An important workshop was held recently in Dublin to make progress on the design and implementation of effective management measures for seabass. The impetus for the meeting came from the poor scientific outlook for the stock in recent ICES scientific advice and the evident need for additional management measures. A combination of poor recruitment and relatively high fishing mortality has given cause for concern.
Although
placing a TAC on bass has been mooted, the overwhelming opinion amongst member states
and the advisory councils has been that placing bass under quota would cause
more problems than it would solve, not least because a significant portion of
the mortality on bass is related to recreational angling, which would not be
affected by a TAC approach. Equally, the looming discard ban would be made more
rather than less complicated if bass was a TAC species. For all these reasons
the search is on for an alternative way to rebuild bass stocks and this was the
focus and purpose of the workshop.
The
meeting was jointly organised by the North Sea, North Western Waters and South
West Waters advisory councils. Scientists, member states, Commission officials and
stakeholders were invited, with the hope and aspiration that an airing of the
issues from a variety of perspectives would help us to define a way forward.
Presentations
The
bulk of the day was taken up with presentations by the main participants to
ensure that all perspectives were given an airing and could be taken into
account.
After
ICES and STECF science on bass had been outlined, and the Commission had
brought the meeting up to date on its thinking, member states, recreational
anglers, the environmental NGOs, and a range of industry organisations provided
different perspectives.
The
Commission made clear that if a TAC approach was adopted as a default or last
resort, it was likely to reflect the obligation to achieve a fishing mortality
consistent with MSY by 2015, where possible. If this was done in one year it
would amount to a 60% reduction in catches. The Commission intended to come
forward with a proposal for initial measures by the end of the year.
Towards Advisory
Council Advice
In
the final session, an attempt was made by the meeting to synthesise the outcome
of the meeting into a programme of work that will deliver coherent and useful advice
from the advisory councils. A decision will be required whether that advice
comes separately from the three ACs, or whether a joint position is adopted.
The
meeting agreed:
- To
work towards a shared understanding of the conservation status and main trends
in the bass fisheries. Without a shared understanding of the fundamentals it is
very difficult to get agreement on a way forward - That,
ideally, AC advice would be in two stages: immediate measures and a longer term
management plan - To
set out some general principles for an approach. These could include:
Proportionality:
- All sources of
fishing mortality must be addressed - Proportionality
between the adoption of measures that will rebuild the stock effectively, whilst
maintaining the socio-economic fabric of those dependent on the fishery - An acknowledgement
that there are three main contributions to fishing mortality which must be
addressed in a broadly proportionate way if there is to be agreement on a
package of measures
*30%
targeted bass fishery
*30%
recreational fishery for bass
*40%
bycatch in mixed demersal fishery
- AC advice would
take into account that like a 60% reduction in catch is required to build the
bass stock to levels consistent with maximum sustainable yield - A managed reduction
in catches within a realistic timeframe is required - Improvements in
selectivity and protection for spawning aggregations will both be part of the
picture - There must be a
focus on improving conditions as far as possible for the recruitment and
survival of juvenile bass - There must be an
understanding of the impact of management measures - Account should be
taken of the effectiveness of existing EU and member state management measures - Account should be
taken of enforcement and control issues in all parts of the fishery
A
number of candidate measures are under consideration:
- TAC
- Vessel or fishery
catch limits - Spatial or temporal
closures - Mandatory Catch and
Release - Bag limits for
recreational anglers - Capacity limits
- Effort control
(days at sea constraints)
- Each
of these candidate measures have more or less relevance depending on which of the
three main sources of mortality on the bass stock it is applied to. The aim
should be to find some broad equivalence of sacrifice in order to achieve the
necessary reduction in catches required to meet the mortality target.
- Each
participant in the workshop would be invited to submit in writing, their
opinion on the pros and cons of each candidate measure. This would be an
important first step towards defining a consensus position; in the event that a
consensus is not achievable this information would at least provide a
strengthened base on which to make informed management decisions
- A
small drafting group will be convened to analyse the responses, assess the
options and prepare draft advice. The drafting group will include representatives of the main interest
groups and will make recommendations on:
*Appropriate measures to be adopted immediately in relation
to each of the main sources of mortality on bass (targeted, recreational and
bycatch)
*A timetable for
adoption consistent with both the urgency of the situation and amelioration of the socio-economic impacts of the measures
*An outline long-term
management plan for sea bass consistent with CFP obligations
*Observations on
means to achieve high compliance with the measures adopted across all three sources
of mortality
Summary
There
is no doubting the seriousness of the current conservation status of the bass
stock or the complexity of the management challenge facing the fishery. Few
consider that a knee jerk TAC approach would do anything other than make the
situation worse. Against this background the meeting defined a stepwise approach
which, within a very short timeframe, will either deliver consensus advice, or
failing that, a strengthened knowledge-base on which the Commission and member
states might make informed decisions. The meeting again confirmed the extreme
utility of this kind of forum, where scientists, policy-makers and fisheries
stakeholders come together to pool their knowledge and perspectives to define a
way forward through difficult and complex issues.
Apparent
uncertainty – or lack of understanding – over the effects of static gears upon
conservation features is leading some regulators in England to consider the
inclusion of static gear within risk assessments for European marine sites and
the newly designated marine conservation zones (MCZ). Any management proposals following this
process are expected to come forward for inshore sites from 2015.
MPAC chairman Dr
Stephen Lockwood said, “an understanding of the operation of these gears should
reveal that it is highly unlikely such gears could have a significant effect on
seabed features. With potting, for
example, on the basis of some very conservative assumptions, MPAC has
calculated that even in the most intensively fished areas, gear would come into
contact with any specific point on the seabed at a rate of less than once in
every 30 years. In practice, for most
fisheries, the interaction rate would be significantly lower than that. Any higher levels of fishing activity are
unrealistic as gear conflict would become such a problem that it would be
impractical to fish, so the intensity of fishing effort becomes self-limiting.
“This analysis
is consistent with findings elsewhere, such as from the FishMap Môn project commissioned
by the statutory conservation body Natural Resources Wales. The project mapped
levels of fishing activity around Ynys Môn (Anglesey) and compared it with the
sensitivity of marine features of conservation interest. When this was combined with knowledge on the
levels of natural disturbance for inshore sites, where static gear is
predominantly used, then it became increasingly difficult to see how the supposed
environmental pressures generated by these fisheries could compare with the natural
environmental variability on surrounding conditions. The FishMap Môn project demonstrated quite
clearly that with the simple collection and collation of local knowledge and
information, marine managers can eliminate uncertainty and discount the need
for additional management measures.
“The key to
resolving this whole issue is ‘local knowledge’. It is vitally important,
therefore that local industry throughout the UK gets directly involved with
discussions with regulators on MPA management in order to show what risk the operation
of fishing gears actually pose.”
Static gear
fisheries operate within numerous designated MPAs, as well as sites earmarked for
possible future designation.
“In
the case of English MCZs, many sites were selected by stakeholder groups in predominantly
static-gear fishing areas on the basis that no additional management would be
necessary for such fisheries. If that is
to change, then the legitimate basis for the selection of many sites would fall
apart,” Dr Lockwood said.
Summary
Given the clear shortcomings in the preparation and
consultation on this proposal, and the overwhelming opposition from the fishing
sector, advisory councils, member states and even some NGOs, it is clear that a
major error and misjudgement has been made, probably because of an undue focus
on specific bycatch problems in the Mediterranean. The purpose of the meeting
was to spell out the consequences of a ban for UK fishermen if it was to go
ahead.
The clear message received from the Commission
was that, although there is absolutely no prospect that the ban would come into
effect on 1st January 2015, the proposal would now be sucked into
the tortuous co-decision process in which the Council of Ministers and the
European Parliament will decide its fate.
The importance of
small-scale drift net fisheriesThe NFFO led the industry presentations with
an overview of the importance of small-scale drift net fisheries for the several
hundred fishermen who are dependent on the method for part or all of their
annual income. Drift net fisheries for salmon, trout, herring, mackerel, bass,
sardine, mullet and a range of other species were described. The Federation
emphasised that:
- These were the kind of sustainable small-scale fisheries which should be
supported not prohibited
- There had been clear weaknesses in the
Commission’s consultation process to the extent that they it had failed to
appreciate the scale and nature of our small-scale drift net fisheries
- The Commission’s own report, undertaken by
independent consultants MRAG, had concluded:
•That there was no evidence to suggest that drift
nets had bycatches that are significant, or exceed bycatch rates found in other
passive net fisheries
•That the lack of information on these fisheries
was in part because they are small and considered by the authorities to
represent a low risk to the environment, protected species or habitats
•There is no guarantee that a blanket ban of
drift nets would represent a gain for the environment given displacement into
other less benign fishing methods
•That a risk-based and targeted approach rather
than a blanket ban would be the appropriate management response where bycatch
rates are considered unacceptable
- The advisory councils had unanimously rejected
the blanket ban and had asked why the new scope for a regional approach, in
line withthe reformed CFP had not been employed
- 13 out of 15 member states had already voiced
opposition to the ban
Examples
To illustrate its arguments, the industry delegation was
able to provide detailed descriptions of small scale drift net fisheries in the
UK, including:
•The Clovelly herring fishery
•The Yorkshire and Northumbria drift net fishery
for salmon
•The South East drift net fishery for sole
•The Thames herring fishery
•The South Coast and South East bass fishery
•The Mourne herring fishery
These and other examples made clear that this relatively
benign form of fishing had been caught up inadvertently in the Commission’s
proposed ban, the real focus which was problems in enforcing the existing rules
in the Mediterranean and Black Sea.
What now?
