanding of their needs, helping to develop well grounded project ideas that will then address those needs.’

Barry Bryant, Director General of Seafarers UK, said: ‘Seafarers UK is seeking to understand better the needs of fishing communities. We instigated and funded this innovative work as part of our increasingly proactive grant making. We are very confident that we have chosen the right partner organisation to carry out this work.’

CRCC has worked extensively with fishing communities in Cornwall and currently delivers the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Fisheries Local Action Group. In addition CRCC has significant experience of delivering community led projects across the UK and at EU level.

ends

Media Information

For further information please contact Rob Poole or Claire Hurley, phone 01872 243559, email claire.hurley@cornwallrcc.org.uk

Nick Harvey

Campaigns Manager

Seafarers UK

Direct Line: 020 7932 5969

Mobile: 07910 593588

As the dust settles what has changed?

• The negotiations between the EU and UK over the terms of the UK’s departure have begun. If “sufficient progress” is made, parallel negotiations on a post-Brexit trade deal will begin. Other than the important issue of what type of trade regime will apply to fisheries products, there is no reason why these negotiations should have a direct impact on the post-Brexit fisheries management arrangements. The UK will leave the Common Fisheries Policy by default when it leaves the EU and important issues such as future access arrangements and quota shares will be on the agenda for the first meetings of the new era, with the UK acting as an independent coastal state.
• We have a new Secretary of State. In a telephone call with the Federation shortly after his appointment, Michael Gove indicated:

1. Fishing was very close to his heart
2. As long as he was in Government, he would do everything possible in his power to revise and enhance the prospects for the British fishing industry
3. He looked forward to working with the NFFO towards our common aspirations
4. He is clear that the moment the UK leaves the EU, the UK will become an independent coastal state with sovereign jurisdiction over its waters within its exclusive economic zone
5. The Government will have to think very carefully about how to allow access to UK waters by non-UK vessels and the links to quota shares
6. During the negotiations, the UK will have to take a robust line on some issues, fishing included
7. He would like to visit Norway and Faeroes to learn how they manage their fisheries and would value the Federation’s thoughts

• George Eustice, returns as UK Fisheries Minister, with strong credentials and reason to seek the best possible outcome for fishing from the UK’s departure from the EU.
• The Government’s weakened parliamentary position has made them dependent, with or without a formal agreement, on the votes of the DUP to get its legislation through Parliament. Prior to the election the DUP endorsed the NFFO’s priorities:

1. “Fairer quota shares
2. The 12 mile exclusive zone
3. Proportionate advantage from our exclusive economic zone
4. Flexible and responsive management of our stocks
5. Free trade in fishing products”

• A cohort of 13 Scottish Conservatives, who owe their seats in no small part to the fishing vote, are committed to the UK outside the CFP; at the same time the likelihood of a second independence in Scotland has receded.
• It is worth recalling as well, David Davis, Brexit Secretary’s assurances to the NFFO shortly after the EU referendum, that fishing held a high place in the Governments priorities

All in all, the likelihood of securing a good deal for fishing as the UK leaves the EU has been strengthened from all the political turmoil.

Fisheries Bill

The significance of the Fisheries Bill announced as part of the Queen’s speech is that it would lay the legal foundations for a framework to manage fisheries in the UK EEZ after the UK leaves the EU. This would include the key elements of quota setting and access arrangements. A lot of hard thinking has been going on within the Federation and within government on the contents of the Bill and the shape of the management regime that we want to see post-Brexit. Some of this can be developed over time but the Fisheries Bill will ensure that we are ready from Day 1 to manage our fisheries.

We already know that it is the Government’s intention with the Great Repeal Bill to transfer all EU law into UK law except where that is” inoperable”, unwise or undesirable. The essential parts of the CFP – the equal access principle and the principle of relative stability – would not make the transition and the Fisheries Bill will fill that void.