Through its work with the North Sea Advisory Council, the NFFO has been centrally involved in the preparation of NSAC advice in the lead up to the Commission’s proposal for a multi-annual plan for the demersal fisheries in the North Sea. In particular, we have been supportive of the potential flexibility provided by F ranges in setting TACs that are compatible with both MSY objectives and implementation of the landing obligation.
Brexit
Having been launched by the Commission, we suppose that the proposal will now go forward and the co-decision process will run its course. We cannot but think, however, that there is a degree of wishful thinking, or ignoring the elephant in the room here. The UK’s departure from the EU will mean that the UK will be responsible for managing the fisheries within the UK exclusive economic zone. Consequently, the area of EU jurisdiction in the North Sea (and therefore the sea area covered by this plan) will be radically curtailed. Even more significantly, the institutional arrangements for setting TACs for shared stocks will also change – probably in the North Sea to a trilateral arrangement involving Norway, EU and UK, as an independent coastal state. The EU multi-annual plan will have no legal traction with Norway or the UK, and only as much political influence as the other parties will allow.
Against this background there must be a high probability that this proposal will stall going through the co-decision process. And if it does not stall, and is adopted, the capacity of Norway to block its influence when setting TACs for joint stocks suggests to us that the plan is already dead in the water in its central purpose.
UK Role
We fully understand that until the UK leaves the EU it is bound by the rights and responsibilities of the EU and the CFP. For instruments like the landings obligation, which the UK fisheries minister has suggested in large part will be absorbed into UK legislation, there is every reason for the UK to stay engaged in the development of the legislation. However, the same does not apply with the multi-annual plan. In the post-Brexit TAC setting arrangements for shared stocks, the UK will have a stronger hand after it has left the EU, than as one of twenty-eight, and we cannot see the advantage in pretending that nothing is about to change in this respect.
Apart from anything else, the assumptions on which the stakeholder consultations and impact assessments, by which the plan is underpinned will have altered radically, invalidating the results. This in itself is sufficient to question the legality as well as the rationality of continuing as though nothing is about to happen.
Rescue
There may be sound reasons why, in the context of annual negotiations towards a fisheries agreement with Norway and the EU, it might be considered expedient to rescue some of the specific measures contained in the Commission’s proposal. But we think that the kindest approach to all, considering the circumstances, is for the UK to suggest to the other co-legislators, that it might be sensible for all concerned to wait the outcome to the Brexit negotiations before adopting a piece of legislation designed for a different era.
I am sure that we can all put our time to better use.
Pelagic
As anticipated, the application of the landings obligation to the pelagic fisheries has not been without its issues, but does not seem to have generated fundamental difficulties. There remains a question mark about how the small incidental bycatches of demersal species in pelagic fisheries will be treated after they have been landed but on the whole the feeling is that quota can be sourced to cover these catches.
Demersal Fisheries
It is in the mixed demersal fisheries that the implementation of the landings obligation faces most serious challenges. The facility to phase-in different species and fisheries over 2016 – 2019 has meant that, in general, the least controversial fisheries have been chosen first, leaving more time to deal with the problem of chokes that are expected to arise as a side effect of applying the landing obligation to a system of TACs and quotas in mixed fisheries. Chokes are when the exhaustion of one quota prevents the vessel, PO, country of fleet from catching its main economic quotas. The full application of the landings obligation in 2019 across all fisheries and all quota species (unless under a specific exemption) will be the testing point for the new regime.
The North Sea and North West Waters advisory councils have done a good job in flagging up the significance of the choke issue and it is understood now in a way that it was not when the legislation was conceived and adopted as part of the CFP reform in 2013. A symposium organised by the North Sea AC in Copenhagen in November provided the most comprehensive overview yet of the choke problem and the range of ways that they can be avoided, even if there is as yet a lack of clarity over which of these mitigation measures would be politically acceptable.
Avoidance of chokes could be achieved through:
- Vessels adopting more selective gear or avoidance strategies. It is accepted that this is easier in some fisheries than others
- Quota swaps and transfers
- Exemptions from the LO where selectivity is difficult or the associated costs are disproportionate (but this means that quota is deducted at the start of the year)
- Inter-annual and interspecies flexibilities
- High survival exemptions may apply if scientifically justified
There is a growing awareness that other legislation within the CFP currently make dealing with chokes more challenging and that pressure for change here too is mounting:
- The MSY timetable to bring all stocks under MSY, by 2020 at the latest, increases the problem of dealing with chokes
- The revision of the technical conservation framework is making slow headway and the old regime is incompatible with the LO
- Multi-annual plans that would allow pragmatic TAC-setting to reduce the scope for chokes in mixed fisheries are moving very slowly and may stall altogether because of Brexit
- The Relative Stability allocation keys provides a rigidity that increases the likelihood of chokes
The $64,000 question is whether the CFP’s cumbersome decision making process and the political decision making is capable of integrating European fisheries legislation so that it makes sense as a coherent whole. At present too many CFP requirements are just incompatible with each other and also incompatible with economically viable fishing fleets.
2018
The immediate focus is how the LO should be extended in 2018. In the North Sea the Schevengingen Group (of North Sea member states) have indicated that their Joint Recommendation will bring the following species fully into the landing obligation for all gears in 2018
- Cod
- Saithe
- Plaice
- Whiting
This means that all targeted and bycatch of these species must be landed. All other quota species will be fully brought under the landing obligation in 2019.
In North West waters the intention is to continue to reduce the thresholds to bring more vessels under the landings obligation and where possible add new species in 2018. All quota species and all fisheries will be fully under the landings obligation in 2019.
Recognition
2019, by bringing the most difficult stocks and fisheries under the landings obligation, will also bring a multiplicity of challenges, the most significant is the potential for any of these to choke fisheries.
The recognition of what is up ahead has been the stimulus for some radical thinking both within the Commission and in the national administrations. The Commission for example is taking soundings on removing the TAC for Dab and Flounder as it serves no conservation purpose. Removal of TAC status on species where this is justified, or grouping two or more TACs together, where this makes sense are two of the more constructive suggestions under consideration.
Predictive Analysis
The NSAC undertook some useful preliminary predictive analysis on where chokes are likely to arise and which measures might be relevant to mitigate against each choke. This work is be extended and expedited to cover the pipeline stocks for 2018.
The NWWAC has flagged up stock by stock the issues associated with each fishery and in particular the potential for chokes.
Although individual chokes may be identified and predicted, at a systemic level it may be the case that chokes are essentially unpredictable, because of the number of variables involved. We need to begin to think about the implications of this and appropriate contingency measures.
Norwegian Example
From what we can see, the Norwegians have successfully and incrementally implemented a workable discard ban with the close involvement of the fishing industry without generating major choke problems. Although it is probably true that our fisheries are a lot more complex than Norway’s, it seems to us that it would be worth studying the flexibilities made available to the Norwegian fishery that are not currently available to ours. Fewer TACs; grouped TACs; the removal of “hard stops” when a quota is exhausted. These are a few of the elements of the Norwegian system that seem to be an integral part of its success. And it will not escape notice that the Norwegian fisheries tend to be both sustainable and profitable; important objectives alongside that of minimisation of discarded fish
Exemptions
The elasmobranch and almost all flatfish species and nephrops species are candidates for high survival exemptions. Scientific work is under way to assess survival rates used to justify exemptions but there is a recognition that this work is unlikely to be completed before the implementation deadline in 2019. There are different views within the ACs about whether the conservation of commercial fish stocks are best served by a rigorous or a more flexible approach to the level of scientific evidence required to justify a high survival exemption.
In general terms, we think that the exemptions (de minimis and high survival) and flexibilities (inter-annual and inter-species) are much more constrained by the legislation and therefore of more limited value than perhaps was widely believed when the LO was adopted as part of the CFP reform.
Bottom Line
The bottom line is that we think that it will not be possible to successfully and fully implement the landings obligation without further legislative change, either to the landings obligation itself or other elements of the CFP.
Critics tend to dismiss voluntary approaches to marine conservation as a pale imitation of what is actually required to protect sensitive habitats and species. Poor compliance and mixed levels of uptake of voluntary measures are two of the most serious criticisms levelled.
However, in the last few years voluntary approaches to conservation and fisheries management have had their supporters, not least because during an era of budget cuts and fiscal constraint, they been seen as a way of cutting red tape and the costs to business, and government.
Beyond the Binary
I believe that it is unfortunate that the debate for and against voluntary measures has been posed in these stark polar opposite terms because something important is lost in the heat and froth of the argument. This is that the evidence from around the world strongly suggests that irrespective of whether measures are legal requirements or based on voluntary agreements, the success of any measure is closely linked to the views and interests of those who are affected by them. In the jargon this is buy-in.
At its best a voluntary approach represents something more important than just a code of behaviour without legal sanction. It signifies that those subject to management have had the opportunity to come forward and be part of the solution to a marine management or conservation issue. By definition, involvement means some level of buy-in has been achieved to the objectives of management.
Contrast this with an approach applied through only a top-down process that may simply ban an activity, or dictate how it should be carried out. Experience suggests that top-down approaches will almost invariably generate unintended consequences, due either to poor design or a fundamental rejection of the intent of the rules by those who are subject to them. To function such an approach generally has to be underpinned by costly “police state” style surveillance. That can’t be desirable or efficient.
In contrast, where there is buy-in to management, meaning willing participation in the design and ongoing implementation of the voluntary measures, then there is likely to be a high level of compliance and some level of self-policing of that activity. That is not to argue that government should always refrain from adopting legal management mechanisms over volunteerism – in fact there are those occasions when those who choose to adopt a voluntary code of behaviour may feel their efforts are protected by having a system of legal sanctions in place against transgressions by a minority which may undermine their actions or put them at a disadvantage. But critically, the balance between legal measures and a voluntary approach will depend on the specific circumstances in which a voluntary approach is being applied. What it does demonstrate, though, is that management has been achieved through a truly bottom-up dynamic that is invariably more successful than legislation alone at the implementation stage.
Start Bay
A great example of this is the inshore potting agreement area in Start Bay, south Devon. This started out as a means to manage gear conflict between static and towed gears through a gentleman’s agreement that defined areas and seasons when fishing is reserved for static gear operators. This arrangement was later legally codified by Devon Sea Fisheries Committee (now DSIFCA). The form of management was recognised for providing conservation benefit to the benthic ecology of the area and was subsequently selected as a Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ), and the management regime is now being given consideration towards formally meeting the conservation objectives of the site.
Spurdog, Cod Recovery and Lobster V-notching
In a previous blog, I reported on an alternative approach to the conservation of spurdog by enabling voluntary avoidance of the species through a system of fishing fleet communication and incentivised through a reintroduction of a by-catch allowance consistent with continued recovery of the stock. This follows on the back of similar avoidance approaches such as the catch quota arrangement which is still helping to rebuild the cod stock in the North Sea. The pilot has now received approval from the European Council and has been getting underway managed by the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation with the support of Cefas.
Yet another example is the largely unrecognised behaviour of many lobster fishermen who undertake voluntary v-notching of the tails of lobsters which contributes to the conservation of the stock. This behaviour is supported by a legal instrument banning v-notched lobsters from being landed.
Government’s Role
All of these examples point to an important role for government to provide an enabling framework that incentivises and gives the latitude to marine users to come up with, or at least inform, the choice of management arrangements themselves, and where necessary underpin this with a legal back up to enable voluntary behaviour to prevail as the norm. As such, the voluntary approach is an expression of a fruitful dynamic between regulators and the regulated that can represent some of the best examples of conservation that are also economically sustainable and socially just. It shouldn’t be shunned as being second rate.
1500 tonnes of English quota has been taken from the Humberside based Fish Producers Organisation and promised to Scotland without consultation or notice. Also, George Eustice is “consulting” on a revised concordat between the devolved administrations. If implemented, the concordat would mean the transfer of almost the entire English North Sea whitefish fleet into Scottish administration, along with its licences and quota allocations. The NFFO regards as a bogus consultation because the Scottish minister has already announced that the concordat will be implemented as written.
The NFFO statement says, “All this is being done behind closed doors, in secret. English fishing interests are being systematically traded away to appease the clamour from Scotland. It stinks.
“This is all about high politics – the Westminster government is desperate to avoid creating conditions that would favour a second referendum in Scotland. And the nationalist government is determined to create defacto independence where it can, and also to wring concession after concession out of a government preoccupied with delivering Brexit.”