It was made clear that the Commission will not be withdrawing
its proposal on the grounds that this “would be discourteous to the
co-legislators.” The Commission is however, clearly embarrassed at the failures
of its own systems and is looking for ways to climb out of the tree in which it
is stuck. Member states and the European Parliament may delay, amend, or block the proposal as it goes through the
co-decision processing trilateral discussions with the Commission. This will
clearly involve the NFFO and its allies in extensive lobbying work to ensure
that the legislators are aware of the facts about small-scale drift net fishing
in the UK.
One lesson learnt from this debacle in that even small,
benign,fisheries like these can become victims of the bureaucratic machine if
there is insufficient data available about them to put up a robust defence.
The real lesson however lies with the Commission. We had
thought that the reformed CFP had meant an end to this type of inadequately
prepared, blunt measure, which invariably deliver much less that they promise,
and frequently generate unwelcome unintended consequences. Regionalisation was
supposed to provide an alternative to the forlorn hope that a relatively small,
remote, civil service based in Brussels could ever successfully manage the many
diverse fisheries in EU waters. The drift net ban proposal is the clearest
possible example of the folly of this type of blunt, top-down centralised approach in fisheries management.
NFFO
Chairman, Tony Delahunty, himself an under-10m shell-fisherman on the South Coast, commented:
“Our
crab and lobster fisheries remain in a good place. By and large, we have
avoided the problems faced by the whitefish sector over the last decade. But
this is not a time to be complacent. The sector faces real challenges and it is
vital that fishermen have a say in the direction that government policy takes
from here on in.”
“Scientific
stock assessments will be an important driver for policy in the future so the
quality of those assessments will be paramount. There is also a latent capacity
issue that has the potential to undermine any and all management measures if
left unaddressed. How do we keep small-scale shell-fisheries open to new
entrants, whilst keeping a lid on overall capacity? How do we keep flexibility
whilst limiting access? What is the right balance between technical measures
and curbs on the amount of gear? What is practicable and workable? How will
marine protected areas affect the shell-fish sector in coming years? These are
some of the key questions that our sector have to face up to and the summit is
intended to allow all views to be expressed.”
“The
format of having fishermen, science and policy specialists in one room to
thrash out the issues is a tried and tested approach, which has the potential
to inform policy in a very direct and effective way. Our aim is to have every
part of the coast and every fleet segment represented. This is a meeting for
both small boat fishermen, the high-volume part of the industry and everyone in
between.”
“It
is our intention to update the meeting with the latest science and policy
developments as a foundation for developing the industry’s own views on the way
forward from here. We aim to make this the can’t miss event of the decade in shellfish policy.”
Further details of the event including booking instructions can be found on the Shellfish Committee page.
The official support from the NFFO will help ensure show
organiser Mara Media provides an all-encompassing fisheries show representing
the full diversity of the catching sector.
Sharon Boyle of Mara Media said: “We are thrilled that the
National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations has agreed to sponsor this
year’s expo in Bournemouth, which underlines the success of our inaugural show
in Bristol, which received widespread industry support.”
Barrie Deas, chief executive of the NFFO, said: “We are
delighted to confirm our support for Skipper Expo Int. Bournemouth 2014.
The English and Welsh industries are incredibly diverse, representing a wide
variety of different fisheries and boat classes, and we believe it is important
that there is an event where fishermen can meet and see all the latest
equipment and services on offer.”
There has been strong interest in the expo so far with a
good number of first-time exhibitors having already signed-up. Mara Media is
also anticipating a late surge in additional stand bookings over the coming
weeks.
Skipper Expo Int. Bournemouth will be held on 10 and 11
October 2014 at the Bournemouth International Centre (BIC). More information at
www.maramedia.ie
or contact Sharon Boyle on 00353 86 840 1250.
“Ending
Overfishing”
Overfishing used to be understood as over-exploitation to
the extent that stocks became depleted to the point where there is a real risk
of stock collapse, if not species extinction. The definition during the 1990s
shifted to describe stocks which were fished outside precautionary reference
points (safe biological limits) set by scientists. Now the term is used to
describe stocks which have not yet reached maximum sustainable yield. Whatever
view is taken of MSY as a guide to high yield fisheries, a long, long, way has
been travelled from the original definition of overfishing. From below safe
minimum to not-yet-at-maximum. It is however exclusively in relation to the
latter that Maria Damanaki refers to “overfishing.”
But aside from the issue of changing definitions of what
constitutes overfishing, two facts
are important in judging the Commissioner’s legacy. The first is that in the
North East Atlantic the trend towards low mortality in all of the main species
groups was established well before the Commissioner was appointed.
In fact, the Commissioner was appointed in 2010 by which
time the measures that delivered falling levels of fishing mortality were
already well established. Quick to claim the credit, in fact the hard work was
done before her time ant the turning point was around the year 2000.
This ICES graph makes the point clearly: Here
The second fact is in relation to the Mediterranean,
where by her own calculation, 96% stocks are overfished. So, not much credit to
be harvested there.
Discard Ban
The other principal claim to posterity made by the
Commissioner’s self-promotion machine is that she is “the woman who ended
the scandal of discards in Europe.”
The facts point to a different conclusion.
In the North Sea roundfish fishery, discards had been
reduced by around 90% over the last 20 years. The progress may not have been so
dramatic in other fisheries, where technical and economic obstacles are
encountered but the trend is clear – large-scale discarding had been a major
side-effect of the way European fisheries had been managed but the problem was well on its way to resolution before a
self-promoting chef and opportunist Commissioner joined forces to deliver the EU
landings obligation.
This graph based on ICES data makes the point well: Here
Time will tell
what the landings obligation will deliver. Much depends on how it will be
implemented but one thing is clear: steady and substantial progress in reducing
discards had already been made and was continuing to be made before Maria
Damanaki, against the advice of many of her officials, thought a ban would be a
good idea.
Decentralisation
of the CFP
At heart the Commissioner is an instinctive top-down
authoritarian. However, the cracks in the CFP’s command-and-control approach to
fisheries management were so deep by the time she emerged on the scene, and the
momentum towards some kind of decentralisation of policy making so strong, that
change was irresistible. The shift towards regionalisation within the CFP is
potentially a radical development but NFFO and other likeminded organisations
had been pressing for its introduction for over a decade before it gradually
moved into mainstream thinking within the Commission. The jury remains out
whether the form of regionalisation permitted under the Treaties will be
successful. We certainly hope it will and will work for its success. But the
Commissioner’s subsequent ill-considered and peremptory proposal to ban
small-scale drift nets has inevitably raised concerns that top-down, blunt and
ultimately counter-productive EU measures have not been banished by the arrival
of regionalisation.
Science and
Fishermen
Over the last 15 years an important evolution has taken
place. Fishermen and scientists now work together throughout the year in
various kinds of fisheries science partnerships, and the ICES system is no
longer “an inaccessible black box which produces smoke.” Almost every
aspect of the ICES system is open to involvement and engagement by fishing
industry representatives – if they have the time and resource. Against this
background, the Commissioner’s perennial claim that ministers should follow the science when setting TACs
(irrespective of mixed fishery or discard generating consequences) has a hollow
ring. There will always be different opinions on this or that stock assessment
but is not the scientists we have a problem with; it is the political masters
which set the terms of reference to achieve maximum sustainable yield for all
stocks by an arbitrary date; or propose that “data poor stocks” face
an automatic 25% reduction irrespective of the state of the stock, trends or
other evidence. It is these kind of brutal interventions that have been the
hallmark of the Damanaki regime. It is exactly the bedrock of science: evidence,
rigour, impartiality – that are qualities absent from the Damanaki regime
Small-scale
fisheries
From the outset of her reign, the Commissioner has
presented herself as the champion of small-scale fisheries. That would have
been wonderful if it was not accompanied by an ignorant contempt for and
hostility to other forms of fishing. Unlike her predecessor, the decent Joe
Borg, Maria Damanaki made practically no attempt to engage with or talk to the
fishing industry. Invitations were spurned, public appearances generally
involved a brief hectoring speech from the Commissioner followed by an early
departure. There was no open and honest dialogue. The environmental NGOs
provided a much more natural territory for this Commissioner than fishermen who
have to cope with the realities of the real world.
But, and this is important, the small-scale fisheries
that she allegedly supported were of the photogenic romanticised variety, and
when push came to shove, actual small-scale fishermen trying to earn a real
living using drift-nets, were trampled underfoot in the rush for another
conservation feather in the Damanaki hat.
Mackerel
Negotiations
No one would doubt that Iceland and Faroese are tough
negotiators. But there is a general recognition that the Commissioner’s
handling of the negotiations, both delayed a resolution and delivered a less
than satisfactory outcome from an EU perspective.
Summer Blog: Bottom
Trawling and Drift nets
With her summer holiday blog urging consumers to avoid
buying and eating fish caught by a variety of legally sanctioned methods,
including drift netting and bottom trawling, for which there is quota set
within safe biological limits, the mask has finally slipped. This Commissioner has absolutely zero sense
of responsibility to the lives and livelihoods of real fishermen. This is a
quite outrageous departure from any sense of proportion, evidence or appreciation
for the damage done.
Legacy
So, we are not obliged to take Maria Damanaki’s
self-evaluation for fact. Her period of tenure has been marked by an unhealthy
obsession with the superficial and with media-oriented policies. This has led
to cause célèbres such as the discard ban, a theological approach to maximum
sustainable yield and bans on small-scale drift-nets and deep-sea fishing. Each
of these would have been better pursued by more measured, focused, evidence-based
approach. But that would have lost the cache associated with a more flamboyant
not to say grandiose political agenda.
Most of the really important ways of measuring success in
fisheries – the trend in fishing mortality and reductions in discards have not
been influenced by the Commissioner’s period of office, at least in so far as
the North East Atlantic fisheries are concerned. The Med is a different
story………
Legal Injunction
Dong Energy’s legal injunction to exclude local fishermen
from their customary fishing grounds, to make way for a seismic survey in
preparation for a wind-farm on the Race Bank, had sent shockwaves through the
local industry. It has always been possible in the past, where necessary, to
negotiate reasonable access and compensation arrangements with offshore
developers and there is now great concern that this resort to legal action sets
an unwelcome precedent for the future.
Whilst the NFFO studies the legal implications of this
departure, it is making sure that the general public are aware of Dong Energy’s
bullying tactics, which including serving fishermen with legal notice at 5pm on
Friday night to appear in Court in London on Monday morning. The Daily
Telegraph and BBC have carried the story in a sympathetic manner and further
pieces are in preparation. Members of the public too have expressed disgust at
the way the local fishermen have been treated.
The NFFO has over 30 years’ experience of working
collaboratively with various offshore developers to ensure that their projects
are completed with minimal disruption to fishermen’s ability to pursue their
living. The Race Bank development has clearly been mishandled and the company
has resorted to legal action to force inshore fishermen from the grounds on
which they rely for a significant part of their income. Part of the problem has
been that compensation offers have been made to some fishermen, different
offers made to other fishermen, then withdrawn – the whole approach has been
chaotic. The absence of a coordinated approach by the fishing industry has
allowed the company to dictate terms.
Marine Protected
Areas
Also high on the Norfolk agenda were concerns about
potential loss of access through the implementation of a network of marine
conservation zones and other marine protected areas. Although potting is
regarded an one of the more environmentally benign methods of fishing, concern
that during periods of moral panic a fundamentalist anti-fishing agenda will
emerge, affecting even pot fisheries within designated zones. The Federation’s
work within MPAC to hold the government to account through a proportionate and
evidence based process has therefore been important and will continue to be so.
Shellfish Policy
Naturally enough, shellfish policy was also to the forefront
in the concerns expressed at in Cromer, Wells and Lynn. The Federation will be
holding a Shellfish Summit, in London, on 14th October to which
shell-fishermen from all parts of the coast will be invited, along with Defra
policy officials, stock assessment scientists, IFCAs etc. The aim is to hear
all points of view before drawing up further developments in NFFO shellfish
policy. This model has been very successful when used in the past and has
informed our current approach to regionalised technical measures and a cap on
licences for the high volume part of the crab industry. Support for the
existing minimum landing size of crab in North Norfolk,( reflecting local
biological and habitat conditions and linked to a ban on the landing of berried
crab and lobster), is a good example of the kind of tailored conservation
approach that emerged from those earlier discussions.
Regional Committee
All the signs are that the fishing industry in
Norfolk needs a means of coordinating its activities. The way this is done in
other parts of the country is through an NFFO regional committee. Once
established, with respected representatives, the committee can play a central
role in coordinating and expressing the views of the industry and providing a
strong voice for the industry in Norfolk. The Federation will be organising an
initial meeting as soon as is practicable.
NFFO Chief Executive, Barrie Deas, commented:
“It is very
regrettable that the company has seen fit to turn to the courts over an issue that
should be resolved through dialogue and negotiations. Fishermen have a
legitimate right to fish on their customary grounds and using a high court
injunction to force them out of the way seems like using a sledgehammer to
crack a nut.
“In over 30
years, there have been very few examples in which offshore developers have
resorted to the courts. We can usually sort out an amicable arrangement that
compensates fishermen for losing temporary or permanent access to their fishing
areas. On the whole, the fishing industry’s relationship with offshore
developers – whether in the oil and gas, cables or renewables sectors – have
been exemplary. It has generally been possible to establish procedures to
ensure successful coexistence. It comes as a surprise that a big stick approach is now being used.
“It seems that Dong
Energy has left insufficient time to reach agreement with local fishermen and
there has been a regrettable breakdown in dialogue.”
The meeting took place over two days; there were intensive focus group meetings on the morning of Day 1 which gave the delegates an opportunity to get caught up on their individual area of interest before going on to the more integrated business of ACRUNET for the following day and a half.
ACRUNET is now entering its final year and it was evident from the tone and content of the presentations and discussions that many of the ACRUNET activities are now reaching completion. It was interesting to note that in many cases the tasks undertaken by ACRUNET had themselves opened up new areas for investigation such as further refinements on live brown crab transport systems and ways to quantify brown crab quality.
Managing brown crab fisheries is still high on the ACRUNET agenda. Comité National des Pêches (CNPMEM) gave the industry-focused group a detailed report on the management system employed in France. This approach is based on local committees, supported by fishermen, which are empowered to make regulations reflecting local conditions resulting in a more predictable and stable system. CNPMEM appreciates that national legislation may prevent this approach in other partner countries but feels ACRUNET must explore other management options to reach the objective of controlling fishing effort.
In the meantime, the ACRUNET fisheries management Activity remains focused on assessing the extent and impact of latent effort. Fishermen from Ireland and the UK feel any improvements in other areas of the industry could be undermined by the easy access of an unknown number of additional vessels to the sector and, at the very least, industry should be able to quantify this threat.
The delegates were delighted to hear the European Brown Crab Standard continues to make progress; on this occasion they were able to vote on the format of a guide on quality and handling, being produced in all four Atlantic Area languages, specifically tailored for fishermen and brown crab handlers. The process of auditing the selected vessels has also been agreed and this process should be completed by autumn 2014.
The Activities concerned with industry analysis, consumer education and marketing, while distinct in their approach, are closely linked in the output of results. Innovative marketing materials, which are specifically designed to appeal to a younger consumer, are now available in the project languages and can be used in local and national advertising and marketing campaigns. ACRUNET aims to produce a communications strategy which will provide strategic recommendations for Communications in partner countries and formulate appropriate consumer messages.
Trials on live brown crab transport options continue under the guidance of the University of Hull and there was considerable interest from the industry partners on how soon and at what cost they would be able to implement the outcomes. ACRUNET has also facilitated some advances on better utilisation of crab waste and partners are hopeful that this area will continue to develop.
It is possible that the Commission was already in receipt
of an advance copy of the study – but that only serves to compound the mystery.
The selection of quotes from the report which we reproduce below makes it quite
clear that:
· there is no justification for the ban (evidence
suggests minimal impact on target or bycatch species)
· the ban
would have severe economic consequences for drift net fishermen who use them
· the ban
would increase the administrative burden on member states
· monitoring of small-scale drift net fisheries
has not been seen as a priority because it has not been seen as a high risk
activity
For those who wish to read the report in its entirety here
is the link
For the Commission, however they got themselves into this embarrassing
fix, the priority now will be to find a face-saving formulae that will enable
it to climb down from the tree it has got stuck in with as much dignity and as
little loss of face as possible. One of the key aspect of the report is its
recognition that member states with drift net fisheries have tended not to
spend too much of their scarce resources on small-scale fisheries that were not
deemed to be a problem. This risk-based focus is at the heart of most modern
monitoring, surveillance and control approaches. However, that could change if
the Commission insists on additional monitoring to cover its faux pas.
STUDY IN
SUPPORT OF THE REVIEW OF THE EU REGIME ON THE SMALL-SCALE DRIFTNET FISHERIES
Final Report Selected Quotations
There is no
indication that authorised driftnets <2.5km currently employed by EU vessels
cause indiscriminate catches at comparative scales to the large-scale nets
previously employed and currently active small-scale driftnets identified in
the current study, take small
proportions of target species catches compared with other national fisheries.
There is a continued need to monitor and mitigate impacts
of driftnets on cetaceans, we consider this need to be concurrent with the need to monitor impacts in any passive net fishery
within the EU or used by EU vessels; based on their similar mode of
deployment and characteristics.
there is also a continued need to mitigate impacts of
driftnets on other species with special conservation and protection needs, to the same extent that there is a need in
any passive net fishery within the EU or used by EU vessels
There is no
indication that high levels of bycatch exist in currently active small-scale
driftnet fisheries identified through case studies in the North Sea, North
East Atlantic, Baltic Sea, Black Sea and the Mediterranean.
There is no evidence
to suggest stocks targeted by small-scale driftnets in the North Sea and North
East Atlantic are at risk of overexploitation from these fisheries
Current control means
are deemed to be effective at detecting net length infringements by most of
the MS’ authorities consulted; management and control authorities consulted in
case study consultations indicated that small scale driftnet fisheries are not considered to present a high risk
of infringements and therefore are not prioritised for surveillance.
However, infringements
have been reported in the Mediterranean
The extent that different stakeholders accept the
implementation of the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management is
similar across regions. It seems that
the majority of the regions accept and try to adopt the ecosystem-based
approach to their fisheries management
Apparently, there is
very little emphasis on collecting data for driftnet fisheries over other
fisheries and the data collection
mechanism is oriented towards other fisheries across all regions.
the majority of the MS expressed the opinion that no adequate consultations have been held, a
view held especially by the fishermen that have been affected by the regime.
44 currently active driftnet fisheries were identified by
this study across 7 of the 10 MS surveyed. These fisheries account for around 3000 vessels fishing both in
marine and inland waters, targeting over
20 different species, including marine and anadromous and catadromous
species. All of the fisheries identified
can be characterised as small-scale, with the majority of vessels less than
10 m in length and operating from a range of ports within each Member State.
The vessels tend to polyvalent in
nature using a variety of other gears, often using drfitnets to provide flexibility at different times of the year
to target particular species.