“The UK overall, will lose out as a result of this quota grab because the only European countries licensed to fish in the North East Arctic apart from England, are French, German, Portuguese and Spanish. That cod will be landed, processed and consumed in those countries with value added all along the supply chain. Apart from being opportunist, and unprincipled, this transfer makes no economic sense. The Scots would swap it away for lower value species that they catch.”
“This ministerial decision has been presented as a way of dealing with chokes* that will result from implementation of the landings obligation in 2017 but it has not escaped our notice that no Scottish quota is being tagged for this purpose – only English.”
“Devolved administrations have their individual ministers to speak up for them but the English industry has no such champion. How else can you explain this policy of appeasement? Our minister needs to find the word “no” in his vocabulary. “
The NFFO statement added: “We have as much to fear from an aggressive nationalist agenda in Scotland and our own supine minister, as we have to gain from a successful Brexit.”
The statement concludes: “Scotland’s continual demand is to sit at the table during international negotiations, when this is plainly a reserved responsibility. This shows the level of ambition that there is in Edinburgh but there is no push-back from our own minister. The opposite in fact. We can get no assurances even on this clear-cut matter.”
“Scottish ministers make much of the tonnage of fish landed into Scotland. But there are more UK fishermen’s livelihoods at stake outside Scotland than in, and a significant proportion of those landings are made by English vessels landing into Peterhead. Politically, fishing carries more weight in Scotland. We are being sacrificed as part of a wider game but we will not go down without a fight.”
NFFO 19th December 2016
Note
* A choke is when one quota in a mixed fishery is exhausted, meaning that the vessel has to tie up for the rest of the year. It is a problem faced when a discard ban is applied to a quota system in mixed fisheries.
Positive Stock Trends: Since 2000, there has been a dramatic reduction in fishing pressure and in general terms that stocks are responding positively. The increasing biomasses of some stocks like North Sea Plaice and Northern hake are nothing short of spectacular. Similarly, the haddock stock in the Irish Sea and North Sea saithe has seen a significant increase. This are the good news stories that are sometimes obscured by the focus on stocks like bass that are bucking the general trend, through a combination of weak recruitment (environmental conditions) and fishing pressure. More of bass later.
Mixed Fisheries: The Commission doesn’t yet seem to have grasped how to manage mixed fisheries. The bottom line is that the TACs applied in the ultra-mixed Celtic Sea can only generate significant levels of discarded cod. Discards will also be a feature of the bass fishery, although the Council has introduced some flexibility in the trawl fishery that should help a bit in 2016 (a 3% rather than a 1% bycatch). Keeping a provision for an (albeit heavily restricted) gill net fishery was important too. The Commission’s ridiculous proposal to give recreational anglers an unenforceable 10 fish per month bag limit was quite rightly bounced out of court by the member states.
In some fisheries like Eastern Channel sole, ministers have used their responsibilities to ease savage quota reductions, through a staged approach, that reduces at least some of the adverse socio-economic consequences for fishing communities. Another feature of this year’s Council has been the continuing implementation of the EU landings obligation, with quota uplifts in the fisheries brought under the landing obligation for the first time in 2017. In the industry there are concerns about the quality of the data on which these uplifts have been based. If the discard estimates are out of line with the actual levels, then significant chokes will begin to appear. This problem will intensify as the landing obligation is progressively implemented to 2019.
Download 2017 TACs and quotas outcomes table
DEFRA in North East Arctic Quota Grab to Appease Scotland
The NFFO has bitterly criticised George Eustice’s decision to grab quota from the Humber based Fish Producer Organisation to appease clamour from Scotland for more benefits. The move has been criticised by the NFFO as “opportunistic and nakedly political”
During the December Council negotiations, the UK Fisheries Minister announced a deal that had been agreed with Scottish Fisheries Minister, Fergus Ewing, to top-slice 1500 tonnes of the 2017 quota North East Arctic cod. The Scottish minister had said earlier that they had been working for several months on the plan, which had been kept secret from those affected.
NFFO Chief Executive Barrie Deas said, “That the Scottish Government is pursuing an aggressive nationalist agenda is a surprise to nobody. Why government in Westminster is offering concession after concession, to the serious detriment to the English fishing industry, to appease Scottish demands, is less easy to explain. This seems to be part of a wider government strategy to dilute conditions that would favour a second independence referendum in Scotland. As such this is a nakedly political manoeuvre of extreme disadvantage to the English industry.”
“What is clear is that there is a UK minister but there is nobody at ministerial level that can be relied upon to look after the interests of the English fishing industry. This decision makes no sense in terms of the UK as a whole, which will lose out as a result.”
“We are not against moving quota around to deal with potential chokes that arise as a result of implementing the of the EU landings obligation – if this was done systematically, transparently and across the board, and following proper discussions with those affected. But this is just a crude, opportunistic, highly political quota grab, to appease constant, unrelieved pressure from Scotland. The fact that it hits Humberside, which is not exactly part of the government’s heartlands, should not be overlooked.
“The very minister who is charged with looking after our interests, has shown a contemptuous disregard for the English fishing industry in this matter; and also in agreeing a concordat with Scotland that is monstrously against England’s interests. Time will tell where this quota will end up. But it is no surprise that the Scottish minister was eager to claim joint ownership of the quota grab.”
South West Overview
Paul Trebilcock, Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation
After two long days of talks in Brussels, fisheries ministers from across the EU eventually agreed fishing opportunities (quotas) for the year ahead, including those for important stocks in Area VII.
Ahead of the Council and throughout, the CFPO working with the NFFO, liaised closely with DEFRA officials and the UK minister, to ensure that scientific, economic and community based arguments were understood and used in an effort to deliver the best possible deal for our members.
Celtic Sea Cod, Haddock and Whiting
The Commission’s line on Cod was inflexible throughout the Council and despite the UK deploying arguments based around mixed fisheries modelling, a savage cut in the cod quota (of 38%) will have a major impact on many vessels and contribute to increased discards.
The modest increase in Haddock (7%) was welcome but fell short of our aspiration to better match the TAC with abundance being seen across the majority of fisheries in the South-West.
Monk VII, Megrim VII and Hake VI/VII
The positive outcomes for the economically important stocks of hake (increase 9%) and Monk VII (rollover TAC) were soured by the dramatic and unnecessary cut in Megrim TAC (25%). The fact that the biomass of this stock is at an historic high and fishing pressure has reduced significantly in recent years, did not stop the Commission sticking to its dogmatic pursuit of MSY within 1 year.
Sole Stocks
There is good news for sole fishermen in South West, with increases in the Western Channel (20%) and Bristol Channel TAC (8%) and a rollover of the VIIhjk TAC, reflecting the good state of these stocks and the sustainable practices of the fleets catching them. These are important, high value, stocks for South West fishermen.
Pollack VII
The 10% cut in this TAC, based on insufficient/poor data, was extremely disappointing. The sustainable gill-net and hand-line fishermen who target this stable economically important stock both inshore and offshore will be bitterly disappointed with this nonsensical cut. There is a possibility that this decision will be reviewed early next year and it needs to be.
Bass
Against the background of massive pressure from anglers, greens and poor scientific perception of the stock, the outcome was not as catastrophic as feared.
The bycatch allowance in the trawl fishery from 1% to 3% of total catch, will not eliminate discards but at least is a step in the right direction. Gill-netters will have a monthly 250kg landing allowance. Both measures still present potential problems with discards but at least our reasoned arguments have been recognised and generated some movement. Hand-liners have a 10t per year landing allowance. (There remains a prohibition of landing any bass in the spawning months of February and March for all gears).
Ray in Western Waters
The increase in this TAC (5%) is welcome but this result was tarnished by the continuation of specific restrictions on small eyed ray, with heavily restricted landings only allowed from VIIfg. There is much work to be done on skates and ray management if we are to avoid more problems this in future.
Overall
Although the TACs and Quotas Regulation is adopted by the fisheries ministers of all EU member states, it is important to recognise that the UK Minister agreed to these TACs (and associated regulations) and must share responsibility for the consequence of these decisions, whether these are in the direction of sustainable fisheries, increased discards or unnecessarily hard consequences for fishing communities.
South East: Damage Limitation
Tony Delahunty, NFFO South East Committee
Tony Delahunty, NFFO President and Chairman of the NFFO South East Committee commented:
“We work hard all year to secure the best outcomes from the year-end quota negotiations but there is still a lot at stake during the December Council. A lot of what we have to do is damage limitation. This was evident in fighting off a 32% cut in the Eastern Channel sole quota, which was moderated – but is still a tough 15% cut.
Bass: Securing the continuation of a net fishery for bass was a priority for us, as well as getting more flexibility for the trawlers. The bass measures will still difficult for us but at least we successfully fought off the Commission’s proposal for what effectively would have been complete ban on gill nets. However, the Commission remains adamantly opposed to a drift net fishery for bass, despite the arguments that were put forward. The recreational angler’s ruse to land an unenforceable 10 fish per month was blocked.
Skates and Ray: After years of continuous cuts on skates and ray, a more positive approach is emerging, although it may take a while to come to fruition. The TAC in area the eastern Channel was increased by 10% and there is a commitment to work on a more sensible regime next year that avoids the fishery being dragged down by the lowest common denominator.”
North Sea Stocks Continue to Build
Arnold Locker, East of England Fish Producer’s Organisation
As the principal stocks in the North Sea are shared with Norway, the EU/Norway negotiations over two rounds in Copenhagen and Bergen, in November and December were of critical importance for next year’s fishing opportunities in the North Sea.
The biomass of the iconic North Sea cod stock continues to grow, as does the plaice stock and many others; reflecting a broad consistent trend that applies right across the North East Atlantic. A dip in recruitment meant that the TAC for haddock had to be reduced but there is a significant increase in the saithe quota.
The TAC for nephrops has been increased by 46%, reflecting increased abundance overall in the North Sea. The measures currently applied to the Farne Deeps will be reviewed in June. Whiting remains challenging, not because of excessive fishing pressure but because of changing stock dynamics and the distribution of the species. A proposed reduction of 29% was softened to a rollover and when uplift is added, the final result is an increase of 17%.
Cod and whiting will be added to stocks under the landings obligation in 2017 and therefore the quota uplifts to cover quantities of these stocks previously discarded are highly significant. The Federation continues to work intensively on the problem inherent in applying a landing obligation to mixed fisheries.
Positive outcome to for Irish Sea
Alan McCulla OBE, Anglo-North Irish Fish Producer’s Organisation
After two days of negotiations in Brussels, EU Fisheries Ministers have agreed fishing opportunities for the year ahead, including those for the most important stocks in the Irish Sea. In advance of the Council, ANIFPO worked closely with the NFFO in identifying the priorities and issues for the Irish Sea quota species and overall the result has been a good one for the fisheries in the area.
Against the background of Commission proposals for zero TACs on Irish Sea cod and sole, the Council agreed quota rollovers for these two stocks. Indeed, 2017 will mark the first time in 12 years that Irish Sea cod has not witnessed a year-on-year TAC reduction. It should be noted that ANIFPO and the NFFO worked closely with the Northern Ireland MEP Diane Dodds, who was instrumental in delivering crucial amendments to the EU’s Long Term Cod Plan, which were critical in paving the way for this week’s decision on the Irish Sea cod TAC.
A welcome 25% increase in Irish Sea haddock, combined with the 9% increase in the western hake TAC will allow for the continued redevelopment of a directed demersal fishery in the Irish Sea.
Working alongside the UK Minister, Northern Ireland’s Minister with responsibility for Fisheries Michelle McIlveen MLA secured a written statement from the Commission and Council confirming that many of the Irish Sea TACs will be further reviewed early in 2017 following an ICES benchmarking exercise. One of the stocks included in this review is Irish Sea herring and there is optimism that the 10% cut applied to this TAC at the Council will be reversed in advance of the season opening mid-year.
The most economically important fishery in the Irish Sea and for the Northern Ireland industry is nephrops. The increase of nearly 9% in this TAC reflects another year of positive scientific advice on the stock and is clearly good news for the entire industry at sea and onshore.
2016 has been a positive year for fisheries in the Irish Sea. The decisions taken at the December 2016 Fisheries Council should help continue to fuel the recovery of the fishing industry in the area, specifically Northern Ireland. It is further hoped that the ICES benchmarking exercise scheduled for early in 2017 will result in further TAC incentives for Irish Sea fishermen.
Irish Sea Stock Commission Proposal 2017 TAC
Nephrops -18% +9%
Cod Zero TAC Rollover
Haddock -6% +25%
Whiting Rollover Rollover
Plaice Rollover Rollover
Sole Zero TAC Rollover
Herring -10% -10%
Mike Cohen, NFFO Chairman
Council Overview
And so the dust settles on December Council 2016. Two drawn-out days of activity by the minister and his officials – preceded by long months of lobbying and debate from fishermen and their representatives – will now be followed by a still longer period in which the industry works out how to live with the deal that our minister has signed up to.
As a way of managing the shared natural resources upon which thousands of livelihoods depend, it is undeniably a strange, unwieldy system, all too capable of throwing out the capricious and unsatisfactory results with which British fishermen are so familiar.
Not for much longer, though, will we be part of this unsatisfactory annual ritual. 2017 may well be the last time that the UK participates in the December Council as we know it.
As with every other facet of Brexit, what comes next is still unclear. The NFFO’s job now is to be part of developing the new process by which TACs and quotas will be shaped. Whatever form this may ultimately take, it must rise above the manifest inadequacies of the current system. We need an evidence based route to delivering economically sustainable fisheries, freed from the arbitrary political timetables that have hampered us for so long.
May I take this opportunity to wish all of the Federation’s members, supporters and staff a very happy Christmas and healthy and prosperous New Year.
Positive Stock Trends: Since 2000, there has been a dramatic reduction in fishing pressure and in general terms that stocks are responding positively. The increasing biomasses of some stocks like North Sea Plaice and Northern hake are nothing short of spectacular. Similarly, the haddock stock in the Irish Sea and North Sea saithe has seen a significant increase. This are the good news stories that are sometimes obscured by the focus on stocks like bass that are bucking the general trend, through a combination of weak recruitment (environmental conditions) and fishing pressure. More of bass later.
Mixed Fisheries: The Commission doesn’t yet seem to have grasped how to manage mixed fisheries. The bottom line is that the TACs applied in the ultra-mixed Celtic Sea can only generate significant levels of discarded cod. Discards will also be a feature of the bass fishery, although the Council has introduced some flexibility in the trawl fishery that should help a bit in 2016 (a 3% rather than a 1% bycatch). Keeping a provision for an (albeit heavily restricted) gill net fishery was important too. The Commission’s ridiculous proposal to give recreational anglers an unenforceable 10 fish per month bag limit was quite rightly bounced out of court by the member states.
In some fisheries like Eastern Channel sole, ministers have used their responsibilities to ease savage quota reductions, through a staged approach, that reduces at least some of the adverse socio-economic consequences for fishing communities. Another feature of this year’s Council has been the continuing implementation of the EU landings obligation, with quota uplifts in the fisheries brought under the landing obligation for the first time in 2017. In the industry there are concerns about the quality of the data on which these uplifts have been based. If the discard estimates are out of line with the actual levels, then significant chokes will begin to appear. This problem will intensify as the landing obligation is progressively implemented to 2019.
Download 2017 TACs and quotas outcomes table
DEFRA in North East Arctic Quota Grab to Appease Scotland
The NFFO has bitterly criticised George Eustice’s decision to grab quota from the Humber based Fish Producer Organisation to appease clamour from Scotland for more benefits. The move has been criticised by the NFFO as “opportunistic and nakedly political”
During the December Council negotiations, the UK Fisheries Minister announced a deal that had been agreed with Scottish Fisheries Minister, Fergus Ewing, to top-slice 1500 tonnes of the 2017 quota North East Arctic cod. The Scottish minister had said earlier that they had been working for several months on the plan, which had been kept secret from those affected.
NFFO Chief Executive Barrie Deas said, “That the Scottish Government is pursuing an aggressive nationalist agenda is a surprise to nobody. Why government in Westminster is offering concession after concession, to the serious detriment to the English fishing industry, to appease Scottish demands, is less easy to explain. This seems to be part of a wider government strategy to dilute conditions that would favour a second independence referendum in Scotland. As such this is a nakedly political manoeuvre of extreme disadvantage to the English industry.”
“What is clear is that there is a UK minister but there is nobody at ministerial level that can be relied upon to look after the interests of the English fishing industry. This decision makes no sense in terms of the UK as a whole, which will lose out as a result.”
“We are not against moving quota around to deal with potential chokes that arise as a result of implementing the of the EU landings obligation – if this was done systematically, transparently and across the board, and following proper discussions with those affected. But this is just a crude, opportunistic, highly political quota grab, to appease constant, unrelieved pressure from Scotland. The fact that it hits Humberside, which is not exactly part of the government’s heartlands, should not be overlooked.
“The very minister who is charged with looking after our interests, has shown a contemptuous disregard for the English fishing industry in this matter; and also in agreeing a concordat with Scotland that is monstrously against England’s interests. Time will tell where this quota will end up. But it is no surprise that the Scottish minister was eager to claim joint ownership of the quota grab.”
South West Overview
Paul Trebilcock, Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation
After two long days of talks in Brussels, fisheries ministers from across the EU eventually agreed fishing opportunities (quotas) for the year ahead, including those for important stocks in Area VII.
Ahead of the Council and throughout, the CFPO working with the NFFO, liaised closely with DEFRA officials and the UK minister, to ensure that scientific, economic and community based arguments were understood and used in an effort to deliver the best possible deal for our members.
Celtic Sea Cod, Haddock and Whiting
The Commission’s line on Cod was inflexible throughout the Council and despite the UK deploying arguments based around mixed fisheries modelling, a savage cut in the cod quota (of 38%) will have a major impact on many vessels and contribute to increased discards.
The modest increase in Haddock (7%) was welcome but fell short of our aspiration to better match the TAC with abundance being seen across the majority of fisheries in the South-West.
Monk VII, Megrim VII and Hake VI/VII
The positive outcomes for the economically important stocks of hake (increase 9%) and Monk VII (rollover TAC) were soured by the dramatic and unnecessary cut in Megrim TAC (25%). The fact that the biomass of this stock is at an historic high and fishing pressure has reduced significantly in recent years, did not stop the Commission sticking to its dogmatic pursuit of MSY within 1 year.
Sole Stocks
There is good news for sole fishermen in South West, with increases in the Western Channel (20%) and Bristol Channel TAC (8%) and a rollover of the VIIhjk TAC, reflecting the good state of these stocks and the sustainable practices of the fleets catching them. These are important, high value, stocks for South West fishermen.
Pollack VII
The 10% cut in this TAC, based on insufficient/poor data, was extremely disappointing. The sustainable gill-net and hand-line fishermen who target this stable economically important stock both inshore and offshore will be bitterly disappointed with this nonsensical cut. There is a possibility that this decision will be reviewed early next year and it needs to be.
Bass
Against the background of massive pressure from anglers, greens and poor scientific perception of the stock, the outcome was not as catastrophic as feared.
The bycatch allowance in the trawl fishery from 1% to 3% of total catch, will not eliminate discards but at least is a step in the right direction. Gill-netters will have a monthly 250kg landing allowance. Both measures still present potential problems with discards but at least our reasoned arguments have been recognised and generated some movement. Hand-liners have a 10t per year landing allowance. (There remains a prohibition of landing any bass in the spawning months of February and March for all gears).
Ray in Western Waters
The increase in this TAC (5%) is welcome but this result was tarnished by the continuation of specific restrictions on small eyed ray, with heavily restricted landings only allowed from VIIfg. There is much work to be done on skates and ray management if we are to avoid more problems this in future.
Overall
Although the TACs and Quotas Regulation is adopted by the fisheries ministers of all EU member states, it is important to recognise that the UK Minister agreed to these TACs (and associated regulations) and must share responsibility for the consequence of these decisions, whether these are in the direction of sustainable fisheries, increased discards or unnecessarily hard consequences for fishing communities.
South East: Damage Limitation
Tony Delahunty, NFFO South East Committee
Tony Delahunty, NFFO President and Chairman of the NFFO South East Committee commented:
“We work hard all year to secure the best outcomes from the year-end quota negotiations but there is still a lot at stake during the December Council. A lot of what we have to do is damage limitation. This was evident in fighting off a 32% cut in the Eastern Channel sole quota, which was moderated – but is still a tough 15% cut.
Bass: Securing the continuation of a net fishery for bass was a priority for us, as well as getting more flexibility for the trawlers. The bass measures will still difficult for us but at least we successfully fought off the Commission’s proposal for what effectively would have been complete ban on gill nets. However, the Commission remains adamantly opposed to a drift net fishery for bass, despite the arguments that were put forward. The recreational angler’s ruse to land an unenforceable 10 fish per month was blocked.
Skates and Ray: After years of continuous cuts on skates and ray, a more positive approach is emerging, although it may take a while to come to fruition. The TAC in area the eastern Channel was increased by 10% and there is a commitment to work on a more sensible regime next year that avoids the fishery being dragged down by the lowest common denominator.”
North Sea Stocks Continue to Build
Arnold Locker, East of England Fish Producer’s Organisation
As the principal stocks in the North Sea are shared with Norway, the EU/Norway negotiations over two rounds in Copenhagen and Bergen, in November and December were of critical importance for next year’s fishing opportunities in the North Sea.
The biomass of the iconic North Sea cod stock continues to grow, as does the plaice stock and many others; reflecting a broad consistent trend that applies right across the North East Atlantic. A dip in recruitment meant that the TAC for haddock had to be reduced but there is a significant increase in the saithe quota.
The TAC for nephrops has been increased by 46%, reflecting increased abundance overall in the North Sea. The measures currently applied to the Farne Deeps will be reviewed in June. Whiting remains challenging, not because of excessive fishing pressure but because of changing stock dynamics and the distribution of the species. A proposed reduction of 29% was softened to a rollover and when uplift is added, the final result is an increase of 17%.
Cod and whiting will be added to stocks under the landings obligation in 2017 and therefore the quota uplifts to cover quantities of these stocks previously discarded are highly significant. The Federation continues to work intensively on the problem inherent in applying a landing obligation to mixed fisheries.
Positive outcome to for Irish Sea
Alan McCulla OBE, Anglo-North Irish Fish Producer’s Organisation
After two days of negotiations in Brussels, EU Fisheries Ministers have agreed fishing opportunities for the year ahead, including those for the most important stocks in the Irish Sea. In advance of the Council, ANIFPO worked closely with the NFFO in identifying the priorities and issues for the Irish Sea quota species and overall the result has been a good one for the fisheries in the area.
Against the background of Commission proposals for zero TACs on Irish Sea cod and sole, the Council agreed quota rollovers for these two stocks. Indeed, 2017 will mark the first time in 12 years that Irish Sea cod has not witnessed a year-on-year TAC reduction. It should be noted that ANIFPO and the NFFO worked closely with the Northern Ireland MEP Diane Dodds, who was instrumental in delivering crucial amendments to the EU’s Long Term Cod Plan, which were critical in paving the way for this week’s decision on the Irish Sea cod TAC.
A welcome 25% increase in Irish Sea haddock, combined with the 9% increase in the western hake TAC will allow for the continued redevelopment of a directed demersal fishery in the Irish Sea.
Working alongside the UK Minister, Northern Ireland’s Minister with responsibility for Fisheries Michelle McIlveen MLA secured a written statement from the Commission and Council confirming that many of the Irish Sea TACs will be further reviewed early in 2017 following an ICES benchmarking exercise. One of the stocks included in this review is Irish Sea herring and there is optimism that the 10% cut applied to this TAC at the Council will be reversed in advance of the season opening mid-year.
The most economically important fishery in the Irish Sea and for the Northern Ireland industry is nephrops. The increase of nearly 9% in this TAC reflects another year of positive scientific advice on the stock and is clearly good news for the entire industry at sea and onshore.
2016 has been a positive year for fisheries in the Irish Sea. The decisions taken at the December 2016 Fisheries Council should help continue to fuel the recovery of the fishing industry in the area, specifically Northern Ireland. It is further hoped that the ICES benchmarking exercise scheduled for early in 2017 will result in further TAC incentives for Irish Sea fishermen.
Irish Sea Stock Commission Proposal 2017 TAC
Nephrops -18% +9%
Cod Zero TAC Rollover
Haddock -6% +25%
Whiting Rollover Rollover
Plaice Rollover Rollover
Sole Zero TAC Rollover
Herring -10% -10%
Mike Cohen, NFFO Chairman
Council Overview
And so the dust settles on December Council 2016. Two drawn-out days of activity by the minister and his officials – preceded by long months of lobbying and debate from fishermen and their representatives – will now be followed by a still longer period in which the industry works out how to live with the deal that our minister has signed up to.