Environmental
impacts of driftnet fisheries on target species were considered to be marginal
effective management
measures are in place for most of these fisheries
It remains a possibility
that risks have been over interpreted
risks posed by driftnet
fisheries are comparable to those from other passive gears commonly same
regions (e.g. set gillnets and
trammel nets).
Based on the information available for this evaluation, the risks posed by fisheries are likely to
be low for ‘least concern’ species identified, given indicative low levels
of effort resulting from these fisheries. However, for more vulnerable species,
low levels of interactions may pose more
serious risks, but the data does not exist to properly assess risk
quantitatively
Issues remain in some regions with the effectiveness of MS
control in relation to Annex VIII species (Reg EC 1239/98) (e.g.
Black Sea, Mediterranean)
It is not clear what environmental impact Policy Option 3
(Selected Bans) and Policy Option 4 (total ban) will have. Transfer of effort from driftnet fisheries to other metiers could
result in either positive or negative impacts on the environment depending
on the relative impact of the impacts of driftnets compared to the new gears.
driftnet fishers
will remain dependent on driftnet fisheries as their main fishing gear, or
as one of many gears that provides flexibility in fishing opportunities.
A (Selected Ban) will result in a substantial increase in
administrative burden for both EU and National administrations to implement,
though as described above it is not
clear if there would be any overall environmental benefit
There is the potential for fisheries to be banned due to a
failure for MS to prove achievement of specified targets, despite having no significant adverse environmental impacts, resulting
in unnecessary social and economic impacts on fishers.
A (Total Ban) will result in an increase in administrative burden for MS to implement,
particularly those MS which currently do not prioritise driftnet fisheries for
control activities. This Policy Option would result in significant social and economic impacts for affected fishers,
The recently published Greenpeace/NUTFA report, Championing coastal waters, is perhaps a
little less toxic and a little more measured than previous Greenpeace publications
on the UK fishing industry. It is however, a mix of motherhood and apple pie, cynical
manipulation, half-truths and naivety which does not stand up to much scrutiny.
Nevertheless, we are concerned, because its recommendations, if ever
implemented, would have serious adverse consequences; most of all for the
small-scale fishermen that Greenpeace cynically purports to support. Naivety,
especially when tied to an immovable self-righteousness, is capable of doing
great damage – but only if taken seriously by decision-makers.
We therefore feel compelled to respond.
Greenpeace
Action Plan
• Regionalise fisheries management
• Restore fish stocks
• Protect the marine environment
• Redistribute quota to the under 10 metre sector
• Prioritise access for low-impact
fishermen in the UK’s 0-12nm zone
Regional Management
But
let’s start with a positive. We are particularly pleased to see Greenpeace
support a shift away from top-down management to regional management of fisheries. This change has come 15 years
after the NFFO and Scottish Fishermen’s Federation explained in detail why micro-management
from Brussels was a significant part of why the CFP was failing to deliver
effective conservation measures. “Zonal” management, as we called it at the
time, has during the intervening period, gathered widespread support, leading ultimately
to the inclusion of important provisions in the CFP for member states to take
the lead in policy formation at regional seas level. During the 2002 CFP
reform, the regional advisory councils were a first tentative step in this direction
and the process has now gone a further step. It’s good that Greenpeace has seen
the light and supports this potentially important break with remote top-down
attempts at management.
The
advisory councils have been one of the great successes of the last reform and
it is encouraging that Greenpeace now seem to value their worth. But where have
they been? The other NGOs have been happy to sit down with the fishing industry
and work positively and collaboratively, whilst Greenpeace has rejected this
kind of fraternisation. Anyway, there is always room at the advisory council
tables, they are by design broad churches – but advisory councils can only work
in the context of mutual respect and a spirit of compromise. If Greenpeace are
up for that so are we. The NFFO has been very active in the advisory councils
and intends to continue to be so. We would be very happy to repeat our offer to
meet Greenpeace to discuss any issues relating to UK fisheries.
Restore Fish Stocks
Another
area where we see progress is in Greenpeace’s position in relation to steadily
rebuilding fish stocks. It is heartening but probably not unexpected that even
Greenpeace has had to abandon its catastrophe narrative which posited that all
fish stocks are on a trajectory to collapse; although it continues to imply
that recovery cannot possibly be happening in offshore fisheries where the
bigger boats work. Even though Greenpeace’s acknowledgement is grudging, the
evidence is now simply overwhelming that a turning point in European fisheries
came around 2000. Right across the North East Atlantic, and across all the main
species groups fishing pressure has been dramatically reduced by around 50%;
and with a few exceptions, our fish stocks are rebuilding steadily as a result,
some dramatically. We are now having to address the problems of fisheries
systems in which fish-on-fish predation is a bigger factor than fishing pressure.
This is very good news.
Greenpeace argues that small-scale fisheries
are inherently more sustainable than large scale fisheries. But the truth is
that there are many examples of well-managed, sustainable, large-scale
fisheries (Barents Sea cod, Northern Hake, North Sea haddock) and also many examples
of sustainable small-scale fisheries. Equally, there are examples of both
small-scale and large scale fisheries which are mismanaged and which are therefore,
in the long term, unsustainable.
There
is no inevitable correlation between scale and sustainability, so let’s knock
that one on the head.
Where
we can agree with Greenpeace is in relation to fishing capacity. It is very
difficult if not impossible to manage quotas, or limit environmental footprint,
if there is a fundamental imbalance between fleet capacity and available
resources. Important decisions on where there is overcapacity, and how to
address it where it exists, are absolutely fundamental to fisheries and marine
environmental policy. This applies equally to the under and over-10 m fleets.
Redistribute Quota and Prioritise
access to low impact fishermen
There
are complex ethical and legal aspects associated with redistribution of quota
from one fleet sector of the fleet to another, perhaps best illustrated by
imagining the issue in relation to quota forcibly transferred from a 10.1 metre
vessel to a 9.9 metre vessel. If the
latter’s owner had sold his larger vessel, along with licence and quota, to
join the under-10m fleet, as has not infrequently been the case in the past,
the ethics become even more complex. But leaving aside these moral (and legal)
complexities, but acknowledging the large amount of latent capacity within the under-10 m sector, the evidence suggests
that if substantial amounts of relevant quota were transferred to the inshore
fleet, especially to those using passive forms of gear as Greenpeace advocates,
the result would be:
- An increase in the numbers of under-10m
vessels operating in the already pressured inshore zone, as unutilised or
under-utilised vessels become active,
attracted by the new fishing opportunities
- A reduction in fishing activity offshore,
where fishing pressure is already less intense
- An increase in the amount of static gear
on grounds that are already saturated with gear
- Increased competition on the inshore grounds
for space and fish
- Pressure on under-10m vessels to fish to
fish further from customary grounds and further from the coast, with associated
safety implications
This
would be an example of one of the classic unintended
consequences with which fisheries management abounds. The authorities think
that they are doing one thing for the very best of motives and the results are
entirely different from what was expected. A shift of fishing activity from
offshore fisheries to inshore zones would be very bad news for existing small-scale fishermen.
All
this is not to say that there are no quota shortages in the under-10m fleet
that require addressing. There are
shortages but they are not of generalised
character Greenpeace and NUTFA assert. For propaganda purposes Greenpeace
frequently refers to the fact that the under-10m fleet in the UK has access to
only 4% of the total national quota. But as this figure can only be reached by
including the vast tonnages of mackerel, herring, horse mackerel blue whiting
and North East Arctic cod, which the under-10 meter fleet could never access,
quota redistribution or not, it is all a
bit meaningless.
Quota
shortages in the under-10m fisheries tend to be regionally specific, stock
specific, and vary from year to year. They are most acute where vessels have
few alternatives (non-quota stocks) such as is the case as in the Thames
estuary.
We
have spelt out elsewhere
our remedy for quota pinch points in the under -10m fleet and the success of
the Ramsgate quota pilot underlines the validity of this approach. The essence of
our approach is:
- Differentiating between the 14% of under-10m
vessels which catch 70% of the under-10m quota allocations and the rest of the
under-10m fleet which need flexibility to access to a variety of different
quota species on a sporadic basis
- Encouraging the larger under-10s to form
cooperative groups, with or without links to producer organisation to manage
their quotas; producer organisations can however, provide professional quota management through
which in-year quota allocations can be significantly enhanced through swaps,
transfers, lease etc.
- There
are therefore ways to address pinch-points in the quotas available to the
under-10m fleet as they arise. But if Greenpeace/NUTFA are going to advocate
the use of Article 17 of the new CFP to transfer quota to the inshore fleet, it
is important that all involved do it with their eyes open and at least try understand
the consequences.
Fleet
Diversity
It is probably timely for the NFFO to restate its
position on fleet diversity.
In the UK, and especially in England, we have an
extremely diverse fleet in terms of vessel size, target species and areas of
operation. We have a few very large vessel which fish the distant water
grounds, or target the massive shoals of Atlantic mackerel, herring, horse
mackerel and blue whiting; but we also have many small and medium sized vessels
which prosecute a range of different grounds and species.
That diversity is important in terms of:
- Vessel safety (larger vessels working
the offshore grounds) - Distributing fishing effort across
stocks and grounds on a sustainable basis - Providing the supply chain with
continuity of supply, and a wide range of supply (larger vessels can fish in
worse weather) - Supporting port infrastructures (buyers, ice
supply etc. depend on continuity of landings to provide critical mass)in - Supplying very high quality niche markets
(small-scale fleets are well adapted to serve this part of the market)
In fact there is often an interdependence between fleet segments. This was seen most clearly
when the large beam trawlers left the port of Lowestoft in the 1990s; there
followed a drastic reduction in the local small boat fleet. Without the larger
vessels providing continuity of supply, fish-buyers and port infrastructures
could not be sustained.