As a way of managing the shared natural resources upon which thousands of livelihoods depend, it is undeniably a strange, unwieldy system, all too capable of throwing out the capricious and unsatisfactory results with which British fishermen are so familiar.
Not for much longer, though, will we be part of this unsatisfactory annual ritual. 2017 may well be the last time that the UK participates in the December Council as we know it.
As with every other facet of Brexit, what comes next is still unclear. The NFFO’s job now is to be part of developing the new process by which TACs and quotas will be shaped. Whatever form this may ultimately take, it must rise above the manifest inadequacies of the current system. We need an evidence based route to delivering economically sustainable fisheries, freed from the arbitrary political timetables that have hampered us for so long.
May I take this opportunity to wish all of the Federation’s members, supporters and staff a very happy Christmas and healthy and prosperous New Year.
New
Search for Sites
JNCC and Natural England have
embarked on a new process of selecting MCZs following producing a gap analysis to
guide the completion of the network in English waters. Shortfalls have been identified following an
analysis of the existing MPA network and remaining sites recommended in 2011
under regional projects but using different geographic regions to those that
had guided the selection of recommended MCZs in the first place. The analysis includes Scottish North Sea
waters and different regional boundaries in the southern North Sea and English
Channel to those used in the regional projects.
The new devolution settlement
in Wales has also removed the Welsh offshore area from the analysis and consideration
of sites in these waters that had been identified by the Irish Sea regional
project.
Surveys of designated and
proposed sites also appear to have revealed that in some sites the habitat type
is different from that which had informed original site selection and therefore
these areas no longer contribute to network targets.
The shortfalls identified in
the exercise primarily include sand and mixed sediment habitat in the Channel
and coarse sediment in the south west approaches and UK Secretary of State administered
waters in the Irish Sea.
Dale Rodmell, Assistant Chief
Executive said: “These new searches are troubling as they have come out of
the blue and are being undertaken over a very short time-frame. The initial selection of recommended sites in
2011 followed an 18 month process which in itself was rushed, but this process
seems to be taking a matter of weeks simply to meet government’s self-imposed
target of completing the network by 2018.”
“In all of the haste there is
a real danger that the livelihood needs of marine users will be harmed. What’s more, as we have highlighted all along
during this process, displacing fishing activity does not simply remove it. It is as much as likely to redeploy elsewhere
and if displacement is not carefully considered, as well as the social
injustices, it is likely to result in a conservation home goal.”
Adding
new Conservation Features to Existing Sites
The existing suite of MCZs are
also being examined by JNCC and Natural England for additional features as part
of the gap filling exercise.
“The risk here is that there
may be good reasons why the regional projects decided not to add a particular
feature to a site and these must be recognised and respected. In the Swallow Sands MCZ in the North Sea,
for instance, the swallow hole mud habitat depression that forms an important
fishing hotspot was deliberately left out of the recommendations for that very
reason. It should not now be added just
because it is perceived that the Scottish MPA planning process did not include
enough mud in its part of the North Sea.”
“The sense in our industry is
that this is all going in one direction beyond the initial planning process,
and the legitimacy that underpinned the original selection of sites risks being
undermined”.
“If a site or part of a site
turns out not to be the habitat that it was thought to be, then conservation
advisors should also assess the case for either amending the MCZ boundary or not
proceeding to designate, he said.”
Highly
Mobile Species MCZs
The new searches follow in the
footsteps of other emerging proposals for highly mobile species which may go
forward as part of the tranche 3 consultation process.
“Government should not
become blinkered by propaganda from MPA advocates that think MPAs are the
solution to all ills. There are a whole
host of potential management approaches and it should be asking whether a
static approach for highly mobile species makes sense.”
“It should also ask the
question whether the costs associated with such an approach match up to the
alternatives – quite simply, MPAs can tie up government resources focusing on the
fine minutiae of individual MPAs which could be far more effectively deployed in
wide-scale sustainable marine management.
Government is risking committing public resources to a policy that
simply can’t see the wood for the trees. A more coherent conservation strategy is
needed.”
Bang
for Buck
One alternative is to work
directly with industry to address particular conservation issues. For example, the government has worked with
the fishing industry to develop incentivised arrangements that support the
avoidance of unwanted catches. These
have demonstrably worked in the case of catch quota initiatives for cod. A new trial is currently getting underway on
spurdog avoidance in the south west that is hoped to reduce fishing induced mortality
of the species and help to deal with a potential choke under the landing
obligation.
“These are practical
approaches targeted directly at a particular conservation issue that don’t
generate a quagmire of bureaucracy and inertia that is associated with MPA
designation and management. Rather than
following a prohibition based approach, which inherently underlies the current
approach to MPAs, this is also about working positively to support people’s motivations
for conservation. At the end of the day
industry has no desire for unwanted catches,” Dale Rodmell said.
Irish
Sea Mud
In the Irish Sea, Welsh
administration of its >12nm zone has left a UK Secretary of State planning
area now divided into 2 separate small regions of the Irish Sea, both of which
coincide with the vitally important nephrops fishing grounds. By virtue of administrative boundaries, sites
had been previously selected on prime fishing locations risking the negative
effects of displacement that could have knock-on effects for the sustainability
of the fishery.
In a move to come up with a
more practical option, the fishing industry identified an alternative site for
mud habitat in an area identified as “Queenie corner” in 2015.
Dale Rodmell said: “This area
has been put forward in good faith by the fishing industry to be considered as
an alternative to what would be damaging site location choices elsewhere and it
is important that when the Minister comes to consider the options for tranche 3
that these efforts are duly recognised.”
The earnings potential for next year for thousands of fishing vessels hang on the decisions made by a couple of dozen fisheries ministers cloistered in late night meetings with their officials.
The year-end negotiations do have a passing resemblance to a circus. However, what we see in December is the end point of a process which takes most of the year.
The starting point for this process can be taken as May/June, when two documents are released. The first is the publication of ICES scientific advice, containing catch options and TAC recommendations. The second is the Commission’s Communication, which spells out the broad principles that will be applied when the Commissions TAC and Quota proposal is published sometime around the beginning of November.
The NFFO’s work begins well before these documents are published, in challenging and questioning the scientific assumptions, data and methods used; and in making the case for better approaches to TAC decisions. Much of this work has been done in recent years within the advisory councils.
As the autumn approaches, the NFFO goes into a higher gear with detailed discussions on the UK’s priorities with Defra officials, and broader discussions with fisheries ministers about the approach to take to defend the UK’s interests. Making alliances with those member states whose interests are aligned with ours is an important part of the picture at this stage.
EU Norway
For those stocks jointly managed with Norway, the annual negotiations with Norway, which have just concluded, are where the critical decisions are made. An NFFO team was at both rounds, in Copenhagen and Bergen and the outcomes were as follows:
North Seas Joint Stock TACs
North Sea cod: 5% TAC increase plus 11% uplift. Moves the stock towards MSY whilst avoiding the 2% cut.
Saithe: 55% TAC increase plus 4.1% uplift
Haddock: 45% cut to correct the error last year’s advice and ensure fishing at FMSY. Now fully under landing obligation so TAC fixed at ICES total catch advice.
Whiting: rollover plus 17% uplift. Moves the stock towards MSY whilst avoiding the 29% cut.
North Sea Plaice: rollover plus 1.2% uplift
North sea Herring – 7% decrease due to poor recruitment
Exchanges
To EU:
Haddock (IV) – 500t
Whiting (IV) – 300t
Others – 9,500t
Anglerfish (IV) – 1,500t
Ling (IV) – 1,350
Arcto-Norwegian cod – 23,000t
Arcto-Norwegian Haddock – 1,200t
Saithe (I, II) – 2,550t
Greenland Halibut (I, II) – 50t
Others (I, II)– 350t
To Norway
Ling (IV,Vb,VI,VII,IIa) – 6,500
Tusk (IV,Vb,VI,VII,IIa) – 2,923
Horse mackerel (IVb,c) – 3,550
Saithe (IV, IIIa) –250t
Saithe (VIa) – 510t
Others (IV, IIa) 5,250
Blue whiting – 110,000t
Redfish – 740t
These decisions will, in the normal course of events, just be ratified by the Council of Ministers.
Council
This year the December Council will take place in Brussels on 12th/13th December.
Ministers at this time of year often come under intense pressure from some of the more dogmatic green organisations for “departing from the scientific recommendations.” It is important therefore to understand that in the EU system, ministers have a unique and specific responsibility in setting TACs for the following year, to balance out a number of important factors. These include:
- Taking into account single stock advice produced by ICES
- Taking into account recent and relevant fisheries information
- Balancing these with mixed fisheries considerations
- Avoiding TAC decisions that will merely result in an increase in discards
- Taking into account socio-economic concerns, by for example phasing reductions when these are needed
- Taking into account, legal obligations, including the MSY timetable
For as long as TAC decisions are made (or ratified) by the December Council, it is important that this important balancing function is understood and recognised.
Maximum Sustainable Yield
Having the ambition to manage our fisheries so that they consistently deliver high yields is an eminently sensible policy. Ignoring biological and socio-economic realities in a blinkered race to an arbitrary MSY timetable, applied to all stocks irrespective of circumstances, makes no sense whatsoever – except perhaps to a handful of fundamentalists. As we approach the MSY deadline of 2020, the gap between aspiration and the reality inevitably becomes starker. The Commission has proposed gigantic cuts for some stocks. Channel cod with a proposed cut of 68% and Area VII megrim with a proposed cut of 28% are cases in point. At some juncture the Commission and member states will have to face the realities of a bulldozer MSY policy and adapt it to something more nuanced and workable. It the mean time ministers have a responsibility to keep things on an even keel.
Uplifts
Those fisheries and stocks brought into the landings obligation in 2017 should see their catch limits increase in line with the fish that was previously discarded. There are a number of difficulties to face:
- The question of how accurate the discard estimates are. In some fisheries these will be quite accurate; in others there will be a substantial misalignment. This can only lead to problems during the quota year, intensifying the choke problem
- Will the uplifts be directed to the right place? this is a political decision for each member state but will determine where in-year problems might be expected to appear
Bass
There seems to be an axiom that the more a stock is in the spotlight, the more decision-makers tend towards knee-jerk measures that sound like something that is being done but instead leave a legacy of carnage. The dead bass – a highly valuable species – discarded, that now litter the seabed, is the legacy of an EU decision last year to limit trawlers to a 1% bycatch. If the Commission’s proposal this year is followed by the Council, this problem will get worse – with absolutely minimal advantage in terms of reduced mortality. By banning gill nets from retaining bass caught in their nets, bass will be killed and discarded unnecessarily – for no conservation advantage; and at great cost to the many vessels which catch some bass. The solution lies in applying a bycatch over a longer period, say 6 months, which would even out the peaks and troughs and allow the vessel to retain a higher proportion of the bass caught.
It is frankly difficult to square the introduction of regulatory discards into the bass fishery, exactly at a time when all the rhetoric is about reducing discards across the EU.
This is not an argument against bringing bass back into a healthy conservation status: strong measures have already been put in place, including an increased minimum size and stringent catch limits. But scientists tell us that the effects of these measures, in terms of increased biomass, will take some time to work through. This is why hysterical over-reaction is best avoided.
The pressure to ban gill nets for fishing for bass is mainly coming from the recreational angling lobby, who have their own selfish reasons. Like many others, we are interested to hear how a 10 fish per month bag limit on recreational anglers could ever be enforced….
Skates and Rays
Managing skates and rays is certainly tricky. Species recognition can be poor and the TAC covers some 15 separate species. Things have been made worse in recent years by the Commission’s blunt approach to data-poor stocks, which has forced a series of year-on-year 20% reductions which has made the quota all but impossible to manage.
At the 11th hour, the Commission has circulated a paper suggesting that each individual species should have its own TAC. We are not sure that this is the right way to go. It is important to have some kind of understanding of the potential consequences before embarking on such a radical change.
Apart from anything else in is not right the member states and their fishing industries are ambushed by last minute changes – the example of small-eyed ray last year being a good example of how not to make fisheries legislation.
NFFO Team
An NFFO team will be present throughout the whole Council, using every opportunity to guide decisions to the right outcomes. Meetings have been held, written submissions have been made, priorities clarified. We are now dependent on our minister and his officials to deliver.
Our team has been selected to give cover to all NFFO interests which include:
- Western waters
- North Sea
- Channel
- Irish Sea
- External Waters
- Pelagic
- Bass
- Inshore
Leaving the EU
Longer term, the December Council will not be the fora which makes TAC decisions for the UK fleets. For the 100 or so stocks that we share with other countries new and different TAC decision making process will be required. Work is continuing within the Federation on this and the many other aspects of the UK’s departure from the EU. For the next couple of weeks however the focus will be the December Council
NFFO President, Tony Delahunty said: “Without an appropriate
catch limit or viable bycatch allowance, as night follows day, this measure
will result in thousands of bass discarded dead next year. The Commission just
doesn’t seem to understand that bass will be caught as bycatch in gill nets, irrespective
of what measures are adopted in December. This will not help to reduce fishing
mortality on bass. But it will put the spotlight on discards and discard
policy. And not in a good way. This is introducing regulatory generated discards at the same time the same is being
phased out in other fisheries. It lacks consistency and it lacks sanity.”
“The measures that have been introduced in 2014, 2015 and
2016 have had a dramatic impact. Catches of bass have fallen dramatically. But
rebuilding the biomass will take some time – it depends on some decent year
classes coming through. This is a lesson that we learnt with North Sea cod. Steady
rebuilding will get us there but avoiding discards should be a key part of the
policy. Instead, the Commission has proposed a misguided and harmful measure –
harmful to the fishermen who will have to discard a vitally important part of
their catch and misguided because it will not affect fishing mortality one jot.”
“Working with fishermen on spatial and temporal measures to help
the avoid catching undersized bass in the first place would deliver more than
headline catching bans that are not with the paper they are written on.”
“The Commission’s blunt approach has already created a discard
problem in the trawl fishery where any bass caught over 1% have to be
discarded. The effective ban on landing bass from vessels using gill nets will
just bring this nonsense to a new level. It will be highly damaging to the many
small-scale fleets around the coast of
the UK.”
Accepting that there remains a huge amount of uncertainty about what form Brexit will finally take, the NFFO was able to spell out the UK’s catching sector’s aspirations for resetting UK fisheries, post-CFP, in a way that cancels the distortions that have systematically disadvantaged our fisheries since the origins of CFP in 1972.
It was clear from the meeting that the Norwegian industry wants a positive, mutually beneficial relationship with the UK after it leaves the EU. Norway has a reputation for being a tough negotiator but it was clear that the Seafood Alliance believes that there is scope for a broad agreement that embraces mechanisms for jointly managing shared stocks, mutually agreeable quota shares and open access to markets.
The discussions included the extent to which the Norwegian experience, as a country which controls its own marine resources but also shares stocks with other countries, could be relevant to the UK. It was agreed that much could be learned from Norway’s successful resource policies and approach to discards but that there were also differences that mean that the Norwegian model could not, and should not, be followed slavishly.
The Norwegians, as well as the the NFFO, are interested in achieving a high degree of continuity in our relationship, albeit within a radically different context in which we will both have much more room for manoeuvre. The Alliance stressed the great advantages in the kind of close collaboration that exists between the Norwegian fisheries authorities and Norwegian Fishermen’s Association. Norwegian fishermen are closely involved in international negotiations, as well as in formulating domestic policy. This gives a strength through technical understanding, as well as building industry support for fisheries policies that is a million miles away from the CFP’s remote, top-down approach.
The UK as a whole, from catchers to chip shops, benefits enormously from access to Norway’s huge cod fishery in the North East Arctic; and Norway benefits from unfettered access to EU markets. How to maintain a mutually satisfactory arrangement, as the UK disentangles itself from the EU, will be the focus of future talks.
This was an important first exchange between our two sectors within the radically new context that will emerge post-Brexit. It will not be the last. By virtue of geography, shared stocks and trade links, Norway will always be an important partner for the UK in fisheries. The scene is therefore set for the opening of a new chapter in that relationship – and in that sense, this meeting can fairly be labelled historic.
The two federations met in Edinburgh on Friday 25 November and
agreed the key outcomes they want to achieve from negotiations to leave the EU.
Fishermen across the UK have welcomed Brexit as providing a historic
opportunity to secure significant economic benefit to coastal communities once
the UK regains control of its 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
At the meeting between the two federations, it was agreed
that they would seek the following outcomes from Brexit:
- Fairer shares of catching opportunity for UK
vessels. - Full control over access to the UK EEZ by
fishing fleets. - Creation of a fit-for-purpose
management and regulation system, including a grass roots revision of fisheries
management based on sustainable harvesting and sound science. - Establishment of mutually beneficially trading
relationships with the EU and other countries.
The federations also agreed that there must be no roll-over
of the current Common Fisheries Policy and that negotiations regarding fisheries
should not be entangled with non-fisheries issues.
Furthermore, the federations insist that negotiations must
benefit all sectors of the fishing industry. Inshore and offshore fleets, fish
and shellfish all stand to benefit from the opportunities that the UK’s exit
from the EU provides.
This is an opportunity to go beyond the limited achievements
of the CFP. An ambitious management strategy for UK waters that will provide
environmentally sustainable, high yield and profitable fisheries for the future
must be created. In particular there is a need to devise and implement a
workable discards policy.
Bertie Armstrong, chief executive of the SFF said: “Brexit
has monumental significance for the nation’s fishing industry and our coastal
communities in terms of providing the opportunity for a significant increase in
economic activity. It is vital that fishermen across the UK speak with a united
voice to ensure that the UK and devolved governments fight for the interests of
these communities in the forthcoming negotiations.
“The
UK fishing industry is speaking with one voice – it is a sea of opportunity
that must not be traded away.”
Barrie Deas, chief executive of the NFFO said: “We
see the UK’s departure from the EU and therefore the CFP as an opportunity to
address the distortions that were built into the CFP from its inception. The UK
industry is united that this is a once in a generation opportunity to put
things right.”
UK Fisheries outside the Common Fisheries Policy
Raw Deal
The over-centralised, top-down, command and control, model of managing complex and diverse EU fisheries has been largely discredited in recent years. However, reform, in the shape of regionalisation and decentralisation of control, has been too little, and come more than two decades too late.
For British fishermen, in addition to this dysfunctionality, the CFP has delivered an additional insult to this ongoing injury. This was the deeply unfair way that the terms of access for other member state vessels to fish in UK waters was accepted by the British Government in 1972, to the UK’s great and ongoing disadvantage. This concession undermined the benefits that could reasonably be expected to arise from the application of a 200 mile exclusive economic zone, when that became the legal norm around the same time. The unpalatable fact is that, during the Common Market entry negotiations, fishing was considered expendable and sacrificed to secure other priorities considered more important. In the political manoeuvring the equal access principle was forced on the UK as one of the costs of EU membership; and was followed a decade later by national quota shares that in many cases bore little relation the resources actually caught in UK waters.
How else are we to explain that the UK’s share of cod in the English Channel amounts to 9%, whilst that of France is 84%? And other EU member states take up to 80% of their catch from UK waters?
Brexit
Whatever the other dimensions of Brexit will be, the referendum result on 23rd June provides a generational opportunity to reset the deal for British fishermen. We know the biological, legal and political realities must be respected. We fully recognise that more than 100 of the most important stocks that we fish are shared with other countries, including EU member states and Norway. We fully recognise that this means that sensible bilateral and trilateral arrangements will be required with other countries, including the EU to set sustainable harvest rates. We also recognise that a fully prosperous fishing sector requires cautious husbandry of resources and fisheries policies that deliver high yields, whilst minimising the environmental footprint.
What we cannot accept is that UK fishermen would be failed for a third time by its politicians.
What do fishermen want?
The fishermen of this country want a fair deal covering:
- Fair national quota shares, broadly reflecting the resources located in UK waters
- A 12 mile exclusive zone that would provide adequate protection for our inshore fleets
- Balanced and proportionate access arrangements
- The opportunity to manage our fisheries resources and fleets in an adaptive and responsive way, tailored to the contours of our fisheries
- EU/UK free trade in fisheries products
Regeneration of Coastal Communities
A fair deal for British fishermen, landing increased catches into the UK, with the expected shore-side multipliers, could make a significant contribution to the regeneration of our coastal communities.
A Post CFP-Fisheries Management System
Resetting the deal for our fishermen is fundamental but we know that the post CFP- fisheries management will have to be set on solid foundations if it is to provide the basis for a lasting prosperity. Management of our fisheries, once we have left the EU, could look something like this:
- Total Allowable Catches (TACs) will be set annually (or as part of long term plans) on the basis of scientific advice
- TACs for shared stocks will be set bilaterally (UK/EU), trilaterally UK/EU/Norway or Faroes) or through Coastal States agreements, depending on the sea area and stock
- Harvest Control Rules that deliver high yields (MSY) but in a flexible, pragmatic way that take account of the realities of mixed fisheries
- Quotas will be retained as the only practicable way of constraining fishing mortality and sharing resources between different countries and different groups of fishermen
- A landings obligation (discard ban) will apply but it will be applied in a pragmatic way, closer to the Norwegian model
- Technical rules governing gear and selectivity will be set by the UK authorities and will apply equally to all vessels fishing in UK waters; equally our vessels fishing in EU or Norwegian waters will observe their rules
- The UK’s quota shares will be subject to negotiation but the starting principle will be that the UK’s shares will broadly reflect the resources located within the UK area of jurisdiction
- Mutually agreed access arrangements will be agreed where these bring proportionate benefit to the UK
- Provision will continue to be made to maintain the important fishing opportunities that we hold in the waters of other countries
- The central role of producer organisations in delivering flexible and responsive quota management should be retained and developed
Negotiations
We have little clarity at this stage of what the negotiations after Article 50 is invoked, will involve. It is important, however, for all involved to understand what is at stake for the British fishing industry. Notwithstanding the many uncertainties ahead, there is an opportunity here to address a great injustice and put the UK fishing industry on the road to a new prosperity.
In this fast moving hyper-connected world, it’s crucial that your social media is in shipshape fashion to ensure it doesn’t get swept away in the maelstrom of the digital world. Abide by the following top tips to keep yourself afloat:
• Keep posts relevant to the industry – your followers follow you because of your maritime expertise, so that’s what they want to see from you. This may sound obvious but you’d be surprised how often people get this wrong!
• Strong, eye-catching photography often garners a lot more interest than text only updates– ocean scenes can be particularly striking so make use of that (and are relevant!)
• Share/Retweet the right content – not everything on your account has to be original content. One of the key ways to engage with your followers is to Share/Retweet things that will interest them. Strong videos in particular are popular (and again, maritime related videos can be very impressive).
• Like/Follow the right people/groups – it’ll improve your own following and show you know what you’re talking about (e.g. why would a fishing company follow Simon Cowell?). Also, by following other relevant accounts you increase your chances that they will engage with you – which is often a catalyst for increased interest in you from the general public. A good quick guide would be to follow the government ministers and organisations working in your the maritime industry – it shows you know your stuff and if they reciprocate it can lead to great exposure for you.
• Engage with your followers – People value engagement on social media. Always reply to comments/tweets in a friendly and helpful manner. This encourages existing followers to get more involved and pay more attention whilst also attracting new followers as they see it as a worthwhile account to follow.
• Post regularly –With so much content on social media it’s easy for yours to get lost in it all. Regular activity lets people know that you’re still there, that your account is worth looking at and keeps you in their minds. Too much activity though can lead people to feel like they’re being spammed. Make sure all content is on message, worthy of being posted and aim to post at least once a day, but not too often. Creating a social media posting plan in advance is the best way to keep up to date and ensure that all your content is worth posting and relevant.
Following these top tips will help to turn your social media from a minnow to a whopper!
You can follow Alan Dwan’s takeover of the NFFO Twitter account on @NFFO_UK and pose questions using #FishTales
To find out more about Acceleris’ maritime PR service, visit www.acceleris-mc.com
The star of ITV’s hit TV show Trawlermen Tales is getting social this week to show the reality of life at sea, tell his seafaring tales and take questions from members of the public on everything from hake to hauling and catches to cod.
Designed to spread the message that fish is a sustainable and healthy choice of food, the Twitter Takeover, a day where control of a Twitter account is handed over to a new voice, takes place during national Seafood Week (7 October – 14 October), an annual campaign run by Seafish to encourage people to eat fish more often.
Alan Dwan, skipper of Cornwall-based gill netter Ajax, will assume command of the Twitter account of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO) for one day on 13 October to provide the public a unique, real-time, insight into the arduous work of our deep sea fishermen.
Fresh from their appearance on Trawlermen Tales, Alan’s crew will promote the hard work done across the country by fishermen committed to fishing sustainability in order to ensure the seas remain plentiful for generations to come.