A healthy diversity is therefore one of the best
ways of ensuring that a port, region or whole fishing industry has resilience. Removing that diversity
would be to undermine an important balance.
Greenpeace’s attempt to exploit artificial divisions
within the fishing industry such as the entirely artificial administrative
dividing line at 10 metres is as unhelpful as it is contemptible. But if taken
seriously and larger vessels were removed from the fleet, the result would be:
- Uncaught UK quota
- The failure of important UK fishing
ports - The failure of those small-scale fleets
which are currently dependent on supply chains and port infrastructures
sustained by the continuity of supply provided by larger vessels.
A big vessel
To
make its case for redistribution of quota the Greenpeace report spotlights a
large Dutch owned UK registered freezer trawler. The case study is a wonderful
case of misinformation and comparing apples with oranges. It is difficult to see how the vessel’s
entitlements for mackerel, northern blue whiting, and horse mackerel have any
bearing whatsoever on under 10m fisheries. This is a red herring, presumably included in the report because the vessel
is large (pelagic vessels generally are) and because the ultimate owners are
Dutch. It is important that non-UK vessels on the UK fishing register
contribute appropriately to ensure that the economic benefits associated with
quota accrue to the UK. What Greenpeace chose not to highlight was that despite
Dutch ownership the vessel has a crew of 63 fishermen, all of them domiciled in
the UK and the vessel is managed by an English company, with offices in England
and paying UK taxes. It also chooses not to draw attention to the EU rules
which prevent discrimination on the grounds of nationality in the allocation of
quota or fishing licences.
Property
Rights
The system of Fixed Quota Allocations in the UK
evolved in a pragmatic, largely unplanned way, in response to various pressures
and opportunities. On the whole, it is one of the most advanced quota
management arrangements in Europe, with a high degree of decentralisation and
flexibility. The transition to the current arrangements certainly played an
important role in ending the blight of over-quota landings prevalent in the
1990s. It is not perfect, few things are. But it is very far from being the
perfidious, property heist that Greenpeace would want us to believe.
The allocation of quota will always be
controversial, whether between member states, devolved administrations, fleet
segments and vessels within groups because to a large degree it determines share
of income. Fisheries managers have a responsibility to allocate quota in a way
that is perceived to be broadly equitable but also in a way which is consistent
with broader management objectives, such as sustainability. Historical track
record has been widely used because it provides a claim based on use. In the UK,
the allocations system evolved into one in which this underlying approach has
been supplemented by decentralised management, quota trading, as well as
allocations based on environmental criteria (for example the Catch Quota
system).
The new CFP reaffirms member states’ authority to
allocate on any basis that they deem fit but requires that the criteria
employed, economic, social, environmental etc. are explicit. Member states
continue to face decisions on the degree of support for artisanal fishing one hand and providing security of tenure as a basis for investment and sustainability.
Generally speaking, the extremes of this debate (unconstrained market forces vs
social engineering) are not very helpful in finding a fair and proportionate
balance. Neither is the quality of the debate helped by wild and unsustainable
assertions. Greenpeace, for example, states that UK “quota is often held and
controlled by non-fishermen.” In fact the UK quota register suggests that the percentage
of UK quota held by non-fishermen is very small, about 4.5%.
The future of quota management in the UK, will we
hope, be based on a sober analysis of options, weighing the benefits of what we
have in relation to the advantages and disadvantages of change in a particular
direction. We will probably not be able to avoid the more voluble contributions
of Greenpeace but we can at least see them for what they are. Poorly thought
through, somewhat naïve, somewhat disingenuous, somewhat manipulative and
certainly divisive interventions which don’t really help, least of all
small-scale inshore fishermen.
An
exclusive 12 Mile Limit?
Greenpeace argues that
the historical rights of some other member states’ fleets to fish between the 6
and 12 mile limits should be extinguished. There is no doubt that removing
competition from other member state fleets would be a very popular move amongst
inshore fishermen, including many NFFO members, not least in the Thames estuary
and Bristol Channel.
However, any honest assessment of the pros and cons would
reveal the major obstacles to achieving this objective, which Greenpeace choose
not to discuss, despite their centrality to the issue. Greenpeace must
recognise this, which makes this part of their report little more than
opportunistic posturing; either that or they anticipate the UK leaving the EU.
The CFP reform having been settled last year, politically,
there is no realistic prospect of changing the historic access rights before
the next CFP reform within the next 10 years. Even then, there is the question
of whether this item can climb to the top of the UK’s CFP priorities.
Furthermore, the Government would face a price
for other member states to agree. It is obvious that other member states will
not voluntarily surrender an established right enshrined in the basic CFP
regulation, which they benefit from, unless they can be persuaded that they
want something else more. During the last two CFP reforms the status quo on
historical rights has not been challenged, in fact it has not been raised. Any
discussion that has taken place has been in relation to whether the existing
derogations from equal access which gives member states exclusive control out
to 6 miles should be retained. Sometimes it is better to let sleeping dogs lie.
It is easy to see the populist appeal of demanding
the expulsion of all foreign vessels from UK territorial waters but it’s not
going to happen any time soon.
In this sense, this part of the Greenpeace report is
just dishonest. By raising expectations that non-UK vessels can easily be
stripped of their historical rights, is a cruel hoax; cheap words with nothing
to back them up.
Conclusion
Greenpeace in this report concedes, perhaps somewhat
reluctantly, that progress is being made to put our fisheries on a sustainable
footing. The weight of evidence is now simply too heavy for them to come to any
other conclusion.
Greenpeace remains committed however, to a divisive
narrative which splits fishing vessels into two categories: small (good) and
big (bad). This is not supported by the evidence which suggests that our fleets
are in fact a continuum of vessel sizes, methods and target species, exploiting
both inshore, offshore and indeed, distant waters; in any event, it is not the
scale of the vessels in a fishery which matters in terms of sustainability but
how the fishery is managed.
To support
its divisive narrative, Greenpeace uses misleading and spurious statistics to
suggest a massive imbalance in quota allocation; and to suggest an injustice of
historic proportions that leaves the small-scale fishers of this country
starved of quota. In fact, with the exception of Channel cod where the problem
is the UK’s low national quota share,
quota shortage in the under-10m sector is regionally specific, and varies by
species, and from year to year. The NFFO has advanced positive suggestions on
how these quota pinch-points could be addressed in real time.
The Greenpeace report concludes that a transfer of
quota from the offshore fleet to the inshore fleet would not only rectify an
historic injustice but it would lay the foundations for a different kind of
fishing industry in the UK – a cottage industry.
The reality is that such a policy approach, if
pursued, would be disastrous for the very people that Greenpeace purports to
support. Pursuing the Greenpeace solution would draw in additional vessels into
the inshore fisheries for quota species. Many of the inshore fishing grounds
are already saturated with gear and the existing small-scale fishermen could
only be worse off under these circumstances.
Maintaining the diversity of our fleets is the best
guarantee of a resilient UK fleet and sustainable fisheries for the future.
Discard Ban
Much progress has been made over the last 10 years or so in
adapting fishing gear to be more selective. Often, in response to pressures to
reduce bycatch of cod and discards, a wide range of gears have been trialled
with greater or lesser success. Many of the most successful have been put into
use and have contributed to the general trends of falling fishing
mortality and reduced
levels of discards. Square mesh panels, various grids and gear
configurations are amongst some of the changes incorporated into the gear
design.
Despite this progress, legislating
to require fishermen to use gear configured in a particular way through blanket
rules is far from easy. What makes sense in one size of vessel, or zone, may
not make sense in another. Interpretation of highly technical rules which may
have been poorly drafted in the first place, is a problem for both fishermen
and enforcement officers. It is widely recognised that the main instrument
governing gear selectivity in EU fisheries (EU Regulation 850/98 – the
Technical Conservation Regulation) is a dog’s breakfast, and has been so from
the day it was introduced. Its catch composition rules have generated discards.
It is full of contradictions and inconsistencies. It is incompatible with other
EU regulations, such as the Cod Recovery Plan. After a generation of confused
and confusing legislation, scientists considered that the average mesh size in use in the North Sea had become smaller. The technical conservation
rules had therefore played no role in the rebuilding of the cod stocks.Could there be any greater indictment of
the Common Fisheries Policy’s approach to selectivity?
Generally positive selectivity initiatives have become a
nightmare once ensnared in the EU’s legislative morass. The square mesh panel,
for example, has proven to be a useful and adaptable means of reducing unwanted
catch, but legislating for the right mesh size and locating the panel in the
right place in the net to optimise escape of unwanted catch, whilst at the same
time retaining marketable catch has generated endless controversy. There is no
silver bullet solution and compromises are exactly that, compromises, which
leaves everyone unhappy, either because of lost marketable catch, difficulty in
handling, or failure to achieve its object of releasing unwanted catch.
Selectivity under the
landings obligation – Bonfire of the regulations?
There are, at this stage, many unknowns
about the EU landings obligation which will come into force on 1st January 2016 for our demersal fisheries. However one thing, even now, is quite
clear: there will be a big incentive on fishing vessels to find ways to reduce
unwanted catch of quota species. This has got major implications for the future
of selectivity in fishing.
Unless there is a specific exemption (and we don’t know at
this stage which species, fisheries or gears may be granted permission to
continue discarding) vessels will be obliged to land their full catch of quota
species, including fish that would previously have been returned to the sea. These will
be counted against quota and therefore unless the skipper is willing to see
his quota burnt up by fish that cannot be sold on the human consumption market,
there will a major incentive on fishermen to revisit ways of reducing unwanted
catch. More selective gear is one option; using a skipper’s knowledge on where,
when and how to fish is another.