Originally hailing from County Waterford in Ireland, Dwan has been based on the south west coast of England for 13 years and has a reputation for a particularly extensive knowledge of the ocean. For the last two years, Alan has been the skipper of the newly launched Ajax PZ36 following eleven years in the same position on its predecessor.
The 17-metre Ajax sails out of the Cornwall town of Newlyn, England’s oldest fishing port, and mainly operates in the North East Atlantic. She fishes mainly for hake, pollock, cod and ling, all of which have experienced an upturn in sustainability in recent months. In particular, Cornish hake was recently certified by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), underlining the sustainability of the stock.
Commenting on the upcoming Twitter Takeover, Dwan said: “Working at sea isn’t always easy but it’s a vitally important job – we are feeding the country after all. Appearing on Trawlermen Tales did a lot to boost the public’s understanding of the work fishermen do and it’s heartening to see a greater interest from them off the back of that.
“I think what’ll be so useful about this Twitter Takeover is actually allowing people to get involved with what we’re doing while we’re out at sea and ask questions. We’re all really looking forward to hearing what people are interested in. We’ll also be sharing some of our most interesting experiences. Hopefully it’ll encourage people to go out and eat more locally caught fish.”
Both the general public and fellow fishermen are being encouraged to submit their questions to the crew on the takeover day, with suggested topics ranging from the specific methods they use to catch fish and the sustainability of stocks in their area to their views on how the industry will fare post-Brexit and what life at sea is like.
In recent years, efforts by fishermen have seen many stocks rebound following a period of hardship – and now some even exceed previous healthy levels. For instance, 80 per cent of stocks (by tonnage) in the North East Atlantic Ocean are now being fished at Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY), the industry gold standard for sustainability.
Barrie Deas, Chief Executive of the NFFO, the national body representing the interests of English, Welsh and Northern Irish fishermen, said: “British fishermen have been working incredibly hard in recent years to fish ever more sustainably and the science continues to show that their efforts really are paying off.
“The work of Alan and his crew in this drive for sustainability is one of many success stories in the British fishing fleet and I think it’s vitally important that the public get an understanding of what fishermen are working towards and what life at sea is like. The Ajax really is the perfect choice to be the flagship for our Twitter Takeovers.”
To submit a question to the crew, tweet to @NFFO_UK on 13 October and use the hashtag #FishTales.
“What’s it like to be a fisherman?” I get asked this question a lot but there’s no simple answer. In short, it’s both challenging and rewarding but at the end of the day I wouldn’t swap it for anything else.
To mark National Seafood Week, on Thursday 13 October the NFFO has invited me to take over their Twitter account. I’ll be tweeting in real time, showing people what life at sea is really like and answering any questions you might have had about fish, fishing and fishermen.
I’ve spent most of my life at sea, with the last thirteen years as skipper of the Newlyn-based gill netter Ajax. At 17 metres long she’s not the biggest boat out there, but we fish out in the North Atlantic Ocean. We mainly fish for cod, ling, pollock and above all – hake. A particularly proud moment for me was seeing Cornish Hake become certified as sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) in 2014.
So – what’s it like to be a fisherman? Tweet your question to @NFFO_UK on Thursday 13 October using #fishtales and I’ll do my best to answer it for you!
Brexit
It has been some ten weeks since the referendum and as you might expect, the Federation has been very active. Our Executive Committee met soon after the referendum on 12th July and agreed in broad outline our policy approach to the forthcoming Brexit negotiations. A working group has been established to develop detailed positions on the many aspects of fisheries policy that will be affected by Brexit. Two meetings of the group have already been held and it will continue to meet regularly for the foreseeable future. All final decisions on NFFO policy will continue to be made by the Executive Committee.
The Federation’s senior officers have already met with the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, David Davis, and will be in regular contact with Defra officials for the duration of the negotiations. Today’s meeting with UK, Fisheries Minister, George Eustice, is also an important opportunity to signal fishermen’s expectations of what we want and hope to emerge from the forthcoming negotiations. We will also be meeting the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Andrea Leadsom next week. As you can see, we are heavily engaged at the highest levels.
Whilst we certainly see the future of our fisheries being based on cooperation and collaboration with those countries that we share stocks with, we also see Brexit as an opportunity to reset quota and access arrangements to address the anomalies that have persisted since the early days of the CFP.
We are currently working hard on defining our priorities for the negotiations ahead but the bottom line is our belief that the quota shares held by the UK should broadly reflect the fish resources that are located in our waters.
We know the Brexit negotiations will be complex and sometimes arduous. However, fishing has high public and political visibility and is likely to be used by many as a litmus test on which the success of Brexit success will be judged.
The outcomes of the Brexit negotiations will be affected by many, many, factors but one over which we as an industry do have direct control is the extent to which we can speak with a single, clear, credible and coherent voice.
Opportunities
Being released from the strictures of the Common Fisheries Policy should afford a great many opportunities to reshape the rules under which we as an industry operate. Some examples could be:
⦁ To secure an exclusive 12 mile zone for our coastal fishermen
⦁ To reset our national quota shares to more fairly reflect the fish caught in our waters
⦁ To escape from the blunt control of Brussels over the detail of fisheries management
⦁ To re-shape our domestic fisheries to our own priorities
⦁ To design and implement our own pathway to stable, profitable and sustainable fisheries
There is much to play for and work is well under way.
Domestic Policy
Modernising inshore management within the protection of an exclusive 12 mile zone will provide a range of opportunities to do things better. The EU requirement for vessels above 10 metres to carry logbooks was built on by our own authorities and this ultimately created an artificial boundary that has skewed both fleet development and fishermen’s behaviours. Outside the rigidity and conformity of the CFP it may be possible to radically change inshore fisheries management for the better. The fundamental laws of fisheries won’t change: there needs to be a balance between fishing capacity and available resources if anything is to work. But for instance, it is worth exploring whether there are parts of the under-10 fleet whose impact is so slight that they could be treated as de minimis and be treated accordingly in terms of quota exemptions and much lighter restrictions.
Producer organisations – collectives of fishermen for quota management and marketing purposes – have been one of the great success stories of the last 20 years, developing sophisticated ways to obtain quota to keep their members fishing and marketing their catch. How to ensure that POs continue to perform these valuable services in the changed circumstances that Brexit will bring, is an important area of work.
Prior to the referendum, the Federation was already engaged with Defra and the MMO in defining a coherent strategy for the future of English fisheries, taking into account all their diversity and complexity. This work will continue but will take place within a dramatically altered regulatory landscape.
What will a discard ban tailored to the requirements of the UK look like? We already know that the EU landing obligation has the capacity to cause serious chokes in mixed fisheries. UK ministers have already signalled their intention to retain a discard ban post Brexit but what form will it take given that post Brexit there will be no requirement to slavishly follow EU legislation in this area? This is another area in which the NFFO will be concentrating its efforts.
Stocks
The failures of the CFP have been well documented over the years, not least in the Commission’s own Green Papers that preceded each of the reforms in 2003 and 2013. Wrong turnings, unintended consequences and a huge gulf between aspiration and delivery have been the hallmarks of a top-down, over-centralised system. These have been recognised and recorded. In understanding the limitations and shortfalls of the CFP, however, it is important, however, not to ignore what has been achieved.
Despite the wrong turnings and perverse outcomes, right across the North East Atlantic and across all of the main species groups, the exploitation rate has been brought within safe levels; not only this, but the official scientific view is that our fisheries are well on track to deliver high long term yields. It has been a painful journey getting to this point and it is important that whatever reformulated management arrangements arrive as a result of Brexit that we do not lose the progress that has been made.
In the meantime….
EU law and the CFP will apply to the UK fishing industry up to the point at which the UK exits the EU. The EU landings obligation will continue to be rolled out, adding new species and fisheries each year. A new Technical Conservation Regulation is in the pipeline, as are multi-annual management plans for the North Sea. Further measures on seabass may be in the pipeline and rolling out further marine protected areas. All these will require attention because they affect our members’ livelihoods in the here and now; but also because elements of them may find their way into UK legislation post-Brexit. The Federation cannot afford to take its eye off the ball on these short-term issues.
The EU’s approach to the concept of stock policies is a good example. There is no reason why fishermen would object to policies which bring high yields and high quotas. It has only been when the concept of Maximum Sustainable Yield has been misused and applied as dogma rather than as a broad and flexible aspiration, that resistance within the industry has built. This is an immediate issue as the rigid and inflexible MSY timetable, if accepted, will force drastic cuts in many quotas for next year despite a steady increase in biomasses across the board.
Similarly with the precautionary approach: all can agree that it is not wise to until every piece of evidence is in place before taking action; but the repeated cuts in quota for data-poor stocks that have caused serious socio-economic harm in, for example the skates and rays fisheries. The same is true of zero TACs and unrealistic bycatch limits for spurdog and bass. This has been the opposite of the progressive and flexible fisheries management that we require and it requires the Federation’s active intervention both now and in relation to the management of our fisheries beyond Brexit.
Landing Obligation
Until Brexit, the EU landing obligation represented the biggest change to the CFP since the Policy was established. For that reason, the NFFO has spent an enormous amount of time trying to make its implementation workable. Dealing with the issue of potential chokes in mixed fisheries has been at the forefront of our concerns, and some important progress has been made, with more to be done. Brexit will mean that after the UK has left the European Union, the EU landing obligation will no longer apply to UK fishing vessels or to UK waters. However, the signs are that the UK will want to retain its own variant of the discard ban and there is obviously another job of work to be done, jointly with officials in defining exactly what that will mean in practice.
Shellfish
Shellfish is a policy area that has been relatively lightly touched by the CFP. Nevertheless, it has suffered from inertia and lack of direction despite its huge contribution to the economic wellbeing of the industry. At the request of the NFFO, Defra is now in the process of establishing a Shellfish Strategy Group that will hopefully provide this vital sector with a sense of direction, in the face of challenges such as the MSY objective and increasing reliance on formal stock surveys. A data subgroup has already met to identify gaps in our knowledge on shellfish and to work with scientists and shell-fishermen to address them.
Small-Scale Fisheries
As someone who operates a vessel at the smaller end of the spectrum, I am acutely aware of the pressures, concerns and aspirations of the small-scale sector. I was proud of the work done by the Federation a couple of years ago to successfully fight of the Commission’s proposal to ban small-scale drift nets because of enforcement problems in Italy! The NFFO swung into action and the ban has been on the back burner ever since – leaving our sustainable small-scale fisheries to continue unmolested. This example told us much. It told us that despite the CFP reforms, a capricious and ill-informed Commissioner could potentially jeopardise a legitimate fishing activity on a whim. It told us that, whatever the issue, the NFFO would be found in the thick of the action, taking the lead and coordinating opposition to stupid and unfair policies. It also told us that well-marshalled rational arguments and a strong evidence-base could turn the political tide against the Commission.
It was an issue facing the small scale drift nets then; it could be issues affecting larger vessels tomorrow: The NFFO was created to fight for fishermen, wherever on the coast they are based; whatever fishing method they use and whatever the size of their vessel. The Federation’s work on shellfish policy, on drift nets, on salmon and on marine protected areas have all been directly focused on protecting the livelihoods of small scale fishermen. Fleet diversity is one of our industry’s great strengths and all parts of it are valuable.
Industry Reputation
Have you noticed that there are fewer media scare stories about fishing? There is still the odd ignorant comment made about depleted fish stocks that defies all the scientific evidence and still issues that have been taken out of context. But the Tsunami of distortions and manufactured crises has definitely waned and I think that it is fair to attribute this at least partly, to the work of the Federation and its partnership with communications specialists Acceleris. Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall hasn’t been seen on the fishing scene since he and his Fish Campaign were taken apart by the NFFO on Newsnight. That wouldn’t have happened without a great deal of legwork by the NFFO/Acceleris team in securing the interest of sympathetic journalists to presenting the other side of the story.
There will always be the noisy 5%, those who from obsession, or because they are paid by charitable trusts. They will continue to cry wolf because they are paid to but I think that the NFFO can take some credit for bringing most of the mainstream media back to portraying the fishing industry as it should be: hard working and committed individuals doing a difficult job in sometimes arduous circumstances.
Unregistered Fishing
Following an NFFO initiative, the MMO launched a campaign earlier this year to address the growing problem of fishing for profit from unlicensed vessels. The campaign is initially centred on the shops, pubs, restaurants and hotels which buy fish caught in unlicensed vessels and sold through the back door. Letting these retail outlets know that this is not a victimless crime is the first step. Targeted enforcement with high visibility to name and shame the culprits, will follow if the practice continues.
Safety and Training
With two important pieces of legislation looming on the horizon, the Work in Fishing Convention and the Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping in fisheries, it has been essential for us to ensure that these legislative measures are practical and achieve their intended improvements to safety and training.
The Federation has worked closely with a commercial company to design and develop a man over board dummy that is easy to use, simple to store and cheap to purchase. This initiative was started in response to a recommendation from the Marine accident Investigation Branch and shows how the NFFO are innovative and committed to improving safety for all fishermen.
Crew welfare has become a major concern for many owners and whilst the press are desperately pointing the finger at the fishing industry with little validation, we have sought to improve our understanding of the issues faced and solutions to the welfare issues our members are facing. Collaborating with the leading charity Human Right at Sea, we have established a strong understanding of the social and ethical issues in fisheries around the world and are working with them to help our members and fellow fishermen to be aware of the technical issues and be leaders for fishermen around the world.
Marine Protected Areas
The Federation has been working hard to ensure fisheries management measures within MPAs are introduced only when informed by proper levels of evidence. This work included the completion of a major piece of research to measure the nature of fishing seabed impacts according to individual gear components and taking into account the effects of natural disturbance. In the case of new potential MPA proposals for harbour porpoise and other highly mobile species, the Federation has pressed the case firmly with government that they are only designated with proper justification. Overall, the Federation has done much to swing the government away from a tick-box exercise approach towards a process based on evidence.
Conclusion
We live in interesting times. There will be challenges ahead. This is fishing: there are always challenges.
But there are opportunities too and what we make of those opportunities will be largely up to us. We are an extraordinarily diverse industry, with small-boats fishing from the beach up to very large vessels fishing in distant waters. The NFFO exists to give all of those fishermen and vessel owners a voice where it counts: where the decisions affecting our futures are decided.
The locus where those decisions are made may now change but our responsibility in delivering the industry’s view has not.
The clarity of that message that we deliver will help to secure our aims and it is natural and understandable that our political masters will look to the only body that even attempts to speak on behalf of the whole industry – the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations – our name speaks of our purpose, our aim and who we are.
The fishing industry has a once in a generation opportunity for radical change according to UK fisheries minister, George Eustice. Addressing a room full of fishermen, the minister went on to add that Brexit provided a unique chance to go back to first principles when re-establishing fishing policy.
The address took place at the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisation’s (NFFO) annual general meeting held in London on Thursday (8 September), where fishermen put their questions directly to the minister for the first time since the outcome of the Referendum was announced. These spanned industry involvement in exit negotiations for Brexit, the position on continued funding and how to attract young people into the industry.
During his address, the minister conveyed a strong belief that being outside the EU and therefore outside the CFP would provide “an opportunity to go back to first principles” and design management arrangements that are tailored specifically to UK fleets and fisheries. He contrasted this flexibility with the rigidity of the CFP which has proved incapable of producing the responsive, adaptive, approach required to manage modern, complex and diverse fisheries.
Although the Government’s overall negotiating strategy for leaving the EU is still in gestation, the minister made it clear that leaving the EU would provide opportunities to renegotiate the UK’s quota shares and access arrangements, whilst simultaneously retaining access to European markets on reasonable terms. He also made clear that the UK would be taking the lead in all aspects of the Brexit negotiations, whilst consulting closely with the devolved administrations.
The minister highlighted the elements of the CFP which in his view should “in principle” be retained. These included a commitment to Maximum Sustainable Yield, some form of the landing obligation and outside the EU, where there will still be a need for international agreements, continued cooperation on shared stocks and access rights.
He also expressed the wish to work with the fishing industry to design a better future and invited all those in the industry to submit their ideas on the changes that they would like to see to help set broad principles to guide future policy on UK fisheries.
The NFFO has already met with David Davis, the minister responsible for exiting the EU, in advance of the Cabinet meeting in Checkers which began to formulate the Government’s Brexit negotiating positions. The NFFO has prepared a detailed position paper on the transition to, and shape of, all aspects of the post-Brexit fisheries regime as well as giving oral evidence to a House of Lords committee investigating all fisheries aspects of Brexit. Further to this, the member body is expected to take a leading role in a round-table discussion led by Secretary of State for the Environment and Fisheries, Andrea Leadsom next week.
The NFFO’s chief executive, Barrie Deas, said: “We expect to be closely engaged with DEFRA officials in working on the detail of our exit strategy from the EU. Our internal preparations for that engagement are well advanced, with contributions from all of the Federation’s diverse interests invited, sector by sector, and these will be incorporated into the final document for Department for exiting the EU (Dexeu) and DEFRA.
“The feeling from our Executive and from the AGM was that the NFFO has made a very good start in positioning itself for the Brexit negotiations. The early meeting with David Davis and the scope for working closely with Dexeu and DEFRA provide us with a perhaps unique opportunity. However, this is the start of the process and Brexit negotiations will take a minimum of two years. It will be an ongoing challenge to ensure that fishing remains close to the top of the UK’s negotiating priorities. The Federation is fully engaged in that task.
“The minister’s view that Brexit is an opportunity to go back to first principles is a very welcome. The common fisheries policy has shown itself to inflexible and over-centralised, and Brexit offers the opportunity to design and implement an approach tailored to the contours of our fleets and our fisheries.”
Over the last few decades British fishermen have worked successfully to improve the sustainability of their fishing methods and the health of stocks in the waters they fish. According to statistics released by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) earlier this year, there has been a ‘dramatic reduction in fishing pressure’ across the main commercial stocks.
The majority of commercial fish stocks are now at a level consistent with Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) meaning levels are not only sustainable, but will also deliver high, long-term yields without jeopardising the future sustainability of stocks. Between 2006 and 2015, the number of stocks fished at MSY increased from 2 to 36.
For more information and to keep up to date with the NFFO’s involvement in Brexit negotiations visit www.NFFO.org.uk or follow the NFFO on Twitter @NFFO_UK.
All Members Welcome
Programme
12.30 Formal Business
- Welcome and Introductory Remarks Mr Paul Trebilcock, President of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations
- Minutes The Minutes of the meeting held in York on 18th June, 2015, for approval
- Matters Arising
- Chairman’s Report Mr Tony Delahunty, Chairman of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations
- Accounts to 31st December 2015
- Election of the President of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations
- Any Other Business
1.00pm Buffet Lunch
1.45pm Address by UK Fisheries Minister, Mr George Eustace MP, Question and answer session
2.45 Close of Meeting
Please note that the AGM will be preceded by a meeting of the NFFO’s Executive Committee which will begin at 10.30am. As usual all NFFO members are invited to attend as observers but decisions will be taken by the nominated Executive Committee members only
Nearest Tube station: Green Park
This means that the December Council and associated negotiations will remain a significant determinant of the wellbeing of our industry in 2017 and 2018. Likewise, the process of establishing European and domestic MPAS, some of which carry big implications for the fishermen who derive their living in them, will continue. Then there are the big, set-piece EU regulations that are coming our way, notably the continued roll-out of the landings obligation/discard ban; the new EU technical conservation regulation and the multi-annual plans for the North Sea and North Western Waters.
Technical measures
The cumbersome EU co-decision process is uniquely badly designed to deliver effective and workable fisheries management, especially in the areas of mesh size, twine thickness etc. 765 people with no detailed understanding of the issues. So it is something of a relief that in future, under Brexit, technical measures, will be devolved down to a more sensible level. Indeed, even under the CFP, moves were already afoot to delegate much of the detailed decision-making on technical measures to the regional-seas groupings of member states. However, there is always the worry that lobbying to retain central control could derail at least parts of the proposal as it passes through the EU Parliament. Beyond this, however, the UK even after Brexit, will continue to have an interest in the gears that are being used in all of the sea areas in which we have an interest. For all these reasons it will be important for us to keep an eye on this portfolio.
Multi-annual Plans
By contrast, it is difficult to see how the Commission’s proposals for multi-annual management plans in the North Sea and Western waters can now proceed, as approximately half of the waters they were designed to cover would be removed from EU control (and therefore the jurisdiction of the plans) post-Brexit. This would seem to be one policy in which it would make sense to put on ice until the shape of the post-Brexit regime is clear. There may be parts of the proposals relating to the management of mixed fisheries that the UK/EU/Norway might want to pick up in bilateral or trilateral arrangements later but there doesn’t seem to be much mileage in pretending that the Brexit vote didn’t happen.
TACs and Quotas
We have now had the various briefings and with one or two rare exceptions, ICES scientists have confirmed the continuation of the stock positive trends right across the North East Atlantic fisheries including the North Sea. Biomasses are increasing, some dramatically and fishing pressure (mortality) is continuing to fall, or is already had levels consistent with high yields. It is both ironic and frustrating therefore that the outlook for TACs in 2017 is not good – with some eye-watering reductions proposed. The reason is that the Commission feels obliged to make its proposals in relation to achieving MSY in 2017 although from a mixed fishery management point of view a slightly longer timeframe might make sense. It is left to the Council of Ministers to take into account the mixed fishery aspects, assess which choices will contribute to reducing discards and balance rebuilding stocks and socio-economic consequences.
All this underlines why it will be important for the NFFO again to be active in the run up to the December Council.
Summary
In short, whist our focus now must be on the shape of a post-Brexit management regime, it is important not to lose sight of the immediate bread and butter issues.
Our Executive Committee met on 12th of July in the wake of the Brexit vote and agreed the broad shape of our future policy:
- Brexit will mean that the UK will directly control the fisheries within its 200 mile exclusive economic zone (or out to the median line where appropriate.) This will offer opportunities to design a management regime that is much more closely tailored to the shape and operational patterns of our fleets.
- Brexit will provide an opportunity to address historic anomalies in quota allocations and to control how many non-UK vessels fish in our waters, how and where they fish. The principle of equal access will no longer apply.
- We recognize the reality that many of our stocks are shared with countries that will remain within the EU, and also with Norway and other countries outside the EU. Joint responsibility for these stocks will require careful management through negotiated arrangements.
- It will be important to maintain the whole range of our existing fishing opportunities, including those in EU and external waters.
- Sustainable fishing should remain at the heart of the UK’s fishing policy but we should look for opportunities to develop high-yield, low-impact fishing strategies without the rigid and frequently counterproductive strictures of the CFP: we can take the best and ditch the worst
- Catching fish is one thing but it is also important to sell them under the most favorable conditions; market access will also be high in our considerations.
- We anticipate that our government will want to provide the same level of financial support for the industry to assist operators adjust to the new arrangements.
A working group has been set up by the Executive Committee to develop detailed policy on all of the key aspects of post-Brexit fisheries. The group has had its first meeting and will continue to work as long as is necessary. Some of the themes under discussion are:
- Access arrangements post Brexit
- Shared stocks and Relative Stability post-Brexit
- Addressing quota anomalies and maintaining external waters fishing opportunities post-Brexit
- Sustainable fishing policies outside the CFP
- Discard ban post-CFP
- Market access for UK fisheries products post-Brexit
- Industry funding post-EMFF
Negotiations
Brexit offers an opportunity but it is not without its risks for the fishing industry. In order that the UK government negotiates the best possible arrangements it is going to be important for us to work closely with the key UK negotiators until the shape of the new deal is clear. Fisheries will form an important strand – but only one strand – within the Brexit negotiations with the EU. It will be important to ensure that fishing is given the priority that it deserves and the way to do that will be to ensure our priorities are reflected in clear and cohesive negotiating positions.
On Tower Hill lies a well-kept secret. A monument listing the names of the 11,900 fishermen and merchant seafarers who lost their lives during WW1 and have no known grave but the sea. Yet the memorial has never been featured on Remembrance Sunday by the BBC, and won’t even be found in an A-Z of London.
By the end of the war nearly 1,500 trawlers and 1,400 steam drifters had been requisitioned for various tasks, particularly minesweeping and anti-submarine work. A total of 675 fishing vessels were lost. They also continued to fish!
On 15 August 1917, Her Majesty’s armed smack Nelson was hauling her nets during the morning before going to sweep for submarines. The skipper, Thomas Crisp, caught sight of a surfaced U-boat, 6,000 yards away. The U-boat began firing scoring several hits. The Nelson was holed and Crisp lost both his legs. Regardless, Crisp called for the confidential papers to be thrown overboard, and dictated a message to be sent by the ship’s four carrier pigeons. Nelson instructed his crew to abandon ship. The crew spent two days adrift but one pigeon made it to Lowestoft and they were rescued. Thomas Crisp received a posthumous VC.