The implication of all of this is that once the discard ban
is in force for the most part it should not be necessary to define legal and
illegal fishing gear through prescriptive legislation in order to achieve
greater selectivity. A skipper should be able choose to land unmarketable low
value fish if he wants to use up his quota in that way. The supposition is that
he will not want to.
In any event, there should be a bonfire of the mass of
prescriptive technical conservation rules which will no longer be relevant or
helpful.
More than one way to
skin a cat
With a few exceptions, such as maintaining
the ban on using explosives to catch fish, it should not be necessary under the
landings obligation to prescribe any technical
conservation rules in legislation. The focus will shift onto the total catch of
regulated species, including what would have previously been discarded for
whatever reason (no quota, low market value etc.) Each individual skipper
should be able to adapt his gear to obtain the results he wants.
The 50% Project, in which South
West beam trawlers were encouraged to find ways to reduce their discards, was a
particularly interesting exercise not least because of the different ways the individual
skippers adapted their gear to meet the objective. The shift from prescriptive micro-management
through remote and generally blunt legislation, to decisions made by each
vessel operator about what fishing gear to use, ought to be one of the positive
aspects of the landings obligation. Much
work is needed before it comes into force to prepare, through tests and trials
to provide skippers with as many options as possible to meet the new
circumstances that will apply from 1st January 2016. It is
especially important that lessons learnt are shared throughout the industry so
that skippers are not forced to reinvent the wheel to meet the new
circumstances.
Courage of their Convictions
One of the important outstanding questions
remaining is whether the European institutions will have the courage of their
own convictions. Having decided that European fisheries, despite the steady progress
already made in reducing discards, needed a landings obligation, will they
sanction the removal of all rules which hamper skippers in adapting to the new
regime? The so-called Omnibus Regulation is
only a first step in sweeping away all existing CFP rules inconsistent with the
landings obligation. Time will tell. We expect a proposal new framework
Technical Conservation Regulation will appear in the spring of 2015. That proposal
will give us a good idea of whether skippers will be given full scope to choose
their own gear, or whether a residual belt
and braces approach will apply, with the dual pressures on skippers of
meeting the requirements of the landing obligation as well as observing
prescriptive technical rules. Our view is that the new Technical Conservation
Regulation should contain the absolute minimum of rules and if measures are
required to plug any holes that may arise, this should be done at the regional
seas rather than the EU level. To be blunt, experience suggests that as a rule
of thumb there is a better prospect of getting technical measures right the
further away from Brussels the decision can be made.
Things to look out for will be
retention or repeal of the one-net-rule, how catch composition rules are
finally dealt with, mesh size rules, the effective fall of the mackerel box and
where minimum conservation reference sizes are set.
NFFO
Right up to the 1 st of January 2016, and
then beyond, the Federation will be active in shaping the implementing rules to
minimise the disruption and maximise the positives in the landings obligation.
One of the most important of the latter will be the potential for an historic
shift away from prescriptive micro-management in the area of technical
conservation.
Our ref: NFFO/3543/BCD/jl
16 July 2014
Open
Letter to UK Fisheries Minister, George Eustice
George Eustice MP
Minister for Fisheries
DEFRA
Nobel House
17 Smith Square
London
SW1P 3JR
Dear Minister,
TACs
for 2015
It would
be difficult to exaggerate the sense of frustration within the fishing industry
over this year’s ICES advice, especially when read in conjunction with the
Commission’s Communication on how it intends to approach the December
negotiations this year.
With a few
exceptions, stock after stock displays low or declining fishing mortality and
steadily rebuilding biomass. The advice also suggests that major cuts quota
will be proposed for 2015.
Fishing
mortality has been steadily falling across all the main species groups since
2000. Biomasses of commercial species in general are responding to this
reduction in fishing pressure, albeit at different rates in different stocks.
Despite this progress, stock after stock faces very significant reductions in
quota for 2015.
There are
always questions over whether the assessments portray an accurate picture of
the stock abundance but the main problem here is not with the science or the
scientists. ICES has been asked to present its catch forecasts and TAC options
in terms of maximum sustainable yield. The quota recommendations in the main
are the result of the rigid application of MSY doctrine, now enshrined in law,
which requires TACs to be set to achieve MSY by 2015, “where possible.”
You will
not find many in the fishing industry who are against steady movement towards
high yield fisheries. The issue is not whether MSY, MEY, or some other proxy
for high yields fisheries should be our objective; the difficulty arises because
an MSY policy approach is linked by law to a rigid timetable and which ignores
biological realities and economic and social consequences.
Fishermen
have done all that has been asked of them in terms of reducing fishing
mortality. Some stocks have responded dramatically to this change; some more
modestly and some hardly at all. Incoming year classes are the key to stock
abundance when fishing pressure has been lowered but recruitment success is not
yet responsive to political dictat. Patience is not a very exciting call to
arms but in many cases it is what is now required.
This
letter is therefore a plea. Given that fishing mortalities on most of our
stocks are now low; given that cutting quotas in mixed fisheries, set on the
basis of single stock assessments, invariably results in discards; given that
another round of TAC cuts at a time when the abundance of fish experienced on
the grounds is increasing generates incomprehension and anger within the
industry; our plea is for you to take the lead in arguing for a pragmatic,
outcome from the autumn negotiations focused on actual outcomes rather than
dogma.
A degree
of flexibility must be used to soften the harsh edges of a rigid MSY policy. If
fish stock abundance was going in a different direction; if fishing mortality
trends were increasing; if TAC cuts didn’t generate more discards, there would
still be a case for a less brutal approach. As it stands we have logic,
fairness, rationality and biological realities on one side and an incoherent,
scientifically challenged, political obligation to apply MSY on the other. We
urge you to use all your resources to persuade the Commission and fellow
ministers to temper this brutal approach with common sense. Stocks are
rebuilding but perhaps we need a little patience.
Yours
sincerely
Paul Trebilcock
President
Tony Delahunty
Chairman
The
fortnight started with a meeting with the head of marine at Natural England at our York offices.
This was a productive meeting and demonstrated that the Federation’s work with
the MPA Fishing Coalition has been
successful in shifting the Government’s statutory conservation advisors away
from an aggressive, somewhat fundamentalist approach to establishing marine
protected areas, towards one in which talking to stakeholders, like fishermen potentially
affected by marine conservation zones, is centre stage.
The middle
of that week saw an NFFO delegation meet with DEFRA to work on the implementation of the landings obligation.
This too was a very useful meeting as industry representatives from all parts
of the coast and all fleet segments contributed to DEFRA’s thinking on the regional discard plans which will have
to be ready for the demersal fisheries by June 2015.
At the same
time, the Federation attended the Atlantic
Crab Resource Users Network (ACRUNET) partners meeting in Lisbon which
reviewed progress on the implementation of brown crab industry and supply chain
support measures. This included examining latent fleet capacity, quality
initiatives, improvements to transport and holding facilities, marketing and
promotion.
On Tuesday
July 1st the Federation took part in an MMO Stakeholder Focus Group
reviewing marine licencing, progress
on the Southern Marine plan and the
MMO’s approach to evidence provision.
This was
followed by fishing industry meeting with Defra for site by site examination of
fisheries issues associated with potential Tranche 2 MCZ proposals in English waters in the lead up to formal
consultation proposed for early 2015.
The
following week was dominated by the North West Waters Advisory Council meetings in Edinburgh. The NFFO has played a central role in
the regional advisory councils since they were established 10 years ago, and in
fact at these Edinburgh meetings chaired two out of the four area group
meetings (Celtic Sea and Irish Sea).
The issues being worked on are extensive and important: the landings obligation, ICES advice for quotas
in 2014; long-term management plans, scallops, seabass, undulate ray and the
drift net ban.
Later that
week we were examining fisheries data availability for the Eastern Irish Sea offshore wind farms displacement study.
Also the MPA Implementation Group met. It is reviewing progress and next steps
in the implementation of management measures for European Marine Sites and Tranche 1 MCZs in English waters and procedures for allowing for effective
industry engagement on measures.
The NFFO West Coast Committee met in Barrow
on Friday of that week. Lobbying against
the Commission’s drift net ban
proposals was prominent among its areas of work, as well as addressing local
marine licensing problems and coordinating the use of NFFO Training Trust fund support to the local industry.
An NFFO
delegation was fielded for the annual briefing on ICES advice on TACS and quotas for 2015 in London. The NFFO took
the lead in questioning the inherent tensions between a fixed timetable to MSY
and mixed fisheries and multi species issues.
At the same
time the Federation was represented at a meeting of scientists, stakeholders
and the European Commission, in Amsterdam, focused on trade-offs between
different objectives within the context of mixed fisheries, multi-species
interactions and the landings obligation. This work will become important very
soon when TACs will be set on a mixed fishery basis. A proposal for a mixed fishery plan for the North Sea
will be proposed by the Commission next Spring.
Meantime,
the Federation’s Safety and Training officer has been working on certification
issues and the safety folder which provided a straightforward guide to
undertaking a risk assessment on each
Later in the
week the NFFO attended the Fishing
Liaison with Offshore Wind and Wet Renewables (FLOWW) meeting, presenting
draft guidelines on disruption settlements associated with marine works and
loss of fisheries access and application of fisheries community funds. The meeting reviewed the application of
safety zones and establishing future work on best practice approaches for
achieving cable burial.
The NFFO
chairs the Demersal Working Group of the
North Sea Advisory Councilwhich met at
Schipol Airport. This was an important meeting which made progress on advice on
the EU drift net ban, the EU landings
obligation, a long term management plan for nephrops, TAcs and quotas for 2015,
Seabass and pulse fishing.
Finally, the
Federation was involved in a meeting of the International Sustainability Unit
at St James Palace to discuss Investment
in Sustainable Fisheries
All this
gives a flavour of the range and intensity of the Federation’s work, although
its focus will change from week to week dependent on what issue is being dealt
with and which fleets are affected by current measures. It would not be able to
sustain this level of activity without the voluntary, unpaid support of many NFFO
members who provide the backbone of the Federation’s representative work.
Having greater control over the
allocation of quota in the local fleet is believed to offer the
potential advantages over the current monthly pool catch limits which are
only going to become more challenging under any landings obligation.
Chairman Ron Graham said
“it is important that we explore our options before either
the landings obligation comes into effect or any further changes to
domestic management come forward to address latent fleet capacity.
We don’t know what is the right model for the region yet but we
need to be on the front foot looking at all possibilities and not waiting for
something to happen that we then have to react to”, he said.
The Federation intends
to work to facilitate dialogue with the authorities and POs to
examine what options could be possible to establish a community quota
scheme for the region.
The Committee also:
- Reviewed progress on community projects supported by
the West of Morecambe Fisheries Fund.
- Agreed to field a spokesperson to ensure the plight of
region’s inshore fleet is fully represented in the face of the
ill-conceived Commission proposal to ban drift nets.
- Reviewed a project to look at changes to
fishing practice in the vicinity of Eastern Irish Sea wind farm
sites.
- Agreed to investigate
proposed controlled sewage discharge proposals and the
risks to the seasonal mussel fishery in the Duddan estuary.
- Agreed to propose using the NFFO Trust Fund allocations
to the Committee to support currently unfunded fishermen’s training
courses.
- Reviewed NWIFCA
developing proposals for the Morecambe Bay Hybrid Order which included a Byelaw
in respect of vessel length for vessels working inside the jurisdiction of the
NWIFCA district.
The national body representing the fishing industry is urging all
vessels to fit potentially lifesaving carbon monoxide detectors following the tragic
death of two fishermen in Whitby, who died after accidentally inhaling the
poisonous gas.
The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO), strongly
supports initiatives to highlight the dangers of carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning
and this latest incident has lead the body to strongly supports additional
measures to address this hidden threat. The NFFO has been working closely with
the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) to follow recommendations from the Marine
Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) and ensure similar incidents are prevented
in future.
“We are not normally in the business of adding to the regulatory
burden on fishermen”, said Barrie Deas, chief executive of the NFFO, “but the
minimal cost involved in fitting an alarm and the catastrophic consequences of
CO poisoning has persuaded us that an obligation to fit a detector should be
included in the new code of practice.”
Mark Arries, 26, and Edward Ide, 21, from Northumberland, were found
dead on the Eshcol, moored in Whitby harbour in January. The MAIB report into the incident, released
this month, confirmed the cause of death was CO poisoning and indicated this
could have been avoided if they’d had an alarm fitted in the boat.
Under the Health and Safety at Work
Regulations, it is a requirement for risks to be identified and suitable measures
taken to reduce the chance of harm. Therefore, fitting an alarm is already considered
a requirement under this regulation. However, the requirement is non-specific. The
NFFO says having the requirement in the new code will close loopholes and ensure
alarms are installed pre-accident where they can save lives.
The NFFO’s Safety and Training Officer, Robert Greenwood, said:
“This is a tragic incident, which unfortunately isn’t as rare as we’d hope it to
be. But, one simple change could have avoided it: the installation of a carbon
monoxide alarm.“The NFFO fully supports the
inclusion of a requirement for fitting carbon monoxide detectors in the new
codes of practice and we expect it will save lives, instead of the current
situation where individuals are punished for ignorance or negligence when it’s
already too late.”
In the MAIB report into the
incident, it highlighted six other cases since 2000 where seven people lost
their lives due to CO poisoning, the majority of whom were fishermen. It also
stated it receives a number of near misses each year.
Greenwood continued: “With fishing
already the most dangerous profession in the UK, there is no excuse for not
minimising just one of the risks in such a cheap and simple way.”
On top of supporting changes to the codes of practice, Greenwood has
been updating the Fishing Vessel Safety Folders, which the industry body Seafish
uses in its fishermen’s training courses, to ensure fishermen are alert to the
danger of CO fumes. Fishermen wanting to review the updated advice or to start
a fishing vessel safety folder are encouraged to visit www.safetyfolder.co.uk.
There was no doubt that effort control increased vessels’
costs and reduced their operational flexibility but the evidence was now also clear
that it also generated perverse
consequences, such as discarding of the very species the measure was designed
to protect. So, it was no great surprise to those in the industry that the scientists
concluded that as a conservation instrument it was ineffectual. Round about the
same time fisheries managers in New England came to the same conclusion and
abandoned days at sea limits.
The reason why effort control is still applied in the EU, (even
though annual effort reductions have
been dropped after an unseemly spat at the December Council) lies with the inter-institutional dispute
between the European Parliament and the Council, over who has jurisdiction over
setting annual quotas. The dispute has held up the replacement, or amendment, of a number of long-term management plans,
including the cod plan. However, a joint
Parliament/Council task force has now produced a report on how to proceed and
the signs are that a way out of the impasse has now been found.
Commission
Although the final decision will lie with the incoming
Commissioner, the signs are that effort control will be ditched as quickly as
is seemly. It is likely that it will play no part in the new- generation
multi-annual management plans. Apart from anything else, as an input control,
the effort regime would be wholly incompatible with the incoming landings obligation.
In any logical approach, sweeping away all detailed prescriptive
micro-management to give the landings obligation a chance to work would include
the removal effort control.
Predictably, this will not happen quickly. Next year our
boats will continue to labour under effort control irrespective of how Illogical
and discredited. But there is an extremely strong case for effort control to be
completely removed by 1st January 2016 when the landings obligation
comes into effect.
The Executive:
1. Affirmed its commitment
to strong engagement with DEFRA, advisory councils and European institutions to
ensure a pragmatic, rational and proportionate implementation of the EU landings obligation
2. Determined to
strongly resist the blanket ban on drift
nets proposed by the European Commission
3. Received a report
on international negotiations on
mackerel and Atlanto-Scandian herring
4. Noted
developments in the European Parliament
and the relaunch of Brussels based fisheries trade association Europeche
5. Endorsed the
Federation’s efforts to redress the imbalanced and sensationalist coverage of
fishing issues in the media
6. Noted the warm
approval of the NFFO Chairman’s report
by one of the founders of modern fisheries science
7. Agreed to make
representations with regard to the Scottish
moratorium on quota transfers out of Scotland
8.
Received an update on the Federation’s work in the
regional advisory councils
9. Welcomed signs
that the flawed and now discredited policy
of limiting time at sea appeared to be drawing to an end
10. Made preparations
for the Autumn quota negotiations
11. Received a report
on the latest meeting with the Marine
Management Organisation
12. Highlighted
shortcomings in the issue of licence
variations
13. Reviewed the
Federation’s work in the realm of safety
and training
14. Took a position
on revisions to the Seafish Responsible
Fishing Scheme
15. Discussed plans
for a major meeting in the autumn on shellfish
policy
16. Discussed the
Federation’s ongoing engagement with fisheries
scientists
17. Reviewed the
Federation’s work on marine protected
areas
18. Considered the
latest developments in offshore
renewables
19. Prepared the NFFO response to Defra’s consultation on IFCAs
20. Discussed the implications of fish stocks with zero TACs
The next meeting of the NFFO
Executive will be held on 5th August.
First of all, of course, are the livelihoods of the small-scale
fishermen who are dependent on drift nets for an important part of their annual
income.
Secondly, extinguishing a number of small but significant, sustainable,
small-scale fisheries in the UK, some of which hold MSC accreditation, because
of a problem of inadequate enforcement in the Mediterranean, is like shooting
the cat after a dog has got into the henhouse and killed all the hens.
Then there is the fact that the recent CFP reform was supposed
to provide a way of avoiding exactly this kind of blunt, top-down, one-size-fits-all
measure; the blanket ban on drift- nets is like a throwback to the pre reform
CFP. By transferring some policy functions to the member states at regional
seas level, it was intended that measures could be tailored to the
characteristics of individual fisheries and this kind of fiasco could be
avoided.
But there is also the issue of precedent. If this kind of blanket ban on a fishing gear
can be applied with a nonchalant disregard of evidence, then no method of
fishing is safe. The answer to any fishery with a significant bycatch problem should be specific targeted
measures on the basis of adequate information. The blunderbuss should be
consigned to the past.
Finally, the wholly inadequate consultation on the drift net
ban goes against all the precepts of
good governance that are supposed to guide new EU legislation. It would be a
travesty if a ban affecting the real lives of fishermen was adopted on this
shaky foundation.
For all these reasons the Federation will maintain pressure
to safeguard the future of these small but important small-scale fisheries.
Brussels
Following a recent meeting of the North Sea Advisory Council
in Brussels, which was attended by senior Commission officials, the signs are
definitely more optimistic that we can secure the necessary exemptions to allow
these small-scale fisheries to continue.
The prospects of getting the Commission to revise its own
proposal are close to zero. But it looks like the Commission does recognise that its online consultation was
inadequate and that as a consequence it had completely underestimated the
number and importance of small-scale inshore drift-net fisheries.
The legislative process, having been launched is likely to continue,
and our efforts will therefore have to focus on securing appropriate amendments
via the member states and the European Parliament. With a change of heart, however,
the Commission could accept these amendments and ease their pathway.
Over the last couple of days the NFFO has been active in
Brussels on the issue. The North Sea Advisory Council has set up a focus group
to work on the issue and the signs are good that it can develop some sensible
amendments which will have the support of the environmental NGOs. Europeche,
the European Association of fishing federations like the NFFO, has also agreed
to pursue a supportive role, especially with new post- election European
Parliament.
Although the signs of a strong coalition are building, it is
extremely important that we maintain the pressure. We have a very good case but
it is vital that we pursue it with tenacity until this threat, which arose out
of the blue, is banished. That is what we in the NFFO intend to do.
“the
proposal does not readily relate to UK driftnet fisheries targeting herring,
bass, salmon and other species. These represent an important part of the
fishing year and livelihoods of relevant inshore fishermen and, most
significantly, do not have the serious by-catch or enforcement issues that the
Commission is trying to address.”
The
UK’s stance is important, as the likelihood of the Commission withdrawing the
proposal, despite the inadequate consultations which preceded it, are close to
zero. The signs are that this is another high profile initiative driven by
Commissioner Damakaki and that the Commission will remain inflexible. The focus
will therefore shift to the co-decision process and specifically the Council of
Ministers and the European Parliament. The UK along with France will form the
nucleus of an opposition pressing for amendments that would permit the survival
of our small-scale drift net fisheries.
The full text of the Defra consultative
letter reads as follows:
Dear all
European Commission
proposal to prohibit all EU driftnet fishing
As many of you will be aware,
the European Commission proposes a full prohibition on the taking on board or
use of any kind of driftnet in EU waters, as well as applying a more detailed
definition of driftnets with the aim of closing loopholes encountered with
enforcement of the current legislation (mainly in the Mediterranean). The
proposed prohibition is intended to apply from 1 January 2015, subject to
agreement with Member States and the European Parliament.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-563_en.htm (Commission proposal press release)
The Defra position will be
supportive of adequate measures to address the enforcement of the current
prohibition on driftnet fishing for highly migratory species where this has
been a problem, such as in the Mediterranean.
But Defra is very aware that
the Commission’s problem definition underpinning the proposal does not readily
relate to UK driftnet fisheries targeting herring, bass, salmon and other
species. These represent an important part of the fishing year and livelihoods
of relevant inshore fishermen and, most significantly, do not have the serious
by-catch or enforcement issues that the Commission is trying to address.
Our liaison with the Devolved Administrations indicates this view is
representative of a UK position.
Rather than the proposed
blanket EU measures, therefore, the UK negotiating position on this proposal
will be to seek alternatives such as the application of a risk-based regional
approach, particularly in waters around the UK – the North Sea, Channel, and
Western waters – an approach which will ensure that the right fisheries are
monitored and required to take appropriate mitigation action where
needed.
This approach is in line with
the existing requirements of the EU cetacean by-catch regulation (812/2004)
which targets controls on bottom set gill and entanglement nets in ICES Areas
IV (North Sea) and VII (western waters), which is where the related by-catch
has more typically been an issue in these areas, rather than driftnets,
particularly in consideration of the way driftnets are typically deployed and
attended in UK waters. We
consider a ban of any kind is inappropriate in the context of our UK driftnet
fisheries.
The next step is for
Member States to make representations in Council working group in Brussels –
where we anticipate
discussions will probably commence from July onwards.
In the meantime we would welcome any comments or views
on our intended approach in responding to this proposal as described above, or
any additional perspective you can offer to inform our position.
These should be returned to the above mailbox address – Marine.CommonFisheries@defra.gsi.gov.uk – for the attention of my colleague Iain Glasgow –
such views would be most helpful before the end of June.
Novel Approach
What is particularly novel
about this project is that it puts fisheries stakeholders in the driving seat right
from the outset – in defining the kind of scientific underpinning such
decisions will require. The project builds on work already undertaken by the
North West Waters Advisory Council in preparing objectives for the mixed
fisheries in ICES areas VIIf and g of the Celtic Sea.
The Dublin meeting:
- Agreed the
project’s core principles - Agreed the key questions
that it would address - Discussed the kind
of technical modelling that it would require - Agreed a timetable for the project to work to.
The project will evolve
through an iterative process. A prototype will be developed that will then be
discussed and tested, with adjustments where there are shortcomings. The
problems associated with single species management plans (famously, the
discredited EU Cod Management Plan) are well known and there is an intense search
for ways to put management plans for demersal stocks on a mixed fishery basis.
The Damara project, if successful will
offer a practical tool to allow fisheries stakeholders to define the shape of
their own plan. Although the focus is on the Celtic Sea, the approach and the
model will potentially be of relevance to the development of long term
management plans for many other fisheries.
Challenges
The Damara project will not be without its challenges. These include the
impact of the EU landings obligation which is likely to alter fishing behaviours
and render assumptions based on past patterns redundant. Equally, there are
important data deficiencies to be addressed. Nevertheless, providing a baseline
understanding of the current situation will inform future management options
and put stakeholders in a much stronger position than they would otherwise be.
At present fisheries
administrators in the member states are preoccupied with developing discard
plans. But it is intended to keep relevant member states fully advised about the
project as it develops and at an appropriate juncture to invite their
involvement in discussions. The project is strongly predicated on a regionalseas approach to fisheries management and bottom-up initiatives.
Next Steps
The modellers involved in the
project will now prepare the first version of their decision support tool,
which will be the subject of scrutiny and discussion at the next meeting, in
October.
In recent
years these fisheries have declined to a few small communities, but none- the-less
this fishery is important to make up boats’ annual income, very often because of
the limited range of these small boats at a time when there is no access to
other species.
In more recent years, since the invention monofilament netting, a small-scale drift
net fishery for bass and mullet has developed and is now the predominant fishing
method of the under-10 meter fleet in the south east region. Within the last 20
years several variations to the drift net fishery have come into the fishery
none more so than the use of drifting trammel nets along the sea bed for Dover
sole. By changing mesh sizes the same
method has proved to be very economical way of catching a variety of
commercially valuable fish species all year round – not just a short seasonal
fishery as being suggested by the Commission With the clean sandy nature of
much of the sea bed in the region this method has replaced the trawl, mainly
due to the ever rising cost of fuel. Boats using drift nets, of one sort or
another, outnumber trawlers by around 10 to 1.
A total ban on all drift netting if implemented would have frightening
consequences for the under-10m fleet of the south east, rendering most
redundant. These boats are designed and built solely for the drift net fishery
and would not be able to revert to other fishing methods. Similarly, the scope
for setting nets on anchors as an alternative, would very limited due to the strong tides and
turbulent nature of most areas fished, along with other issues of catch quality
and discards. Rough ground, suitable for lobsters and crab is limited and
already fully exploited. I suppose some boats could revert back to trawling but
with fuel prices as they are, trawling with a small boat has become less and
less viable.
It could be argued that a drift net with a light lead line tickling along the
sea bed actually has a very low environmental impact.
Long lining, another traditional fishery, has become less popular due to the
price of bait and as far as I am aware nobody has ever made a living catching
Dover sole on a long line.
The reasons for the proposed ban of all drift net fisheries by the EU Commission
are due to by catch of protected species of fish, diving birds , turtles and
cetaceans; most of the references given concern the tuna fishery of the
Mediterranean.
In recent years there have been several quite detailed surveys of the inshore
fisheries of the south-east, including observers monitoring discards and
catches of birds, especially with reference to the red throated diver which
overwinter along this coast in large numbers. As far as I am aware, there have
been no reports of any catches of birds of any species; catches of cetaceans
are so rare as to be negligible and are thought to pose no overall threat to the
populations of these mammals. Discards of fish are at a minimum in some cases
non-existent. All in all, there seem to be no similarities to the drift net
fisheries of the Mediterranean, which seems to be the target for this ban.
CEFAS should have all the data needed to confirm what I have said.
There is no
justification for such a drastic heavy handed approach as a total ban on drift
net fisheries of the south-east.
I would hope that the fishing industry has the full backing of all fishery
management departments to stop this proposed ban becoming a reality.
Despite expressions of anger
and concern from communities around the coast there is no sign, at this stage,
that the Commission will withdraw its proposal, despite the effects the ban would
have on the livelihoods small-scale fishermen and the fact that some of these
fisheries are accredited as sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council.
Maria Damanaki’s spokeswoman,
Helene Banner, has said that it is fully aware of the situation in the United
Kingdom, but has no intention of withdrawing the proposal and hopes to have it
in place by 1st January 2015.
The signs are that Defra is
also of the view that this is a sledgehammer to crack a nut and will oppose the
blanket nature of the ban, and press for other solutions to the problems faced
in the Mediterranean. It is likely to be
able to count on France as an ally, as it too has many small-scale seasonal
drift net fisheries.
It is the scale of the
Commission’s misunderstanding of the nature of inshore fishing that is
frustrating. They seem to think that it is realistic or feasible to shift from
drift net to purse seine or other gears at will. They have no understanding of
the practical issues, never mind the licensing requirements. It smacks of Marie
Antoinette’s lesser known remark, “Let them use seine nets.”
Having made a proposal, it
will now follow the normal EU legislative procedure for co-decision but the
Commission’s hope that it could be law by Christmas is well wide of the mark.
The signs are that the Greek Presidency (to the end of June) won’t touch it and
the Italian Presidency (July to December) have a lot of other things on their
plate. In the European Parliament the proposal could be amended or blocked and
the Council of Ministers will have their say in due course. Whatever the
outcome it is going to take time and the outcome is likely to be something very
different from the current proposal.
A happy outcome cannot be
assumed however and it is important for the NFFO and its allies to ensure that
all the decision makers know what is at stake. If we cannot get the proposal
withdrawn in its entirety, we will press for significant amendments that will
ensure the survival of our small-scale and fully sustainable drift net
fisheries.