From 1914-19 (mines are no respecters of dates) , the Shipwrecked Mariners’ Society supported some 51,000 sailors, Fishermen and Merchant Navy sailors and also provided assistance to widows, orphans, and aged parents for whom the loss of the only breadwinner could be devastating. We continue to provide financial support to those in need in the changed circumstance of today.
As a charity supporting fisherman and merchant seafarers, we have marked the 100th anniversary of the Royal Navy’s largest and bloodiest naval engagement of WW1, the Battle of Jutland, by producing a video drawing attention to the contribution made by merchant seafarers and fishermen to the 1914-18 conflict.
You can watch the video below. Follow us on Twitter @ShipwreckedSoc.
The UK’s withdrawal from the EU means that the UK, from the date of exit, will take control of UK waters out to 200 miles (or the median line.) This will mean an opportunity to fundamentally change the way our fisheries are managed in the future.
Quota arrangements and access to UK waters by non-UK vessels will, in the future, be determined by the UK authorities, rather than being imposed by a remote and inflexible bureaucracy and parliament in Brussels.
Brexit will provide an opportunity to address historic injustices in quota distribution and to control how many non-UK vessels fish in our waters, how and where they fish.
We are certain that both the UK and the remaining EU countries will want to negotiate sensible bilateral arrangement that will allow fair access arrangement for our vessels fishing in EU waters; and EU vessels fishing in UK waters. But the principle of equal access to UK waters will be dead.
It is essential that as part of the exit agreement the UK negotiates access to EU markets. We also expect the UK to negotiate at least the same fishing opportunities in third country waters that our fleets enjoy today.
We expect the UK to provide at least the same level of financial support for the fishing industry as has been channelled through European funds.
We remain committed to the progressive elimination of discards from our fisheries; however any landing obligation that is applied to UK vessels fishing in UK waters must remove the threat of repeated “chokes” that would prevent us from accessing our main economic quotas.
The management of fisheries is far too complex and important to be left to government and that is why it essential that respected industry representatives are at the heart of the fisheries component of the Brexit negotiations.
The NFFO has already begun work on detailed policy options for both domestic and external fisheries that reflect the opportunities and challenges presented by the new post CFP regime.
Fishing became the political poster child of the Brexit campaign. It’s easy to see why. More than in any other area of EU policy, the story of fisheries epitomises a sense of lost control and real loss as our industry bore the brunt of year after year of cuts at the hands of a distant invisible bureaucracy that gave the impression that it was oblivious to the livelihood needs of fishing communities. Changes to improve things to better connect industry to policy have also seemed slow and insufficient. In order to better understand the issues we now face following the Brexit vote it is worth examining the history of involvement of the fishing industry in the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and in more recent times the emergence of environmental NGOs as a significant influence.
The CFP Disconnect
Up until 2004 the only direct engagement the industry had with the CFP machinery was through the Advisory Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture (ACFA), a forum of industry and representatives of fish workers that advised the Commission across the whole spectrum of European fisheries. As a single forum that only met occasionally it was grossly inadequate for the task.
The first efforts to change this state of affairs followed the crises of the 1990s that saw drastic cuts to whitefish quotas and to the fleet. From the discontent that was generated the 2002 CFP reform saw the introduction of the Regional Advisory Councils (now Advisory Councils). These were much more significant forums with secretariats to support their work and they gave industry a much more robust platform at a more appropriate scale to influence management decisions, alongside other stakeholders. But the Advisory Councils were not the be all and end all. Advice is just that. It has no direct role in setting management objectives and operational rules. There was wide recognition that involvement still needed to be deepened further.
The opportunity for that came with the regionalisation agenda under the latest reform. At the start of the process the Commission, in its Green Paper of 2009, had started out accepting that there was still something wrong with the relationship between fisheries governance under the CFP and industry. It said that:
“Very little can be achieved if the forthcoming reform fails to motivate the catching sector, the processing and seafood chain as well as consumers to support the objectives of the policy and take responsibility for implementing them effectively. It is critical to the success of reform that industry should understand the need for it, support it and have a genuine stake in its successful outcome. In a mostly top-down approach, which has been the case under the CFP so far, the fishing industry has been given few incentives to behave as a responsible actor accountable for the sustainable use of a public resource. Co-management arrangements could be developed to reverse this situation.” (CFP Reform Green Paper, 2009)
Almost as soon as it was printed, however, this whole agenda was all about to be side-lined. In contrast to what the Commission technocrats were thinking, Commissioner Damanaki had spent her time in office either aloof or hostile to industry. The European Parliament with its newly established powers under the Lisbon Treaty had little affinity for grand ideas of delegating responsibility to others when it had just been given responsibility itself. That, combined with the vast majority of MEPs having an almost complete absence of knowledge of the fishing industry, but their ears open to anyone who would tell them what to think, set the stage for the next command and controllers’ charter that we now see in the current CFP.
How did it turn out that way? Enter the eNGOs. Many newly self-appointed as the guardians of our marine resources and ready to fight on the beaches with a war chest mostly convoyed over from the USA. They got to work firstly with a doom-mongers blitz. Despite ongoing progress with cutting fishing mortality and the start of recovery being seen across the NE Atlantic stocks, according to them stocks were in free fall and heading for extinction – remember the 100 cod left in the North Sea story, and the 2048 end of line hype? In this altered reality, the inference was that industry couldn’t be trusted with the public’s precious natural resources. They had pillaged them, and always hood-winked their politicians into agreeing short-termist decisions, right? And there was an urgency to put it all right, if not by 2015, then by 2020 at the latest, no exceptions. Accompanying this narrative was heavy lobbying of the European Parliament to introduce a strict set of regulation to be contained in the core legislation, providing little flexibility for application at the regional level (see figure below).
Then, in the midst of it all, along came one of our celebrity campaigning chefs to lob in a discards PR hand grenade, straight into Commissioner Damanaki’s lap. It didn’t matter that a lot of the discards were generated by the regulations themselves and that significant progress had already been made to reduce them. In a matter of weeks the industry was handed it back, in-kind; the obligation to (nearly) not throw a single fish over the side…whilst trying to do a circus act to remain within the constraints of all of the other regulations. Actually, the circus act was left for another day – too hard for the hard working legislators to think about at that time. The megalomaniacs were back in charge, and once the deal was signed, congratulating themselves on the fantastic job they had done.
Indeed, a number of them still believe it, and continue to press for the toughest interpretation of the reform text. They continue to try to persuade decision-makers that the scientists have it wrong over setting stock biomass levels consistent with sustainable yields. They continue to lambast Ministers for TAC decisions that are different from the single stock advice without acknowledging their role in a legitimate process to consider, beyond this advice, the balancing the pace of reaching MSY with mixed fishery considerations and the likelihood of generating large quantities of discards. And they are working to try to set up a police state of electronic monitoring to hold the whole thing together.
Shared Objectives, Wrong-headed Delivery
To be clear, the NFFO has not been against the policy objectives of the CFP. Maximising long term yields is a good thing, as is minimising discards. But fisheries management can’t sit in an ivory tower and hand down these objectives as prescriptive management regulations attached with “plucked out of the sky” non-negotiable deadlines without an appreciation of how to deliver at sea and manage change, whilst maintaining viable businesses.
Tighter management has thus come along just when we have been witnessing of stock recovery on the grounds. Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) targets have delayed increases to quotas. Across fisheries that had received severe cuts the evidence base which is dependent upon the operating fisheries themselves, has also been undermined resulting in the increased application of the precautionary approach, which leads to reduced quotas simply due to lack of knowledge on stock status. New stocks such as skates and rays have been placed on quota but again with limited evidence they too have been subject to successive cuts as a consequence of the precautionary approach. All of these situations have led to more instances where fishing opportunities are out of sync with stock abundance.
Add the landing obligation (discard ban) to all of this and we are heading for a crunch as the responsibility for the mis-match between availble quota and abundance is transferred to the fishing business with the expectation that they can somehow perform the circus act and avoid breaking the law. And if they can’t, they tie up and go bust. That’s the prospect of what so called “choke” stocks mean, when the available quota of one stock has been used up but the stock can’t be avoided and so fishing for other species has to stop.
eNGOs and Brexit
The Brexit vote demonstrated in spectacular fashion that keeping those who are affected by decisions remote from decision-making and marginalised from the agenda, that politics can and does come back to bite. Of course fisheries formed part of a much wider leave narrative over governance, identity, democracy and exclusion, but it was used graphically in the leave campaign to make the point.
In the wake of the vote there is likely to be a lot of soul searching in the EU about how to better connect the supra-national institutions to national populations. But the influence of eNGOs that was prominently visible in the latest CFP reform, and their habit of lobbying for top-down command and control environmental policy from the centre, hasn’t gone away with the vote. eNGOs are not accountable to the electorate. And in Europe the UK probably has an eNGO community that is more active than in any other nation.
eNGOs didn’t want Brexit. A large amount of environmental policy is attached in some way to EU governance, and as some have argued in our EU referendum blog, fisheries and other environmental issues go beyond the reach of single countries. But already some are calling on the UK government to be tough on regulation and others are seeking to disenfranchise our industry by
claiming that we fail to understand sustainability and the conservation of natural resources upon which our industry depends.
Rubbish. A cursory glance at our website and the work we are involved in will prove that is not the case. Such an assertion reflects just the sort of attitude of blaming the people for their lot and trying to marginalise them from decision-making that is the cause of political ruction, certainly not a solution to it. Such eNGOs should hold a mirror up to themselves about what the vote represented.
I appreciate, nonetheless, that so far in talking about eNGOs I am lumping together a great number of organisations and stereo-typing them as one. That is unfair. Not all are concerned with implementing legalistic regulatory frameworks from the centre and not all work to demonize and control the fishing industry without having anything to do with it. Indeed, some have a more collaborative side. The Advisory Councils have been pioneering in bringing eNGOs together with industry. In the fruits of the consensus-based advice that they produce, they demonstrate what is possible.
Working in Partnership
There are also a growing number who are beginning to work directly to support industry. We in industry need to foster these relationships, whilst continuing to call out those who would rather work in the shadows and transmit falsehoods about our industry, ferment division and continue to pedal the doom-mongers narrative in order to justify their next grant or charitable donation.
There is a lot to do that could be achieved working in partnership. We must strive to improve the ability of industry to generate its own evidence to be able to help to plug the gaps in our fisheries knowledge base. We need to press ahead with management approaches that incentivise industry, undertaking trials and ensuring that what works is adopted more widely. We need to create a policy environment where fisheries management is not all about compliance with the rules, it is about shared objectives, shared management and mutual buy-in. We must show how that is a different and a better way to the centralising tendencies of top-down control.
What Next?
There are many governance models for our fisheries that may materialise post Brexit. There is nothing to say that one or other of the possibilities would not be some form of top-down control. Like any system of governance, when the pieces are thrown in the air they can so easily land with all the power greedily held at the centre or result with powerful lobbies dictating the terms. We will of course be working to see that whatever model it is, it is inclusive of industry.
I’ll close with a prediction. Fisheries will continue along the path to recovery and at some point the doom-mongers’ currency about our industry, like the boy who cried wolf, will be worthless. Those eNGOs that stick to it will either wither or go onto something else. The surviving ones still working in fisheries will be the ones that are actually supporting industry to sustainably manage its own affairs and celebrating what is possible. Bring on the optimists.
As part of its regular schedule of meetings, the executive committee of the NFFO met aboard the Kirkella, our 86m vessel, while it was docked in Grimsby in early March. One of the most advanced fishing vessels currently operating as part of the British fleet, the Kirkella shows the commitment of the British fishing industry as a whole to embrace innovation in an effort to become ever more sustainable.
However, the greatest strength of our nation’s fleet lies with its diversity. Technological progress is working extremely well, and is right to be commended, but we should not forget about the breadth of vessels that ply their trade at sea. While we have large advanced boats, 5,026 of the 6,383 vessels that make up the British fleet are 10 metres and under.
The sector relies on this mix of vessels to catch the incredible variety of seafood that we enjoy in the UK. Small boats cannot venture to far off fishing grounds to catch and freeze large hauls of cod, just as the larger boats aren’t suited to catching low volume but highly prized species close to shore.
It’s fantastic to see the effort that all fishermen have put in to ensure stocks are healthy, and it’s incredibly rewarding to see much of the latest science proving their efforts have been worthwhile. This has been achieved through the hard work and determination of fishermen across the entire industry, and their success deserves to be celebrated.
To see how the Kirkella fishes sustainably while contributing to the onshore seafood industry watch the video below: